Concerns over identity document

Last night there was a detailed history of the relationship of the crown and government of Jersey, which while very full, was flawed historically; I'll post on that later in the week. The leader article also asked:

"WHY disturb Jersey's relationship with Britain, which was established eight centuries ago and has been robust and satisfactory enough to survive not only massive social and political change but also the English Civil War and occupation by Nazi Germany?"

The relationship has come up with the document signed in May, which is very short, and clearly does redefine Jersey's relationship with Britain - or not - depending on whose comments you read! Item (1) is the interesting one, especially the first sentence in relation to, for instance, calls for UK Judges in the historical abuse inquiry. Most of the document, I suspect, relates to independence in taxation matters.

In case you missed it - it slipped by rather quietly - here it is:

1. The UK has no democratic accountability in and for Jersey which is governed by its own democratically elected assembly. In the context of the UK's responsibility for Jersey's international relations it is understood that -

· The UK will not act internationally on behalf of Jersey without prior consultation.

· The UK recognises that the interests of Jersey may differ from those of the UK, and the UK will seek to represent any differing interests when acting in an international capacity. This is particularly evident in respect of the relationship with the European Union where the UK interests can be expected to be those of an EU member state and the interests of Jersey can be expected to reflect the fact that the UK's membership of the EU only extends to Jersey in certain circumstances as set out in Protocol 3 of the UK's Treaty of Accession.

2. Jersey has an international identity which is different from that of the UK.

3. The UK recognises that Jersey is a long-standing, small democracy and supports the principle of Jersey further developing its international identity.

4. The UK has a role to play in assisting the development of Jersey's international identity. The role is one of support not interference.

5. Jersey and the UK commit themselves to open, effective and meaningful dialogue with each other on any issue that may come to affect the constitutional relationship.

6. International identity is developed effectively through meeting international standards and obligations which are important components of Jersey's international identity.

7. The UK will clearly identify its priorities for delivery of its international obligations and agreements so that these are understood, and can be taken into account, by Jersey in developing its own position.

8. The activities of the UK in the international arena need to have regard to Jersey's international relations, policies and responsibilities.

9. The UK and Jersey will work together to resolve or clarify any differences which may arise between their respective interests.

10. Jersey and the UK will work jointly to promote the legitimate status of Jersey as a responsible, stable and mature democracy with its own broad policy interests and which is willing to engage positively with the international community across a wide range of issues

Change "Jersey" to "Guernsey", or "Isle of Man", and you have the same agreement for the other Crown Dependencies. In Jersey, it went through "on the nod", but in Guernsey, Lyndon Trott has been forced into a debate upon the matter, after criticism by the lawyer Mr St John Robillard, and calls for debate by a large number of Island deputies. Evidently Guernsey is going to scrutinise this document in some depth, and it begs the question: why did it slip by in the States of Jersey virtually without comment? Especially as their Guernsey counterparts, and the Guernsey Press have raised some important concerns about the document.

The Chief Minister said that: "Although the document does not, and is not intended to, affect the constitutional arrangements of the Islands in any sense, I believe that it is a positive and helpful expression of political support from the DCA for Guernsey's stated objective of developing its international identity".

The UK Ministry of Justice said the international identity document did not change the existing constitutional boundaries. Mr St John Robillard said more explanation was needed. "If it makes no change, then really it's for someone to explain where it came from and why the people who drafted it want someone to sign it on Guernsey's behalf," he told BBC News. "As I see it in Guernsey, either there must be an express law that authorises someone like a chief minister to speak on behalf of the States generally, or else the States have to deal with this on an ad hoc basis," he said. Advocate St John Robillard said he believed the terms were too vague and deputies should be given the opportunity to ask questions about the agreement.

There is also a very strong leader article explaining why this needs to be debated.

IN TODAY'S Guernsey Press, we reproduce in full a letter from the chief minister explaining why we were wrong in our editorial on Thursday to suggest that an international identity framework document he is to sign with Lord Chancellor Jack Straw was a worsening of the existing position. This newspaper's concern is that the framework implicitly states that the UK can act internationally on behalf of Guernsey without prior agreement, a weakening of previous statements where it says: 'The UK will not act internationally on behalf of Guernsey without prior consultation.' Yet in today's explanation, the chief minister says: 'There is, therefore, no question of Guernsey having relinquished the ability to opt out of international agreements. Guernsey only has the option to opt in.' If that is the case, we asked him on Friday, would it not be more accurate for the framework to say something like, 'The UK cannot act internationally on behalf of Guernsey without prior agreement? The response was: 'Your suggested words would not be an accurate statement because they perpetuate the misunderstanding in relation to what happens throughout the entire process of negotiating, concluding and possibly subsequently extending international agreements.' Yet if the only option is to opt in, why would Guernsey sign an agreement suggesting otherwise? While islanders might be tempted to regard this as nit-picking, it is of fundamental importance to this island's future. Jersey, for example, which has signed the potentially misleading wording, has also invested a great deal of time into looking at how it might become independent from the UK should it, as the framework suggests it can, impose international agreements, on taxation for example, without agreement. And it is now clear that more than half of States members are unhappy with the framework and are likely to prevent the chief minister from signing it. There is much that could be said about this, but one thing is inescapable. This island's long and happy links with the Crown are the result of custom and tradition and are largely unwritten. Trying to put it into words merely means that UK civil servants play safe, hence the dispute over the phrase we raise here. And if, as the chief minister claims, the framework changes nothing, why on earth are we bothering to sign it?

and another letter comments on the matter:

IN HIS letter of Monday, the chief minister claims authority to sign a document setting out Guernsey's constitutional position with the UK. Has the present Policy Council given him this authority? That the current States of Guernsey has not is evident from a letter signed by over half its members. The electorate most certainly has not. The matter was not raised at election time and no decision of a previous States can bind a present one. Some senior advocates have expressed reservations about entering into such a written agreement. Their voice should be heeded. The States must ask whether the Law Officers can give them appropriate advice.

These are appointed by the Crown and are answerable neither to the States nor the electorate. Without questioning their competence or integrity, one must ask where their loyalties lie in a matter involving a relationship between the States and the Crown. If the chief minister goes it alone and signs a document with the Lord Chancellor, I hope that he knows what he is doing. In September 1938 the British prime minister returned from meeting the German chancellor in Munich and, waving a piece of paper to the crowds, proclaimed peace in our time. Less than a year later, the Second World War broke out and less than two years later Guernsey was invaded. I am sure that our chief minister will not wish to go down in history as Guernsey's Neville Chamberlain.

DR N. LE POIDEVIN.

GP Editor's footnote: Deputy Lyndon Trott has since said he will not sign the framework pending a States debate in October.

and here is a letter from the Deputies:

Chief Minister Lyndon Trott feels ready to sign Guernsey up to a constitutional framework agreement. Some members of the States do not. Here the petitioners explain why in an open letter

Dear chief minister,

IN AN article published in the Guernsey Press on Thursday, you were quoted in the following terms:

'I was able to advise Mr Wills (Minister of State, UK Ministry of Justice) that the Policy Council was happy for me to sign the international identity agreement with the UK and, in the coming days, Jack Straw and myself will exchange signatures.'

Furthermore, in a letter addressed to the editor of the Guernsey Press and copied to States members on Friday, you confirmed that it was your intention to commit Guernsey to the international identity agreement without any reference whatsoever to the States of Deliberation.

In the strongest possible terms, we the undersigned, should like to invite you to urgently reconsider your position on this matter.

In no way do we wish to comment at this stage on the advantages or disadvantages of signing the international identity agreement. However, we are firmly of the opinion that you must not commit the island to the agreement without the express approval of States members after a full debate in the States of Deliberation. Failure to bring this matter to the assembly would totally undermine the integrity and authority of the States of Deliberation.

We are pleased briefly to set out below some of the many reasons for writing to you in these terms.

First, we are concerned that the international identity agreement may effect material change in the relationship between Guernsey and the UK, especially in the field of international relations.

Your aforementioned letter to the editor confirms that since 1951, in relation to international agreements signed by the UK, there has been a practice of the UK formally asking Guernsey whether it wishes such agreements to be extended to it.

However, the international identity agreement to which you intend to commit Guernsey obliges the UK merely to consult the island before acting on its behalf in the field of international relations.

You will be aware that there has been much debate about whether the proposed form of words weakens Guernsey's position.

Whether or not that is the case, it is clear that there is a difference between the historic practice of the UK being required to seek Guernsey's approval before extending international agreements and the notion that the UK need only consult before doing so.

Second, we believe you would be acting injudiciously were you to commit the island to an important constitutional agreement with a third party without the prior consent of the States of Deliberation.

We note the mandate of the Policy Council, which states, inter alia:

'To advise the States on matters relating to the island's constitutional position, including its relationships with the United Kingdom, European Union and other Crown Dependencies, international relations and matters relating to the parishes and the other islands of the Bailiwick.

'And to be responsible for representing the island and negotiating on international matters and considering international agreements in which the insular authorities have an interest or are invited to acquiesce and making appropriate recommendations thereon.'

We note that the Policy Council is able to negotiate on international matters. However, we do not accept that the responsibility to negotiate on international matters confers upon the Policy Council, or upon any sub-group or minister acting on its behalf, the right to sign international agreements.

Indeed, the relevant section of Policy Council's mandate states unequivocally that council shall advise the States on constitutional matters and in respect of international agreements shall make appropriate recommendations, presumably to the States of Deliberation.

Third, in a letter dated 7 June 2007 in response to questions raised by Deputy Al Brouard about the international identity agreement to which this letter refers, the then - chief minister, Mike Torode, stated: 'I am advised that a resolution of the States is required to approve the document.'

We are not aware that the States has resolved to confer upon the Policy Council or the chief minister any additional executive authority since Deputy Torode wrote in those terms.

We have every reason to believe that a resolution of the States is still required before anyone is able to commit Guernsey to the document.

In view of the above, we propose in the strongest possible terms that this matter be placed for debate before the States of Deliberation as expeditiously as possible, and that Guernsey's signature on the international identity agreement be withheld until such time as the States of Deliberation has determined whether to approve its extension to Guernsey.

Signed by the following members of the States of Deliberation, deputies:

Matt Fallaize, Mary Lowe, Tony Spruce, Scott Ogier, Barry Brehaut, John Gollop, Mike Collins, Barry Paint, Mike Garrett, Jane Stephens, David De Lisle, Al Brouard, Roger Domaille, Rhoderick Matthews, Mike Hadley, Andrew Le Lievre, Jenny M. Tasker, Robert W. Sillars, Martin J. Storey, Tom Le Pelley, Marc Laine, Gloria Dudley-Owen, Sam Maindonald, Janine Le Sauvage, and Sean McManus.

* Deputy Ivan Rihoy was unable to sign the letter but requested that his name be added to it.

Links

http://www.gov.je/ChiefMinister/International+Relations/JerseyandUKagreeframeworkfordevelopingJerseysinternationalidentity.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/guernsey/7531065.stm

http://www.gov.gg/ccm/policy-and-hr/press-release/2007/may-2007/a-draft-framework-for-developing-guernseys-international-identity.en;jsessionid=C552511CDD58EFA4570F08306578F118

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/guernsey/7531065.stm

http://www.thisisguernsey.com/2008/07/28/no-change-why-bother-to-sign-it/

http://www.thisisguernsey.co.uk/discus/messages/11779/12320.html?1217423495

Data Protection Note: any names mentioned are in the public domain, as evidenced by the linking documents.