G8 EVIAN 2003

Le G-8 prétend jouer de fait, le rôle de gouvernement du monde, ce pourquoi les peuples de la planète ne l'ont jamais mandaté. Instance illégitime, le G-8 impose pourtant ses choix et oriente la marche du monde.
 Signer l'appel >>> FR

The G-8, in effect, asserts its function as a kind of world government, a role for which the world's people never asked of it. The G-8 thus illegitimately imposes its will upon the world's order.
Sign the call >>>
EN

El G8 pretende desempeñar de hecho el papel de gobierno del mundo, auncuando no ha recibido mandato para ello por los pueblos del mundo. Espues una instancia ilegítima, y sin embargo impone sus preferencias yorienta la marcha del planeta.
Firmar el llamamento >>>
ES

Il G8 vorrebbe in realtà svolgere un ruolo di governo del mondo, ruolo questo, che mai i popoli del mondo gli hanno richiesto. Istanza illegittima, il G8 impone quindi le proprie scelte e segna la strada del mondo.
Sign the call >>>
IT

De G-8 beweert de rol van een wereldregering te spelen, waarvoor de bevolking van de planeet hem nooit opdracht gegeven heeft. Als onwettige instelling legt de G-8 toch zijn keuzes op en oriënteert het verloop van de wereld.
Sign the call >>>
NL

Proposal for the movements against war and neo-liberal and corporate globalisation

>>> EN
On Saturday 29 March, we held a meeting of the European coordination of the campaign against the G8 which is scheduled to be held in Evian, France (near Geneva) on the 1st of June.
[...] The discussion last Saturday was about the war in Iraq. We agreed on the necessity to make proposals which are related to the concrete situation of the war and which are useful for the movements opposed to the war as well as for the anti corporate globalisation movements.[...]
>>> EN

Proposition aux mouvements contre la guerre et aux mouvements altermondialistes

>>> FR
S
amedi 29 mars nous avons tenu à Genève une réunion de coordination de la campagne contre le G-8 qui doit se tenir à Evian les 1er, 2 et 3 juin.[...] Nous avons discuté samedi 29 mars de la situation créée par la guerre contre l'Irak avec la perspective de faire des propositions qui soient en lien avec la situation créée par la guerre et utile tant pour les mouvements anti-guerre que pour les mouvements altermondialistes.[...]
>>> FR

 

AARRG!!

AC!

ANTI G8

ATTAC.INFO

CLAAACG8

COLLECTIF DU RHONE


COORDINATION MANIFESTATIONS

G8 DEVIANT

G8 ILLEGAL

G8 SUMMIT EVIAN

SIDA URGENCE G8

VAAAG

Web 2.0 Online Dating Service with Dating Games: www.FirstClickFriend.com
G-8 a un grupo de países Articles catalogue
website of the Merthyr Tydfil Liberal Democrats http://www.merthyrlibdems.org.uk

website of the Merthyr Tydfil Liberal Democrats

For several years the Liberal Democrats have been calling for proportional representation in the British parliament. As Britain's third largest party they would have the most to gain, leaving people to ask whether first past the post is really the fairest voting system? Proportional representation looks at the total amount of votes cast per party, rather than per candidate. For example, in the 2001 general election the Conservatives gained 31.7% of the vote, but only 25.2% of the seats in the House of Commons. If proportional representation had been in place there would have been more Conservative MPs. So why is it that the Liberal Democrats are calling for P.R. and the Conservatives aren't?

P.R. benefits protest groups and single-issue parties. Groups like the British National Party could pick up MPs even if they came last in the actual elections. For proportional representation to work candidates would not be selected for a constituency, but for an area, similar to the European election system. Voters would feel further removed from the process and having the right candidate would have little effect. The electorate would purely be making a party vote. As a system it can be said to alienate voters from their elected representatives and means that a candidate who has done no work could be selected just because of their placing on a closed party list.

On the other hand, democratically, it makes the electorate feel that no vote is wasted. In a seat with a 25,000 Labour majority for example, Conservative voters might stay at home at a general election, knowing their candidate has very little chance of getting in. With P.R. every single vote would count and politics would be seen much less as a two horse race. The United Kingdom Independence Party and the Green Party both have MEPs through P.R., but no MPs through first past the post. Different electoral systems have their benefits. It would be unwise for any party to make too sudden a move however for short term gain. The London mayoral and European elections have shown how confused the public can be with all this experimenting with new systems.

Tony Blair has introduced seven different types of P.R. since Labour came to power in 1997. If a Labour defeat seems likely at the next general election there is a very good chance that the Labour Government will push for P.R., in coalition with the Liberal Democrats. Change for short-term gain is never a good strategy and serious thought needs to be given to how this would affect democracy and accountability in the long run.

Many Republicans, especially conservatives, who have apparently forgotten the old saying "United we stand, divided we fall", have become very worried about poll numbers and about their own personal agendas, and are therefore not only abandoning the President, they are speaking out against him. They don't appear to realize that by doing so they are ensuring the takeover of our government by the far left Democrats. The Republicans, especially the far right conservative Republicans are becoming just as bad as the far left Liberal Democrats. They may have different agendas but they are both trying to reach them the same way.