"I see it as not diluting the US's influence. One less permanent member with a veto, ie France off as a permanent member"
Sounds good to me, but what would being a permanent member mean if we where to kick out a "permanent member" - unless the EU agreement is used... Kick out France or the US gets 50 members.
Holtz
JeffersonRepublic.com
I think the arguement for removing a permanent member is that the current set up of 5 permanent members was established for the circumstances after WWII and all five of the winning allies got permanent seats. But of course we know that France was only techically an ally.
Anyway, geographic/population balance could be used to remove France as a permanent member although they would veto the action if it happens through the security counsel?
Also such a move might lead to the collapse of the UN another plus.