It is time for an independent and democratic Guernsey?
Article posted by Peter Brooks
DISCLAIMER: This article contains the personal views of the author and should not be inferred to be the views of Unlock Democracy.
There appears to be growing rift between the Government in Guernsey and the current Labour administration in London according to the Daily Telegraph.
If the perception persists that the government in London doesn’t really care about the islands, and/or that it is delibrately ’slowing’ or ’stopping’ leglisation passed in the States from becoming law, then the calls for independence may become louder on the islands in the Bailiwick.
The Bailiwick of Guernsey has enjoyed a high level of autonomy for many years, and are used to being able to control their own affairs, because in the past the Privy Council as on the whole just ‘rubber stamped’ the decision made in the States. The Bailiwick therefore already have a system of government in place which is used to making decisions and holding power. I feel therefore they shouldn’t find it difficult or challenging to make the step to becoming fully independent states.
Whilst, it could be suggested that it is better for Guernsey to stay safely within the ‘womb’ of the UK so to speak, from the point of view of democratic accountability and decision making surely independence is the better option.
If the Bailiwick was to obtain full independence then only people who have been directly elected to the States in St Peter Port have a say over what should or should not become law in the islands. This is different to the current situation where the elected representatives in the States once they have passed the legislation (the electorate have voted them into office to create), then have to effectively justify the new porposed laws to an undemocratic quango a couple of hundred miles away, outside the juristriction of the Bailiwick. If Guernsey became independent this would cease to be case, because the elected representatives would become directly accountable for the decisions they made. For example; the loop-hole of being able to blame what might become ‘unpopular’ laws on changes enforced by the Privy Council would vanish.
In summary; I feel that if Guernsey became an independent island state the government on the islands would become more democratically accountable to the Bailiwick’s residents. Therefore, I would recommend supporting full independence for the Bailiwick should it be shown there is a clear mandate in favour of such a move from the local population.
January 12th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
Bully for Guernsey, my hope is that as soon as Guernsey gets her independance,and of course their own Parliament ,we English will claim the same,a Parliament that will look after England’s needs,governed by English people
January 12th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
It’s also time for an Independent and democratic England.
January 12th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
Firstly, Guernsey is not, nor has it ever been, part of the UK, as you imply – it is a crown dependency (i.e. a protectorate), and is therefore independent in everything but its foreign policy, where it follows that of the UK in exchange for the UK promising to defend it if it is invaded.
Secondly, as the UK has promised to defend Guernsey from invasion, it seems reasonable that the government of the UK gets a say in its affairs to some extent – if the States of Guernsey invited invasion on themselves, why should British taxpayers and armed forces protect them from the consequences of their own actions? A body with a theoretical right to veto in such cases which it never exercises hardly seems like much of an imposition (though if the privy council is deliberately delaying or blocking legislation for no obvious reason, that is clearly unacceptable).
They can become fully independent if they want, obviously, but I doubt it will make any difference to life on Guernsey (well, unless they get invaded).
January 13th, 2008 at 2:40 am
Pat is right…it is England that needs to seek Independence from the union.
January 14th, 2008 at 10:18 am
“as the UK has promised to defend Guernsey from invasion, it seems reasonable that the government of the UK gets a say in its affairs to some extent”
All the members of NATO have promised to defend the UK from invasion. Shouldn’t they get a say in the UK’s affairs to some extent?
January 14th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
There’s definitely a growing rift between the Labour administration and the people of England. Give us a referendum on our own Parliament. And let’s have none of these stupid arguments that England’s too big to be allowed a voice, so has to be broken up into regions.
January 14th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Getting back to Guernsey!!!
Why should a guarantee to defend the islands by the UK, mean that the UK automatically has a right to have a say in Guernsey’s affairs?
Surely a fairer and more ‘democratically acceptable’ deal would be that; has the UK has agreed to protect Guernsey’s status as a Crown Dependency the Crown Dependency then has an obligation not to undertake or take part in any activity which is hostile to the UK. I fail to see how it can be right for the UK to have any say over the decisions made by Members in the States in St Peter Port which are aimed at solely affecting the lives of the people and/or work within the Bailiwick.
However a supplementary question to your point is; would it really be a bad thing if Guernsey was invaded? And in particular would it be a bad thing if France invaded.
The French could then administer Guernsey (and presumably Jersey too) in the following way.
Upon annexation into France, ‘Anglo-Normandy’ (the two exsisting Bailiwicks of Guernsey and Jersey) would become the new department 96 of the Fifth Republic. The existing States government in either Jersey or Guernsey would take control of all the political issues decided in France by the French Departments. Or these roles and responsibilities (of a French Department) would be split equally between them. The other option would be to create to new departments as there is in Corsica (2a & 2b) with Guernsey being department 96a and Jersey 96b, if the islands were unable to decide who would be responsible for what. National issues would be decided in Paris.
This surely would be far more democratically accountable way of governing the Bailiwick than the existing arrangements. As upon becoming part of France, the people (electorate) of Guernsey would get a vote in French national elections, and their own representatives in the National Assembly, meaning for the first time they would get a democratic say on issues like Foreign Policy and Defence, plus still have their departmental representatives in the States back on the islands, to deal with all the local issues.
The more I think about the more it seems to make sense from a ‘democratic’ point of view for the Channel Islands become part of France, rather than stay in a status-quo where Mandarins from London effectively end up telling them what their foreign policy is for example. For instance it is possible the majority of politicians in the States and the people living on the islands might not have supported the invasion of Iraq, but yet they were effectively forced to accept this has their foreign policy, due to existing constitutional arrangements they have with London.
January 14th, 2008 at 9:12 pm
‘However a supplementary question to your point is; would it really be a bad thing if Guernsey was invaded? And in particular would it be a bad thing if France invaded.’
It would be if the people of Guernsey didn’t want to be. Why stop there? Would it be a bad thing if Spain invaded Gibraltar, Argentina re-invaded the Falklands?
Utter nonsense!
January 15th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
Granted if the people of Guernsey do not want to become part of France, then I would not suggest that they should become part of France. However I was not discussing whether or not they should become part of France!!!
I was pointing out that from a ‘theoretical’ perspective, if Guernsey become part of France, and fully integrated into the Departmental System within France, the islanders would have a better deal democratically speaking than they do currently as a Crown Dependency of the United Kingdom.
‘Of course’ another option would be for Guernsey to give up the ‘limited’ autonomy that it currently has and become in effect the equivalent of a unitary county within the United Kingdom. The islands would elect a member of parliament to represent them at Westminster (they are approx 65,00 people living in the Bailiwick), and the States would become in effect the county council. This would arguably be as democratic as the option of joining France.
I can’t see why from a ‘democratic’ point view, why the idea of Guernsey giving up its independence and becoming integrated as part of one of its neighbours is “utter nonsense’. It is never going to be able to defend itself from its bigger neighbours, if it became fully independent, and under the current status quo it doesn’t have complete freedom anyway.
Which begs the question why not become part of one of its neighbours? As a fully integrated part of either France or the UK, the government will be more democratically accountable, and they are, guaranteed to be defended (to the hilt) no matter what by their national government in either London or Paris. Giving up there current semi-independent state therefore seems to be a win-win scenario (on paper at least) for the Bailiwick from a democratic point of view!!!
January 15th, 2008 at 9:54 pm
My point was that the people of Guernsey have *decided* to exchange the ability to have an independent foreign policy for a guarantee of defence. They can undecide this at any time by declaring independence. Given how small and homogeneous Guernsey is, it would happen fairly quickly if there was any desire for it. Unless the Privy Council is deliberately delaying or blocking Guernsey’s legislation, the democratic deficit you refer to doesn’t exist. Equally if they want to become an integral part of a neighbouring state (hell would freeze over first), they will decide to democratically.
As for NATO, if the UK did invite a war on itself, I expect the other member states wouldn’t bother to defend it, as it probably would have violated article 1 of the North Atlantic Treaty. And, in any case, all members of NATO have independent foreign policies – Guernsey doesn’t, it has the UK’s. If a local council did something that threatened the UK’s foreign policy stance, it would be stopped, so the government of the UK has to have the same ability over Guernsey.
January 17th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
“Unless the Privy Council is deliberately delaying or blocking Guernsey’s legislation, the democratic deficit you refer to doesn’t exist”.
This is precisely what the Daily Telegraph’s article appears to be insinuating! There people in Guernsey who feel this ‘might’ be the case- hence why the fact some groups of people on the island are talking about whether or not the Bailiwick should become independent.
January 20th, 2008 at 8:58 am
Time for an independent and democratic Duchy of Cornwall.
The civil government of Cornwall was vested in the Duchy by the first of the Duchy Charters in 1337: A Charter of 1337 taken from the UK Statute Law Database
In fact, the first thing to be enumerated – being inter alia, annexed and united to the Duchy for ever – is the civil administration of the territory of Cornwall.
“”Therefore we have given and Granted for Us and our Heirs and by this our present Charter Confirmed to our same son under the name and Honor of the Duke of the said place: the Castles Manors Lands and Tenements and other things underwritten that he may be able to preserve the State and Honor of the said Duke according to the nobility of his kind and more easily support the charges in this behalf incumbent to wit the Shrievalty of Cornwall with the Appurtenances so that the aforesaid Duke and other Dukes of the same place for the time being at their pleasure make and constitute and may make and constitute a Sheriff of the aforesaid County of Cornwall to exercise and perform the Office of Sheriff there as hitherto it hath been accustomed to be done without the let or impediment of Us or our Heirs for ever”"
A County at that time was the territory presided over by an Earl/Count and rendered in Latin as ‘comitatus’, this is what has been translated above into ‘county’. Within this there was a vice-comitatus (or Shrievalty) under the jurisdiction of the sheriff but who was normally the principal officer of the King of England. Within Cornwall, however, he was, actually, the principal officer of the Earls (and, later, the Dukes) as the above extract shows.
As with all things related to the creation of the English and then later British state such terms became ambiguous (leading to various Imperial half-truths) and eventually the territorially equivalent terms of comitatus and vicecomitatus became reduced, and rationalised, to ‘county’ as we understand administrative counties today. At no point however have the powers of the Duke over the civil administration of Cornwall been removed. As can been seen above this Duchy charter of 1337 is part of UK statute law, and it has on numerous occasions been reconfirmed by other acts of parliament also to be found on the statute law database.
The Duchy of Cornwall Management Act 1863 (c.49)
“”The Words “Possessions of the Duchy of Cornwall,†and the Word “Possessions†applied to the Duchy of Cornwall, shall include Regalities, Hundreds, Castles, Honours, Lordships, Manors, Advowsons, Forests, Chases, Woods, Parks, Messuages, Lands, Buildings, Rights of Common, Mines, Minerals, Rights of Entry, or other Rights in respect of Mines or Minerals, Rentcharges in lieu of Tithes, Fixtures, Services, Rents, Pensions, Annuities, annual Sums reserved on any Sale, Disposal, or Enfranchisement made under the Powers of this Act, Rights, Privileges, Easements, Possessions, Tenements, and Hereditaments whatsoever, whether in possession or reversion, Parcel or reputed or claimed to be Parcel of the Duchy of Cornwall, or annexed to the same”"
The 1863 act being reconfirmed by the Tamar Bridge Act 1998
“”(1) Nothing in this Act affects prejudicially any estate, right, power, privilege, authority or exemption of the Crown including (without prejudice to the general law concerning the applicability of statutes to the Duchy of Cornwall) the Duchy of Cornwall and, in particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, nothing in this Act authorises the Authorities to take, use, enter upon or in any manner interfere with any land or hereditaments or any rights of whatsoever description……”"
“”……belonging to the Duchy of Cornwall or enjoyed by the possessor for the time being of the Duchy of Cornwall, without the consent of the Duke of Cornwall testified in writing under the seal of the said Duchy or, as the case may be, the consent in writing of two or more of such of the regular officers of the said Duchy or of such other persons as may be authorised under section 39 of the M1 Duchy of Cornwall Management Act 1863……”"
De Jure our Cornish administration (the civil government of Cornwall) is legally and constitutionally within the Duchy of Cornwall and not England even if ‘de facto’ this is clearly not the case.
So when did this change? When did the civil government of Cornwall get handed over to Westminster and what acts of parliament support this blatant alienation from the Duchy of Cornwall? With what mandate were these changes to the civil government of our territory made? Where the Cornish consulted?
On the Tyr Gwyr Gweryn site under “Territory & People” -> “County?” you will find a letter sent to the Duchy back in 1997, which sets out the questions that need to be answered within a constitutional context. The response was predictably useless.