THE foundations of Jersey’s present relationship with the Crown were set in place 800 years ago when King John lost Normandy but retained possession of the Channel Islands.

It can be argued that, since then, the Island has enjoyed the best of two worlds through its association with a more powerful parent state and its privileged position as a largely autonomous community.

However, as history has so often demonstrated, conventions, treaties and constitutional arrangements can be fragile. Even those which have endured the tests of eight centuries cannot be regarded as invulnerable to change.

With awareness of both the longevity of the Island’s special relationship with Britain and its potential fragility but also against the background of recent developments, the former Bailiff, Sir Philip Bailhache, has warned that we might be entering a new constitutional era.

He cites the cancellation of the reciprocal health agreement with the UK, the embargo on the export of Tasers for use by the States police and proposed changes in border control rules as reasons why we should be on the alert for more fundamental change.

He also asks whether the mutual affection shared by the Channel Islands and Britain is in danger of being replaced by attitudes based on the ‘envy and suspicion of so-called tax havens’.

Sir Philip does not go as far as saying that any of the perceived shifts in our ancient constitutional equilibrium are reasons for actively embarking on the road to independence. However, it is clear that he regards such extreme action as a possibility if it were deemed a necessity to protect our way of life and our right to earn a living.

In spite of the pride taken by so many Islanders in this community’s ability to stand on its own two feet, the notion of complete independence remains shocking. And so it should – on the grounds that, as for so many years past, we still benefit greatly from our status as a Crown Dependency.

That said, Sir Philip is absolutely right to complain that far too little attention has been paid to the idea, advanced in detail two years ago, that preparatory work should be undertaken to ensure the Island’s readiness in the event of any radical reshaping of our constitutional position.

What we have we should undoubtedly hold – but that does not preclude being fully prepared should we be compelled to go it alone.