The US is already the only major economy that is refusing to partake in OECD information sharing agreements. Both the US under President Trump and post-Brexit UK under Prime Minister May have strong tax haven inclinations and are poised to undermine the current wave of cooperation intended to prevent international personal tax abuse. Richard Murphy's Dirty Secrets: How Tax Havens Destroy the Economy establishes that tax havens are ubiquitous, that they must be regulated, and puts forward a vision of what the world could look like without them.
Dirty Secrets is 40% off until April 10 (midnight UTC).
Tax havens harm the economy. Not just any economy: every economy. That’s the argument I make in my new book ‘Dirty Secrets’.
Éric Aeschimann's interview with Sophie Wahnich was first published in L'obs on 23 March. Translated by David Broder.
From Danton (1983).
The last time that the French Revolution was the object of real public discussion was in 1989, with the bicentennial ceremonies staged by François Mitterrand, Jack Lang, and Jean-Paul Goude. Since then, there has been silence. Who today still refers to the Tennis Court Oath, the night of 4 August, the vote on the "Declaration of the Rights of Man" in 1793? At the Elysée [presidential place], 14 July has become the occasion for a presidential chatter where we speak more of political rehashes than of any revolutionary vision. And when leaders or intellectuals refer to the nation’s history, they cite the Resistance, the Popular Front, the Third Republic’s laws on laïcité and schooling, or even the Enlightenment. Rarely 1789. One exception was Manuel Valls’s allusion… to Marianne’s naked breasts. But things are starting to move. In autumn the philosopher Jean-Claude Milner published Rélire la Révolution, where he rehabilitates the project of universal justice asserted by the Revolution by way of the 1793 "Declaration of the Rights of Man." At the Amandiers theatre, Joël Pommerat has staged Ça ira (1) Fin de Louis, first part of a far-reaching depiction of the Constituent Assembly, which has encountered quite an echo around France. In June the film-maker Pierre Schoeller (L’Exercice de l’Etat) will shoot a film on this subject.
Most importantly, the Arab revolutions and the square occupations à la Indignados have shown that the time of popular movements may return. And together with this, crucial questions: how to avoid one-upmanship, chaos, violence? How to avoid returning to a worse state than before? The men of 1789 confronted these dilemmas already; it might be useful to see how they responded to them.
France’s second presidential debate took place over four hours last night, with all the candidates assembled together for a political debate for the first time in history. Sebastian Budgen walks us through the five leading contenders and the six other hopefuls making up these Real Humans.
Sebastian Budgen is an editor for Verso Books and serves on the editorial board of Historical Materialism.
The second French presidential debate took place yesterday, and could there be a better reason for staying up all night? It was the first occasion in which all eleven candidates were present, with equal speaking time (the whole thing lasted four hours and ended after midnight), so it had something of an “open mic night” character for the smaller pretenders, from the two right sovereigntyist groupuscules, via Jacques Cheminade of the LaRouchite cult, through to the far-left Nathalie Arthaud (of Lutte Ouvrière) and Philippe Poutou (Nouveau Parti Anticapitaliste).
This post first appeared on Christine Delphy's blog. Translated by David Broder.
Philippe Barbarin, Archbishop of Lyon.
Neither Jean-Luc Mélenchon nor Emmanuel Macron know what laïcité [French state secularism] is. So Mélenchon believes that "schooling" is subject to "laïcité." No: the teachers are, because they are state employees; but not the service users, the students themselves. Which is why the 2004 law banning the headscarf does not conform to the 1905 laïcité law. Macron seems to be unaware that the State Council declared the "anti-burkini" decrees issued by certain mayors last summer to be invalid; he claims that "some of these decrees are justified" since they "target not any cultural issue, but a matter of public order." What "public order" is this? Do the women who wear a burkini disturb public order? No. Rather, the men and women who insult them are disturbing public order; it is not the victims who ought to be penalised.