Security Council Expansion

[Emsworth]

If anything, I would say that India would win a seat. Russia definitely supports the bid, due to the historical connection between the two countries. China also supports, and the U.S. is at worst neutral. The U.K. and France are relatively unimportant, but they would support the bid anyway.

I think that Japan is quite unlikely, given France's opposition. Similarly, I feel that the U.S. implicitly opposes granting a seat to Germany. If anything, I feel that Japan and Germany would get permanent seats only as part of a general expansion of the U.N. Security Council.

[Middle-aged Europe]

I always had the impression that either Japan, Germany, India, and Brazil are ALL getting permanent seats or that nobody of them is getting a seat. Something like a "well, ok, Japan and Germany, you´re in, India and Brazil, you stay out" option is certainly new for me.

Voted "Other" (meaning "all of them").

[Richard]

What *should* happen, apart from withdrawing from the UN?

Japan - give them a seat, they contribute more to the budget of the UN than any other country except the United States

EU - no additional seats to the European Union, 2 is enough

Brazil - too irrelevant

India - give them a seat; they have nukes and 1 billion people

Africa - wtf?  They can't even feed themselves and they want a seat?  Lets be serious.

[Emsworth]

I always had the impression that either Japan, Germany, India, and Brazil are ALL getting permanent seats or that nobody of them is getting a seat. Something like a "well, ok, Japan and Germany, you´re in, India and Brazil, you stay out" option is certainly new for me.

Well, yes, but one or more of the nations could be blocked. (For example, the whole EU might be given one seat instead of Germany.) I'm just asking which nation is most likely to be given a seat, not implying that that nation is the only one which will get a seat.

[ATFFL]

I always had the impression that either Japan, Germany, India, and Brazil are ALL getting permanent seats or that nobody of them is getting a seat. Something like a "well, ok, Japan and Germany, you´re in, India and Brazil, you stay out" option is certainly new for me.

Well, yes, but one or more of the nations could be blocked. (For example, the whole EU might be given one seat instead of Germany.) I'm just asking which nation is most likely to be given a seat, not implying that that nation is the only one which will get a seat.

Would France and the UK lose their seats then?

[minionofmidas]

AFAIK there's three proposals
Increase size to 25, four new permanent seats that don't get a veto - Only one with any chance of passing, very much up in the air, I'd tip it to fail
Increase size to 25, six new permanent seats that would get a veto (same four + 2 for African countries) - Certain to fail
Increase size to - 20? 25? I forget. No new permanent seats. Vetos abolished. - Certain to fail. Only introduced for filibuster reasons really. Even if it did pass in the General Assembly, the veto powers would have the right to veto it. (If I understood this correctly, that's not true of the others.)

So, either option one, which is bad because it preserves the veto, or the status quo, which is worse.

[Emsworth]

Would France and the UK lose their seats then?

Not in any of the proposals I've seen. Anyway, they would never give up their seats.

[Richard]

I don't see why the EU should have two votes.  Can we please give Utah a veto vote too?  Utah > Africa

[Emsworth]

I don't see why the EU should have two votes.

You feel that the U.K.'s and France's seats should be replaced by a single E.U. seat?

[Richard]

I don't see why the EU should have two votes.

You feel that the U.K.'s and France's seats should be replaced by a single E.U. seat?

Yes.  Unless one of them withdraws from the European Union.  Or if they give say, Utah her own veto vote.

[WalterMitty]

japan, yes.

others...no.

allow me to be honest, we dont need any fourth rate, undeveloped countries holding permanent seats on the security council

[ATFFL]

japan, yes.

others...no.

allow me to be honest, we dont need any fourth rate, undeveloped countries holding permanent seats on the security council

Sheesh, that is harsh.  I mean, the UNSC should have more than the US, UK, Canada, Australia and Japan on it.

[Middle-aged Europe]

I always had the impression that either Japan, Germany, India, and Brazil are ALL getting permanent seats or that nobody of them is getting a seat. Something like a "well, ok, Japan and Germany, you´re in, India and Brazil, you stay out" option is certainly new for me.

Well, yes, but one or more of the nations could be blocked. (For example, the whole EU might be given one seat instead of Germany.) I'm just asking which nation is most likely to be given a seat, not implying that that nation is the only one which will get a seat.

Ah, yes. However, if new permanent seats are added to the council, I still think that all of the aforementioned countries will get one.

Basically what Lewis said... either Japan, Germany, India, and Brazil will each get one or nobody will get one (no reform of the SC at all).

[Platypus]

hey, what about Australia...?

[ATFFL]

hey, what about Australia...?

I mentioned you guys. 

[Richard]

hey, what about Australia...?

Good idea.  Even if it is just to piss off the New Zealanders.

[Jake]

I would say India is most likely to get a seat. If it expands even more, Germany and Japan would both get a seat. For now though, only India is likely. As to who should be on the Security Council, I'd say the USA, PRC, Russia, EU, and India maybe with Japan also.

[Platypus]

I would say India is most likely to get a seat. If it expands even more, Germany and Japan would both get a seat. For now though, only India is likely. As to who should be on the Security Council, I'd say the USA, PRC, Russia, EU, and India maybe with Japan also.

wow, i fully agree with Jake over something to do with te UN...

[patrick1]

..about as relevant as the rose ceremony on The Bachelor.

India I give thee a rose- and shut up over there Pakistan.