Our politics doesn't go global
IT’S hard to evaluate which was worse – the decision to spend some 13 hours over the course of four different days in the States chamber debating amendments to the rules of procedure, or the decision to make it a priority issue for the States to have to consider so close to their end of term.
Either way, the complete lack of awareness of deputies who wished to prolong the agony of this most navel-gazing of discussions was staggering, especially with so many other real priorities – the future of the care sector for one – still waiting for their turn.
Alongside the two-hour debate (relatively short in the circumstances) to agree to limit individual speeches to 15 minutes, the major talking point from all this chat appeared to be the resistance to the move to full transparency of all deputies’ worldwide interests.
All the big guns were pulled out to resist the motion – threats of kidnap and ransom, and corrupt international police officers – and this won out over pleas for the desire for transparency.
Of course the same argument of what is of interest to the public, or in the public interest, would be used in our favour when considering public registers of beneficial ownership.
Something to hide? Unlikely.
But one can’t help but feel that States members have done themselves few favours here by failing to take this opportunity.