| Author | Message | ||
| Tony Webber Guest |
TODAY is the 12th anniversary of the last Bailiwick wide election, when the last conseiller was voted in. It was a privilege to fight and win that election, which was the only effective referendum there has been on the issue of Bailiwick wide elections. At that time every voter in Guernsey and Alderney could vote in many more representatives than they can now. It was appalling that the States at the time decided to do away with the most democratically elected and most representative of their colleagues. Now the Assembly and constitution is reviewing the issue. Hopefully we will now move towards a system which is more democratically accountable, and that a good proportion, preferably all of our representatives, will be elected on a Bailiwick wide basis. TONY WEBBER | ||
| Alec Forty Guest |
WE REALLY needn't worry about this Lord William Wallace bloke because just about anybody can finish up with a life peerage these days and, in any case, he hasn't done his homework. He says that Guernsey is making an absurd and entirely false claim to be contributing to defence by taking over maintenance of the Alderney breakwater because the Ministry of Justice (?) ceased to have any interest in it 59 years ago. Unfortunately, he's got his Y-fronts in a twist because it was the UK's Ministry of Works that was involved and it didn't cease to have an interest until Guernsey took over the breakwater's maintenance 24 years ago. So 'nought out of ten' on both of those counts to Bill Wallace. He also completely fails to understand the value of that take-over in defence terms, so let's educate him on that as well. HM Government's decision to build the breakwater for its warships in the mid 19th century during conflict with France was a stupendous undertaking because no other marine works had ever been constructed in a 130ft depth of water in the open sea. The design was criticised for it being a combination of long slope and vertical wall built on an artificial mound of four million tons of loose Alderney rock. That design error, combined with its battering from Atlantic gales, created a heavy maintenance commitment that led to the establishment of a residential team of nine men and a railway to carry huge rocks from the quarry to be tipped down the breakwater's seaward face in order to preserve it. That was essential because the creation of the breakwater had compromised the integrity of Alderney's natural shoreline. The financial burden this created for HM Government could have been far better spent on defence matters and by taking over the breakwater maintenance in 1985, Guernsey enabled that to be done. The resulting contribution to UK defence is doubtless more significant than what this Wallace chap refers to as 'Jersey's modest but real maintenance of a Territorial Army Unit'. ALEC FORTY | ||
| Paul Arditti Guest |
THE classic definition of an academic is someone who learns more and more about less and less until he knows everything about nothing. Lord Wallace betrays himself as just such an academic. In order to prop up his own failed high tax jurisdiction in the UK he wants to annex the low tax jurisdiction of Guernsey. What does he propose to offer in return? Does he propose that the UK will defend the Channel Islands? Nothing of much value there. As for representation in the international community the UK does this for its own benefit. Lord Wallace was co-author of two liberal and liberal democratic manifestoes in 1979 and 1997 both of which were unmitigated failures. If he wants to persuade low tax Crown dependencies to buy in to the absurd level of public spending in the United Kingdom, he will have to put his hand in his pocket. But the UK has nothing to offer at the moment and its credit is no good. Lord Wallace needs to find someone with some real experience of the world to advise him. (Lyndon Trott is the man to do this.) In the meantime low tax jurisdictions with white listing, such as Guernsey, can be proud that they have resisted the ridiculous socialist experimentation of the past, which now consumes the UK. While Guernsey can face the future with realistic tax rates, the UK will have to unravel its unaffordable welfare state. Having raised expectations irresponsibly in the UK for so many years, I do not envy socialists like Lord Wallace whose incompetence has now been exposed as having abetted the creation of a welfare state in the UK, which is both unsustainable and so damaging to the social fabric of society there. As part of the British Isles, Guernsey's links with the Crown are through the Privy Council, not Ministry of Justice, which represents UK governments for which Guernsey neither has nor wants a vote. PAUL ARDITTI, Alderney. | ||
| Deputy Dave Jones Guest |
AN OPEN letter to Lord Wallace. I read recently, with some amusement, together with a little irritation, your comments to the Guernsey Press and the Daily Telegraph concerning the historic autonomous position of the Les Isles Normandes, which United Kingdom residents continually refer to incorrectly as the 'Channel Isles'. Those press comments were compounded by a very odd radio interview you gave in which you said, 'I think there are problems with all of them. They benefit a great deal by being seen to be within the British system of law. But in terms of the revenue flows, tax exemptions and the contributions they make to the United Kingdom, I think we definitely have to look at that again.' Firstly, if there are any problems, they originate from MPs and Lords failing consistently to have any proper understanding whatsoever of our relationship with the English Crown. Secondly, we are not 'within the British system of law' as we have our own laws and legal system and any court judgments made concerning these islands in the UK are invalid, as they have no jurisdiction here. Our right to self-governance is not the 800-year-old loose promise that you would have everybody believe and it is wishful thinking on your part if that is what you accept as true. Our constitutional position is enshrined in written charters with their Royal seals that are kept in vaults beneath our parliament building, charters that lay out clearly the sovereign rights and freedoms of our people to their own self determination and granting the islands autonomy under the protection of the Crown, going right back to 1204 (although that protection fell somewhat short in 1940 when the islands were abandoned by the British to occupying German forces). What, I wonder, would we have got for our defence contribution at that time should one have been in place? Our parliament has been sitting in one form or another since 1429, being fully established in 1633 with the setting up of the formal legislative body to be known henceforth as the 'States of Guernsey', which became the long established and accepted term for the government of this island to the present day. It is an abbreviation of 'Les Etats,' the French term used before the English language became prevalent in the islands. The opening ceremony of the States of Guernsey is conducted in French, along with our oral voting system in the assembly. This French heritage continues through into traditional government policy documents presented for debate, which contain Guernsey French parliamentary procedure and custom. This is an indication of how precious we hold our Norman language, heritage and customs, which give us our unique identity. English was first permitted to be spoken in our parliament in 1898, although right up to and through the German Occupation, Guernsey French was still used by many of our deputies, who preferred it. Many of our laws are part of original Norman law, which has been in existence since William the Conqueror from 1066. You remember him - he was our king, who conquered your island all those years ago. Just so there is no further misunderstanding, we are not part of England, Great Britain or the United Kingdom or, thankfully, the European Union, which is why, unsurprisingly, we pay no revenues other than passport fees to the British government. I repeat, we have our own parliament, which sets policy and levies taxes. Our tax affairs are clearly our business and have nothing to do with the British, the French or anyone else for that matter. They are set by the democratically elected governments of these islands. All other services we need for our people, we buy in and pay for them in full, which includes any off-island health care or further education. We also buy in services from France, which is of course only a few miles from our coast. Moving back to your extraordinary statements of recent days, there are a great many of us in this island who take great exception to unelected life peers who sit in an equally undemocratic House, making ill-informed comments about the constitutional position of the Crown dependencies. Our allegiance in these islands is to the Sovereign, and her alone, as the present Duke of Normandy, not to some here today, gone tomorrow English parliament or an unelected House of Lords made up of people who arrived there in the first place simply because they were born to the right families or, worse, through the patronage of one prime minister or another. Our position remains true today, even though Her Majesty the Queen is a constitutional monarch, and if the liberals get their way she will be reduced even further to a common EU citizen under the Lisbon Treaty. Our constitutional position remains, until such time as the British monarchy is abolished and the United Kingdom becomes a republic, at which time it would be my guess that the government of the day would put a referendum to our people on independence. The people of this island watch with increasing incredulity the arrogance of some of the people who sit in various parts of the Palace of Westminster, who through either envy or ignorance believe they have some divine right to meddle in our affairs. It is the same British arrogance that insists on calling the stretch of water between us the 'English Channel,' as if the French half of this open sea doesn't exist. You just assume it's yours - it's a typical British attitude. We have a government elected by its people, a parliament that has no dishonest, defective party system propping it up and a legislature which is fiercely democratic, we have our own laws and courts and we operate both very successfully by the will of our people. Now I know that's a novel idea in your country, but it works very well here. Unlike your parliament, which has surrendered the sovereignty of its people to a bunch of unelected European commissioners in Brussels almost to the point of treason, with British constitutional history clearly counting for very little in a country that no longer governs itself, it will not surprise you that we value and will defend our historic position against all those who wish to take it from us, so if you have such duplicity in mind, be prepared for a very bitter conflict indeed. Given your bold assumptions to date, we would ask which part of we are not part of the United Kingdom do you not understand? Our people, when asked, also have no wish to have any further integration with the European Union. I can assure you that the government of this island and its people will guard our right to self-governance and our autonomy ferociously. Recent events in Sark show that the people will decide who governs them, not powerful outside influences regardless of how dominant they may become, even the owners of the Telegraph (I am beginning to wonder if there is any connection between your recent outpourings and the article in the Daily Telegraph newspaper?). As for Killbrandon, a much bigger subject for another day perhaps. The report, however, like you, made several assumptions at the time, which were wildly inaccurate. Finally, should we choose to go independent along with Jersey, then that will be a matter for our parliaments to decide. The fact that you would be 'horrified' is probably not something we will lose any sleep over at the time. Further, if your comment in the local press was reported accurately, that small, independent jurisdictions, which attract investment and wealth, fall prey to corruption, then I can only say that our historic position and well-regulated economy clearly disproves that theory. I would remind you also that it is not these islands or its politicians that are beset with dishonesty, theft, corruption, or fraudulent claims and embezzlement of public funds - for evidence of that, you need only look down the corridor from where you sit in the House of Lords. DEPUTY DAVE JONES. | ||
| Advocate Roger Perrot Guest |
I REALLY didn't want to do this. As will be the case with many of your readers, a deep gloom descends upon me when I note the name at the bottom of the most recent dispatch from one of your regular and infinitely tedious correspondents, and I know that I now fall into that category. The trouble is that there are times when I cannot help myself and on this occasion my normally sunny disposition has been greatly soured by the de haut en bas decree of 'Lord' (I use quotation marks as befits the reference to an institution which is now a political rest home for people who have sucked up to party leaders over the years) Wallace. There are circumstances in which I would agree with his lordship: after all, he is saying that Guernsey's constitutional relationship with the UK has to change. I agree with that and I have been banging on about that point for years. The problem is that Lord Wallace then goes on to say that there must be 'tougher discussions about the degree of autonomy, which the Crown Dependencies have, not only from the UK but also the European Union'. Thus he takes a bullying line. He wishes to impose what he thinks the UK, and its proprietor, the EU, want and isn't terribly interested in what we want. As to the possibility of independence, he says that small jurisdictions such as ours are difficult to govern 'without falling prey to corruption'. Leaving to one side the fact that Lord Wallace is a member of the party of the living dead, namely the Liberal Democrats, which is not in power (and hasn't been since 1915), does it not seem a teensy little anomalous of his noble lordship that he, as an unelected member of what is meant to be a purely revising chamber of the government of one jurisdiction, is trying to alter the way another jurisdiction is governed? And does he not think that his is the position of an aged great aunt ignoring a rude and powerful smell made by one of her young nephews behind the sofa when he takes a sanctimonious view about the potential corruption of other independent jurisdictions? In asking this question, I have in mind that the parliamentary institutions in the UK have not exactly been uncontaminated in recent times. Doubtless the noble Lord is as pure as the driven snow, but don't I remember that some of his equally noble colleagues were fingered recently for hiring themselves out to lobbyists? And wasn't there just a smidgen of bad behaviour recently by members of the House of Commons? I am pleased to see that there is to be a review of how the Ministry of Justice 'manages' the UK's relationship with the Crown Dependencies. For my part, I wish to see the matter go further and for there to be a different relationship: not merely a change in the management of an existing relationship. Anyway, doubtless with good will on both sides and an open approach, some satisfactory change may be brought about. That approach is not helped by the arrogance of people like Wallace. Perhaps he'll turn up at my meeting at St James on 22 October. I do hope so. ADVOCATE ROGER PERROT. | ||
| C. F. T. Poynder Guest |
I HAVE read the articles in both The Daily Telegraph and the Guernsey Press on the comments by Lord Wallace on the autonomy enjoyed by the Channel Islands being no longer appropriate, as they were merely financial centres. Frankly, Lord Wallace's contribution disgusts me. Lord Wallace says the maintenance of the Alderney breakwater has no relation to the UK today. It does in fact provide the only reasonably deep-water safe anchorage (bar for a north easterly) between Cherbourg and Brest. This is acknowledged by all UK seafarers and in fact internationally. Safety at sea is, of course, an international matter as well as UK. He acknowledges that on request from the UK Government to the Channel Islands for a defence contribution, Jersey provided a Territorial Army unit. He does not mention that at the same time, Guernsey provided a port headquarter in Castle Cornet and raised a Royal Naval Auxiliary Service Unit to man it. Similarly a Naval Control of Shipping (NCS) Officers' Unit was raised for the CI, again based in Castle Cornet, for both islands. When personnel from the CI were sent to the UK for courses, Guernsey repaid the cost to the MoD. The States of Guernsey invariably agreed these figures, as they did for the cost of all national and Nato exercises held in the Channel Islands. The only thing that was not claimed was when CI officers were sent to the UK or abroad on national or more normally Nato exercises, the benefit being purely a UK or Nato one. Castle Cornet, emanating from about the 12th century, obviously required a lot of maintenance. For the naval encroachment, Guernsey again paid this to the MoD. The same can be said for major Nato exercises that normally required augmentation from the UK for officers and a senior NCO. Virtually every year there was either a Nato exercise or a national UK one in which the CI was involved and occasionally two. Guernsey was commanded and administered by the Flag Officer, Plymouth, although most of the offshore training was done in Portsmouth. This also led to various weekend exercises administered by the Flag Officer. The cost of this and the transport involved was of course, as already indicated, borne by the States of Guernsey. It was no fault of Guernsey that after the collapse of the Soviet Union the Naval Control of Shipping organisation in the UK was virtually eliminated and Guernsey given three months' notice in which to close down. I feel his lordship might be better occupied in helping to put his own house in order, namely the Liberal party. Numerically the latter would seem to need all the help it can get. C. F. T. POYNDER, Lt-Commander (Retired), Royal Navy. | ||
| Matt Waterman Guest |
LORD WALLACE'S view that our islands' autonomy is no longer appropriate and that he is horrified at the thought of them becoming fully independent is extraordinary. If you have reported his comments correctly, then his rationale is essentially based on the following: 1. Handing full independence to small islands opens the door to corruption. 2. The islands' economies have changed and are now based on finance rather than horticulture and tourism. 3. The British Government is short of money and has to close loopholes to make sure everyone is paying their share. Regarding the first point, perhaps someone should ask Lord Wallace who receives more watches from Silvio Berlusconi - the prime minister of Britain or the chief minister of Guernsey? For a British politician to be wagging the finger at another jurisdiction 'because you'll be corrupt if you do that' is akin to Jack the Ripper suggesting that I should not be allowed to buy cutlery. The second point: has Lord Wallace forgotten why the islands are based on finance rather than horticulture and tourism? Does he not remember that this situation was caused by Britain joining the Common Market and abolishing exchange controls? Those were decisions of the British Government, not the governments of Guernsey and Jersey. In any case, I have little doubt that nature will ensure that the islands' economies will be based on horticulture again. It is ironic that you report Lord Wallace's comments on the same day as the UK Environment Secretary is warning that a radical rethink of how the UK produces and consumes its food is needed. He cautions that climate change, oil prices and population growth could undermine the security of Britain's food supply. And number three: why should the islands sacrifice their autonomy because of the policies of a government they have no say in electing and which has brought the country to its knees? How many rockets have been fired or Middle Eastern countries been invaded by the Channel Islands recently? Are the Channel Islands spending billions on an Olympic Games? Have they let supermarkets devour their farming industries? Have they bailed out banks and run up trillions of pounds in debt doing it? I suggest that someone tells Lord Wallace that until the UK puts its own house in order, it has absolutely no business in telling us how we should change our regime to help it out. The hypocrisy is dumbfounding. MATT WATERMAN. |
