Loosening UK ties looks like evolution, not revolution... yet
INDEPENDENCE? You decide. That was one of the clearest messages to emerge from The Jersey and Guernsey Law Review seminar last week, snappily titled Dependency or Sovereignty? Time to take stock.
INDEPENDENCE? You decide. That was one of the clearest messages to emerge from The Jersey and Guernsey Law Review seminar last week, snappily titled Dependency or Sovereignty? Time to take stock.
The dominant partner would not force the break from the UK, but it would not stand in the way if that was what the islands wanted.
So with no mass public uprising about our status as a Crown Dependency, reliant on the UK for defence and international relations, why is so much time being spent discussing the idea?
Why has Jersey worked on reports preparing for change?
The interlinked combination of greater European integration and the need to sustain a healthy finance sector to fuel the economy is the driver, more than any sudden nationalistic pride.
No one is burning flags in the street just yet.
The islands' relationship with Europe is bound up in Protocol Three, which largely protects trade but also is supposed to secure fiscal autonomy.
Guernsey's and Jersey's man in Europe, Professor Alastair Sutton, was probably the most hawkish when it came to arguing for the need for change.
He said that Protocol Three was broken - you could argue the evidence is plain to anyone who has watched the zero-10 issue.
Few in Europe understand the Channel Islands' relationship with the UK, he said, which in any event would always favour its own national interest over that of the islands in international dealings.
Would it be better to have a seat at the table? You might not be shouting loudest, but at least you can react flexibly to the changes coming from European policymakers.
The conference heard from speakers on different aspects of the debate.
How would the finance industry and its clients react? Well, it does not like uncertainty, but it was much more concerned with things like stability and the regulatory regimes. It was largely neutral on sovereignty and would wait and see if it happened, according to Michael Lagopoulos, CEO and head of RBC Wealth Management International in London.
What about a Channel Island Federation? Yep, and its bill of rights could offer the stability and assurances finance would need, as well as enshrining other social, environmental and economic aspects. Just keep it simple, was one of the messages.
The experiences of sovereignty from Iceland - do not mention banks - Liechtenstein and Barbados gave some fuel to the fire for supporters of independence.
Sir David Simmons, who served in the Barbados parliament for 31 years until 2001 and became the 12th chief justice of the island in 2002, gave a key message - it was about having confidence to change. Barbados did and benefited massively.
Wading through the debate, and speaking to a very non-scientific sample of a few people after it, gave a sense that what was needed was evolution, not a revolution - well, at least not yet.
People take comfort in having the UK and the Queen there in the background, but recognise the need for a greater voice for the islands and more control of their affairs.
So what about this?
Approval for local legislation should be taken away from the Privy Council, where it can become a political plaything, slowed for years, and instead be assessed independently locally or by a pan-Channel Islands body - perhaps ultimately under the Lt-Governors' offices given the position of the Queen's representatives in the islands.
It would allow for quicker reactions to the changing international environment so vital in staying competitive.
Adopt the recommendation made by the Justice Select Committee that when there are different positions adopted by the UK and the Channel Islands on international issues, the islands should either have a seat at the table to represent their case, or have someone briefed to talk on their behalf within the UK delegation.
It addition to the Channel Islands Brussels Office, one should be established in London - as Gibraltar and the Faroe Islands have done - to work on both creating a better understanding of our position and also keeping a closer eye on developments there.
That was a recommendation by Professor Sutton.
Greater Channel Island cooperation could be early steps towards creating the right environment for a federation, should one be needed.
It has started slowly with the pan-islands director of aviation, and in utility regulation, so why not start expanding that to areas where there are common ground like within financial regulation, transport regulation, data protection and environmental health?
Of course there are large obstacles to be overcome if independence and a Channel Islands federation were the route - perhaps one of the largest being the different systems of government in the islands.
Could consensus government ever be compatible with statehood?
How could ministers or even diplomats negotiate on the international stage without being assured of the authority and flexibility to do so?
How would representation of the different islands be carved up, what would be left at a local level, what at federal?
What about the legal system. Would the UK Supreme Court be kept as the ultimate court of appeal before Europe? Well, others have.
Do you pin the currency to the pound or Euro?
And are our politicians up to the task anyway? Who knows, perhaps the greater challenges and responsibility that come with independence would attract a better calibre candidate.
Currently the independence debate is largely confined to academic and legal circles.
But surely it would be better to be preparing now, with a strong and stable economy, than being rushed into it by a crisis?
