A REPORT suggesting there is nothing to stop the Channel Islands from becoming independent sovereign states is to be considered today.
A meeting of the three Crown Dependencies – Guernsey, Jersey and the Isle of Man – will discuss an 83-page document looking at a possible ‘go it alone’ approach.
The release of the report, by Jersey’s Constitution Review Group, appears to have caught Guernsey’s authorities by surprise. Despite the significance of the group’s conclusions, that there is nothing to be feared from breaking the 800-year link with the UK and its implications for Guernsey should Jersey do just that, no official Guernsey line had been prepared.
Asked about the report yesterday, Chief Minister Lyndon Trott (pictured) said he had not yet looked at it in detail. However, he is today attending a meeting between the Crown Dependencies in the Isle of Man and said that the paper would be on the agenda at the meeting when its conclusions would be discussed.
Jersey’s Constitution Review Group concluded that there is no insurmountable obstacle to it becoming independent.
Deputy Dave Jones, a member of the Policy Council’s external relations group, says that the same is true of Guernsey.
And he saw nothing for Guernsey to fear in Jersey’s capacity to go it alone. ‘It would be difficult to think of a situation in which Jersey would ever do that,’ said Deputy Jones.
‘I certainly don’t think it would happen anytime soon. It’s also difficult to see how Jersey would do that on its own.
‘If there was a move towards complete independence, then it would be more likely the Channel Islands would do it as one complete unit.’
Jersey’s review group, headed by Bailiff Sir Philip Bailhache, has also costed the independence route – an initial capital cost of £3m. and annual running costs of about £11.3m.
The document is a blueprint, outlining what would need to be done if ever the island felt forced into independence.
Jersey States chief executive Bill Ogley said it amounted to an insurance policy should it become necessary, to safeguard island interests, to break away from the UK.
Article posted on 30th June, 2008 - 2.30pm
Loading ...
19 Article Comments
I feel that the Channel Islands should of become independent long ago. There are so many rules and regulations which we as channel islanders have to comply to purely on the basis that the UK have the same. It would also boost the tourist industry, as Europeans would start to loose the association with England. The English would also feel like they were actually “abroad”. We would be able to flourish and stand alone. The past 800 years has been successful but now is the time to stand up and stand alone.
Why doesn’t thisisguernsey.com put dates on their articles?
It makes it impossibble to see what order they have been written in.
Such an obvious point that the dates must have been omitted deliberately. Which makes it look realy silly!
The date appears in the bar below the ‘Have Your Say’ box.
Perhaps it could be more prominent, though…
The States is right to at least consider independence - albeit as an option of last resort.
There are, I feel, currently several distinct threats to our economy and way of life.
For better of worse we have put nearly all of our eggs in one basket by relying so very heavily on the finance industry as the mainstay of our economy. It has been a successful strategy, however the UK Treasury now has its own ‘black hole’ to fill and the (perfectly legitimate) money passing through the Channel Islands is eyed hungrily by the Exchequer. Complete independence would not necessarily stop our being a financial target but it would at least take us completely out of the UK Treasury’s reach.
The UK government is, it seems, also increasingly subservient to the EU. It is apparent that the EU wants to stamp out what it perceives as unfair tax practices (witness the current attacks on the Swiss and Leichtenstein financial centres). It is only a matter of time before the EU turns its attentions toward other offshore centres and it will no doubt exert considerably pressure on the UK to “do something” about the Channel Islands. A declaration of independence would distance us from the UK and would offer a (admittedly limited) degree of protection.
Finally, and less tangibly, I personally feel that the subtleties of our Guernsey way of life are increasingly being eroded by the adoption of UK cultural values. There was a time when islanders enjoyed a relatively “laid back” lifestyle, whereas now we slavishly follow the UK in banning everything that gives us pleasure. Independence may allow us to think about what we want rather than what we “ought to do”.
I don’t think it is just luck that has made the island so succesful in economic terms. Guernseymen and women tend to be ‘canny’ and adaptable business people and, in the main, they still retain a an inherent ability to work hard and adapt to new conditions. As and independent island state who knows what we could achieve with those qualities.
Rob learn to read.
it clearly says the date and even a time underneath.
‘This article posted on June 30, 2008 at 2:30 pm, filed under News.’
CD
Those UK attitudes have arrived because Guernsey has been ‘canny’ to follow a path of get rich quick. The external authorities wouldn’t be so jumpy if they knew we were transparent and honest with our dealings. But we cannot be, and so it will always be threatened. There is nothing canny about hoarding the proceeds of crime. Maybe not as prevalent as it used to be, and certainly not on the same scale as the Swiss, or indeed our Jersey friends, but nonetheless secrecy and the accompanying tax avoidance are not to be celebrated. Note for the majority of the world.
on the issue of independence i think it would be totally wrong for guernsey to break with britain. it would be a denial of guernseys history and culture which has been british for a very long time,my parents were here during the occupation and always told us were british and proud of being so.its strange that the states has many members that were born in england that would allow this to happen,could it be a vested financial self interest? .if they are foolish enough to go through with such rubbish then i for one am not going to give up my british citizenship to a group of right wing looneys.
Interesting comments from Lawrence and Paul.
Don’t get me wrong - I too am a Guernseyman (my parents were evacuees and memebrs of my family have fought in two world wars in the British forces) and I too take pride in being British. Independence should, as I have said, only be considered as as an absolute last resort.
My point is that we have - like it or not- committed ourselves overwhelmingly to a dependence on the finance industry as the basis to our economy. Whether you work directly in the finance sector, or whether you are a builder, shopkeeper, car dealer or whatever - your livelyhood would be devastated if the finance industry was shut down by the UK (or by pressure on the UK from the EU).
Lawrence, I agree that the ethics of offshore finance are often dubious to say the least - but it is not true to say we are dealing in the proceeds of crime. Guernsey is way ahead of the UK and most other places in terms of the regulation of its finacial services sector.
I suppose what I am trying to say is that without the finance industry the island would have very long dole queues. I am old enough to remember a time in the seventies when the tomato industry collapsed and before finance took off when a great many islanders were out of work. I for one would not want to return to those days.
If (and it is still an if) the UK and EU decided to “shut down” our finance industry then we could either let it happen and watch the island turn become like a former pit village - or we could consider independence. It is not about vested self-interest, it is about the interests of every Guernseyman.
As regards the concept of Britishness - yes I too would rather remain a British citizen. I have always felt we were very lucky in Guernsey to be able to determine our own destiny while at the same time remaining loyal to the crown. What has changed however is that the EU and the UK government no longer seems happy to let us decide our own destiny and is exerting increasing pressure on us to fall into line with their demands.
Britishness yes - but subservience to the EU and UK governments worries me and that is why I think the States are right to at least discuss independence.
CD
Independence is a must with New Labour that never protects the Islands and would sell the Islands down the river at the drop of a hat with their great friends the EU. Going it alone could give Guernsey a voice on many tables in the World where as at present every little law has to be sanctioned by the Privy Council.
When New Labour was elected in 1997 many Conservative Politicians on
>radio and through the papers declared that if they were in power they
>would not have cooperated with the EU Code of Conduct for tax and
>impose measures that would hurt the Channel Islands.
>
>With the advent of David Cameron I feel a local Politician should ask the
>Conservative party if they get into power will they retract the measures
>forced on the Channel Islands badly defended by the local Politicians if the answer is no go for independence.
When Graham Mather then Conservative MEP warned the Islands the local Politicians claimed
>he was scaremongering and nine years later it is a reality and now could
>bring great hardship to local people in 2008 with both Islands facing large
>black holes.
>
>Somebody should remind both parties that the second largest flow into the
>City of London is from the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man and vital for Britain’s interests. An article that appeared in Christopher Booker’s notebook brought to everybody’s attention again how irrelevant Britains Parliament actually is.
Proved beyond doubt by Bill Cash in his amendment for Politicians to reverse the treaty which gives the EU law primacy in every respect over Parliament
MPs stand firm on their own irrelevance
The spectacle of 311 MPs endorsing Gordon Brown’s lie that the Lisbon Treaty is not a repackaged version of the EU’s rejected constitution - to justify breaking the promise of a referendum on which they were all elected - was degrading. But there is just one faint argument that might be used to support the claim that nothing about this treaty is significantly new.
As anyone realises who has read the long succession of European treaties (which I would bet doesn’t include more than two or three MPs), they have been a constitution in the making for 50 years. The original Treaty of Rome set up institutions for a supranational “government of Europe”, which was always intended to take over more and more of the powers of member states until the process was complete. The new treaty merely marks another significant step in that process, enabling the EU to take its place on the world stage as a government in its own right.
For 35 years, as our MPs have given away ever more of their powers to decide the laws that govern Britain, the only reason that more people have not realised how far the process has gone is that our politicians have been so anxious to hide the extent of the power they have already surrendered.
Our loss of the right to govern ourselves has been shrouded in such layers of obfuscation and deceit that most
of our politicians no longer even realise how dishonest this has made them.
There was a vivid little example last week from David Miliband. Explaining on the Today programme why it was right not to keep that promise of a referendum, he said that it was the job of Parliament “to scrutinise legislation and then decide whether or not to pass it”. “This,” he said, “is what we pay MPs for.”
In fact, for years there has been no better illustration of the humiliating impotence to which Parliament has been reduced than this “scrutiny” charade, whereby MPs perfunctorily consider the endless flood of EU laws that they cannot influence.
On Thursday, for instance, there was much excitement over the discovery that the manufacturers of an anti-depressant drug, Seroxat, could not be taken to court for concealing evidence that it might drive people to suicide, thanks to a glaring loophole in the law. But the reason this law was so ill-drafted was that it emanated from the EU bureaucracy, as health minister Dawn Primarolo tacitly admitted. Thus the British Parliament no longer has the power to amend it. The only way it can be changed is for Ms Primarolo to plead her case with our real government in Brussels.
This was only one of thousands of new laws each year which have supposedly been “scrutinised” by MPs. Why should they notice the loopholes when they no longer have any power to change the laws? If Mr Miliband argues that this is what MPs are paid for, his own logic suggests that they should no longer be paid for a job they cannot do.
MPs conceded as much themselves on Thursday, when Bill Cash moved an amendment to reverse the provision of the treaty which gives EU law primacy in every respect over the will of Parliament. Only 50 MPs supported it, including 41 Tories - against the wishes of their party’s leadership. The rest were happy to accept that the Parliament to which they belong should no longer rule this country.
Dominic, is that the same beloved Tory party that gave us the Maastricht Treaty, a far more powerful treaty than Lisbon, without a referendum? The only reason that some Tories defend the role of the CIs is that they own property , cash and influence over here. Independent or not, we would not be able to operate as a Finance hub without conforming to global rules.
As for political independence, are we willing to remain a backwater forever? No human rights regs, no minimum wage, no discrimination laws? What right do we have to be able to stop human progress?
EU controlled, UK controlled, whoever, it makes not one jot of difference for the public, only for those vainglorious enough to think they are important on the global stage. Which we are clearly not.
If we were to gain independence we (that is to say the people of Guernsey) would be free to implemenent our own human rights rules, minimum wage legislation and discrimination laws - rather than have them imposed on us by an external government.
(Whether the States of Guernsey would be competent enough to do this fairly and in the best interests of the people is another issue - but hey, you get what you vote for).
And yes, we would be pretty insignificant on the global stage, but then again we are pretty insignificant now. The question is do we want to be insignificant and self determined or insignificant and told what to do by others?
CD Said “Lawrence, I agree that the ethics of offshore finance are often dubious to say the least - but it is not true to say we are dealing in the proceeds of crime. Guernsey is way ahead of the UK and most other places in terms of the regulation of its finacial services sector.”
So we are way ahead. But way ahead of what? The very nature of our primary industry demands secrecy. Until these immoral boubdaries are legislated against, Guernsey will always be seen as a ‘haven’ for illicit deposits. Despite the best words from the GFSC and GIBA and lord knows who else has a vested interest, the fact remains that funds, probably billions, reside here from the proceeds of nefarious underetakings. No one can reassure me otherwise. Therefore we are complicit to crime. Knowingly.
Only through hard nosed legislation and a striving for complete transparency can we end the speculation. Of course no one in power will ever make this a reality. But what does that tell us? That making money is more important than the suffering of innocents half way around the globe.
We are in a unique position to set up a raft of ethically based investment funds, but all we care about is how much money and consumer objects we can stuff in our maws before the the yoghurt hits the fan.
Our society has rotted due to these tendencies. Disenfranchised youths, our necessities to keep us in our old age, prefer to be elsewhere, or are too uneducated due to the anachronistic system here, to care.
As long as they can drunk and earn a wage as a temp, then so what?
There is no vision in Guernsey. At least when the toilers were in charge we knew where we stood, poor but determined. Rather that than rampsnt wastage and societal degeneration.
As usual Lawrence you have your left wing views and not much understanding of how things were prior to 1997 when the Islands were free and were backed to make their own decisions .The global pressure you are talking about was only applied with the blessing of New Labour backing the OECD and the EU to put great pressures on the Islands lucky for the Channel Islands Clinton was deposed and the new administration would have no part on haranguing the Islands .
Many times I often wonder why you live on an Island which you seem to despise on how they earn most of their revenue. You work for a company in the finance industry and pass many disparaging remarks about the industry you owe your livelihood.
Gordon Brown and Richard Murphy would be proud of you supporting their non stop pressures that would like to see the Channel Islands in ruins.
All the hard times at present are due to your friends in the Labour party make no mistake about it the day New Labour came in was a bad day for Britain the Dependencies and the Overseas territories.
If New Labour had not come into office a Conservative Government would not have let the EU get past first base please get your head round that fact.
Dominic. What? Like the Maastricht Treaty!!! ANd wasn’t it Heath that got us in there in the firsdt place!! Complete revisionism I’m afraid…
No one wants to see the ‘Channel Islands in ruins’, that’s the kind of alarmist nonsense that Giba played on at the elections. What we need is a proactive stance to any possible misdemeanours happening in our branch of global finance. If that means weeding out several high net worth deposits and closing doors on the more esoteric tax avoidance schemes, then so be it. I would rather be a poorer island with strong ethics than a rich (for the few) island with morally corruptible politicians and decision makers.
Interestingly, at a time when the G8 are wasting everybody’s time, no mention is being made of the trillions that are leached out of national borders by the legal scams that benefit only a tiny minority of the global population, whilst at the detriment to millions of the poorest people in the world. You seem to think that this is acceptable behaviour in the 21st century. I do not. And really, what does my place of employment have to do with what opinions I hold? It’s a free country, freer for the fact that European legislations are balancing out the powers for employees and family rights.
The ‘little people’ care not who they are governed by, they only care about having a job and putting food on the table. Whether directives are issued by the tainted Mr Trott, or by a face in a suit in Brussels means nothing to me, and nor does it a vast swathe of the UK population. You only have to look at turn outs for DEMOCRATICALLY elected MEPs, nobody cares.
We must progress beyond petty tribalism, when indeed the drivers for that tribalism come from external forces themselves (Murdoch et al).
Oh, and another thing CD. Are you saying you’d rather be ruled like they are in Jersey. Rife nepotism and secrecy to the point of dictatorship? No recourse to justice against the state and no outlet for any opposition? Can’t wait for it to happen in Guernsey if the Big Money Boys have their way….
Lawrence as usual a long ramble about nothing. Stick to the Independence debate the Islands should be free as they were under the Conservatives or get out and away from constant interference.
Well said C D.
And for your information please find details of some of your friend Mr Brown’s mismanagement which was passed to me recently In his term as Chancellor he took over a good economy and over the years first put massive pressure on the Channel Islands who have the second largest flow of money into the City of London and now facing tough times. He has made Britain uncompetitive, high net worth individuals are leaving in their droves and coming in the other way are mostly people with their hand out for the British taxpayer to foot the bill. The so called iron Chancellor has brought this country to its knees. Fourteen year old schoolboys could have done a better job than this perpetual meddler.
1. Raid on pensions
2. Selling of gold reserves at lowest price and announcing it before selling which forced the price down.
3. Introduction of HIP’S at a time when the housing market is floundering which put the cost of £500 to every seller and has no interest to mortgage companies.
4.10% tax level eradicated and new route to compensate with tax credits which will cost a fortune on administration costs.
5. No referendum on treaty which again will be a financial disaster
6. Not being competitive with company tax which is forcing companies to re locate to other countries
7 .Student fees on education
8. Highest debt level in Europe
9. Council tax doubled and more in some areas since 1997
10. Full rates charged since April on commercial empty buildings.
11. Very large contribution for all London Boroughs on rates for Olympics
12. New car tax on old cars which will cost an extra £200 to poorer families
13. Tax on dividends on Isa’s and Peps introduced
14. Very high tax on petrol highest in Europe
15.No change on threshold levels on stamp duty although house prices have become nearly out of reach of first time buyers
16. Inheritance tax bands have hardly been increased despite massive increases on house prices over eleven years.
17. Most complicated tax scheme in Europe.
18.Congestion charges highest in the World on a very wide band in London with hardly any difference to traffic jams
19. Small businesses badly affected by congestion charges on borders of entry.
20. To much red tape for businesses of all sizes
Dominic
Brown is no friend of mine. Having help sell the politicl Left’s sould down the river, he maintains his attack on the working man. Don’t confuse my leanings with that of neo Thatcherism.
Your list highlights the paucity of right wing economic ideology. Quick bucks for the rich with sticking plasters for the poor. Think again, Dominic, the Tories would have done no different, except they would double the prices on everything. Boris Johnson has already doubled the travelling price for OAPs and other vulnerables in London.
As for independence: Guernsey was a backwater before Finance came along. The advent of multinats brought in outside influence. If you want independence, lose the industry, else you’ll always be in thrall to the CEOs and the other ‘wealth generators’. Surely you don’t want to return to the times of primary Ormering and Seaweed gathering, eh?
Dominic - forgive me, but UK party politics are only an issue in this discussion to the extent that decisions made by Parliament may affect Guernsey.
I take your underlying point that a Labour administration is likely to be more aggressive in it’s attacks on our finance industry but, to be perfectly honest, I am not sure I would trust any UK government to always act in the best interests of the people of Guernsey…
…which leads me back to the crux of the matter - if, as seems to be the case, the UK and EU governments (of whatever hue) intend to take a stronger controlling interest in our affairs then maybe we should consider independence.
Lawrence, I am certainly not advocating a secretive dicatorship. If we were forced to go down the road to independence then it would be up to the people of Guernsey to ensure that the self-governing structure that we adopted was fair and democratic.
I do feel there is a commonly held and rather paranoid delusion that our Island government is controlled by some secret cartel of “Big Money Boys” as you call them. Looking back at the list of candidates in the last States election they were overwhelmingly local people and I suspect that most of them do genuinely want to make a positive difference to the lives of Islanders. (The competence of some of them to do so is questionable but that is another issue).
You talk about the “little people” only caring about having a job and putting food on the table. If by “little people” you are referring to the working classes of Guernsey (sorry, a very outdated phrase but I can’t think of another one) I think you underestimate the intelligence of those individuals.
The fact is that the finance industry provides jobs and (directly or indirectly) puts food on the table of the vast majority of Islanders whatever their “class”. Whether or not you think of it as moral prostitution is nether here nor there, if we do not protect the finance industry - by declaring independence if necessary - then we will risk destroying those jobs.
Lawrence, your ethical standpoint is understandable (though I cannot fully agree with it) but, from your perspective, which is the better ethical option?: 1) Get rid of the finance industry and help the starving millions (which won’t work as the money will just go to Cayman or wherever)- while at the same time causing redundancies in Guernsey on a scale that Margaret Thatcher would have been proud of or; 2) Keep the finance industry, try to regulate it as best you can and keep a stable economy for the Island ?
Its a tough call however you look at it.
CD
No doubt about it. Keep the Finance industry, but be a world leader in ethical investments, transparency, and social business. Attach profits to local community infrastructure, incentivise the young by making them see that a career in Finance is helping the entire Island (not just the dry Giba figures of underlying tax revenue and, ahem, Golf flag sponsorship).
We have the skills here but there is no political will to be in the slightest bit progressive. We are stuck in some eighties dream where greed is good and to hell with the consequences.
Independence wil be Guernsey’s ruin, much faster than from external sources. We rely on certain aspects of the EU and UK links. Force their hand and we will be paying for otherwise free exchanges. Take their tax money and weep. No, I believe in the opposite. More integration with Europe, smarter working in Finance, make us look like a leader rather than a cork bobbing in the Channel at the whim of the elements.