I was rummaging through various links today and came to the UK Foreign Office White Paper on the Overseas Territories published in June 2012. This contains, on page 14, the following interesting statement in a section headed 'Our Constitutional Relationship':
The UK, the Overseas Territories and the Crown Dependencies form one undivided Realm, which is distinct from the other States of which Her Majesty The Queen is monarch. Each Territory has its own Constitution and its own Government and has its own local laws. As a matter of constitutional law the UK Parliament has unlimited power to legislate for the Territories.
I would add that I can see noi difference in the case of the Crown Dependencies.
In that case let's be clear; there is no reason to ask the consent of these tax havens for automatic information exchange, transparency, documents on public record or anything else. We can just legislate that they will do these things and the reason why is clear:
Governors or Commissioners are appointed by Her Majesty The Queen on the advice of Her Ministers in the UK, and in general have responsibility for external affairs, defence, internal security (including the police) and the appointment, discipline and removal of public officers. Elected governments have a wide range of responsibilities.
Tax information exchange is quite clearly an issue of external affairs: the UK's tax havens are not responsible for it; the UK is. This White Paper makes quite clear that local officials do not have authority on the issue. In that case it is time for the UK to act, now.
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:
Governors or Commissioners are appointed by Her Majesty The Queen on the advice of Her Ministers in the UK, and in general have responsibility for external affairs, defence, internal security (including the police) and the appointment, discipline and removal of public officers.
In Jersey, that means you get a retired Pongo, Matelot or Crab, who knows and does s*d-all about any of these things.*
When the States illegally suspended the Chief Constable over Haut de la Garenne in late 2008, the Lieut-Gov did nothing.
When the Diocese of Winchester went public with the failings of the Dean early this year (which led to a vulnerable young woman being kicked off the island with only the clothes she stood up in)§, the Lieut-Gov did nothing – and SPB has been exploiting this to attack the Bishop ever since.
*It says something that in Overseas Dependencies the post of Governor can go to a civilian, but not in Jersey or Guernsey. Why not? Are they afraid we might get someone competent?
§ In 1942, the Nazis deported civilians off the island – the difference was that they at least gave you time to pack a suitcase first.
Richard
Maybe you can’t “see a difference in the case of the Crown Dependencies” but I can assure you there is a difference. Check your history books.
But what exactly is your point? The Crown Dependencies have already committed to automatic exchange in case you’ve somehow missed the news of the last couple of weeks.
I know my history
And commitment is not the same as enacting
Richard
You have stated your incorrect interpretation of our constitution on many occasions. Your view differs from that of all learned commentators.
You should also be aware that the new information exchange obligations come into force in 2016 or later. Are you seriously suggesting that we should be attacked for not delivering on something which is not yet operative?
I quoted a very clear statement that unambiguously also applies to the CDs. We have and can legislate for you. That’s fact
And I do no trust you to deliver
No Richard, its not “fact” at all, and you know it. You have previously quoted (correctly) other documents abiut our constitutional relationship, even if your interpretation re those documents has also been wrong (although subjective).
I work in Guernsey and there are absolutely no grounds for you to assert that we will deliver. Are you mixing us up with Jersey once again? I suggest you wait until 2017/18 before you can comment on whether we are comp,ying with something which comes into force in 2016.
Your comment is rather like an announcement that the speed limit will be lowered in 2016 but you want to convict us now because you believe that we will break that limit once it becomes effective.
You may differ from my opinion
That does not make my opinion wrong
Writing something in a Government White Paper doesn’t make it an absolute certainty. I am sure there are many Government White Papers that contain “facts” you would dispute and there will be other people that dispute the particular line you have quoted.
It isn’t really clear anyway because the phrase says the Governors or Commissioners “in general” have responsibility.
As you have pointed out many times before the main power the UK has over the Crown Dependencies is economic, but that probably applies far less to places further afield.
I think the statement is clear
Acts of the UK Parliament can be, and are, extended to the Crown Dependencies through an Order In Council. Basically, on the recommendation of the Cabinet. See, for example, the Communications Act 2003, which allows the BBC to collect television licence fees from the islands, and Ofcom to issue licences for ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5 and digital TV services generally to operate in the islands.
There is an unwritten convention that such extension is only done with the agreement of the local parliament, for most matters, but the fact is that the Crown Dependencies do not have the full powers of an independent member of the Commonwealth. The Queen remains your head of state and head of government, and anything law you (and we) pass is only a law because it passes her approval. However, for all matters regarding the UK, the Crown Dependencies, and the Overseas Territories, her approval is subject to the ‘advice’ of the Privy Council of the United Kingdom. The UK Cabinet is technically a committee of the Privy Council, and takes all the decisions regarding legislation (there are non-Cabinet members of the PC, such as leaders of the opposition parties, but it’s more or less a courtesy title). As a constitutional monarch she is effectively forced to follow that formal advice, lest Parliament decide to revolt, although there are certainly hints that she and other senior royals have been consulted informally before any formal meeting.
In contrast, nations like Canada and Australia have their own Privy Councils in which their respective Governors sit and act, but again these are constitutional governors who effectively do the bidding of their respective Privy Councils.
Agreed – that’s what happened by convention
That does not prevent law being imposed
Agreed and I think we should legislate for them as you propose. But what Bermuda is saying is that if UK reins them in, they’ll go for independence. And presumably it’s in our unwritten constitution that we would respect that.
Which begs the questions: would the finance sector be content to see Bermuda, Cayman, BVI, etc as independent mixro states which they can totally control? Or do they want the British Govt’s umbrella at some level? And are we as tax reformers better off with them inside the UK? Or does it make no difference if they went independent?
They rely on UK courts at the end of the day
No one would trust the local cronies without that oversight
A number of now independent territories of the UK still make use of the Privy Council, so independence wouldn’t necessarily lead to the loss of that route.
Then we’d have to make sure it did
Is the UK government, perhaps, indulging in two well loved English pastimes of charades and farce? Has the (tax) Inspector called yet? 😉
Well the Isle of Man is getting on rather swimmingly with the UK just now:
Manx Radio headline just today: UK relationship ‘maturing’ – Sir Alan Beith
http://www.manxradio.com/newsread.aspx?id=65940
The UK has been very nice to us for quite some years and so I am proud to say the Isle of Man is ridding itself the name as some sort of pariah state territory. We like the UK and they like us. True it has cost the UK quite a few £billion in extra VAT handouts to make us cosy but what price friendship and information exchange and all that?
You’re saying you respond to blackmail?
It’s not blackmail. We, the Isle of Man, were showered – probably in error or something – with many £100millions over the years from the divying up of the VAT Common Purse.
The UK have been nice to us by not taking the overpayment back (thank you folks) and I don’t think they could anyway as the mistake was as much on their part. So the middle ground is that we, the Isle of Man, are now happy to be nice back.
So we are all friends and happy with life and compliant, sort of thing. Well I think most of us over here on the Isle of Man certainly are now we have very nicely lined our nests, thank you.
No one did more to end that than me, you might recall
But, but Mr Teare reckons we’re skint, you ask him he’ll tell you.
He’s very good you know, takes the Daily Wail every morning and sets about implementing it’s vision with alacrity.
“Why are we asking the British tax havens to reform themselves when the Foreign Office says we can impose new law on them?”
Simple – it would involve kicking many of Dave’s paymasters in the nuts, and he’s never going to allow that.
Cat got your tongue today Richard?
http://www.jerseyfinance.je/valuetobritain
I think not