G8 and G20 meetings: still worth it?

[Machjo]

Now that the security bill alone for the G8 and G20 summits this year has reached 1 billion Canadian dollars in response to the regular disruptions of these summits every year around the world, and considering that the existence of the UN really makes these summits redundant anyway, should Canada resign from the G8 and G20?

[Oleg Bach]

Now that the security bill alone for the G8 and G20 summits this year has reached 1 billion Canadian dollars in response to the regular disruptions of these summits every year around the world, and considering that the existence of the UN really makes these summits redundant anyway, should Canada resign from the G8 and G20?

CANADA should not drop out of the G gang..they should continue to have talks - but keep them private and stop making a damned circus out of them..It defeats the purpose - let these men meet at the cottage as planned and forget the sounding of trumpets..let it be a more connective personal experience base in friendship...the circus part should cease to exist--- I don't know whose idea it was to make these summits a show of oppressive force..this is NOT what they really are..The idiots doing the PR - should all be fired - that would get rid of most of the cost - and the dead wood would no longer impair the movement and progress that the summit should be.

[Bonam]

They should just have a dedicated facility for these kinds of meetings somewhere in some country, which could be paid for once, and then just keep holding it there. Design it in such a way that it is easy to secure so that security costs will be minimal. Or just hold it at the UN facility on off days of the UN or something.

There's definitely ways to save costs without removing these summits.

The existence of the UN does not make these summits redundant. The UN is a corrupt, third-world dominated body that can get nothing done except passing endless resolutions against Israel. The G8 and G20, in contrast, are saner and can get a lot more done.

[M.Dancer]

Why do you keep posting these ridiculous polls??

[Smallc]

Maybe Canada should set up a G20 secretariat (since we invented the thing) and meetings could be held there? Continue the G8 as is.

Edited June 16, 2010 by Smallc

[Machjo]

The existence of the UN does not make these summits redundant. The UN is a corrupt, third-world dominated body that can get nothing done except passing endless resolutions against Israel. The G8 and G20, in contrast, are saner and can get a lot more done.

The G8 consists of:

Canada

France

Germany

Italy

Japan

Russia

United Kingdom

United States

All democracies, granted, but how does the G8 build bridges with all the other democracies not represented by the G8 if we get rid of the UN? Or are you proposing that we simply isolate ourselves from all other democracies?

Then of course we have the G20, which includes:

Saudi Arabia

China

So is the G20 corrupt or saner?

[Machjo]

Why do you keep posting these ridiculous polls??

Who forced you to participate?

[Bonam]

The G8 consists of:

Canada

France

Germany

Italy

Japan

Russia

United Kingdom

United States

All democracies, granted, but how does the G8 build bridges with all the other democracies not represented by the G8 if we get rid of the UN? Or are you proposing that we simply isolate ourselves from all other democracies?

It's not about building bridges or isolating ourselves. It's about debating and deciding on policies beneficial to this bloc of nations. These nations together control a large fraction of the world's economy and thus policies decided at this level can be of great importance in regards to economics, geopolitics, the environment, and other issues. By excluding third world regimes and nations overly hostile (I add the "overly" qualifier because Russia is included) to the West, the G8 can agree on many more issues and get a lot more done.

Then of course we have the G20, which includes:

Saudi Arabia

China

So is the G20 corrupt or saner?

I would argue that China is not really an "insane" influence. They have a different set of priorities and ideals than many Western nations, but China can be counted on to act in its own rational interest, rather than to pursue self-destructive or very poorly thought out agendas (unlike the third world which dominates the UN). With China's rapid economic ascension and gradual easing of government control over some aspects of life, it can be counted on to eventually become a full member of the civilized, rational, world. Saudi Arabia, meh, the US probably buys them off on any issues of relevance.

Edited June 16, 2010 by Bonam

[M.Dancer]

Who forced you to participate?

You, by asking one question in the thread title then asking a different albeit asinine question in the poll.

What motivates you to ask questions that are so out in la la land?

[bloodyminded]

They should just have a dedicated facility for these kinds of meetings somewhere in some country, which could be paid for once, and then just keep holding it there. Design it in such a way that it is easy to secure so that security costs will be minimal. Or just hold it at the UN facility on off days of the UN or something.

There's definitely ways to save costs without removing these summits.

The existence of the UN does not make these summits redundant. The UN is a corrupt, third-world dominated body that can get nothing done except passing endless resolutions against Israel. The G8 and G20, in contrast, are saner and can get a lot more done.

Actually, the UN is a corrupt, Western-power dominated body. If it weren't, then some of the powerful WEstern nations (not to mention some of their corrupt third world allies) would have faced the same sort of massive sanctions and invasions visited upon others.

[ZenOps]

The G8 consists of:

Canada

France

Germany

Italy

Japan

Russia

United Kingdom

United States

All democracies, granted, but how does the G8 build bridges with all the other democracies not represented by the G8 if we get rid of the UN? Or are you proposing that we simply isolate ourselves from all other democracies?

Then of course we have the G20, which includes:

Saudi Arabia

China

So is the G20 corrupt or saner?

Only two of those can be considered solid democracies, the US and France. Japan has always been under Emporer rule, but it has not been acknowledged by the public because there was no male heir until 2006 (Japanese do not recognize female heirs to the throne) I have no doubt that they will consider moving to a weaker constitutional monarchy or true monarchy when Hisahito comes of age.

Italy and Germany are failed totaliatarian states. I'm still surprised that the Berlin wall was taken down.

Right now - Canada could be classified as a failed democracy (Harper running to the Queen to retain office)

Edited June 24, 2010 by ZenOps

[Smallc]

I swear, your posts degrade further and further into nonsense every day.

[Shady]

Looks like Canadians think it's worth it.

Most Canadians say G8/G20 summits important

OTTAWA—A fake lake, faux Muskoka backdrops and a $1-billion price tag are troubling but not enough to turn off a majority of Canadians to the benefits of summitry, a new poll suggests.

Three-quarters of respondents to The Canadian Press Harris-Decima poll said this week’s G8 and G20 summits in Ontario are important and worth the expense of their country hosting.

Link

[capricorn]

Speaking of the G8 and G20, I've given up listening to the TV coverage. It's mostly a discussion of the obscenity of the security tab and how the cops are just itching for a violent confrontation with the protesters. I'll read the foreign press reports to find out how it turned out.

[kimmy]

It sounds as if the G20 countries are now close to an agreement on tougher regulations for banks:

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2621683620100626

...if that is the case, the future savings will make the billion spent on this summit seem paltry.

-k

[eyeball]

Looks like Canadians think it's worth it.

From your link.

Three-quarters of respondents to The Canadian Press Harris-Decima poll said this week’s G8 and G20 summits in Ontario are important and worth the expense of their country hosting...

...Of those polled who expressed awareness of the summits, 61 per cent said they were “too expensive to be worth it,” while 32 per cent said the summits’ costs were justified.

WTF am I supposed to make of that?

Edited June 26, 2010 by eyeball

[Wilber]

From your link.

WTF am I supposed to make of that?

Beats me.

[bloodyminded]

From your link.

WTF am I supposed to make of that?

These sorts of contradictions in polls occur because people are given questions that demand a short answer, out of a choice of answers that is given. So in this case, "worth the expense" doesn't clearly refer to the actual expense, but to the fact that there must be some expense.

In other words:

Question 1: Is hosting the summit worth the expense?

Answer: yes.

Question 2: Is hosting the summit worth a billion dollars?

Answer: fuck, no.

Edited June 27, 2010 by bloodyminded