571
BBC reports - Sweden is in!
(www.bbc.co.uk)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 10 Jul 2023
571 points (96.1% liked)
World News
32327 readers
486 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
With all the requirements stipulated through this agreement it feels more like blackmail than anything. Glad they're finally in, or in the process of getting in, but the whole thing just seems unreal and unfair.
Stop making international organisations you can't kick members out of!
Geez, get your stuff together Western governments.
This is an interesting topic you're talking about here. What If NATO had such a section in their treaties that allowed a country to be kicked. How would that effect the alliance?
One of the key features of an alliance is trust, if you are at risk of getting kicked out, then you might not want to join, or you take it less serious?
There is a pretty interesting video from William Spaniel about this topic here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5p_a9QiL-hA
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/watch?v=5p_a9QiL-hA
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.
Before I watch the video, my response is that it should still need a supermajority and only work during peacetime (by some reasonably expansive definition of it) but it should be possible. Otherwise you end up situations like the one we're in. If it's that hard to get kicked out I would feel fine about it for my own security, at least.
This focuses on the admission rules, mostly, and basically says "it made sense in the 40's" about the lack of expulsion mechanisms.
They're going to have to do NAFO eventually. Ditto for the EU.