The Observer has noted:
Britain is preparing to suspend the constitution of the Turks and Caicos Islands as a long-awaited inquiry is expected to find evidence that the country has been plagued by endemic corruption.
In what threatens to become an unedifying row over the scope of the government's obligations to its Commonwealth territories, the Observer has established that the Foreign Office has already prepared a statutory instrument giving parliament the power in effect to hand control of the Caribbean islands to the UK-appointed governor.
The tales of corruption seem real enough.
What’s significant here is the fact that the UK is so confident it can take over.
I am absolutely confident it can.
I am equally confident it could in the Crown Dependencies and Isle of Man.
But let’s be clear: that means that the corruption that their tax systems promote takes place with UK consent.
And as the House of Commons International Development Committee said recently, that too has to stop.
PS. What is incredible s the recent work of Paul Sagar: he shows here that this debacle was foreseen 40 years ago.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Respectfully, Mr Murphy, you have missed the point by a mile – as you usually do when writing about constitutional matters.
The UK has ultimate responsibility for the good governance of its Crown Dependencies and Overseas Territories. That, at least, is not in dispute. However, the UK does not operate in a vacuum and cannot conduct itself like a nineteenth-century imperial power. That is to say, any decision to suspend the constitution of a self-governing territory must be justifiable to the international community, within the constricts of the United Nation guidelines on Decolonisation.
In the case of Turks & Caicos, I believe that decision can be justified: high level corruption was genuinely endemic there, and a true climate of fear had been created. Secondly, and equally importantly, I believe that a significant proportion of the population there will welcome the decision, as it will enable the island to return to functioning democracy.
Irrespective of whether you like our respective governments, the Crown Dependencies are properly functioning democracies. The United Kingdom cannot simply overturn the result of our elections because it would prefer the islands to pursue different policies. Such action would not meet with the approval of the various populations, and would probably need to be enforced by military occupation. At best, this would result in widespread civil disobedience in the occupied territories; more likely, we would see a return to large-scale terrorist action on the mainland. Equally, the UK could expect little support from the international community, as it would find itself a pariah, and possibly subject to sanctions. Also, please consider the “domino effect” of such action: as the first territory was invaded, others would declare independence, as they are legally entitled to do, in short order.
Finally, you state that “the corruption that their tax systems promote takes place with UK consent”. Sorry, but I don’t think any of us is prepared to be lectured on financial probity by a UK Government led by a discredited Prime Minister who has fiddled his expenses, or a tax-evading Chancellor who kept his job purely by dint of knowing where the skeletons are buried.