http://www.thehindu.com/2005/07/10/stories/2005071002301000....
As the painstaking statistical work of the Cambridge historian Angus Maddison has shown, India's share of world income collapsed from 22.6 per cent in 1700, almost equal to Europe's share of 23.3 per cent at that time, to as low as 3.8 per cent in 1952.
Indeed, at the beginning of the 20th Century, "the brightest jewel in the British Crown" was the poorest country in the world in terms of per capita income
Not sure how useful this statistic is - it's including the collapse of the Mughal Empire in the early 1700's. British company rule is usually dated around the mid-1700's, with the British Raj starting in the mid-1800's. We're also looking at percentage of the global economy, so it's not clear how much of this is a decline in the Indian economy and how much is it not growing as fast as other countries.
A State is the same as a company, except worse - they have an army and a monopoly on violence. After a war, when a king takes over, they tried to integrate with the new people, marry into them and in this way eventually begin to rule them. That began to change when people’s skin color was drastically different. The term Colonists was invented to convey how race got into the mix. The British were never a Raj (kings), they never ruled over India in the traditional sense of the word. They were colonists - they colonized and decimated the Indian economy.
Forget the economy, they decimated the population:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famine_in_India#Scholarly_opin...
(If you really want something to point fingers at, try the habits that stem from the cultural and religious landscapes. You can't erase millennia worth of those overnight.)
Europeans screwed over every single country they could.
British people could vote for European MPs. It's not like the UK was colonised by Europe.
There is devolution of sovereignty but you're gonna basically end up with that with the kind of trade pacts the EU demands anyways.
Lots of symbolism involved of course.
> The regulation is directly applicable in all EU countries. This means that it:
> - applies immediately as the norm in all EU countries, without needing to be transposed into national law,
> - creates rights and obligations for individuals and they can therefore invoke it directly before national courts,
> - can be used as a reference by individuals in their relationship with other individuals, EU countries or EU authorities.
It's like how the FCC can change regulations regarding radio usage without passing a law. You're just delegating rule-making
The deep irony of the anti-Brexit narrative is that the same people would froth at the mouth if you said "India would've been better off economically if it hadn't separated from the British Empire." Whether or not that's true, it's an argument--like the anti-Brexit rhetoric--misses the point completely.