The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland - Does it still deserve to continue being a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council with powers to veto any substantive resolution? Assuming the permanent membership is not to be expanded but re-evaluated.

Why do you ask?

I am just wondering what influence do they have in today's world to be let to continue wielding such immense power.

Especially now that:
1) they don't have a mind of their own and are unable to come up with any original world shaping opinion / proposal. They are simply handlers of somebody else's linens, dirty or otherwise

2) They are no longer amongst the 5 biggest economies in the world. The current order is 1.USA, 2.China, 3.Japan, 4.India, 5.Germany 6.Russia, 7.UK, 8.France, 9.Brazil, 10.Italy. Actually there is a debate between France and UK positions with some arguing that France is ahead of UK.

3) Their military might has been declining steadily compared to the rise of military mights of other countries like China, India, Pakistan, Korea and notably Turkey.

4) Population:

In 1950, UK was number 9 with 50 million people, accounting for 2.0% of world population. In 1999 UK had disappeared from the list of 20 most populous nations. Today it stands at number 22 with 62 million people (1% compared to 2% in 1950)

Source: http://www.un.org/esa/po...rchive/india/20most.htm

Thats my case against UK. That slot should go to another nation like India or Brazil

Strange that the world is still under the (mis)rule of the winners of a war that ended in 1945!

Britain will stay up there. You can see how we are begging them for aid. How much is Brazil and India dedicating to aid to beggar countries?