NOTA, though I wouldn't mind Germany.
Keep the permanent members at five, but move France's permanent seat to the EU and Britain's to the largest portion of the old empire: India. (Note, just as in the old days. the Soviet Union had the permanent seat ant two of its constituent republics were also separate UN members, the EU having member status would be no reason for its constituent countries to not also have member status.)
God no!
And once again we agree on foreign policy
------------------------------------------
NOTA, though I wouldn't mind Germany.
Keep the permanent members at five, but move France's permanent seat to the EU and Britain's to the largest portion of the old empire: India. (Note, just as in the old days. the Soviet Union had the permanent seat ant two of its constituent republics were also separate UN members, the EU having member status would be no reason for its constituent countries to not also have member status.)
God no!
I realize that giving India a permanent seat while not giving Pakistan one is likely to cause rumbles, but if we're going to have permanent seats, they are deserving of one while I fail to see how Europe can justify continuing to have two of the five permanent seats (three if you count the Russians). Going beyond five veto seats is not a good idea.
Maybe because France and Great Britain are two power: economically: world's fifth and sixth largest economy by nominal GDP. Military: they're strong too and they have an influence in the world: GB: The Commonweath and France: Africa (see Mali,...).
And the UNO represents states, not "union of states", that's why the sowjet union wanted to have 56 seats (they just got 3 seats: Russia, Weissrussland, Ukraine). So giving France's permanent seat to European Union? No way.
And giving GB's permanent seat to India? I don't understand the reason.
-------------------------
I'm not against reforming the Security Council (like France and probably GB)
Poll
