Many thanks for your comment, David. You are right and my phrasing was infelicitous. The point I was trying to convey was that the "weight" of the G7 should be counted as EU+Canada+Italy+Japan+UK rather than just the seven countries indicated in the title, when seeking to measure the entity's global significance. One could equally demur and say that Hungary, for example, would not necessarily agree with everything the G7 says or does. But the broad point is nevertheless valid.
One issue on EU - you write: “three of them really represent the 27-country European Union”. In fact the EU is represented by the EU itself, in the shape of the Commission President since the 70’s, given Commission responsibility for many of the traditional G7 issues like trade, and, since 2009, by the President of the European Council.
Many thanks for your comment, David. You are right and my phrasing was infelicitous. The point I was trying to convey was that the "weight" of the G7 should be counted as EU+Canada+Italy+Japan+UK rather than just the seven countries indicated in the title, when seeking to measure the entity's global significance. One could equally demur and say that Hungary, for example, would not necessarily agree with everything the G7 says or does. But the broad point is nevertheless valid.
Agree entirely on the importance of this Summit.
One issue on EU - you write: “three of them really represent the 27-country European Union”. In fact the EU is represented by the EU itself, in the shape of the Commission President since the 70’s, given Commission responsibility for many of the traditional G7 issues like trade, and, since 2009, by the President of the European Council.