Deal drops a key phrase

GUERNSEY will finally sign an agreement setting out its constitutional relationship with the UK.

A draft framework, compiled by the chief executives in Guernsey, Jersey, the Isle of Man and officials from the UK's Department of Constitutional Affairs, was released in May 2007.

Jersey has already signed and it is believed a delay over Sark's government reforms meant Guernsey was unable to do so before now.

Political responsibility in the UK for the Crown Dependencies rests with the Ministry of Justice.

On Monday, Chief Minister Lyndon Trott was in London to meet the Minister of State at the ministry, Michael Wills.

'I was able to advise Mr Wills 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,' said Deputy Trott.

A spokesman for the Ministry of Justice said the international identity framework document was 'a short statement that explains to third parties the relationship between the UK and Guernsey'.

'This framework document does not change the existing constitutional boundaries,' said the spokesman.

But any constitutional statement signed by Guernsey and the UK has weight – and some claim it weakens Guernsey's right when compared to what existed before.

Asserting Guernsey's independent identity is priority one of the Government Business Plan – and is a philosophy with which no election candidate argued in his or her manifesto.

There are some points in the framework agreement that sit happily with that policy.

'Guernsey has an international identity which is different from that of the UK,' for instance. Or, the 'UK recognises that Guernsey is a long-standing, small democracy and supports the principle of Guernsey further developing its international identity'.

Yet another point states: 'The UK has a role to play in assisting the development of Guernsey's international identity. The role is one of support, not interference.'

But it is the first point in the framework that has caused concern for constitutional experts.

It says: 'The UK will not act internationally on behalf of Guernsey without prior consultation.'

The framework then adds: 'The UK recognises that the interests of Guernsey may differ from those of the UK and the UK will seek to represent any differing interests when acting in an international capacity.'

Those against the framework will point out that consultation does not necessarily mean getting the island's agreement to something and question how vociferously any differences would be represented and how much weight would be given to them.

In a UK Government anti-bribery report lodged with the OECD in 2000, one section states that, 'the ratification of international conventions and treaties may be extended to the (Crown Dependencies) subject to the agreement of the insular authorities.'

The apparent dropping of this need for an agreement in the framework makes alarm bells ring in some circles.

A background briefing published in June 2006 by the DCA said: 'When the UK ratifies a treaty it does so on behalf of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and any of the Crown Dependencies or overseas territories that wish the treaty to apply to them.'

Again there was an implicit chance to opt out.

When taken at absolute face value, with the framework acting simply as a guide, the bells' ring is probably not particularly loud.

But it can be seen as setting a dangerous precedent – and one that the island might end up regretting.