There is much heated debate on this blog, quite often, about the true status of the Crown Dependencies. I argue that they are just that — dependencies of the UK with which they UK toys. So long as they do pretty much what is expected of them then the UK lets them think they are self governing. Rather like (in fact very like) town councils are self governing so long as they stick to the rules.
But, those from the Crown Dependencies argue they’re full blown independent locations and that they owe no loyalty and have no tie to the UK — being linked merely through the Crown.
So it’s interesting to note the forward to a new report, issued this week, from the Ministry of Justice that responds to a Parliamentary report on the Crown Dependencies issued earlier this year. This report says:
The Crown Dependencies (Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man) have their own democratically elected governments responsible for setting policy, passing laws and determining each Island’s future. They have an important relationship with the United Kingdom because of their status as dependencies of the British Crown but they are not part of the United Kingdom nor, except to a limited extent, the European Union. They are not represented in the UK parliament and UK laws do not ordinarily extend to them without their consent.
My emphasis added. Not ordinarily, maybe; but possible, most certainly. As this confirms:
The United Kingdom respects each Crown Dependency’s laws and policies as the expression of the will of a democratic government with the power of self-determination. The UK government is responsible for the Crown Dependences’ international relations and ultimate good governance and has the commensurate power to ensure these obligations are met. Whilst the UK does not require the Crown Dependencies’ policies to closely mirror those of the UK, the UK will look to resolve anything which appears to be fundamentally contrary to current UK principles or interests with the Crown Dependency concerned.
Again, my emphasis added — but if this is not a statement that says the UK will interfere as and when it sees fit, I’m not sure what is.
In other words, as long as the Crown Dependencies play the game the UK wants the pretence of independence is allowed to continue. But that’s what it is. Which also makes the UK responsible for the abuse they promote, by the way. For as I’ and others have long argued, these places are just branches of the City of London for all practical purposes.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
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!
Whilst much of what you say is factually correct, I do find some of your phraseology truly odd — I particularly like the image of the UK “toying” with the Crown Dependencies (this brings to mind a psychopathic James Bond villain stroking his white cat).
The reality is similar to one of your phrases, but significantly different: “so long as they do what is required under their international obligations, then the UK treats them as self-governing”.
A case in point where the UK could have intervened, and very nearly did, was the extremely silly campaign in the Isle of Man in the early nineties to retain homosexuality as a crime. For a start, the law wasn’t actually enforced — there were openly gay people here, including those in high-profile positions, and prosecutions only resulted in cases of importuning or public indecency, which were adequately covered by other legislation.
Nonetheless, certain politicians here saw this as an opportunity to raise their profile by opposing the UK and EU’s wishes. The UK threatened to overrule Tynwald unless the legislation was amended — as it was entitled to do, since the Isle of Man had expressly agreed to be bound by the European Convention on Human Rights, which prohibited this kind of discriminatory legislation.
However, your comparison with local authorities is a classic case of reductio ad absurdum. Local authorities do not have the right to pass primary legislation, nor to levy direct (or in the case of the Channel Islands, indirect as well) taxation, nor to hold a binding referendum on independence should their interests significantly conflict with the UK Government’s.
@ Richard.
But of COURSE. As I have said before here (for instance copied below from long ago on your CI VAT abuse thread), there is no way that the financial sector infrastructure on the Islands is wholly conceived by them. Do you really think in your wildest dreams that we are running rings around HMG and the combined brains of London are too stupid to see it? We aren’t THAT clever for God’s sake. No. It isn’t the Islands you should be picking on if you want to stop it. Look closer to home. As i said “The Islands are just the whores…….” But don’t hold your breath; you are taking on the people who own the world. As for the Islands, if there is a living to be made then what do you expect them to do? Maybe we have to have OUR tax havens lest the capital all clears off to THEIR (whoever’s) tax havens. Obama still said nothing about Delaware to my knowledge.
FROM VAT ABUSE THREAD MAY 2010.
Richard Allen :
@woolley
I have it on good authority that The UK Government is holding some money that should go back to Jersey (something to do with recent changes re the Financial Industry) and it could be that they are turning a blind eye to this as it generates income for the Island, and too losses would be too much in one go. I have it on good authority from the same person that Gordon Brown threatened to cut the phone lines to the Islands over a tax avoidance issue. I’m not a fan of GB or his social engineering politics but he gets a plus point for that one if its true.
===========================
Well yes. Bully for him, but it doesn’t help us or alleviate the unfairness to traders trying to compete legally with these imports. I could well believe your source about HMG turning a blind eye and I think it goes a lot further than that. As an observer of Manx politics and the relationship with the UK for many years, I am of the firm opinion that all of these things are stitched up between HMG and the island governments on behalf of the people who really own the country and it suits all sides in a much wider sense. For instance, HMG would rather have the tax havens at its side and under its control (yes they ARE despite what both sides will protest to the contrary), feeding the city of London machine, looking after the interests of the powerful and giving them big tax breaks rather than have the capital clear off to the other side of the world. The Islands are simply the whores who get a living out of it and it’s better than eating spuds and herring. In real politic everyone’s at it. For instance, for all his anti tax evasion rhetoric, what has Obama done about Delaware? Not a lot from what I can tell.
@Iliam Dhone
The reference to a local authority was not absurd
Westminster can take over whenever it likes is my point
And can you declare UDI?
Who says so?
Where has the UK agreed?
@Richard Murphy
We could run a referendum on independence any time we chose to, just like any other dependant territory in the past and the UK would respect the result. It would hardly be an appealing prospect financially though would it?
Well, yes and no — Westminster could theoretically suspend the constitution of one of the Crown Dependencies or Overseas Territories, but that does not mean it can “take over whenever it likes”. It has to be able to justify its actions to (a) the international community and (b) the residents of the territory concerned. In the case of Turks & Caicos, it was able to do so: the country’s political elite was clearly highly corrupt, and needed to be replaced. Even in this instance, Westminster did not assume direct control and annex the islands as part of the UK, but simply empowered the Governor to rule directly until fresh democratic elections could be held.
Why did it take this course of action? First, because annexing the islands would internationally have been viewed as a coup d’?©tat (which is exactly what the deposed politicians insisted it was). Secondly, the locals would not have accepted it — there would have been widespread civil disobedience and/or rioting. Remotely governing a population that does not want to be remotely governed has serious consequences, as the UK discovered in Northern Ireland between the early seventies and the mid-nineties.
Also, where does UDI enter into this? An agreed mechanism exists between the United Kingdom and the Crown Dependencies and Overseas Territories that the constitutional link may be severed following a successful referendum on the matter. This mechanism was used to ensure the independence of numerous British Crown Colonies between the fifties and the seventies, and at one point Turks & Caicos came close to implementing such a referendum (but it had a change of government, from a pro-independence to a pro-British party). The only reason that Rhodesia, for instance, was forced to declare UDI was that its then-government could not win a universal referendum, partly because the country was not a true democracy (only around 5% of inhabitants had the vote, the vast majority being white).
Richard
When the UK joined the EEC as it then was, we were offered our independence. It is a standing understanding that should our government be able able to show to Her Majesty that a majority of our people wish to be independent then it would be so. The same goes for Guernsey and the IOM.
I read the MoJ response to the Justice Committee report as indicating that (presumably because of UK cuts) we will increasingly be left to self-govern and act independently (“entrusted”) on the international stage so long as we don’t screw up. We will need to be very careful that we don’t.
Love The Girrl
@Iliam Dhone
I’m not suggesting it would take over “whenever it likes”
But when the back stop is there let’s not pretend two things a) that there is real independence and b) that you operate without the tacit support of the UK
Which makes the UK responsible for the abuse you promote
@Jersey Girrl
I’m aware you have reason to know about these things
Is that agreement from 1973 in writing?
Of course I know about the 1973 clauses – but does it actually say what you suggest – or is it what you were led to believe? The UK has liked you to believe a lot of things, remember, including that zero ten met EU requirements – and they were wrong
And I agree – as in the previous comment – of course you can self govern is you don’t in the eyes of Westminster “screw up” – but that therefore means you simply exercise power devolved from Westminster at the end of the day – as I have always argued. That’s the real-politik
And it also says the tax haven / secrecy jurisdiction is also operated with the permission and support of Westminster
Which rightly means they have to accept a fair part (but not all) the blame for it
Don’t you agree?
Best
Richard
Richard,
I think the “real-politik” of the West these days is that if any island or region wanted to declare itself independent, provided that decision had democractic legitimacy, it would be able to.
If Sicily or Corsica or Catalonia or the Ile de Re or Cornwall (or, more likely, Scotland or California) had a democractic referendum on independence and voted in favour, do you really think the army would be sent in to stop them? Or are you really suggesting that if Scotland had a referendum on independence Westminster wouldn’t be bound to accept the result?
So I think both realpolitik and common sense are in favour of greater independence from central rule rather than less.
@mad foetus
I note that you mention Catalonia but not another region of Spain that has been more vocal in its demands for independence! I am not convinced Spain would allow such a referendum. I am not convinced that in practice regional independence is so easily won.
@James from Durham
And candidly – I really don’t think a referendum, even if won for independence, in Northern Ireland would give rise to a peaceful departure from the Uk either
I really don’t think these issues are as some are representing here
Hey even UK MP’s want the UK to emulate the IOM economy 😆
http://www.iomtoday.co.im/news/politics/tory_tells_uk_to_follow_manx_example_1_2740595
Not agreement as such – officer and minister bilateral discussions – stored in the archive here and in London.
The UK has little responsibility for what we do. It would take corruption as in TCI for them properly to intervene.
The Girrl
@Jersey Girrl
Ah, no agreement then. Just a discussion at the time
So things are then as I suggest
And actually, I think you’re agreeing. After all, definitions of corruption change over time
@Creg
Ah, so Mark Field wants us to run a massive deficit which is running out of control
How very odd
But then, he is
@Richard Murphy
Er. Thats what you were doing before the election. (And it will take generations to clear up).
@woolley
Politely – that’s utter nonsense
With a sensible growth policy now – the sort Martin Wolf of the FT endorses – we’d be out of deficit in almost no time at all
Our problem is neoliberalism, not the deficit
Same with tax havens in that respect
Another utterly false neoliberal construction masquerading as wealth generating when doing the exact opposite
Euro falls as debt woes resurface in region; at 1-month lows vs pound … – International Business Times…
We have added a Trackback to your article on the Bank Informer….
[…] This is absurd advice. Firstly — when as Hay recommends Jersey must remain part of the UK (he argued against independence) Jersey has no choice on this issue. […]