IT IS easy to make fun of the views of Lord William Wallace, the Liberal Democratic peer and descendant of Scotland’s Braveheart. His views have certainly received more attention than perhaps they deserve.

Apparently His Lordship thinks that the 800-year constitutional relationship between Jersey and the UK is an anachronism and needs to be changed. He’s quite right, of course.

Where he is wrong is in suggesting that the Crown Dependencies should lose some of their autonomy so that the UK can have more control over what’s going on in the islands’ finance industry. That’s a bit rich coming from someone whose antecedents fought long and hard for Scottish independence from England. The islands certainly have as much right to be independent as Scotland.

What the good lord should have said is that the Channel Islands should have more autonomy, not less, and that Jersey and Guernsey should at last be considered mature enough to run their own affairs without supervision from UK politicians whom we do not elect.

Lord Wallace expressed horror at the prospect of the Channel Islands becoming fully independent because ‘small jurisdictions that attract a huge amount of money are very difficult to govern without falling prey to corruption’. That’s just plain insulting and reflects Lord Wallace’s ignorance of what really goes on in the islands.

But he has a point – but only one. The current constitutional relationship is not fit for purpose and although we have all been happy to allow things to muddle on because they appear to work, we could be storing up problems for the future.

So in some respects it’s good news that the House of Commons Justice Committee is to review the role of the Justice Department in representing Jersey and the other Crown Dependencies internationally. Unfortunately, of course, they will be doing this from the perspective of the UK taxpayer and the UK electorate. We can make our representations, of course, but they will carry no more weight (indeed, might even carry less weight) than those of Joe Bloggs in Bolton.
Once again the islands will be placed on the back foot, and will simply be observers in a review that the islands themselves should be undertaking.

What the result of all this will be is anyone’s guess. I doubt whether there will be any result at all, except for the publication of a long report that people will read, comment on and then quietly forget.

However, it is possible that the committee’s findings will present such a clear picture of inequity or inefficiency that ‘something will have to be done’. It’s a dead cert that such a conclusion will not be because the situation is disadvantageous to the islands; it will be because it is disadvantageous to the people who elect the committee members. After all, whatever you can say about the current constitutional relationship, no-one has ever suggested that individual MPs in the House of Commons have any responsibility to the islands.

The balance of probabilities, therefore, is that any conclusion the committee reaches will not be particularly favourable to the Crown Dependencies.

Mind you, we should have got used to this situation by now. We’ve had more reviews that you can shake a stick at. Indeed, our senior politicians consistently welcome these investigations, pointing out that they are another opportunity for the Island to put across its message. The surprising thing is that after all these reviews, we are still getting people like Lord Wallace, who clearly doesn’t understand that we’re a mature, reputable community well able to look after ourselves and making a positive contribution to the global economy.

So perhaps it’s time for us to have our own review. Instead of interminably debating piffling issues such as whether the Constables should remain in the States or not, we should be looking at really important challenges such as our whole constitutional position and relationship with the UK.

We might find that we don’t want to change anything, but at least we will have done the work and will have a clear view of the options. We might even pre-empt anyone else who wants to change that position for their own advantage.

Taking a more active approach to these subjects will also help to dispel the impression that the Island changes only when it is forced to do so. Lord Wallace latched on with glee to the editorial in the Financial Times which said: ‘Havens [such as Jersey] may feel aggrieved at being bullied by the diplomatic gunboats of grander powers, but they have made concessions only when forced to do so.’

Unfortunately, it’s difficult to argue against that. We have tended to let sleeping dogs lie until someone comes up and forces us to take action. Now it’s time to become much more aggressive and look after and protect our own interests, even if it does mean crossing borders.
We need to be there helping to set the rules rather than just being forced to abide by them. That is evidence enough that the current arrangements for dealing with the Island’s foreign affairs isn’t working.

Reviewing our constitutional relationship will be an extraordinarily difficult subject to tackle, but it needs to be done. As His Lordship points out, times have changed since King John, and we really can’t afford to leave our international relationships to chance or to the vagaries of UK politicians or even un-elected members of the House of Lords.
Peter Body is editor of Business Brief magazine