Talk:G7/Archives/2016

Representation
I find it amazing that unions like the United States of America or confederations such as the Dominion of Canada are only represented by their central Federal government in international organizations, while states of the European Union are permitted to have essentially the same form of centralized Federal government but maintain their individual memberships as "nations" in international organizations.

If one should justify that the EU is simply an economic union and not a new nation, then why are the states still individual members of G8? Since these states are under one central economy, why aren't they under one economic flag and membership in the G8? It seems that with the growing importance and centralization of the European economy, it would only make sense that they would be represented the same as their mirror economic unions such as the US/Canada in global economic associations.

Nationalism should not be a justification for economic members. If it were truly the issue, then why are there so many nations without recognition or membership in international organizations? For example, the Iroquois nation is within the United States, but it is certainly a nation within the boundaries of the United States of America. How can they be a nation, but at the same time not a nation when it comes to international organizations?

In any case, I look forward to reading discussion regarding this and hope to better understand why organizations, such as G-8 are organized in their current structure.


 * Just for clarification, Canada hasn't officially styled itself a "Dominion" for several decades. 68.147.47.74 (talk) 16:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The G-7's makeup is really a reflection of the history of its creation. The United States contained two strains of thought as to the nature of its union; a Federal Government with subservient states, or a collection of states with a Federal government that serves it. The Civil War was the last time that the latter philosophy was openly espoused by official state governments; the defeat of the Confederacy ended that as an official line of government thinking. On the other hand, attempts by the EU to consolidate more power into its hands and style it more like a centralized government rather than a highly specified meeting of independent countries have been rejected; both the EU Constitution and the Lisbon Treaty failed to pass the benchmarks required to turn the EU into a more formalized government.


 * One might also point out that although the US and Canada have direct election of their leaders, the EU is entirely made up of unelected representatives; having independent representation for the democratic governments protects the rights of the member states' citizens.


 * Also, in order for the G-7 to be effective, it must be able to guarantee that all of the representative states have the full powers of their respective economic regions. While the US and Canadian governments have full economic powers within their borders, many of the EU's economic policies are either limited or require the agreement of the member states; for instance, the UK has opted out of the EuroZone. If these countries were not invited to the G-7, then any agreement forged at a G-7 Summit might have to be renegotiated afterwards with the finance ministers of the respective states, which would waste time and might force the G-7 to meet again after encountering resistance.


 * The integrity of highly centralized pan-state unions like the United States was partially settled in 1945, during discussions related to the formation of the United Nations. The Soviet Union wanted a vote for each client state within the Soviet Union, the total of which I believe is 14. The UK responded that it would want a vote for each of its colonies and independent kingdoms (one for Ireland, one for Scotland, one for Wales), and the US responded it would require 50 votes. It was decided that if the United Nations wished to function as a meeting of nations, they would have to take the largest government which can fully represent its clients, because if not nations that cover a large amount of area and contain many divisions (the former British Empire, the US, Russia, and China) would completely drown out other nations in the General Assembly (the veto allows them to drown them out in the Security Council).


 * As to your last point about nationalism, I think from a more formal definition, the various Indian tribes are treated more like autonomous regions, more comparable to the Basque Country or the Palestinian Authority, which have some internal authority but have limited international rights. I hope this answer has been helpful for you, albeit long. Loudlikeamouse (talk) 09:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * what is up with this pretentious and envious question? US is one nation with most same kind of people and exact same culture from region to region. I think there is more regional difference between towns in one city of other countries than the regional difference between states in the US. every cities in US look like exact cyborg copies of each others unlike other countries, same store, same restaurant, not too different regional dialect or differences. in other countries, there always are some regions that seem like totally different countries from the rest, different cultures and different dialect that people from other regions can't understand, It still is in the same nation. It's more acceptable to say cities in the US should be named with same name than what you are saying here because at least cities in  your country are all alike. Canada and US should be the same country too because I don't see any difference between canada and US. only way I can think of for US to be devided by different nations from regions to regions, is its immigrants from different nations devide regions according to their nationalities, such as spain country in america ahd Italia Country in america, all in the economic union of the US. you wish you can both live in one big sized country and in countinent that is like other countinent that composed of many conutries eh? you can't. those contradicts each other. You also envy other nations that are so different and various in culture from region to region because the US is the only nation that is same like cyborg robot from regions to region. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.179.111.38 (talk) 17:54, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Russia, and G8 going back to G7, should be in lead
It's weird and confusing to readers that Russia's suspension from the G8 is not even mentioned in the lead. It is also misleading in implying that the 7 countries list really are all that qualify for the baseline criteria, since Russia also does and was suspended for an unrelated reason (the aggressive annexation of Crimea). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:27, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid the whole G7 and G8 page situation is a mess, but after trying to fix it I've given up! Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 05:31, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Group of Seven. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080305052221/http://www.theglobalist.com/storyid.aspx?StoryId=5151 to http://www.theglobalist.com/storyid.aspx?StoryId=5151
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100715203839/http://aboutusa.japan.usembassy.gov:80/e/jusa-usj-chronology.html to http://aboutusa.japan.usembassy.gov/e/jusa-usj-chronology.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150421042201/http://en.g8russia.ru:80/ to http://en.g8russia.ru/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:58, 11 November 2016 (UTC)