3 ms·

Likewise, but that cause is lost. They’ll be leaving the UN Security Council in the next few years most likely, in the name of control and sovereignty. I’d get

Likewise, but that cause is lost. They’ll be leaving the UN Security Council in the next few years most likely, in the name of control and sovereignty. I’d get out while you can.

arethuza 6y ago
I can't see the UK voluntarily leaving the UN Security Council and as we usually act as the sidekick of the US I can't imagine they'd want the UK to leave either.
- corford 6y ago
  On the other hand, I can see the other more powerful Security Council countries leaving and setting up something else (to which the UK, now a rather middling power, will not be invited).
  - gadders 6y ago
    6th largest country by GDP out of 195 is a strange definition of "middling".
    - manquer 6y ago
      India is 5th largest GDP and also a nuclear power, it is not a permanent member and does not have veto power on the SC. Germany/Japan are higher than both India and U.K. and still not part of council for obvious historical reasons. GDP and nuclear arsenal are just two aspects to power, lot more to it than just that. When France and UK became part initial members the SC. They were still colonial powers controlling a lot of the world, and won the war, they are no longer have that kind of strength or influence. If a new council were created in the somewhat near future it would be because power dynamics have shifted far enough that the current council is no longer useful, from the current members UK and France are most likely to ones for that shift and not enjoy similar rights. New powers at the table could be EU as a whole, India, Brazil perhaps Japan and Germany etc.
      - gadders 6y ago
        As it's the security council, I think a functioning military would also be a requirement. Germany and Japan don't have this.
        dragonwriter 6y ago
        Germany and Japan have functioning militaries; they have legal restrictions on their use, but those restrictions don't, IIRC, obstruct their participation in anything that the Security Council would decide.
docdeek 6y ago
Leaving their permanent seat on the UNSC would be the last thing the UK would do if they were committed to control and sovereignty.
rgblambda 6y ago
Not sure if you're joking but the UNSC is associated with power and prestige. The UK would need to be dragged out of that. Same goes for NATO.
- madaxe_again 6y ago
  And the U.K. had unprecedented power and control within Europe, and were willing to walk away. The press in the U.K. is attacking UN agencies daily - it would not surprise me in the slightest if the U.K. decided the SC was too constraining, their veto not big enough. Same goes for NATO - the ERG want out, and feel the contributions are an unfair burden. They are right now opaquely “streamlining” the military. How that helps meet the NATO commitment, not clear. Everyone said {the many things that have come to pass over the past few years} would never happen, that it would be an insane choice. At this point, the insane choice is the inevitable choice, so I’d put money (actually, I have, I am shorting sterling, hard, as a hedge) on them leaving both the UN and NATO.
  - dTal 6y ago
    >At this point, the insane choice is the inevitable choice At this point I am beginning to wonder what is behind the pattern. Are we witnessing the failure of governments acting in the best national interests because they have finally become fully subverted from within by selfish forces? A common pattern to the madness in the US and the madness in the UK is that an inner circle stand to get very rich from all the goings-on.
  - kentrado 6y ago
    Maybe it has something to do with the EU? What I see missing in a lot of this discussions is always a honest critique of the flaws of the EU that may have caused Brexit. The EU has a serious democratic deficit and this will never be resolved.
    - pjc50 6y ago
      > The EU has a serious democratic deficit and this will never be resolved. Somewhat true, but so does the UK with its unelected upper house! Having Ian Botham made a permanent legislator because of his "loyalty" to the Party is not really the stuff of a democratic country. The EU does have flaws, but that's not the basis on which Brexit was fought.
blibble 6y ago
> They’ll be leaving the UN Security Council in the next few years most likely, in the name of control and sovereignty. again, based on what? half of your posts here are speculation based on no substance whatsoever what did the UK ever do to you?

Likewise, but that cause is lost. They’ll be leaving the UN Security Council in the next few years most likely, in the name of control and sovereignty. I’d get out while you can.

arethuza 6y ago

I can't see the UK voluntarily leaving the UN Security Council and as we usually act as the sidekick of the US I can't imagine they'd want the UK to leave either.

corford 6y ago
On the other hand, I can see the other more powerful Security Council countries leaving and setting up something else (to which the UK, now a rather middling power, will not be invited).
- gadders 6y ago
  6th largest country by GDP out of 195 is a strange definition of "middling".
  - manquer 6y ago
    India is 5th largest GDP and also a nuclear power, it is not a permanent member and does not have veto power on the SC. Germany/Japan are higher than both India and U.K. and still not part of council for obvious historical reasons. GDP and nuclear arsenal are just two aspects to power, lot more to it than just that. When France and UK became part initial members the SC. They were still colonial powers controlling a lot of the world, and won the war, they are no longer have that kind of strength or influence. If a new council were created in the somewhat near future it would be because power dynamics have shifted far enough that the current council is no longer useful, from the current members UK and France are most likely to ones for that shift and not enjoy similar rights. New powers at the table could be EU as a whole, India, Brazil perhaps Japan and Germany etc.
    - gadders 6y ago
      As it's the security council, I think a functioning military would also be a requirement. Germany and Japan don't have this.
      - dragonwriter 6y ago
        Germany and Japan have functioning militaries; they have legal restrictions on their use, but those restrictions don't, IIRC, obstruct their participation in anything that the Security Council would decide.

docdeek 6y ago

Leaving their permanent seat on the UNSC would be the last thing the UK would do if they were committed to control and sovereignty.

rgblambda 6y ago

Not sure if you're joking but the UNSC is associated with power and prestige. The UK would need to be dragged out of that. Same goes for NATO.

madaxe_again 6y ago
And the U.K. had unprecedented power and control within Europe, and were willing to walk away. The press in the U.K. is attacking UN agencies daily - it would not surprise me in the slightest if the U.K. decided the SC was too constraining, their veto not big enough. Same goes for NATO - the ERG want out, and feel the contributions are an unfair burden. They are right now opaquely “streamlining” the military. How that helps meet the NATO commitment, not clear. Everyone said {the many things that have come to pass over the past few years} would never happen, that it would be an insane choice. At this point, the insane choice is the inevitable choice, so I’d put money (actually, I have, I am shorting sterling, hard, as a hedge) on them leaving both the UN and NATO.
- dTal 6y ago
  >At this point, the insane choice is the inevitable choice At this point I am beginning to wonder what is behind the pattern. Are we witnessing the failure of governments acting in the best national interests because they have finally become fully subverted from within by selfish forces? A common pattern to the madness in the US and the madness in the UK is that an inner circle stand to get very rich from all the goings-on.
- kentrado 6y ago
  Maybe it has something to do with the EU? What I see missing in a lot of this discussions is always a honest critique of the flaws of the EU that may have caused Brexit. The EU has a serious democratic deficit and this will never be resolved.
  - pjc50 6y ago
    > The EU has a serious democratic deficit and this will never be resolved. Somewhat true, but so does the UK with its unelected upper house! Having Ian Botham made a permanent legislator because of his "loyalty" to the Party is not really the stuff of a democratic country. The EU does have flaws, but that's not the basis on which Brexit was fought.

blibble 6y ago

> They’ll be leaving the UN Security Council in the next few years most likely, in the name of control and sovereignty. again, based on what? half of your posts here are speculation based on no substance whatsoever what did the UK ever do to you?