Does the G20 Still Matter? The G20 is far too large, what the world really needs is a more representative G7, writes Chatham House Chair Jim O'Neillhttps://www.chathamhouse.org/expert/comment/does-g20-still-matter …
Show this thread
-
Chatham House Chair Jim O'Neill: 'Following the G20’s summit, I cannot help but wonder whether that gathering, too, has lost its purpose. The only relevant development to come from the summit was a agreement on the sidelines between Donald Trump and Xi Jinping.'
Show this thread
Chatham House Chair Jim O'Neill: 'There are two barriers standing in the G20’s way. First, though it is representative, it is also far too large. What the world really needs is a more representative G7, comprising the US, Japan, the European Union, and the BRIC countries.'
-
-
Chatham House Chair Jim O'Neill: 'The G20’s second deficiency is that it (as well as the G7) lacks an objective framework through which to set goals and measure progress toward them. Since the group’s initial success a decade ago, its agenda has been fluid'
Show this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
@dravirmani (1)Agree, G20's contribution after the global financial crisis has been wayward(2)Post Brexit, UK shall not like to be excluded from G7(3)Italy,France & Germany, part of EU, would not like to be excluded either.(4)Inclusion of a block EU in G7 appears an anachronism -
ERGO (a)Would it not be more prudent to make G7 a dynamic grouping of top 7 economies of world? They would account for about 50- 55% of world economy(b)Alternatively,G7 with NAFTA,EU,SCO,MERCOSUR,AEC(African economic community),GCC(Gulf cooperation council)&TPP.Would prefer (a)
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.