BBC NEWS | Politics | UK imposes Turks and Caicos rule.
The UK has imposed direct rule on the Turks and Caicos Islands after an inquiry found evidence of government corruption and incompetence.
The administration of the UK territory in the Caribbean has been suspended for up to two years and power transferred to the UK-appointed governor.
Which just proves these places operate under licence that can be withdrawn and have no true independence.
Take note Cayman, BVI, Jersey, Guernsey, Isle of Man et al.
And take note the rest of the world: the abuse these places still peddle is with the permission of London.
The pretence has been shot away. This is the reality.
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!
You have written erroneously on this topic before, Mr Murphy, and your latest posting is equally misleading. Yes, the UK has overall responsibility for the good governance of the Crown Dependencies and Overseas Territories – and yes, in extreme cases like the endemic corruption in Turks & Caicos, it has the final sanction of suspending (not dismantling, but suspending) home rule whilst reforms are put in place.
However, as I have pointed out before, the UK must operate in a manner acceptable to the international community – it cannot simply overrule democratic governments because it does not like the way they choose to govern. This would run directly contrary to the UN guidelines on decolonisation.
Similarly, as became apparent during the Troubles of the seventies, imposing direct rule on an unwilling population is a recipe for disaster. At the very least, the UK could expect widespread civil disobedience if it did so; at worst, a return to large scale terrorism.
Finally, all the Crown Dependencies and Overseas Territories have the option of independence on completion of a successful referendum; were the UK to overrule any of their governments without good reason, a domino effect would rapidly be created and many new microstates would come into emergence. Turks & Caicos itself had independence scheduled for 1982, with the full agreement of the UK government, provided that the pro-independence People’s Democratic Movement were re-elected in 1980. In fact, they lost the election and were replaced by the pro-UK Progressive National Party.
Richard
In the case of the Turks & Caicos Islands it seems a perfectly sound decision. Misick appears to have been totally corrupted by foreign property investors and any sense of good law had broken down completely.
Its always been the case that the British Government can intervene in exceptional cases to restore law and order. Nothing has changed in that respect. But I don’t think you are likely to see that happening in Jersey, Guernsey or the Isle of Man and I’m not aware that Cayman or the BVI or Bermuda have such problems either. The Turks problem was pretty extreme and British Government intervention seemed inevitable.
The system has done its job.
Does this perhaps explain the reason why the Isle of Man is now so anxious to secure independence from the Crown?
Rupert
You mean helping bring down the world’s financial system is not a threat to law and order?
Sill me for thinking it could be
Richard
Richard
Really ? So how much of a role did London and New York play then ? Should somebody take over running the US and UK as well ?