Aussie PM wants to demote the French in the U.N. Security Council

[Spiffor]

I think there is one underlying good idea behind this. The SC must be reformed, badly. It is not representative of the power balance of today. Even though France is one of the strongest players on the diplomatic/military scene, the veto system is completely outdated.

[KrazyHorse]

It would work out to a loss of the UK's seat, not France's, Drake...

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
This is a good idea; Europe doesn't warrant two permanent seats on the Security Council. They should get rid of France's seat, make the UK's seat an EU-appointed one and add India, Japan, Brazil, South Africa and possibly a seat chosen by the Arab League. The Security Council needs to be more representative of the world's population; the loss of France is just a nice side-effect of this noble goal.

What about when Europe appoints a Frenchman?

[Drake Tungsten]

It would work out to a loss of the UK's seat, not France's, Drake...

Not necessarily. It would depend greatly on how the EU decides to appoint the seat. If they allow every state in the EU to have an equal vote, I can certainly see New Europe voting the UK into the seat over France or Germany.

[notyoueither]

It appears that the clean air in the North leads to clearer heads and more foresight.

[KrazyHorse]

Or a German? The UK would never get a turn, for sure. Only Italy and Spain would have a chance.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

It would work out to a loss of the UK's seat, not France's, Drake...

Not necessarily. It would depend greatly on how the EU decides to appoint the seat. If they allow every state in the EU to have an equal vote, I can certainly see New Europe voting the UK into the seat over France or Germany.

"New Europe" isn't in the EU yet.

[Drake Tungsten]

Or a German? The UK would never get a turn, for sure. Only Italy and Spain would have a chance.

Why does it matter? My point is that Europe doesn't deserve two seats; I don't really care who they appoint as long as they only get one.

You might be able to make a case for keeping the UK seat around to represent the Commonwealth nations, but I think that they would be adequately represented under my scheme.

"New Europe" isn't in the EU yet.

They will be by the time any serious reform of the Security Council takes place.

[Jaguar]

Brazil and South Africa shouldn't be on the council just because they are the strongest country on their continent. France has more influence in Africa than South Africa does. And France isn't that powerful. Brazil could be a permanent non-veto member. (Although if they were given a veto I doubt they'd use it.)

I like the idea of permanent members with no veto. It would end up somewhat like this:

Veto:
UK
USA
Russia
China

Permanent:
Japan
France
Germany
India
Brazil

[LoneWolf]

Excuse me, but the Brits already have a veto.

But the real question is, if this is a true democratic regime, why should anyone have a veto?

And if we don't, why should we join?

[notyoueither]

I don't like your scheme.

One Flag. One Fleet. One Empire!

[KrazyHorse]

By who?

If we're going to democratise it, we should give the North American free trade countries one seat, to be elected by a one-country, one-vote system.

Wanna bet we'd win every time?

[Drake Tungsten]

Brazil and South Africa shouldn't be on the council just because they are the strongest country on their continent.

They aren't going to be on the SC because of their strength; they'll be on it because they are the best voice for Latin American and sub-Saharan African views.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither
I don't like your scheme.

One Flag. One Fleet. One Empire!

*sniff

[notyoueither]

*sniff*