“The most important human rights that any nation is responsible for are those of it’s own citizens. “
It’s about the security council - not about british matters.
Of course if you say that the security of this planet is more british, chineese or american business... then ours. But don’t complain next time you’re alone in Helmand !
(Actually I think more of the german army should be there - how about you ?)
So I guess giving this SC seat to the EU is a smart move because up to now the brits have lived quite succesfully by the principle of ‘divide et impera’.
Especially after their former colony over the atlantic tought them modesty.
If they now decide to let have poland, the netherlands or france or germany and the UK a voice in the SC it wouldn’t hurt british interests one bit but improve the british position in europe.
Your logic is as twisted as the sickness that you
Germans used to exterminate people in the WW2.
The whole purpose of the EU was apparently to give you control
of England, because you could not beat them at War.
Hopefully, the Brits will wake up. Doubt it, though.
I will remain in strident disagreement with you regarding the EU taking Britain’s Security Council seat. The EU disagrees with the US more times than not. Now you’re willing to advance it’s position at the risk of our own. This is not an act of stabalization. It will be destabalizing. It will further the cause of the muddy thinkers on the world stage. This would be a huge mistake. I encourage Britain to either demand to retain their seat or withdraw from the EU and keep it as a soverign nation. Otherwise they just as well accept mud puddle status and fold up shop. If so, our cause will suffer. Who has been our most strident ally on the Security Council? Care to guess?