Should Britain be allowed to keep it's seat on UN security council?

A Dub in Glasgo

creeper1 wrote: »

They are already debating whether they can afford to keep the trident missiles.

The British people are 100% correct in debating whether they should replace the nuclear missiles. That project will be the biggest waste of cash (after bailing out capitalism). If the UNSC is all about the countries with Nuclear weapons, I eternally hope the SC is disbanded soon.

The Corinthian

creeper1 wrote: »

I am absolutely convinced that economically the UK is a spent force. I see only contraction in real terms relative to the rest of the world.

I would not go as far as to say a spent force, only punching above her weight. The UK is still one of the most significant nation states in the World, it is just that the days of the nation state as a significant force are numbered, if not already over.

The history of human civilization has largely been about our move from small communities, to city states, to nations and now to supernational blocs or nations. As more and more of these assert themselves, nation states will become marginalized, unable to compete. In this regard the UK is no different to France, except that it has been better able to mask this decline with the 'special relationship'.

Even though Ireland may not oppose US policy at least we have the balls to remain neutral and not supportive.

Ahem... Shannon stopover... and the myth of Irish neutrality soldiers on...

Manic Moran wrote: »

The Head of State of the UK is Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and of Her other Realms and Territories, Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith.

So what? The very raison d'etre of the Commonwealth, or even the British monarch's nominal role as head of some of these nations, has been questioned as being irrelevant for some time. As with organizations such as the Organisation internationale de la Francophonie, the Commonwealth was founded more as a face-saving exercise, during the loss of empire, than a bloc that was in any way significant - indeed, any limited significance that it used to have has slowly been eroded, as has the UK's leading role (it is no longer called the British Commonwealth).

Anecdotally, I was at a dinner in Sidney a few years ago where I found myself speaking to the wife of an Italian diplomat. She, herself a New Zealander, commented to me on how, when young, her husband needed a visa to go to the UK and she did not and how now the situation had almost reversed, with entry into the UK was now easier for her on her husband's nationality than her own.

This is not to completely dismiss the Commonwealth or the British monarch's nominal role as head of state for many countries, but neither can it be held up as a sign of significant national power either. To do so reminds me of the practice of British sports commentators to spin coming 24th in an event as being some sort of achievement.

There are 196 nations on the planet, as best I can recall, 54 of them she's the head of. That's a lot of connection by way of one seat.

She is (nominally) head of state of 16 independent nations, including the UK.

Ping Chow Chi

I think that the SC will be restructured eventually, and I would imagine that Europe as a whole will find that its decline on the world stage will be reflected in this.

Manic Moran

So what? The very raison d'etre of the Commonwealth, or even the British monarch's nominal role as head of some of these nations, has been questioned as being irrelevant for some time

Whilst this is true, witness for example the argument over keeping Her as Head of State for Australia, the nations in the Commonwealth do seem to keep their historical ties to the UK for whatever reason.

NTM

The Corinthian

Manic Moran wrote: »

Whilst this is true, witness for example the argument over keeping Her as Head of State for Australia, the nations in the Commonwealth do seem to keep their historical ties to the UK for whatever reason.

That has little or nothing to do with the UK's international role or influence and is far more about the identities of countries such as Australia, New Zealand or Canada.

loldog

The more parliamentary democracies in the SC the better. That's all I have to add.

.