The Guernsey Press is quoting a former adviser to David Cameron to suggest that our parliament has no right to impose legislation on the Crown Dependencies, and that if they do a petition to the Queen might follow.
The context is, of course, the desire of those MPs who have already demanded that the Overseas Territories create public registers of the beneficial ownership of the companies registered that this requirement be extended to Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man. The government has pulled the Bill to achieve this goal today, precisely because they knew it would pass.
As The Guernsey Press notes:
The prospect of the petition [to the Queen] has been raised by Nikki da Costa, the ex-director of legislative affairs at No 10, in comments to the Guernsey Press.
They note that she has said:
The relationship between the Crown Dependencies and the UK has been founded on consent and self-governance, and they have no representation in Westminster. The government's view has long been that the UK should only legislate in the most serious of circumstances, and the breakdown of good governance.
And that she added:
If the Speaker allows the amendment and MPs rebel to inflict this amendment, despite previously conceding the distinct relationship the Crown Dependencies have with the UK, the government can do little to stop them in parliament. In other times you could potentially abandon the legislation, but this is a Brexit Bill. It is a very serious challenge to the current constitutional relationship, one of essential independence from the UK, and raises the prospect of a petition to the Queen at the very least.
I have three comments to make.
First, there is a failure of good governance here. The Crown Dependencies do not, of course, create most of the companies incorporated there for the benefit of local people. They are created for people from other jurisdictions who want to know who owns them, as do other stakeholders in those other places, and who have this right in many other countries. So, what the Crown Dependencies are doing is deliberately undermining the good governance of the corporate world. If that is not a breakdown in old governance, what is?
Second, the piece does recognise that in that case the UK does have a right to legislate, as it always has when the foreign affairs of these places create risk for the UK as a whole, as this issue clearly does.
And third, the idea that the petition to the Queen might be relevant in this case is laughable. The Queen has no right whatsoever to intervene in the affairs of the Crown Dependencies, even if they are notionally linked to the UK through her office, because the entire political function of that office is maintained by the Privy Council, which is in effect the government, but of which there are, of course, many other members. And the government is bound by Parliament. The Crown Dependencies really need to get their basic constitutional facts right. Just as they also need to appreciate that in the twenty-first century their refusal to comply with new norms on corporate transparency do represent a significant failure on their part which creates risk for the UK as a whole and a more than justifiable reason for the UK government to intervene in their affairs.
To put it another way, the tin-pot politicians of these places, who live in fear of the financial services industry, need to wake up to political reality and adapt to it pretty fast, or face the consequences.
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:
Last I checked the Queen is, indeed, relevant to the UK
She knows she is not in the sense in which the Crown Dependencies are somewhat farcically suggesting
Ceremonially relevant.
Institutionally relevant [maybe]
Legally relevant, never.
The Sovereign cannot overrule parliament.
Only if you like pantomime and theatre, she behind you !
The UK cannot impose Legislation on the Channel Islands Richard and it would be unworkable even if they tried. It’s a dead duck.
Try it….
I assure we can
And no one will protest when we walk into St Helier to prove the point
Just as we did to the Turks and Caicos
Richard it is the elected States Assembly who decide on such issues and trying to use ‘Crown powers’ to dictate legislation to Jersey will simply fail.
Your assumption is more of wishful thought than a factual piece of protocol.
You are permitted local control within rules
As a UK country council is
As the Turks and Caicos are
Abuse the rules – as you are – and the consequences flow
“And no one will protest when we walk into St Helier…….”
that does sound a trifle arrogant. Walk in like an invader? On what mandate?
These are independent democracies!
I mentioned the precedent
British territories have to do what they are told
And you are as much a democracy as Norfolk is in that sense
What you have just written here is a pile of nonsense.
The UK already has access to Guernsey’s records of Beneficial Ownership so how on earth can it not being Public cause risk for the UK?
Then you say that the UK can legislate!?
Well if that is the case then what is the point of Guernsey having elected Deputies?
It would make their job worthless and effectively put Ministers in the House of Commons who Guernsey people have had no say in their election of, dictating to the Island.
A load of twaddle and completely unconstitutional.
Government is not the only stakeholder of business
And transparency is required to ensure abuse does not happen of all stakeholders
And as for your deputies – they are elected to work within rules set by the UK
If they do, they have a role
When they break those rules they don’t
It really is that simple
As I have said, just like a UK local authority
Broken whose rules?
Dream on.
Our rules
Laid down by our parliament
And you are a British territory
Look at your passport
Oh Richard, whatever whatever!
You would love to control Jersey, even watch it go bankrupt, but all your predictions to date of us going bankrupt have failed to materialise.
This legislation is completely unenforceable on us and you secretly know it despite the usual cabaret.
You will have a choice, as ever
It’s called comply or lose the veneer of self government
And all your ministers know it
Like I said Richard, whatever!
You can be flippant
The reality is you must comply
Read the Kilbrandon Report
“You will have a choice, as ever
It’s called comply or lose the veneer of self government
And all your ministers know it”
You are not Angela Merkel!
I never said I was
I just someething that I am sure is right
I was born in the Isle of Man and grew up on a farm there. I think Richard picks on the Island a bit as it is far from the case that all the 85,000 population are involved in dodgy tax deals, are all wealthy, or that nothing else happens. It is, I think, far from the worst offender and the Channel Islands are far more secretive. Be that as it may, the UK Government certainly does retain the right and can and will legislate if it so wishes. The fact they haven’t often done so does not mean they can’t. Home Rule did not stop the Isle of Man being turned into a giant POW camp for Axis prisoners in the last war or the requisitioning of the Steam Packet company fleet.
I would also say that the British Government (and the elites behind it) are probably just as complicit in creating the off-shore tax havens as those dependencies. Why? Because it means the UK could wash its hands of having to fund any of the dependencies (there is probably a clue in the name dependency!) and probably more importantly it allowed that elite to take advantage of the ‘services’ provided. If the British Government had actually wanted to do anything about the tax dodging, etc then they could have done so at any time, but of course did not. This is all part of the City of London nexus that became the only priority of the British Government after Mrs Thatcher decided we were now post-modern and no longer needed any industry as we could all earn our living selling each other Life Assurance, etc.
There is a great deal of sense in there Tim
Yes indeed – Mr Rideout is very compelling – detractors please note.
This seems to have hit a sensitive nerve.
I think it is about time that the constitutional position of the UK, the dependencies, and possibly others was made clear.
In all my years living in the Isle of Man (over 50) I still don’t really understand our relationship. I do know that the Crown “bought” us in the 17th century so we are in theory owned by the Queen, who has passed control to the privy council.
If the UK government can Impose whatever laws they like on us then there seems no point in us having our own, expensive, government which we vote for.
Read the Kilbrandon Report
And of course you can have local government
But you cannot ignore Westminster
It’s really not that hard to understand if you want to
If we have no say in Westminster then why should they be dictators in our domain. The empire is history.
You chose to stay in Union
We have offered you the option of leaving
It would destroy the financial services industry so you don’t
The choice is yours
You comply voluntarily as a result
Deal with it
Speak to Jersey Politicians.
They reject Richard’s claims that the UK can legislate with total confidence.
And yet again they are wrong
They always are when they argue ok no this one
Just go and read the Kilbrandon report
Richard
Your ignorance of the constitutional position comes to the fore again. Your interpretation of Kilbrandon is simply wrong.
The CDs are nothing like Turks and Caicos. The CDs are Crown Dependencies. Their constitutional position is totally different from that of the British Dependent Territories (ie the Turks), as was clearly recognised by UK Parliament a few months ago regarding the UK’s inability to impose public beneficial ownership registers on the CDs, whilst being able to impose it on the BDTs.
The Turks received intervention because its Prime Minister and his cronies were involved in fraud. The CDs are not involved in any breakdown of law and order. The CDs are fully compliant with everything required of them. Not doing something which the UK wants is not a breakdown of law and order. There is no constitutional right whatsoever for the UK to intervene.
Fortunately there are parties in UK Parliament who do actually understand the correct constitutional position, and who realise that what is being proposed will get nowhere.
See my blog post later this morning
Like talking to a brick wall here.
Richard will twist any report to suit his own vendetta against the Crown Dependencies.
So people should ignore his desperate attempts to disrupt our fantastic Finance Industry, which moves from strength to strength, because the TJN is irrelevant and life goes on.
So why are you here?
To educate you Richard!
Then you’re a miserable failure
[…] was a little surprised to find that my arguments on this blog as to why the UK has the right to intervene in the affairs of the Crown Dependencies at present […]