On tax, trade and Syria, did the G8 countries made headway at their meeting in Enniskillen? Our panellists give their verdict
*CAMERON: 'He led the charge on tax avoidance'*
David Cameron really rolled his sleeves up (both metaphorically and literally) and got stuck in this week at the G8. It's traditional that more heat than light should emerge from summits like this, but this time round, the prime minister has made it through with something more than an awkwardly-posed photograph to show for his efforts.
The fact that the meetings were taking place on UK soil helped, of course, but Cameron appears to have done a decent job of keeping the UK's interests in the foreground of the discussions, most notably on tax avoidance. Even if Cameron and Osborne don't manage to secure full international co-operation, the decision to try and lead the charge will provide a rare moment of unity at home – nowadays, everyone from UK Uncut to the crustiest of Tory backbenchers is keen to see companies stump up what they owe. In addition, the news that Cameron has secured negotiations for a future transatlantic free trade deal will get him a rare moment of respite from some of the habitual naysayers in his own party, with even perpetual backbench carper Douglas Carswell giving it a gruff thumbs up in a piece for the Telegraph.
The PM's stance on Syria won't get such positive reviews, though. If there are reasoned arguments behind Cameron's attempt to create a "clarifying moment" on the conflict, they won't penetrate the clamour as at home we rehearse the arguments for and against intervention yet again.
But then, of course, there was what I am desperate to christen "Violet Artichoke-gate"– the decision for David Cameron to tweet out a picture of the menu for the multi-course feast delegates were enjoying. He might have had a good few days on the world stage, but he's still terrible at communicating with the masses back home.
*PUTIN: 'Russia has held fast to its policy of opposing regime change'*
Fundamental disagreements between Vladimir Putin and the rest of the G8 leaders on Syria have resulted in a sense of alienation for Russia at the summit.
During a visibly uncomfortable encounter with US president Barack Obama, Putin spoke about a "common intention to end the violence" in Syria – a statement that Obama appeared to agree with. Yet Russia gets its hackles up at the slightest possibility of regime change, placing it in stark opposition to western powers.
Most observers traditionally tie Putin's apprehension at the notion of regime change in Syria to his own resolve to stamp out the opposition movement in Russia, not to mention Russia's arms contracts with Bashar al Assad's regime. The situation is further complicated by recent events in Libya.
The civil war in Libya which ended with the graphic images of a dead Muammar Gaddafi splashed across international newspapers startled and dismayed the Russian president. The aftermath, which included the killing of US ambassador Christopher Stevens alongside three others in Benghazi and a growing presence of hardline Islamists, was akin to a series of "I told you so" moments for Russia.
In the end, Russia has held fast to its policy of opposing regime change. Dashing the arguably unrealistic hopes of his counterparts, he said he could not back a peace conference run on the assumption that Assad would step down, and now only general noises about peace have been made. Expect to see more tension next year in Sochi, when Russia assumes the G8 presidency.
*TAX: 'There's no binding agreement'
*
The G8 was a success in making it clear tax abuse is an issue of the highest priority. When it put tax at the centre of the international agenda, it was talking about two issues. The first was tax avoidance, which was convenient because it has no mandate on the issue and the outcome was some warm words that will be of little consequence.
The second, tax evasion is within the G8 mandate and the requirement is to crack open the secrecy on tax havens. The proposal was that tax havens should be obliged to share information on the income they pay to people from other countries on an automatic basis. Or perhaps more importantly, that they (and the G8 countries) record who really own the companies they register so that the income that is hidden in anonymous companies both on and offshore can be linked to its true owners.
Paul Collier, the prime minister's adviser on this issue, described this plan on revealing beneficial ownership as the best way of beating offshore tax evasion. The problem is that it looks very unlikely that any country will deliver on this promise – and even the UK is saying it will only be consulting on how to implement it and that's not good enough. If that's all that happens, tax evasion will continue at a cost to billions of people the world over – especially in developing countries.
*TRADE: 'EU-US deal doesn't address economic ills'
*
The excitement about a possible new EU-US trade deal agreed at the G8 summit is understandable: some of the numbers being thrown around about the economic impacts (a boost to the EU economy by €119bn a year, and the US economy by €95bn) are fairly significant.
But on a practical level, this trade proposal is more problematic, and it will not be easy to negotiate. From GM foods to household chemicals, the EU has much stronger regulation than the US. So will Europe reduce its standards to those of the US? Or will the US increase its standards to those of Europe?
The ironic thing about this whole proposal is that it doesn't seem to address the fundamental economic ills that plague both the US and Europe. What ails the US economy is a lack of stimulus and a lack of fairness. The lack of stimulus has resulted in a slow recovery, and the lack of fairness has left a widespread impression that the economy is rigged for the wealthy, particularly finance and Wall Street types.
And as for Europe, what ails the European economy is a lack of union – fiscal, financial, political – that would facilitate better-off states (those with trade surpluses) helping lesser-off states (those with trade deficits), and thereby have a "rising tide floats all boats."
So what would this US-EU trade deal do for that situation? I suppose something, if it really led to more trade for those lesser-off states, but even there I would expect that it is more likely to help Germany and other European states that are better geared for exports.
*SYRIA: 'A lost opportunity'
*
The first time Barack Obama met Vladimir Putin, the US president got treated to a 40-minute monologue over tea and caviar about George Bush's broken promises. Neither the second nor the third meeting have gone much better. Their encounters have ended with awkward joint press conferences in which both men are happier looking at the floor, the television lights, their shoes – anywhere but into each other's eyes.
So the outcome that neither leader could make any meaningful step towards a peace conference in Geneva on Syria is, sadly, to be expected.
For Putin and Russia's foreign policy, this represents a lost opportunity. Tactically he can pride himself on holding the line, resisting all pressure to remove his ally Bashar Assad either as a consequence or as a precondition for transition talks.
Strategically though, Russia's position in the Middle East is perilously poised. It does not believe in democratic revolutions in the Arab world. It fears political Islam. Its three closest allies make a bizarre trio – Syria, Iran and Israel. The only force that unites all three is a gut fear of Sunni Islamism. In a conflict that is rapidly growing regional and sectarian diminensions, weighing in on the side of one interpretation of Islam against another is an inherently risky thing to do.
Obama's position is little better. A reluctant re-armer (although it has to be remembered the rebels have already covertly received several thousand tons of Croatian manufactured arms delivered by the CIA), he is little better placed to bang the heads of Syria's exiled opposition leaders together. Neither Putin nor Obama are yet engaged on a track that will force a peace conference to take place. In a conflict in which there are now so many foreign combatants and sponsors, this can only mean that the fighting in Syria is set to rage on. Reported by guardian.co.uk 9 hours ago.
*CAMERON: 'He led the charge on tax avoidance'*
David Cameron really rolled his sleeves up (both metaphorically and literally) and got stuck in this week at the G8. It's traditional that more heat than light should emerge from summits like this, but this time round, the prime minister has made it through with something more than an awkwardly-posed photograph to show for his efforts.
The fact that the meetings were taking place on UK soil helped, of course, but Cameron appears to have done a decent job of keeping the UK's interests in the foreground of the discussions, most notably on tax avoidance. Even if Cameron and Osborne don't manage to secure full international co-operation, the decision to try and lead the charge will provide a rare moment of unity at home – nowadays, everyone from UK Uncut to the crustiest of Tory backbenchers is keen to see companies stump up what they owe. In addition, the news that Cameron has secured negotiations for a future transatlantic free trade deal will get him a rare moment of respite from some of the habitual naysayers in his own party, with even perpetual backbench carper Douglas Carswell giving it a gruff thumbs up in a piece for the Telegraph.
The PM's stance on Syria won't get such positive reviews, though. If there are reasoned arguments behind Cameron's attempt to create a "clarifying moment" on the conflict, they won't penetrate the clamour as at home we rehearse the arguments for and against intervention yet again.
But then, of course, there was what I am desperate to christen "Violet Artichoke-gate"– the decision for David Cameron to tweet out a picture of the menu for the multi-course feast delegates were enjoying. He might have had a good few days on the world stage, but he's still terrible at communicating with the masses back home.
*PUTIN: 'Russia has held fast to its policy of opposing regime change'*
Fundamental disagreements between Vladimir Putin and the rest of the G8 leaders on Syria have resulted in a sense of alienation for Russia at the summit.
During a visibly uncomfortable encounter with US president Barack Obama, Putin spoke about a "common intention to end the violence" in Syria – a statement that Obama appeared to agree with. Yet Russia gets its hackles up at the slightest possibility of regime change, placing it in stark opposition to western powers.
Most observers traditionally tie Putin's apprehension at the notion of regime change in Syria to his own resolve to stamp out the opposition movement in Russia, not to mention Russia's arms contracts with Bashar al Assad's regime. The situation is further complicated by recent events in Libya.
The civil war in Libya which ended with the graphic images of a dead Muammar Gaddafi splashed across international newspapers startled and dismayed the Russian president. The aftermath, which included the killing of US ambassador Christopher Stevens alongside three others in Benghazi and a growing presence of hardline Islamists, was akin to a series of "I told you so" moments for Russia.
In the end, Russia has held fast to its policy of opposing regime change. Dashing the arguably unrealistic hopes of his counterparts, he said he could not back a peace conference run on the assumption that Assad would step down, and now only general noises about peace have been made. Expect to see more tension next year in Sochi, when Russia assumes the G8 presidency.
*TAX: 'There's no binding agreement'
*
The G8 was a success in making it clear tax abuse is an issue of the highest priority. When it put tax at the centre of the international agenda, it was talking about two issues. The first was tax avoidance, which was convenient because it has no mandate on the issue and the outcome was some warm words that will be of little consequence.
The second, tax evasion is within the G8 mandate and the requirement is to crack open the secrecy on tax havens. The proposal was that tax havens should be obliged to share information on the income they pay to people from other countries on an automatic basis. Or perhaps more importantly, that they (and the G8 countries) record who really own the companies they register so that the income that is hidden in anonymous companies both on and offshore can be linked to its true owners.
Paul Collier, the prime minister's adviser on this issue, described this plan on revealing beneficial ownership as the best way of beating offshore tax evasion. The problem is that it looks very unlikely that any country will deliver on this promise – and even the UK is saying it will only be consulting on how to implement it and that's not good enough. If that's all that happens, tax evasion will continue at a cost to billions of people the world over – especially in developing countries.
*TRADE: 'EU-US deal doesn't address economic ills'
*
The excitement about a possible new EU-US trade deal agreed at the G8 summit is understandable: some of the numbers being thrown around about the economic impacts (a boost to the EU economy by €119bn a year, and the US economy by €95bn) are fairly significant.
But on a practical level, this trade proposal is more problematic, and it will not be easy to negotiate. From GM foods to household chemicals, the EU has much stronger regulation than the US. So will Europe reduce its standards to those of the US? Or will the US increase its standards to those of Europe?
The ironic thing about this whole proposal is that it doesn't seem to address the fundamental economic ills that plague both the US and Europe. What ails the US economy is a lack of stimulus and a lack of fairness. The lack of stimulus has resulted in a slow recovery, and the lack of fairness has left a widespread impression that the economy is rigged for the wealthy, particularly finance and Wall Street types.
And as for Europe, what ails the European economy is a lack of union – fiscal, financial, political – that would facilitate better-off states (those with trade surpluses) helping lesser-off states (those with trade deficits), and thereby have a "rising tide floats all boats."
So what would this US-EU trade deal do for that situation? I suppose something, if it really led to more trade for those lesser-off states, but even there I would expect that it is more likely to help Germany and other European states that are better geared for exports.
*SYRIA: 'A lost opportunity'
*
The first time Barack Obama met Vladimir Putin, the US president got treated to a 40-minute monologue over tea and caviar about George Bush's broken promises. Neither the second nor the third meeting have gone much better. Their encounters have ended with awkward joint press conferences in which both men are happier looking at the floor, the television lights, their shoes – anywhere but into each other's eyes.
So the outcome that neither leader could make any meaningful step towards a peace conference in Geneva on Syria is, sadly, to be expected.
For Putin and Russia's foreign policy, this represents a lost opportunity. Tactically he can pride himself on holding the line, resisting all pressure to remove his ally Bashar Assad either as a consequence or as a precondition for transition talks.
Strategically though, Russia's position in the Middle East is perilously poised. It does not believe in democratic revolutions in the Arab world. It fears political Islam. Its three closest allies make a bizarre trio – Syria, Iran and Israel. The only force that unites all three is a gut fear of Sunni Islamism. In a conflict that is rapidly growing regional and sectarian diminensions, weighing in on the side of one interpretation of Islam against another is an inherently risky thing to do.
Obama's position is little better. A reluctant re-armer (although it has to be remembered the rebels have already covertly received several thousand tons of Croatian manufactured arms delivered by the CIA), he is little better placed to bang the heads of Syria's exiled opposition leaders together. Neither Putin nor Obama are yet engaged on a track that will force a peace conference to take place. In a conflict in which there are now so many foreign combatants and sponsors, this can only mean that the fighting in Syria is set to rage on. Reported by guardian.co.uk 9 hours ago.