Shouldn't France, as a leading member and proponent of ever closer union, give up their Security Council permanent seat in favor of the European Union having that seat--and power?
I've long suggested (although I no longer support the idea of a League of Democracies as a replacement for the UN) this change given the EU's ambitions to be a superpower:
Let’s begin with a new security council: The United States. Russia (as long as they are not in the EU). China. Japan (to show the world that you don’t need nukes to be a permanent member). India (if China is in, this huge democracy should be in too). The European Union (hey, they want to be one rival superpower—great, they get one seat.) Plus we’ll grandfather in any nation already a permanent member which is not a member of the EU (this to urge the British to get out of the EU and to annoy the French who will be torn between their lucky permanent seat in the current UN and their beloved EU). Any member can veto as now. No rotating members but a mechanism to accept new members, perhaps with veto power but maybe not. You have to earn your way on.
Given the EU's ambition, having EU member states with Security Council veto power makes as much sense as giving California and Texas veto power in the UN Security Council in addition to America's power.
And don't let France argue that they can't change the UN system to achieve this without opening up the permanent membership to even more changes. France could come to an agreement with the EU to use their veto only in accordance with EU decisions rather than French national decisions.
I suggested this long ago to accommodate Japan. And I mentioned we might expand this concept for India.
In practice, the UN isn't likely to reform the Security Council membership to accommodate rising powers without making concessions to those who should not be on the Security Council just to get enough support for changes.