I do wonder about this "loss of empire" claim. The people with first hand memories of it are now in their 80s, and I have never heard a member of that generation expressing any form of regret for the loss. On the contrary, it meant that there was a high probability that their own parents worked as soldiers or administrators or tea planters in dangerous continents thousands of miles away. We still have a Commonwealth: would you lose more than 5 minutes sleep if we lost that?
My take is that it is precisely because there a so few people left with direct experience of it that is has such a bewitching cultural legacy. The folk memory is magnified by the modern-dayinternational dominance of the English language which on some subconscious level makes us feel like Uebermenschen, especially when combined with a popular culture replete with references to our standing alone against the Nazis. We still haven't accepted that we are a European nation like all the other, albeit one with an awful lot to be proud of.
The existence of the Anglosphere or for that matter the Indian Premier League means we will never be (say) Slovakia, or even Italy. We are connected intimately to an extra European world that other European countries aren't.
France Spain, Portugal all have vast areas of the globe equivalent to our Commonwealths. Even tiny Belgium and Netherlands had great colonial empires orders of magnitude bigger than their national lands. Russia, Germany, and Austria Hungary too, to a lesser degree, and both Rome and Greece had overseas cultural influence way beyond their shores. The British Empire was a bit different, but not vastly from the experiences of our Continental neighbours.
Yes but let's get real, none are as successful as the Anglosphere. Not really our doing of course, but there it is. Mali, Congo, Venezuela, and Angola vs USA, Australia and Canada. Your choice?
Hmmm: or Nigeria, Bangladesh and Pakistan? Even India hasn't done *that* well. If you go back 50 years, Brazil had twice the GDP per capita of India. It's now five times as wealthy per person. But we don't call the Portugueseaphere an enormous success.
Brazil's gdp per capita is significantly less than that of Argentina.
Which given the generations of bad government Argentina has suffered plus the natural resources of Brazil is rather surprising.
I do wonder about this "loss of empire" claim. The people with first hand memories of it are now in their 80s, and I have never heard a member of that generation expressing any form of regret for the loss. On the contrary, it meant that there was a high probability that their own parents worked as soldiers or administrators or tea planters in dangerous continents thousands of miles away. We still have a Commonwealth: would you lose more than 5 minutes sleep if we lost that?
My take is that it is precisely because there a so few people left with direct experience of it that is has such a bewitching cultural legacy. The folk memory is magnified by the modern-dayinternational dominance of the English language which on some subconscious level makes us feel like Uebermenschen, especially when combined with a popular culture replete with references to our standing alone against the Nazis. We still haven't accepted that we are a European nation like all the other, albeit one with an awful lot to be proud of.
The existence of the Anglosphere or for that matter the Indian Premier League means we will never be (say) Slovakia, or even Italy. We are connected intimately to an extra European world that other European countries aren't.
France Spain, Portugal all have vast areas of the globe equivalent to our Commonwealths. Even tiny Belgium and Netherlands had great colonial empires orders of magnitude bigger than their national lands. Russia, Germany, and Austria Hungary too, to a lesser degree, and both Rome and Greece had overseas cultural influence way beyond their shores. The British Empire was a bit different, but not vastly from the experiences of our Continental neighbours.
Yes but let's get real, none are as successful as the Anglosphere. Not really our doing of course, but there it is. Mali, Congo, Venezuela, and Angola vs USA, Australia and Canada. Your choice?
Hmmm: or Nigeria, Bangladesh and Pakistan? Even India hasn't done *that* well. If you go back 50 years, Brazil had twice the GDP per capita of India. It's now five times as wealthy per person. But we don't call the Portugueseaphere an enormous success.
Brazil's gdp per capita is significantly less than that of Argentina.
Which given the generations of bad government Argentina has suffered plus the natural resources of Brazil is rather surprising.
While that's true, Argentina has benefited from buoyant prices for its agricultural commodities, while Brazil has been hit by (among other things) a very weak iron ore price.
"Reducing CT has increased the take considerably in recent years"
Really?? Can we just kill that myth please...
2008 rate = 28%; CT take = 3.28% of GDP 2016 rate = 20%; CT take = 2.36% of GDP
Raw figures not %ages, please? It is rather important in this context.
I would have thought percentages were absolutely right in this context. We need to find approximately 40% of GDP to fund our spending commitments. The first question is, do higher corporate tax rates increase the take as a percentage of GDP?
The second question is, do changes to the corporate tax rate affect the level of GDP through influencing firms' investment decisions? This is, of course, a much harder question to answer because the government's choices do not take place in a vacuum.
But CT tax cuts can only lead to a higher tax take because they lead to increased productivity (slightly smaller percentage slice of absolutely larger cake). So the theory practically requires a drop in % terms. And our spending commitments are absolute (so many £) even if it is useful for some purposes to express them as % of GDP.
There are many reasons why a lower CT rate might lead to a higher tax take, the biggest of which is that corporates will prefer to have profits accrue in the UK rather than in another country
Imagine you are CFO of a company (as indeed I am). You have subsidiaries in a number of countries that contribute to whatever it is you do. Each of those subsidiaries does something that adds up to the finished product (or service), and you need to account for transactions between these entities. Transfer pricing is the act of working out what subsidiary A should pay subsidiary B; and corporates work to ensure that taxable profit falls in low tax countries.
In which case even at 26% CT rate the UK should be getting the tax receipts of multinationals operating in USA, Japan, France, Germany, Italy... all of whom have CT rates >26%.
But I honestly think this only operates for a few (admittedly high-profile) global players. The vast majority of UK businesses are not going to say "ooh CT rates are going up to 26%, let's run down our business" I agree raising CT rates might lead to more reinvestment or, dare I say, it higher wages as companies ease their recruitment issues, thus meaning the CT tax take doesn't go up pro rata, but up it will surely go.
Ummm: I think Ireland is getting the receipts rather than us.
My take is that it is precisely because there a so few people left with direct experience of it that is has such a bewitching cultural legacy. The folk memory is magnified by the modern-dayinternational dominance of the English language which on some subconscious level makes us feel like Uebermenschen, especially when combined with a popular culture replete with references to our standing alone against the Nazis. We still haven't accepted that we are a European nation like all the other, albeit one with an awful lot to be proud of.
The existence of the Anglosphere or for that matter the Indian Premier League means we will never be (say) Slovakia, or even Italy. We are connected intimately to an extra European world that other European countries aren't.
France Spain, Portugal all have vast areas of the globe equivalent to our Commonwealths. Even tiny Belgium and Netherlands had great colonial empires orders of magnitude bigger than their national lands. Russia, Germany, and Austria Hungary too, to a lesser degree, and both Rome and Greece had overseas cultural influence way beyond their shores. The British Empire was a bit different, but not vastly from the experiences of our Continental neighbours.
Yes but let's get real, none are as successful as the Anglosphere. Not really our doing of course, but there it is. Mali, Congo, Venezuela, and Angola vs USA, Australia and Canada. Your choice?
Hmmm: or Nigeria, Bangladesh and Pakistan? Even India hasn't done *that* well. If you go back 50 years, Brazil had twice the GDP per capita of India. It's now five times as wealthy per person. But we don't call the Portugueseaphere an enormous success.
Brazil's gdp per capita is significantly less than that of Argentina.
Which given the generations of bad government Argentina has suffered plus the natural resources of Brazil is rather surprising.
While that's true, Argentina has benefited from buoyant prices for its agricultural commodities, while Brazil has been hit by (among other things) a very weak iron ore price.
(Also, Brazil has a large indigenous population that live in the Amazon basin and have very low incomes. There is nothing like that in Argentina.)
I agree with a lot Nick says in previous thread although you can be pretty sure that "events" will intervene. If I were TM, I'd be looking to sack someone during the hols. If I felt brave, it would be Boris, otherwise any old sub prime cabinet oik would do. She has the 1922 troops on side and she needs to instil a few doubts in the minds of those who would be king
Perhaps the bold move would be to pluck one of the 2015 intake that people are touting as a future leader and put them into the Cabinet making them look like her protégé.
JRM?
2010 intake, though that doesn't rule out the possibility. I think other considerations do, though - he and TMay do not look like a match made in heaven.
He's Boris in an alternative world!
I disagree, I think JRM is not basically a prat. If he manages another performance as good as QT a couple of weeks ago, I am seriously intending to stump up £25 to the Con party, for the first time ever, so I can vote for him.
Who couldn't warm to JRM, fuck political correctness, fuck it that I'm a toff with six kids and don't know how to change a nappy, what's that got to being PM? My concern is that Joe Public has seen Boris and he's now a busted flush who thinks insulting those on the other side of the negotiating table is the way to go. As a negotiator, you schmoozle or pretend to. Boris has spoiled the game for toffs, even likeable, amusing toffs like JRM.
None of them are the former great empires though. We can never be like them, however psychologically attractive it might be to a population weary of the messy realities of the world.
I do wonder about this "loss of empire" claim. The people with first hand memories of it are now in their 80s, and I have never heard a member of that generation expressing any form of regret for the loss. On the contrary, it meant that there was a high probability that their own parents worked as soldiers or administrators or tea planters in dangerous continents thousands of miles away. We still have a Commonwealth: would you lose more than 5 minutes sleep if we lost that?
My take is that it is precisely because there a so few people left with direct experience of it that is has such a bewitching cultural legacy. The folk memory is magnified by the modern-dayinternational dominance of the English language which on some subconscious level makes us feel like Uebermenschen, especially when combined with a popular culture replete with references to our standing alone against the Nazis. We still haven't accepted that we are a European nation like all the other, albeit one with an awful lot to be proud of.
The existence of the Anglosphere or for that matter the Indian Premier League means we will never be (say) Slovakia, or even Italy. We are connected intimately to an extra European world that other European countries aren't.
France Sia, Germany, and Austria Hungary too, to a lesser degree, and both Rome and Greece had overseas cultural influence way beyond their shores. The British Empire was a bit different, but not vastly from the experiences of our Continental neighbours.
Yes but let's get real, none are as successful as the Anglosphere. Not really our doing of course, but there it is. Mali, Congo, Venezuela, and Angola vs USA, Australia and Canada. Your choice?
Hmmm: or Nigeria, Bangladesh and Pakistan? Even India hasn't done *that* well. If you go back 50 years, Brazil had twice the GDP per capita of India. It's now five times as wealthy per person. But we don't call the Portugueseaphere an enormous success.
Mozambique? Angola? Cape Verde? Sao Principe? East Timor? Macau?
My point exactly: you can cherry pick bits of former empires to get exactly the answer you want.
That isn't cherry picking - that's the entire Lusophone world apart from Portugal and Brazil!
"Reducing CT has increased the take considerably in recent years"
Really?? Can we just kill that myth please...
2008 rate = 28%; CT take = 3.28% of GDP 2016 rate = 20%; CT take = 2.36% of GDP
Raw figures not %ages, please? It is rather important in this context.
I would have thought percentages were absolutely right in this context. We need to find approximately 40% of GDP to fund our spending commitments. The first question is, do higher corporate tax rates increase the take as a percentage of GDP?
The second question is, do changes to the corporate tax rate affect the level of GDP through influencing firms' investment decisions? This is, of course, a much harder question to answer because the government's choices do not take place in a vacuum.
Both good questions rcs... I think the figures I provided earlier at the very least kill the lie that lower CT rates increase the take.
Do CT rates affect the GDP level? Hard to prove as you point out. I might do an analysis of GDP growth versus CT rates and, given CT rates were very high during the 80s I bet it would point to higher CT rates aligning with higher growth... but I don't claim there's a cuasative effect Othe factors at work; CT rates don't exist in a vacuum.
However, I fail to understand why higher CT rates would inhibit investment, as is often claimed. It might impact inward foreign investment into the UK but for UK companies higher CT rates are actually an incentive to invest, since investment in assets and R&D are CT exempt. The higher the CT rate the more a company is incentivisec to invest in long-term growth, rather than pay tax on declared profits.
Labour have got this one right.
Speaking as the CFO of a close to $100m revenue tech business, high corporate tax rates discourage investment, but are far from the dominant factor.
Investment in assets is not "CT exempt". If I buy a server, it is depreciated over time and this "capital allowance" is deducted against tax. Other countries are far more generous with their capital allowances, and that is a factor in our decisions.
Ok I bow to your personal experience on that asset investment point rcs. But the evidence still shows that higher CT rates lead to a higher CT tax take, whatever the neoliberals might wish.
I am not advocating punitive rates (neither were Labour imo) but the fact is the country needs to either cut spending further (politically unacceptable imho) or raise the overall tax take to 40 to 45% of GDP (currently 37%). CT rates will have to play a part in the latter.
My take is that it is precisely because there a so few people left with direct experience of it that is has such a bewitching cultural legacy. The folk memory is magnified by the modern-dayinternational dominance of the English language which on some subconscious level makes us feel like Uebermenschen, especially when combined with a popular culture replete with references to our standing alone against the Nazis. We still haven't accepted that we are a European nation like all the other, albeit one with an awful lot to be proud of.
The existence of the Anglosphere or for that matter the Indian Premier League means we will never be (say) Slovakia, or even Italy. We are connected intimately to an extra European world that other European countries aren't.
France Sia, Germany, and Austria Hungary too, to a lesser degree, and both Rome and Greece had overseas cultural influence way beyond their shores. The British Empire was a bit different, but not vastly from the experiences of our Continental neighbours.
Yes but let's get real, none are as successful as the Anglosphere. Not really our doing of course, but there it is. Mali, Congo, Venezuela, and Angola vs USA, Australia and Canada. Your choice?
Hmmm: or Nigeria, Bangladesh and Pakistan? Even India hasn't done *that* well. If you go back 50 years, Brazil had twice the GDP per capita of India. It's now five times as wealthy per person. But we don't call the Portugueseaphere an enormous success.
Mozambique? Angola? Cape Verde? Sao Principe? East Timor? Macau?
My point exactly: you can cherry pick bits of former empires to get exactly the answer you want.
That isn't cherry picking - that's the entire Lusophone world apart from Portugal and Brazil!
In total, those countries have fewer people in them than the UK. Brazil, by contrast, is three times the size of the UK.
The Lusophone world (nice word, btw) is - to all intents and purposes - Brazil.
(Footnote to add: Mozambique has quite craptacularly large off-shore natural gas reserves. Enough, potentially, to make it a temporarily first world country.)
I bet the likes of Fat Head on Sky didn't get any extra dosh.
This will run and run. We need to know how long they have to work to earn these megabucks. I saw one attempt to measure that prat Lineker's hourly rate have to be reduced to per minute to contain the zeros. We also need to know what the BBC pays via outside contractors to enable tax avoidance.
"Reducing CT has increased the take considerably in recent years"
Really?? Can we just kill that myth please...
2008 rate = 28%; CT take = 3.28% of GDP 2016 rate = 20%; CT take = 2.36% of GDP
Raw figures not %ages, please? It is rather important in this context.
.
But CT tax cuts can only lead to a higher tax take because they lead to increased productivity (slightly smaller percentage slice of absolutely larger cake). So the theory practically requires a drop in % terms. And our spending commitments are absolute (so many £) even if it is useful for some purposes to express them as % of GDP.
There are many reasons why a lower CT rate might lead to a higher tax take, the biggest of which is that corporates will prefer to have profits accrue in the UK rather than in another country
Imagine you are CFO of a company (as indeed I am). You have subsidiaries in a number of countries that contribute to whatever it is you do. Each of those subsidiaries does something that adds up to the finished product (or service), and you need to account for transactions between these entities. Transfer pricing is the act of working out what subsidiary A should pay subsidiary B; and corporates work to ensure that taxable profit falls in low tax countries.
In which case even at 26% CT rate the UK should be getting the tax receipts of multinationals operating in USA, Japan, France, Germany, Italy... all of whom have CT rates >26%.
But I honestly think this only operates for a few (admittedly high-profile) global players. The vast majority of UK businesses are not going to say "ooh CT rates are going up to 26%, let's run down our business" I agree raising CT rates might lead to more reinvestment or, dare I say, it higher wages as companies ease their recruitment issues, thus meaning the CT tax take doesn't go up pro rata, but up it will surely go.
Ummm: I think Ireland is getting the receipts rather than us.
Mmmm Irish cororation tax revenue in 2015 = 6.9bn EUR so a lot less than the UK's £43bn in 2015. But proportionally to their GDP, a lot more of course. I suspect they can play the low CT game as a smaller player. Not a sensible strategy for the 5th largest economy in the world though.
"Reducing CT has increased the take considerably in recent years"
Really?? Can we just kill that myth please...
2008 rate = 28%; CT take = 3.28% of GDP 2016 rate = 20%; CT take = 2.36% of GDP
Raw figures not %ages, please? It is rather important in this context.
.
But CT tax cuts can only lead to a higher tax take because they lead to increased productivity (slightly smaller percentage slice of absolutely larger cake). So the theory practically requires a drop in % terms. And our spending commitments are absolute (so many £) even if it is useful for some purposes to express them as % of GDP.
There are many reasons why a lower CT rate might lead to a higher tax take, the biggest of which is that corporates will prefer to have profits accrue in the UK rather than in another country
Imagine you are CFO of a company (as indeed I am). You have subsidiaries in a number of countries that contribute to whatever it is you do. Each of those subsidiaries does something that adds up to the finished product (or service), and you need to account for transactions between these entities. Transfer pricing is the act of working out what subsidiary A should pay subsidiary B; and corporates work to ensure that taxable profit falls in low tax countries.
In which case even at 26% CT rate the UK should be getting the tax receipts of multinationals operating in USA, Japan, France, Germany, Italy... all of whom have CT rates >26%.
But I honestly think this only operates for a few (admittedly high-profile) global players. The vast majority of UK businesses are not going to say "ooh CT rates are going up to 26%, let's run down our business" I agree raising CT rates might lead to more reinvestment or, dare I say, it higher wages as companies ease their recruitment issues, thus meaning the CT tax take doesn't go up pro rata, but up it will surely go.
Ummm: I think Ireland is getting the receipts rather than us.
Mmmm Irish cororation tax revenue in 2015 = 6.9bn EUR so a lot less than the UK's £43bn in 2015. But proportionally to their GDP, a lot more of course. I suspect they can play the low CT game as a smaller player. Not a sensible strategy for the 5th largest economy in the world though.
Given the strength of the Euro in the last four months, I suspect we'll be sixth this year.
My take is that it is precisely because there a so few people left with direct experience of it that is has such a bewitching cultural legacy. The folk memory is magnified by the modern-dayinternational dominance of the English language which on some subconscious level makes us feel like Uebermenschen, especially when combined with a popular culture replete with references to our standing alone against the Nazis. We still haven't accepted that we are a European nation like all the other, albeit one with an awful lot to be proud of.
The existence of the Anglosphere or for that matter the Indian Premier League means we will never be (say) Slovakia, or even Italy. We are connected intimately to an extra European world that other European countries aren't.
France Spain, Portugal all have vast areas of the globe equivalent to our Commonwealths. Even tiny Belgium and Netherlands had great colonial empires orders of magnitude bigger than their national lands. Russia, Germany, and Austria Hungary too, to a lesser degree, and both Rome and Greece had overseas cultural influence way beyond their shores. The British Empire was a bit different, but not vastly from the experiences of our Continental neighbours.
Yes but let's get real, none are as successful as the Anglosphere. Not really our doing of course, but there it is. Mali, Congo, Venezuela, and Angola vs USA, Australia and Canada. Your choice?
Hmmm: or Nigeria, Bangladesh and Pakistan? Even India hasn't done *that* well. If you go back 50 years, Brazil had twice the GDP per capita of India. It's now five times as wealthy per person. But we don't call the Portugueseaphere an enormous success.
Brazil's gdp per capita is significantly less than that of Argentina.
Which given the generations of bad government Argentina has suffered plus the natural resources of Brazil is rather surprising.
While that's true, Argentina has benefited from buoyant prices for its agricultural commodities, while Brazil has been hit by (among other things) a very weak iron ore price.
(Also, Brazil has a large indigenous population that live in the Amazon basin and have very low incomes. There is nothing like that in Argentina.)
Only a tiny proportion of Brazil's population though.
The backward parts of Brazil are the North-Eastern states:
How Brazil would have developed if it had split into two or three different countries is an interesting question.
That is an amazing link. I would never have guessed there were Brazilian states that had higher GDP per capitas than Italy and Spain. (And indeed, aren't that far behind the UK and France.)
How Brazil would have developed if it had split into two or three different countries is an interesting question.
That is an amazing link. I would never have guessed there were Brazilian states that had higher GDP per capitas than Italy and Spain. (And indeed, aren't that far behind the UK and France.)
The data is for 2012, when Brazil was doing rather better than it is now.
And by far the most successful state is the Federal District, as the centres of government tend to.
From what I've been told by the Brazilians I've met I can fully understand why they've chosen to emigrate to Europe.
Hmmm: or Nigeria, Bangladesh and Pakistan? Even India hasn't done *that* well. If you go back 50 years, Brazil had twice the GDP per capita of India. It's now five times as wealthy per person. But we don't call the Portugueseaphere an enormous success.
So find me the Francophone version of the USA, Canada or Australia. Yes there have been failings amongst a few of the Anglosphere countries but most have been very successful. The same cannot be said for most of the other colonial powers.
I was going to post a response to this when I saw you post it on facebook. It seems far more apt here. Clearly xkcd is a heretical offshoot trying to cause a schism as any true believer in Russell's Teapot knows it was actually in orbit between the Earth and Mars. Wars have been fought over less.
In total, those countries have fewer people in them than the UK. Brazil, by contrast, is three times the size of the UK.
The Lusophone world (nice word, btw) is - to all intents and purposes - Brazil.
(Footnote to add: Mozambique has quite craptacularly large off-shore natural gas reserves. Enough, potentially, to make it a temporarily first world country.)
Yet Mozambique has turned its back on its former colonial links to Portugal and decided to join our gang instead. It joined the Commonwealth in 2009 in spite of never being part of the British Empire.
Hmmm: or Nigeria, Bangladesh and Pakistan? Even India hasn't done *that* well. If you go back 50 years, Brazil had twice the GDP per capita of India. It's now five times as wealthy per person. But we don't call the Portugueseaphere an enormous success.
So find me the Francophone version of the USA, Canada or Australia. Yes there have been failings amongst a few of the Anglosphere countries but most have been very successful. The same cannot be said for most of the other colonial powers.
I'm not sure you can claim Quebec for the Anglosphere. And what would the USA be today without the Louisiana purchase from France?
My take is that it is precisely because there a so few people left with direct experience of it that is has such a bewitching cultural legacy. The folk memory is magnified by the modern-dayinternational dominance of the English language which on some subconscious level makes us feel like Uebermenschen, especially when combined with a popular culture replete with references to our standing alone against the Nazis. We still haven't accepted that we are a European nation like all the other, albeit one with an awful lot to be proud of.
The existence of the Anglosphere or for that matter the Indian Premier League means we will never be (say) Slovakia, or even Italy. We are connected intimately to an extra European world that other European countries aren't.
France Sia, Germany, and Austria Hungary too, to a lesser degree, and both Rome and Greece had overseas cultural influence way beyond their shores. The British Empire was a bit different, but not vastly from the experiences of our Continental neighbours.
Yes but let's get real, none are as successful as the Anglosphere. Not really our doing of course, but there it is. Mali, Congo, Venezuela, and Angola vs USA, Australia and Canada. Your choice?
Hmmm: or Nigeria, Bangladesh and Pakistan? Even India hasn't done *that* well. If you go back 50 years, Brazil had twice the GDP per capita of India. It's now five times as wealthy per person. But we don't call the Portugueseaphere an enormous success.
Mozambique? Angola? Cape Verde? Sao Principe? East Timor? Macau?
My point exactly: you can cherry pick bits of former empires to get exactly the answer you want.
That isn't cherry picking - that's the entire Lusophone world apart from Portugal and Brazil!
In total, those countries have fewer people in them than the UK. Brazil, by contrast, is three times the size of the UK.
The Lusophone world (nice word, btw) is - to all intents and purposes - Brazil.
(Footnote to add: Mozambique has quite craptacularly large off-shore natural gas reserves. Enough, potentially, to make it a temporarily first world country.)
Hmmm: or Nigeria, Bangladesh and Pakistan? Even India hasn't done *that* well. If you go back 50 years, Brazil had twice the GDP per capita of India. It's now five times as wealthy per person. But we don't call the Portugueseaphere an enormous success.
So find me the Francophone version of the USA, Canada or Australia. Yes there have been failings amongst a few of the Anglosphere countries but most have been very successful. The same cannot be said for most of the other colonial powers.
I'm not sure you can claim Quebec for the Anglosphere. And what would the USA be today without the Louisiana purchase from France?
Canada and the US are considered firmly part of the Anglosphere. Not only based upon their languages but also upon their legal systems which are fundamentally based on Common LAw not Napoleonic/Roman law.
Hmmm: or Nigeria, Bangladesh and Pakistan? Even India hasn't done *that* well. If you go back 50 years, Brazil had twice the GDP per capita of India. It's now five times as wealthy per person. But we don't call the Portugueseaphere an enormous success.
So find me the Francophone version of the USA, Canada or Australia. Yes there have been failings amongst a few of the Anglosphere countries but most have been very successful. The same cannot be said for most of the other colonial powers.
I'm not sure you can claim Quebec for the Anglosphere. And what would the USA be today without the Louisiana purchase from France?
Canada and the US are considered firmly part of the Anglosphere. Not only based upon their languages but also upon their legal systems which are fundamentally based on Common LAw not Napoleonic/Roman law.
The good thing about federations is that different legal traditions can coexist, as they do in both the USA and Canada, and for that matter within the European Union.
Hmmm: or Nigeria, Bangladesh and Pakistan? Even India hasn't done *that* well. If you go back 50 years, Brazil had twice the GDP per capita of India. It's now five times as wealthy per person. But we don't call the Portugueseaphere an enormous success.
So find me the Francophone version of the USA, Canada or Australia. Yes there have been failings amongst a few of the Anglosphere countries but most have been very successful. The same cannot be said for most of the other colonial powers.
I'm not sure you can claim Quebec for the Anglosphere. And what would the USA be today without the Louisiana purchase from France?
Canada and the US are considered firmly part of the Anglosphere. Not only based upon their languages but also upon their legal systems which are fundamentally based on Common LAw not Napoleonic/Roman law.
The good thing about federations is that different legal traditions can coexist, as they do in both the USA and Canada, and for that matter within the European Union.
The bad things about federations is there is still an overarching legal system. In the US Federal law exists over and above state law. In Canada Civil law in Quebec is overruled by Common Law at a national level in all cases of criminal law.
Hmmm: or Nigeria, Bangladesh and Pakistan? Even India hasn't done *that* well. If you go back 50 years, Brazil had twice the GDP per capita of India. It's now five times as wealthy per person. But we don't call the Portugueseaphere an enormous success.
So find me the Francophone version of the USA, Canada or Australia. Yes there have been failings amongst a few of the Anglosphere countries but most have been very successful. The same cannot be said for most of the other colonial powers.
I'm not sure you can claim Quebec for the Anglosphere. And what would the USA be today without the Louisiana purchase from France?
Canada and the US are considered firmly part of the Anglosphere. Not only based upon their languages but also upon their legal systems which are fundamentally based on Common LAw not Napoleonic/Roman law.
The good thing about federations is that different legal traditions can coexist, as they do in both the USA and Canada, and for that matter within the European Union.
The bad things about federations is there is still an overarching legal system. In the US Federal law exists over and above state law. In Canada Civil law in Quebec is overruled by Common Law at a national level in all cases of criminal law.
Why is it bad? Surely it makes sense to have an overarching legal system to administer trade between states, to regulate matters that transcend state boundaries, and to deal with external entities.
Hmmm: or Nigeria, Bangladesh and Pakistan? Even India hasn't done *that* well. If you go back 50 years, Brazil had twice the GDP per capita of India. It's now five times as wealthy per person. But we don't call the Portugueseaphere an enormous success.
So find me the Francophone version of the USA, Canada or Australia. Yes there have been failings amongst a few of the Anglosphere countries but most have been very successful. The same cannot be said for most of the other colonial powers.
I'm not sure you can claim Quebec for the Anglosphere. And what would the USA be today without the Louisiana purchase from France?
Canada and the US are considered firmly part of the Anglosphere. Not only based upon their languages but also upon their legal systems which are fundamentally based on Common LAw not Napoleonic/Roman law.
Louisiana (and probably other states) have legal systems that have their roots in the Napoleonic code. That's how a hospital ended up owning the rights to G.A. Effinger's novels when he couldn't pay their bills.
Comments
Which given the generations of bad government Argentina has suffered plus the natural resources of Brazil is rather surprising.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/21/jeremyvine-paid-80000-running-commentary-scottish-referendum/
I bet the likes of Fat Head on Sky didn't get any extra dosh.
I am not advocating punitive rates (neither were Labour imo) but the fact is the country needs to either cut spending further (politically unacceptable imho) or raise the overall tax take to 40 to 45% of GDP (currently 37%). CT rates will have to play a part in the latter.
The Lusophone world (nice word, btw) is - to all intents and purposes - Brazil.
(Footnote to add: Mozambique has quite craptacularly large off-shore natural gas reserves. Enough, potentially, to make it a temporarily first world country.)
https://xkcd.com/1866/
The backward parts of Brazil are the North-Eastern states:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States_of_Brazil
How Brazil would have developed if it had split into two or three different countries is an interesting question.
And by far the most successful state is the Federal District, as the centres of government tend to.
From what I've been told by the Brazilians I've met I can fully understand why they've chosen to emigrate to Europe.
Here's your Francophone Canada:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56W_1lW3xsM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lusophone