Yeah, you're simple enough. (If you are going to make snide remarks to me, you can expect to get snide remarks in return.)
The UK certainly possesses a poweful economy, but that by no means makes them one of the top five wealthiest nations on earth. According to this site, with per capita share of the gross domestic product in 2007 U.S. dollars as the base line
, the United Kingdom is not even in the top ten. You seem to have forgotten the Gulf oil states entirely.
I haven't disputed that the reasons for France and England to be on the security council are now irrelevant. More importantly, national wealth wouldn't qualify them either. I was simply pointing out why they were there--many people who read here were born twenty-five years or more after the Second World War ended, and wouldn't even ncessarily know the origin of the United Nations, let alone security council membership.
Neither Russia nor China qualify on the basis simply of wealth, and it is doubtful today that Russia would qualify on the basis of military might, were it not for their decaying nuclear arsenal. China is not as great a military power as mere numbers would suggest, and lacking a large, modern navy they are no threat to anyone other than their immediate neighbors, unless they were mad enough to trigger a thermonuclear exchange.
But China does qualify on the basis of their economic power, for all that most of the Chinese don't benefit commensurately. Whether Russia should be there in the future is, i think, a subject of some doubt, but one which is not likely to be entertained any time soon. If they were actually to reform their government and economy, they have the population and resources to command that spot at the table.
None of these things is true of the United Kingdom or France. I don't know anything at all such as you allege, you just think you know it, and "we" don't all know any such thing. For all that it may gall the children of a decayed empire, England's glory days are long dead and buried.