GUERNSEY’S chief minister is poised to sign an understanding with the UK based on its centuries-old constitutional relationship with the Crown - yet the document is either a material weakening of the island’s autonomy or an expensive and pointless PR exercise.
Worse, it remains unclear where the drive for the framework for developing the international identity of Guernsey actually comes from.
Because of the current industrial unrest, the chief minister has been unable to explain the benefits of the paper or the insertion of a key word which appears to enable the UK Government to act on the island’s behalf internationally even when asked not to.
Instead, however, a spokesman for the Ministry of Justice, with which the framework has been negotiated, told this newspaper: ‘This framework document does not change the existing constitutional boundaries.’
If so, islanders will be asking, why bother to sign it? The existing arrangements have stood the island in good stead since 1204 and eminent lawyers have regarded the constitution’s unwritten status as one of its greatest strengths: any changes occur via evolution.
If the framework is signed, however, the UK will be able to go against the island’s wishes as long as it ‘consults’ first - in other words drops a confidential note to the Lt-Governor and the Bailiff saying what is going to be imposed.
That is exactly how the UK behaved in 1998 when the Edwards review of the financial services sector was announced.
The subsequent diplomatic row led to a softening of the UK’s stance and to the UK explaining to the OECD in 2000 that the ratification of international conventions and treaties could be extended here subject to the agreement of the insular authorities.
But ‘agreement’ has now been dropped and islanders will rightly demand to know why.
And it is not even as if the States will have a say. The chief minister can simply sign off - and sign away? - the rights of centuries without further reference to the House.
There is a wrongness about this that begs the question: who actually has benefited from the deal?
This is a dodgy deal
GUERNSEY’S chief minister is poised to sign an understanding with the UK based on its centuries-old constitutional relationship with the Crown - yet the document is either a material weakening of the island’s autonomy or an expensive and pointless PR exercise.
Worse, it remains unclear where the drive for the framework for developing the international identity of Guernsey actually comes from.
Because of the current industrial unrest, the chief minister has been unable to explain the benefits of the paper or the insertion of a key word which appears to enable the UK Government to act on the island’s behalf internationally even when asked not to.
Instead, however, a spokesman for the Ministry of Justice, with which the framework has been negotiated, told this newspaper: ‘This framework document does not change the existing constitutional boundaries.’
If so, islanders will be asking, why bother to sign it? The existing arrangements have stood the island in good stead since 1204 and eminent lawyers have regarded the constitution’s unwritten status as one of its greatest strengths: any changes occur via evolution.
If the framework is signed, however, the UK will be able to go against the island’s wishes as long as it ‘consults’ first - in other words drops a confidential note to the Lt-Governor and the Bailiff saying what is going to be imposed.
That is exactly how the UK behaved in 1998 when the Edwards review of the financial services sector was announced.
The subsequent diplomatic row led to a softening of the UK’s stance and to the UK explaining to the OECD in 2000 that the ratification of international conventions and treaties could be extended here subject to the agreement of the insular authorities.
But ‘agreement’ has now been dropped and islanders will rightly demand to know why.
And it is not even as if the States will have a say. The chief minister can simply sign off - and sign away? - the rights of centuries without further reference to the House.
There is a wrongness about this that begs the question: who actually has benefited from the deal?
Article posted on 24th July, 2008 - 3.14pm