G20 summit in Cannes, France on 3rd/4th November 2011...

The 20 countries composed of the G20 ostensibly comprise "the 20 countries which generate 85% of global GDP and together represent 2/3rds of the worlds' population".

France "took over the helm" of the G20 for 1 year in November 2010.

French President Nicholas Sarkozy and his government decided to hold their G20 meeting in Cannes on the 3rd and 4th November of 2011.

That decision has resulted in multiple infringements on the rights of ordinary citizens / residents and businesses situated within the established security zones. For example, all Cannes residents / businesses, more or less on an individual basis will have had to apply for special permits allowing them access to their homes / businesses during the G20 summit.

Just yesterday (19th October), I saw a column of at least 12-15 of the "big" dark blue vans equipped with wire-mesh screens across their windshields on the A8, usually used by the CRS (anti-riot authorities - gendarmarie) making their way towards Cannes (but almost 2 weeks before the G20 in Cannes)...?!

Why do the French (or any other "G8/20 country in Presidence") decide and insist to hold such meetings in places where such meetings are basically unwelcome by local residents and/or businesses...?!

From what I 've been able to understand, almost the entire population of Cannes; businesses operating locally etc. will not be able to live normally, not just the 2 days of the actual G20 summit, but for several days before and afterwards...?!:

For example, all yachts berthed in the ports of old Cannes and Port Canto will be prohibited from leaving and/or entering these ports. Yachts will not be permitted to anchor or navigate in the Baie de Cannes.

I was worried there for a moment. Because I believe that President Sarkozy has at least 1 rich friend with a big yacht. But I'm sure that if President Sarkozy intends to sleep on any yacht during the summit, the paricular yacht must already be in port or close by.

We've all read about previous G20 summits, where even ordinary citizens often lost their self-control, leaving aside for a moment all those citizens with more "serious" concerns.

Whatever, I myself cannot understand, and will never "condone" G20 leaders for holding their summits in Cannes or wherever. For example, the EU has a secure building in Strasbourg used by the European parliament 1 week out of 4, or so I'm lead to believe. The G20 could meet there in complete security. No need to "inconvenience" the residents of Cannes (why should they be asked to apply for special permits etc. in order to circulate normally?)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but so far as I'm aware, in order "to protect the 20 x G20 leaders for their summit in Cannes", the citizens and businesses of Cannes and surrounding areas should basically be willing to shove their asses up in the air (so as to be systematically-****ed by any/all government agencies involved as/or if they deem necessary). There will be no official compensation for any/all inconveniences suffered by the 10s of thousands of local residents within the "security zones", or businesses depending on the area during the G20. Presumably, "les grandes palaces" on the Croisette have been able to organise their own "compensation"...?!

It's completely disgracefull that a 1st World country like France decides to subject one of their most reknowned cities to all the drawbacks, threats to the local economy due to the disruption and the very real threats of violence and civil disobedience that this G20 summit in Cannes envisages compared to G20 summits elsewhere. As already suggested, these summits could be held in secure facilities which most G20 governments already possess...

President Sarkozy, felicitations on the birth of your baby daughter!

But you do yourself and your future electoral prospectives a dis-service by imposing summits in places ill-equipped and/or not at all interested in welcoming such summits.

Pascal wrote:

May I humbly attempt a reply to the above response from a fellow "senior member" of YF?: There are so many here who are very ready to simply criticise, but offer nothing else by way of contributing anything worthwhile and/or constructive to many threads apart from their criticisms. Apparently. I'm again simply accused of yet another political rant from a fellow senior member of YF. but devoid of any constructive comments / arguments on the subject at hand...

This thread is all about how anyone with a yacht berthed in Cannes during the forth-coming G20 summit will not be allowed to navigate. How many schools situated within the security zones are being forced to close unduly and extend their pupils' mid-term holidays, hoping that the pupils will be able to "catch up" at another time. It's not just politics matey...

Hopefully, this will be the last post I make in this thread. I feel so sick and abused by the restrictions imposed, which day by day reveal the true implications of a G20 summit on companies operating even well outside of the "security zone".

I doubt that any long-forgotten Roman Emperor or even Egyptian Pharoah could have behaved any worse than those responsible for the G20 in Cannes. Imposing their requirements, without any due regard to the general population and businesses.

The G8/20 summits have a reputation for attracting protestors. So far as the G20 in Cannes is concerned, I understand that the "anti-G20s" are currently being contained in Nice, further east of Cannes.

What the organisers of G8/20 summits should take into account in future, are not just the protesters against what these summits represent generally, but also, the very real (and IMHO - much more serious threats of future disruption) from those normal citizens who are forced to accept the circumstances when they're obliged to accommodate such summits, without anything else at stake. Who never asked that such a summit takes place where they live. It has nothing to do with democracy. Simply crooked local politicians complying with their "head office's demands to comply" and local hotelliers' seeking to fill empty rooms after the summer season.

One day, they should all be held to account. Businesses, and why not individuals ought to be able to claim for damages incurred. But this being France, the day any politically well-connected individual is seriously held to account will come when the French themselves finally understand that there is no disgrace denouncing their fellow citizens for some offences. This dates back to WWII when many French denounced their fellow citizens, usually but not always of Jewish origin with all the consequences...

The world has moved on, yet the French continue to use the excuse of WWII for not denouncing or informing on their fellow citizens: dilation is still a nono in 2011. The average Frenchman who seeks to avoid or otherwise diminish their taxes uses both the shame of dilation and more often than not, threat of physical violence (call it a mini mafia à la française if you prefer).

Whatever, the Cannes G20 summit is a total disaster for the local economy extending well beyond Cannes. There are yachts preparing to depart for the Caribbean right now, who might have been situated in local ports. Instead, they have been obliged to find berths as far away as San Remo and Imperia in Italy. With all the restrictions on the main road transport links this week including the Autoroute A8, I don't easily see how to supply them correctly.

The worst is that the G20 leaders have probably already discussed and more or less agreed on whatever the Cannes G20 is supposed to do at the summit. All you're left with is an elite, not all really democratic nations, but who together are sufficient for France, to indulge their worst ideas - the prime example being that of imposing such an unwelcome summit on the local population. It's not quite exactly like using tanks in Tianamen Square in Beijing, but close enough that President Sarkozy should experience some embarassement for the predicaments of those who live in and around Cannes and expose the population to the threat of violence that previous G8/20 summits have encouraged.

PS. It's 31st October here today. Halloween is increasingly celebrated here. The local kids dress up in suitably terrifying attire, wear make-up etc. and go out in the early afternoon for "trick or treats". However, they rarely knock on or ring the door-bells of normal residents. But the supermarkets and other businesses and high-street shops "play the game", and distribute the treats when the children come by. It's all a little sad, and I'm sure not at all how it goes on across the pond. This afternoon, I also met a mummy with kids whom I last saw as a very seduisant single lady about 15 years ago. Having made the usual formal greetings, I suggested that she should assure that the kids are home before too late. And before ghoulish looking individuals running amok on the streets here might somehow be confused by an over-muscular CRS riot-police force with anti-G20 protestors...

I'm going to bed now. Wake me up when it's all over.

So far as I'm aware, merely the US President Obama's "cortege" for this Cannes G20 summit includes: 1) the use of 2x VC-25 "Airforce One" type (or Boeing 747-200 equivalent) aircraft to transport the President and his "entourage" (assistants, other government officials, corporate guests, the press etc.) including a minimum of 200-300 "secret service" personnel who always accompany the President and are responsable for his immediate security on such occasions; 2) the use of other aircraft including perhaps a Galaxy C-5 type heavy-lift transporter normally used to transport the Presidential limousine "the beast", together with the Presidential helicopter(s) and additional security and support personnel; 3) US naval vessels including a guided-missile cruiser and/or a nuclear attack sub offshore in addition to the French naval vessels available and in position. Apparently, there are currently over 800 US personnel and part of the Obama "cortege" in Cannes.

To which, you must add all the "corteges" of the other remaining 19 heads of state of the G20. So I should perhaps apologise for my earlier post when I perhaps over-hastily wrote:

I can now appreciate how the local economy of Cannes (and the hotelliers etc.) might after all have managed to extract a worthwhile profit from the G20 summit. Provided that all the security costs are paid for from the French central government coffers and not locally. Also, the French authorities have been largely successful in their strategy of containing all the usual G20 protesters to parts of Nice (hopefully the city of Nice will be reimbursed for all their additional expenditure...)?! So far as the ordinary residents of Cannes are concerned, well, it's generally accepted that upwards of 50% of the apartments in Cannes within the security zones applied are only occupied during the summer and remain empty the other 9-10 months of the year, effectively cutting by 50% the theoritical number of Cannes' residents affected by the current G20 summit. These usually "unoccupied" apartments nevertheless pay taxes levied locally for the full 12 months, therefore a "boon" for the city of Cannes.

In response to the question posed by GFC therefore:

, my answer, IMHO, is that the US President in almost any case, whether on an official visit or on holiday or for personal reasons etc., is always surrounded by such a huge security arsenal. Whatever additional security risks posed by the Cannes G20 summit would have been covered by the host nation (France). Sad to say, but I don't really believe that these summits (and their protestors) add significantly to the usual and everyday security efforts applied to the protection of heads of state. Especially US ones (remembering the Kennedys, Reagan etc.) and how they more often than not succombed...?!

Anyway, midnight Friday tonight, all goes back to normal - the reknowned French CRS will have to go back to their barracks without having crushed many skulls etc. They'll have to vent their frustration on their wives and children...

Well, I know of several yacht-owners who supposedly* own permanent berths on a 50 year+ leasehold basis in Port Canto in Cannes (* unfortunetly the city of Cannes basically unilaterally took-over the management of this previously "privately-owned and operated" port a few years ago - suggesting an on-going and as yet unresolved long saga of corruption and mismanagement involving the previous management, local businessmen and local politicians in Cannes involved with the Port Canto).

The Master of one of these yachts, faced with on the one hand, the requirement that the yacht be available for imminent departure for the West Indies from the owner's side, and on the other hand, being trapped in her Cannes berth during this period, decided to move the vessel to a port in Italy during the whole G20 summit, at great additional cost. As it turns out, they might as well have stayed in Port Canto (enduring all the restrictions etc.), as the Master received instructions from the owners to set out for the Bahamas on 04/11. However, due to the poor weather conditions prevailing, the final departure date will probably be nearer between 09/11 and 11/11.

How much does it cost to berth a 65m yacht in an Italian port at this time of year per day (in addition to electricity / water etc.)? Do you think the owners will be able to send a bill somewhere asking for recompense?

So,

Well, 1) Imagine if you had a "permanent berth" (even if used for merely 4-6 months of the year, even if you paid for it 12 months per year) in some marina on the SE coast of USA. Some forth-coming G8 / G20 summit (and security precautions) means that you're not going to be able to use your boat for 7-10 days. You're OK with that then...?! 2) Or maybe just some boat-show organiser with good connections decides to hold a boat-show and "your marina" is OK with that, resulting in you being told to basically get the feck-out for the period during the event? Would that be a reasonable outcome from where you are, whether you're in SE USA, someplace else in Europe or farther afield?

Well, that's why I posted it in "General Yachting Discussions". My apologies for even thinking that such stuff would ever pose any difficulties, especially in the good ole USA. I mean, you're all armed to the teeth?! So if ever there was a G20 in Miami and "they" wanted to freeze all traffic in and out of there for 7-10 days, you all would just settle back, chew on yer tobacco right? Sure, for a couple of hours. Until it all began to slowly and finally sink in and then you'd be inundating your local elected-representatives with rabid calls complaining about it all.

And 15 minutes later, taking matters into your own-hands. But watch yer step cousins: This is Sheriff J.W. Pepper of the USCG patrol cutter "currently on your ass" and hailing unidentified vessel in defiance of the regulations...? Unless you're James Bond, don't bother, just play dead. That way, they might not take you to Guantanamo...?!

Does Carl prefer that?