Vocal Voices

But go to Lima and the summit on climate change and action on climate change and you find that the EU is calling the shots on what the UK is going to do.

Be in no doubt, this EU directive for 40% cuts will be passed and mandated on the UK, no matter how we want to address it.

I wonder when it will be the EU Foreign Secretary talking for the EU on foreign affairs????

Let's face it. The EU is a nation. Time to engage or get out.

Shhhhh, Suff - you'll give Cromwell a coronary ......

Perhaps more seriously, how long before we lose the United Nations seat?

That's one I've been banging on about for years now but nobody in the political arena wants to touch it. Not even Farage and I don't know why.

The main protection we have for our UN seat is France. Who have absolutely no intention of giving it up.

My bad mind says get out of the EU then demand France gives up her seat on the UN. At which point France will also leave the EU....... Because there is no chance in hell that the average French citizen is going to give up that influence in the world for a small bite of EU decisions.... No more than the Average UK citizen "should" want it.

Why Farage will not raise this issue is a mystery to me. It is one of the key and huge benefits of getting out of the EU.

Perhaps you should e-mail on this one Suff. A gentle nudge in the right direction would do no harm

Been there done that. I even raised a petition on the government petitions site and then tried to get the UKIP and the EDL to back it.

It got about 14 votes.....

People can't see the wood for the trees. The problem this time is it won't be our marbles we lose. It will be our country....

It's the contradictions that nark me. The EU is only doing what the EU was always intended to do; become a country/rule a federalised Europe.

But because our media and politicians have wilfully ignored this truth since the year dot, or have pretended to, they have now adopted the position of "The EU doesn't really exist, or if it does, it doesn't influence anything we do. At all. No, honestly".

So I'm voting for UKIP. Nutters they may be (some of them anyway) but at least they don't expect me to believe the above about the EU.

And if we bailed out of the UN tomorrow I wouldn't shed a tear either. That's another load of unelected megalomaniacs thinking that they were born to rule the world.

I do not see any problem with the EU being at Lima. The next talking shop will be in Paris in 2016 and the attendees at Lima range from countries, such as the UK, to celebrities, NGOs of varying persuasion, scientists and businesses.

As for the UK vacating its seat as a permanent member of the Security Council: Why?

From an economic perspective the likely candidates would be Germany, Japan, Brazil and India.

However, from a conventional military perspective, none of them are up to the job. They either lack manpower, hardware or both and are restricted in some way by their relevant constitutions.

Historically Germany and Japan would not be acceptable to the majority of UN members and would be vetoed by Russia or China or both.

If it comes down to one of the original requirements - nuclear weapons - the choices would be India, Pakistan, N. Korea or Israel..... with Iran catching up. I don't see any of them breaking the veto of the current members of the SC even if they could manage to get the support of the non-permanent members.

Workingman wrote:As for the UK vacating its seat as a permanent member of the Security Council: Why?

I would have thought that you of all people would understand that WM.

Because the Maastricht treaty constituted a new country called the European Union and the Lisbon treaty bound all the former Nations of the EEC into "States" of the new political "Country" called the EU or the European Union.

The UK is no longer a "Nation" so how can it hold a seat on the Security Council of the United "Nations"?

To take your example, Texas has more economy, more power and more military might than the entire UK. Why doesn't it have a seat on the Security Council of the UN? Because it is a member "State" of a Country Called the United "States" of America.

So we hold our seat under false pretences and one day someone is going to say "The King is Naked" and we're going to lose it. Along with it we will lose much of our influence on world affairs.

It really is that simple.

So when a politician tells you that being a "Member State" of the country called the "European Union" gives us more influence than our country alone. First think "Liar, Liar, Pants on fire". Then remember this rhetoric is for Luxemburg, Portugal, Belgium, Sweden and even Germany who is, to this day, still not allowed a seat on the UN Security Council. To those countries they are telling the truth. To the UK they are lying their Ass off....

Suff, what I do know is that the EU is not a country. It does not sit anywhere as a country, not in the G7 nor in the G20 nor the UN. It is not recognised as a country and it does not operate as a country. The treaties of Maastricht and Lisbon did not make it country. It is no more a country than EFTA or NAFTA or NATO. It is a Trading Bloc++ of independent nations. Some share a common currency, others do not. All the members of the EU sit independently in the UN, and the EU itself has been an observer member, but without voting rights, since 1974. The EU is not a country, and nobody, but nobody, pretends that it is one except the Eurosceptics.

Returning to the UN. It makes no difference what the population size or land area or the GDP of a place is, if it is an independent state recognised by the UN it gets one vote - Nauru = 1 vote, China = 1 vote, The only time that differs is when a member of the SC plays its trump card: the veto. Texas does not get a vote because it is a member state of the USA. If it ever seceded from the USA and joined the UN it would get one vote, assuming no rUSA veto.

Nobody ever suggests that California is a country, nor does it ever occur to anyone to claim that NAFTA is a country. The Canadians and Mexicans would not buy it, and the Americans would never give up their seat in the SC, and it would not matter a damn how close the economic and political ties became.

Given all of that, the UK has every right to its seat on the SC, unless and until it gets voted off, at which time it would invoke the veto.