User:Penstubal/WU Security Council Seat

I have held some discussions today with Wikipenguino45, the Tropicalis OOC holder, and SlenderXP, the Margate OOC holder, regarding possibly having the Western Union get a seat on the United Antarctic Nations Security Council, therefore giving it a right to veto and giving it significant leverage over international affairs. This comes upon our conclusion that Western Union is practically a loose confederation and that it functions almost like an actual state. All three of us have agreed to bring it up for talks, and all Western Union members are invited to discuss this issue.

The main problem with this is the fact that the Western Union could veto something in the Security Council - but the Western Union is consisted of 12 sovereign states - if one sovereign state disagrees with that veto, we have effectively trampled the sovereignty of said nation and the Western Union could fall apart as a result of a fracture caused by that veto. This is why I would like to ask everybody for their input and to give ideas how we could improve that - I also want other ideas as well, and your thoughts about whether this should be done in the first place. -- Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 14:38, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Member Comments

 * Just make Fat Duck the dictator of WU and let him veto everything Let all nations discuss the veto and veto it, like during the summits. --QP.png QUACKERPINGU WITH BIG LETTERS!   (talk).   Contributions   A link  Quackerpingu2.png 14:42, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * There's a lot of problems there.

We have to admit that the WU will still expand itself and that it can still go beyond the current 12. To make 12 (and more!) countries make a decision as the WU hinders any of their chances in independently having a seat in the Security Council for their own agendas and not for the WU's. We have to take into consideration the fact that with the addition of new members, the agenda of the WU may change, and may not always agree to what the UAN wants. We also need to take into consideration the fact that the WU would need a representative in the SC, and that said representative will be from one of the countries. That's a different argument altogether on who will carry the extra burden of being the WU's SC representative.

To have an organization within an organization making decisions in the council can create confusion. The WU is not under the UAN in any way and should not put itself under the UAN. Instead, it would be much more advisable for the WU to work in cooperation with the UAN rather than within it. -- do re mi fa so done with summer   where is gamora  03:26, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Slender, Wiki, Brant and I have discussed this on IRC. I hope to talk to you soon more about it. For now, I would like to say - WU isn't entirely an organization. It is a confederation, and it is entity indeed but it isn't a country. My idea additionally was that the Western Union would be an entity of its own in the Security Council and would vote on their own without having to consult its member states (though they can consult them). It's like, when the United States votes on the Security Council, it doesn't beg for Texas' permission to vote that way. Though, we also agreed that if a vote in the Security Council is about a member state that the WU should /always/ vote in support of the member state. Besides, not many important things go through the Security Council, so I don't think this is something that can make our Union collapse. Also, I don't really care about confusion - the Western Union together is powerful and alone we are nothing, so I believe it matters in the end on the world stage. -- Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 17:48, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You're making several bold statements here.
 * The U.S doesn't need Texas to vote because Texas is the U.S. The Federal government reigns supreme and the ambassador to the UN/Security Council speaks as a representative of the Federal Government's interest, which in itself is based off of the interests of those who elect them. The U.S doesn't independently ask states for their opinions; they base that off the people they vote for to represent them. Representative Democracy, anyone?
 * While we're on that topic, an organization/confederation within the Security Council would be tremendously OP by bypassing the "member limit" and defeat the purpose of the Security Council made up of trusted countries representing the interests of all the countries for their common benefit. The UN Security Council doesn't do that for those same reasons, so why should the UAN Security Council?
 * You may assert that the EU is basically a large country, and for all intents and purposes, economically and politically, it is due to the EU Parliament. Yet, that does not stop member countries from signing onto the UN and not as a conglomerate. That would slow down voting and make it less representative of the EU's constituents, as there are dissenting opinions for every opinion in favor of a proposal.
 * By your same logic, the Axle Powers would also be eligible to join in on this endeavor, and should based on your basis of why the WU should join as a whole.

-  Wonderweez  ( Talk · Contribs ) 01:21, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 1. The Western Union would act as a representative democracy on the UAN Security Council 2. There have been talks of reforming the real life UN security council to have Germany in it, I believe. They went nowhere, however, but there are still people that wish to see it being reformed. Additionally, all 5 'trusted countries' are on the same side politically and their 'faction' dominates Antarctica, despite there being a lot of nations not quite in support of their agenda (United Provinces, Candvia, Acadia, Emperorlands, Dragonstone and Arthedain, East Pengolia, North Joseon, former Puffalia, former Puffarus, former Yow, Snowzerland, Duck Island, Liguria, Rusca, Osterreach, Alemania, Slumolia, Zhou, Nexon). Additionally, the UAN Security Council was reformed already to include Shops Island a few years back. There's no reason new members cannot be added. 3. The Western Union is not the European Union. 4. The Axle Powers are not as closely integrated and related as the Western Union members are, as the Western Union has a joint currency, joint military, multiple institutions like the Commission (Government), Parliament and Council, all citizens of the member countries are also considered Western Union citizens and every citizen's passport has "Western Union" imprinted on it. Axle Powers and Western Union are not comparable anymore. 5. Additionally, I would like to ask you to read the reforms I have proposed here too as those are the alternative without the Western Union involved (additionally I already wanted a UAN Security Council reform even with the Western Union in it so there is more of a balance in political views (as I mentioned earlier, one faction of nations dominates the political scene even though they are by far the minority). -- Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 11:12, 27 May 2018 (UTC)