Canada an EU must make way for China, India and Brazil if ‘G8’ is to deliver on its mission..

Lord Bates

The purpose of the G8 as constituted in 1975 was a forum for the great economic powers of the world to discuss matters of global economics, trade and finance. Thirty eight years on those around the table are no longer the ones who can determine those issues.

Canada is represented with a population of 35 million and a GDP of $1.77trillion and yet China with a population of 1.34 billion and a GDP five times that of Canada is not.

The European Union is represented as the ‘9th member’ of the G8 and yet Europe already has four powerful voices at the table: Germany, UK, France and Italy and India with a population of 1.24 billion, twice that of the EU, and a GDP greater than Italy and Canada is not represented.

Brazil has a population 50 million greater than Russia and a GDP 20% larger than Russia and yet it has no seat at the table in Loch Erne.

Moreover, whilst the US, UK, Japan and Euro-zone are largely flat-lining and Russia is grinding to a halt, China is growing at 8% and India is growing at 6% so if its ideas to get the global economy moving your after it might be good to have someone around the table who is delivering.

If the G8 really is serious about tacking global problems then it must find space for India, China and Brazil even if that means that Canada and the EU need to make some space.

9 comments for “Canada an EU must make way for China, India and Brazil if ‘G8’ is to deliver on its mission..

  1. Lord Blagger
    19/06/2013 at 11:45 am

    You’ve missed the point

    The whole point of the G8 is that its a junket. A business trip with all expenses paid to locations round the world.

    Then you get all the TV coverage as well.

    What gives you the idea that these summits solve anything?

  2. Lord Blagger
    19/06/2013 at 11:48 am

    Moreover, whilst the US, UK, Japan and Euro-zone are largely flat-lining and Russia is grinding to a halt, China is growing at 8% and India is growing at 6% so if its ideas to get the global economy moving your after it might be good to have someone around the table who is delivering.


    So what do we get in this country?

    On the growth front, yes China and other countries are producing growth and this country isn’t. The reason is very simple. It’s the debts you ran up whilst you were in the commons and those debts have been hidden off the books. Now to pay them, you have to tax, tax and more tax. That tax means no growth.

    Very simply, you caused it. Why should we trust you to fix your own mess?

  3. Jonathan
    19/06/2013 at 9:52 pm

    Indeed, it was a Canadian, former PM Paul Martin, who championed the notion of the G20 precisely because he recognized that some of the world’s fastest growing (and quickly becoming the world’s largest) economies were not represented at such high-level international meetings.

    Your point on representation is fair, though I fail to see how excluding some countries for the sake of others is the right solution. Especially when we already have the G20.

  4. Lokos
    24/06/2013 at 2:33 pm

    China is not seeking for a membership.

  5. MilesJSD
    26/06/2013 at 7:06 pm

    We need
    (1) a Sustainworthiness Index (or Indices)
    (a) for Global Economics;
    for Global Politics;
    for Global Security & Defence;
    for Global ‘Environmentalism’.

    (b) a better Aggregate Human Development Index than the UN UNDP HDI;

    (c) a genericly-progressive Individual-Human-Development Model, Index, and ‘Curriculum’.

    (d) all of the above need to include as the first- and ongoingly-available resort,
    (I) Method III Cooperatively Participative Problem Solving, and Needs-&-Hows Recognitions and ‘How-Best-Met’ steps for win-win-win sustainworthy Resolutions to come forth.
    And some considerable new Individual Education, and possibly Training too, is desperately needed;
    to accustom every-one to being one(1) human-being
    able, willing, and committed to living off just one-human-living;

    instead of the existing and runaway-prevailing ‘tower-of-babel-pay-pyramid’ wherein the higher one ‘climbs’ (and ‘is raised’) the more deluded one becomes that one is several more than one human being
    (e.g. in the case of the psychiatrist, and the Big-Bank CEO, drawing and being given respectively £2,000 and £40,000 per week from the Common Purse,
    they are respectively 9-times (900%) and
    39-times (3,900 %) deluded [that they are many-more-human-beings-than-just-one];
    and they need to learn also that such Common-Purse un-thriftiness is neither “Socially-Mobile” nor “Sustsinworthily-Lifesupportive”.
    No Nation-State, nor Nation-of-People in the World today, appears to be anywhere near becoming a Sustainworthy-world-leader-by-example-and-emulability:
    not USA, not Europe; not China; not India, not Brazil; not even the United Nations nor the G5, G8, G20, Club of Rome, and lesser but far more proliferous-governancial-and-business-and-so-forth Bodies;

    “we” are already dictating that this Earth-One provide to our human Civilisations two(2) Earthsworth of Resources both Renewable and Non-renewable in the process extincting numerous lifesupportive- lifeforms and one-way irreversibly destroying many non-renewable Resources
    and “we” have further “boldly” planned to increase present overpopulation (of 4-billion over-the-top of the three(3) billion the Earth could possibly support longterm)
    to 11 billion by 2050, requiring then three(3) Earthsworth of Resources;

    [Words fail me – please, I give way ]

  6. Frank W. Summers III
    01/07/2013 at 3:42 am

    Having had more typographical errors than anyone else in the comments section I cannot help but wonder if the headline or title of this post is the first such line to have an error of that kind in the history of this blog?

    • Frank W. Summers III
      01/07/2013 at 4:09 pm

      I see the “d” has now transformed the “an” to “and”.

  7. P.Selvaratnam
    12/07/2013 at 3:31 pm

    Dear Bates
    How thoughtful of you to make changes for the changing world.
    In that case the UN which was formed to meet the needs of a world suffering from inter-state wars has not been getting reformed enough to meet the challenges of the (more difficult) intrastate conflicts. One consequence would be finding representation for the oppressed in any given country:

    Ethnic Violence, Development and Human Rights, Netherlands Institute of Human Rights Consultation – Utrecht, 1-3 February 1985: ‘’Although there are many longstanding ethnic conflicts, and special focus on the relation between ethnic conflict and human rights has been long over due, these two consultations were prompted by the continuously aggravating ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka. This failure of intergovernmental organizations, based on the reticence of its membership, to look into the question of ethnic conflict early in the process, and to play a protective role, is very much at the heart of the problem. It has to be investigated how the United Nations could play a more preventive role, e.g. by giving ethnic minorities more recognized formal standing in United Nations organs and proceedings, by creating better opportunities for minorities to call on the United Nations, or by giving the United Nations an arbitration role in emerging conflicts. ….
    There is an immediate need for the creation of an independent group which would have the function of making clear and making widely known the present serious condition of the Tamil people and their genuine demands. It is important that such a group should maintain its independence from the Tamil groups who are presently shouldering this burden and attempting to fulfil this function alone.”

    It’s a shame the conflict in Sri Lanka still goes on (though the armed rebels have been erased 50 months ago):

    1.The argument over CHOGM2013 in Sri Lanka: Foreign Affairs Committee could not even convince Prime Minister Cameron to lay down conditions if he is to attend CHOGM2013 in Sri Lanka

    2.UN special postholders not allowed into the country has been increasing to 10 recently – the cumulative effect of the refusal to admit so many UNSRs for so long is so dangerous and grave

    3. UN Secretary General has said there are lessons for others from Sri Lanka

  8. P.Selvaratnam
    12/07/2013 at 8:42 pm

    Dear Lord Bates
    In my previous post I didn’t mean to say Dear Bates – it should have been Dear Lord Bates.
    Please pardon me, Lord Bates.

Comments are closed.