Colonialism isn't the best answer to tax dodging

Party like it's 1799.

An interesting point from Ed Conway's write-up of the G8's tax debates. It seems Germany and co aren't particularly happy with British Overseas Territories:

Moreover, it transpires that neither Germany or Russia wanted to sign up to some of the G8 pledges on tax evasion. Other countries remain less enthusiastic about the avoidance/evasion clampdown. Others remain sceptical about the UK’s motives – earlier this year Austria’s finance minister Maria Fekter said she laughed when she first heard George Osborne was focusing on tax.

“Great Britain has many money laundering centres and tax havens in its immediate legal remit – the Channel Islands, Gibraltar, the Cayman Islands, Virgin Islands.

“These are all hot spots for tax evasion and money laundering.”

It's similar to a line pushed domestically: the British overseas territories are British, so we should do something about them. It sounds less appealing when you phrase it as what it actually is: colonialism for the left.

The various islands left in the British Empire are, largely, independent. Britain takes responsibility for defence and foreign affairs, and the Home Office recommends the Queen on who to appoint as governor, but beyond that, they are self-determining. They have elected legislatures and heads of government, as well as their own courts systems (although appeals go to the Privy Council) Most of them would probably be fully independent by now – once decolonialisation began, it went along at a fair clip – except they're too small to realistically survive on their own.

You can be fairly sure, however, that if they did survive, and were made fully independent, their first act would probably not be to shrink their financial sectors. That's one of the few areas in which a small economy actually has a competitive advantage over bigger ones.

So what Austria wants is for the Britain to over-rule independent, elected governments and force them to follow policies which aren't in their best interest. I know the sun never set on the British Empire, but that's ridiculous.

Photograph: Getty Images

Alex Hern is a technology reporter for the Guardian. He was formerly staff writer at the New Statesman. You should follow Alex on Twitter.

New Statesman
Show Hide image

Quiz: Can you identify fake news?

The furore around "fake" news shows no sign of abating. Can you spot what's real and what's not?

Hillary Clinton has spoken out today to warn about the fake news epidemic sweeping the world. Clinton went as far as to say that "lives are at risk" from fake news, the day after Pope Francis compared reading fake news to eating poop. (Side note: with real news like that, who needs the fake stuff?)

The sweeping distrust in fake news has caused some confusion, however, as many are unsure about how to actually tell the reals and the fakes apart. Short from seeing whether the logo will scratch off and asking the man from the market where he got it from, how can you really identify fake news? Take our test to see whether you have all the answers.

 

 

In all seriousness, many claim that identifying fake news is a simple matter of checking the source and disbelieving anything "too good to be true". Unfortunately, however, fake news outlets post real stories too, and real news outlets often slip up and publish the fakes. Use fact-checking websites like Snopes to really get to the bottom of a story, and always do a quick Google before you share anything. 

Amelia Tait is a technology and digital culture writer at the New Statesman.