Is it time to leave the UN?
Discussion
Last week the UN voted on slavery being the biggest crime against humanity and recommend repatriations.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0rxqng5pyno
They were also behind the Chagos debacle
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/may/22/uk-s...
It does seem that the UN could be over reaching it's original directive of maintaining peace and security and instead are creating divisions.
DT has been critical of them (and NATO). Does he have a point?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0rxqng5pyno
They were also behind the Chagos debacle
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/may/22/uk-s...
It does seem that the UN could be over reaching it's original directive of maintaining peace and security and instead are creating divisions.
DT has been critical of them (and NATO). Does he have a point?
DeadShed said:
The Chagos debacle ? Trump annoyed that countries don t bow to him? You mean the UN means that disagreements are sorted out by international agreement rather than who has the biggest stick ? Seems like exactly the job of the UN.
Chagos wasn't an issue until the UN decided to vote on the matter. Ah, I see the Reform faction have found the next thing we need to "Leave" in order to fix everything and Make Britain Great Again.
And the poor souls haven't even got us to "Leave" the ECHR yet either.
What's next, "Leave the Solar System? Fire the entire planet into Alpha Centauri's orbit?
Out! Out! Out! Leave means Leave!
Jesus.
And the poor souls haven't even got us to "Leave" the ECHR yet either.
What's next, "Leave the Solar System? Fire the entire planet into Alpha Centauri's orbit?
Out! Out! Out! Leave means Leave!
Jesus.
Slow.Patrol said:
DeadShed said:
The Chagos debacle ? Trump annoyed that countries don t bow to him? You mean the UN means that disagreements are sorted out by international agreement rather than who has the biggest stick ? Seems like exactly the job of the UN.
Chagos wasn't an issue until the UN decided to vote on the matter. Slow.Patrol said:
Chagos wasn't an issue until the UN decided to vote on the matter.
Chagos was an issue when the UK decided to forcibly remove all the inhabitants to allow the US to have their precious airbase without permanently silencing them after to remove any longer term issues.Slow.Patrol said:
Last week the UN voted on slavery being the biggest crime against humanity and recommend repatriations.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0rxqng5pyno
They were also behind the Chagos debacle
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/may/22/uk-s...
It does seem that the UN could be over reaching it's original directive of maintaining peace and security and instead are creating divisions.
DT has been critical of them (and NATO). Does he have a point?
I'm not sure DT's support adds credibility to any argumenthttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0rxqng5pyno
They were also behind the Chagos debacle
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/may/22/uk-s...
It does seem that the UN could be over reaching it's original directive of maintaining peace and security and instead are creating divisions.
DT has been critical of them (and NATO). Does he have a point?
There's a long list of corruption and hypocrisy within the UN that have made them unfit for purpose for some time now.
I wouldn't have suggested their attitude towards the Chagos islands or their vote on slavery even make the top 20 reasons the UN needs significant change
When the boss decided to screw you over you might wish you were part of a Union.
It's not guaranteed to help but you'll be in a far better situation that you would if you were on your own.
Obviously there are some powerfully built employees who think they personally will be fine without any kind of Union, the boss NEEDS them, they're also fairly good mates......
It's not guaranteed to help but you'll be in a far better situation that you would if you were on your own.
Obviously there are some powerfully built employees who think they personally will be fine without any kind of Union, the boss NEEDS them, they're also fairly good mates......
What the Reform lot signally fail to do is suggest better alternatives to the things they winge about. Is the UN perfect? No. It's debates and resolutions are often wonky because they're the result of a lot of countries with wildly different interests coming together to try to make joint decisions. Funnily enough, that's not going to be a smooth and efficient process.
But it is a hell off a lot better than nothing, so unless someone can suggest a plausible alternative international forum to the UN, they should shut up and try to make the UN work better.
In case anyone wondered, Trump is nothing more than a political and diplomatic vandal.
But it is a hell off a lot better than nothing, so unless someone can suggest a plausible alternative international forum to the UN, they should shut up and try to make the UN work better.
In case anyone wondered, Trump is nothing more than a political and diplomatic vandal.
Great idea, let's leave one of the most powerful diplomatic positions in the world the UK has. That security council seat is overrated.
Brexit was really good for us. We should leave the UN and then we should leave NATO.
Isolate as much as possible.
Is this the latest from the populist turds?
Brexit was really good for us. We should leave the UN and then we should leave NATO.
Isolate as much as possible.
Is this the latest from the populist turds?
You want us to give up our veto on the UN Security Council? Are you mad?
Google said:
The UN Security Council veto power is the authority of the five permanent members (P5)—China, France, Russia, the UK, and the US—to block any substantive resolution, even if it has majority support. Established in 1946, this power, found in Article 27 of the UN Charter, ensures these nations can prevent actions they oppose.
s1962a said:
You want us to give up our veto on the UN Security Council? Are you mad?
Well, we are clearly not using it!Google said:
The UN Security Council veto power is the authority of the five permanent members (P5) China, France, Russia, the UK, and the US to block any substantive resolution, even if it has majority support. Established in 1946, this power, found in Article 27 of the UN Charter, ensures these nations can prevent actions they oppose.
s1962a said:
You want us to give up our veto on the UN Security Council? Are you mad?
The veto is pointless. Neither China or the US would pay any attention to it if they didn't want to.Google said:
The UN Security Council veto power is the authority of the five permanent members (P5) China, France, Russia, the UK, and the US to block any substantive resolution, even if it has majority support. Established in 1946, this power, found in Article 27 of the UN Charter, ensures these nations can prevent actions they oppose.
Countdown said:
The veto is pointless. Neither China or the US would pay any attention to it if they didn't want to.
Slow.Patrol said:
Well, we are clearly not using it!
Yes, thats fair, but taking ourselves out of it doesn't really help does it? Better to be in that club and try and fix it than just become outsiders. We are weak enough in the global geopolitics landscape without adding to it.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff