IN the latest edition of Business Brief, Guernsey-based columnist Peter Porter asks: ‘When does what Jersey’s Chief Minister described as a significant advance in the development of the Island’s international personality become what the Guernsey Press described as a dodgy deal?’

Good question.
The columnist is referring to the ‘framework for developing the international personality of Jersey’ signed between the Chief Minister and the Minister of Justice in the UK. Exactly the same agreement was also signed by the Isle of Man and was due to be signed by Guernsey’s Chief Minister until States mMembers stepped in.

Guernsey would have signed at the same time as Jersey, but there was a delay because of a spat over Sark, so States Members there were warned that it was coming up and decided that they should have a say in the matter. Jersey States Members didn’t know it was coming.

The different way in which this has panned out in the islands could mean a number of things. Either Guernsey States Members don’t trust their Policy Council, or they think they should have a say in whether the agreement is signed or not (in which case it would be pretty embarrassing now if they said no). Or that they are nitpicking.

It could also mean that the Jersey States do trust their Council of Ministers more. Or that they don’t really want to interfere (they couldn’t because they weren’t given an opportunity to have their say in any case).
There is another possibility: perhaps nobody thinks it is important enough to worry about.

Despite considerable hullabaloo about it being an historic document, it appears to be nothing more than a PR exercise. It looks like an attempt to provide comfort to those outside the islands that the UK really don’t mind them becoming more involved in looking after their own international affairs. But it doesn’t actually give them the powers to do so.

Indeed, if Guernsey critics are right, the agreement is a step backwards. Previous statements from ministers in the UK said that they wouldn’t act internationally on behalf of the islands without prior consent. The framework says: ‘The UK will not act internationally on behalf of Jersey without prior consultation.’ The word ‘consent’ is missing.

It might just be a sloppy use of words, although with a subject such as this, you would imagine that the wording would be carefully worked out.

The end result of all this is that this ‘historic’ agreement doesn’t get us very far. We don’t know whether it represents progress in developing our international personality or whether it is just the mother country laying down the rules for us.

These are all interesting questions which will no doubt be discussed at length by constitutional experts and soon by the members of the States of Guernsey.

But who cares? There has been an increasing amount of discussion about the Island’s constitutional position and whether it can or should look after its own international interests. Much of the debate has emphasised the Island’s 800 years of legal independence, which is interesting and does provide the Island with historical legitimacy as an independent jurisdiction. But frankly, that’s not particularly important.

What is important is what Islanders want. Do they want to look after their own international affairs? Do they believe that the government they elect should govern them without any involvement from outside? It’s not a constitutional issue, or even an economic one. It’s what the people want that is important.

How they express their desires is another matter. At the moment there is no particular issue that requires a decision about international personalities or about gaining independence. In theory this could arise if the Island’s finance industry is threatened by actions taken by the UK or by a failure to represent our interests internationally. But that’s nothing new. We’ve had a few disagreements in the past, but no major split that would justify us wanting to sever the apron strings.

After all, although our interests do not always coincide exactly, it would be strange indeed if we did not understand each other’s position and were totally at odds.

So perhaps this debate about constitutions and independence is just academic and there’s no urgency in trying to clarify a confused picture.

On the other hand, there is nothing to be gained from confusion. Perhaps we should set out the ground rules much more clearly and explain exactly what the dependencies and the UK believe the situation to be.

I know that’s what the agreement with the Department of Justice was meant to do, but it has obviously failed miserably.

Peter Body is editor of
Business Brief magazine.