CONCERNS expressed by this newspaper over part of the wording of a ‘framework’ understanding to be signed between Guernsey and the Lord Chancellor on behalf of the Crown are shared by a number of States members and an attempt may be made to have the document debated before it is formally ratified.

Regardless of the rights or wrongs of those concerns – and a detailed response from the chief minister will be published here on Monday – the matter raises constitutional issues that go beyond the framework itself.

Although the fears that a key part of the document weakens Guernsey’s position and autonomy have overshadowed its release, there is much in it that is valuable and in the island’s best interests.

Yet the reservations about what is referred to as a clarification of the links with the UK were expressed at the outset, when the former chief minister was responsible for progressing the discussions, and are again now.

A number of secret briefings for States members about this have been held by the Procureur and the Bailiff – both appointed by the Crown – and some of those present say the top-level advice was that the document is irrelevant since the UK cannot impose anything on the island. Full stop.

If that is correct, it is puzzling that one phrase guaranteed to alarm all independently-minded islanders has been allowed to cloud a document that in most other respects is very helpful.

And if the phrasing is simply political window-dressing to pacify the more excitable elements of New Labour, then local briefings on the point have been found wanting.

A further point is whether the document has to return to the House for ratification. If it should, what’s the point of having a chief minister? If he cannot negotiate minister to minister and bring matters to a conclusion, then who has the authority of political leadership in the island, certainly in national and international forums?

And while the Bailiff has been Guernsey’s first citizen since the earliest days, it would clearly have been inappropriate for him as a non-elected Crown appointee to handle this.

Similarly, when the Policy Council was wondering whether to endorse the framework, its legal advice would have come from someone appointed by the Lord Chancellor who, as Jack Straw, is the same man who will sign it as being in Britain’s best interests.

This is about far more than whether the framework is good or bad.