From Advocate Philip Sinel.
ON Tuesday 14th December, you published a very well judged letter from the former Bailiff. To my mind he made a number of exceedingly good points.

In relation to taxation, we have both law and morality on our side. It is our long established constitutional right to set our own levels of taxation.

Secondly, we are not subject to any relevant Law, European or otherwise that tells us to do the bidding of the UK Treasury, or to act in such a way as to assist the economies of our competitors.

When I say competitors, many of the members of the European Union, and in particular the United Kingdom, operate quite deliberately as tax havens, that is to say that they offer tax breaks in order to induce certain people to live within their shores, and/or to do certain types of business. The reason that there is one rule for them and one rule for us is because they are larger than us. There is no other reason.

Again, as Sir Philip points out, the United Kingdom’s obligations to the European Union, pursuant to our constitutional arrangements are limited; they do not include responsibility for our tax system.

Finally, Sir Philip is perfectly correct in saying that Jersey has shown itself to be a responsible member of the international community. My own view of money laundering is that although sometimes it gets through the net here, such activities are most often conducted in countries with real expertise and experience of such activities, for example England and America.

I have never understood at any level why it is that our leaders sought to kow-tow to the English in relation to our economy. Although by dint of historical accident the English have a lot of power to do a great deal to assist the Island, they have not exercised those powers in such a fashion as to assist the ordinary people of the Island, or indeed the Island as a whole. The English exercise their powers in relation to Jersey on a self-interested basis.

In relation to taxation, we have both law and morality on our side. It is our long established constitutional right to set our own levels of taxation.

Secondly, we are not subject to any relevant Law, European or otherwise that tells us to do the bidding of the UK Treasury, or to act in such a way as to assist the economies of our competitors.

When I say competitors, many of the members of the European Union, and in particular the United Kingdom, operate quite deliberately as tax havens, that is to say that they offer tax breaks in order to induce certain people to live within their shores, and/or to do certain types of business. The reason that there is one rule for them and one rule for us is because they are larger than us. There is no other reason.

Again, as Sir Philip points out, the United Kingdom’s obligations to the European Union, pursuant to our constitutional arrangements are limited; they do not include responsibility for our tax system.

Finally, Sir Philip is perfectly correct in saying that Jersey has shown itself to be a responsible member of the international community. My own view of money laundering is that although sometimes it gets through the net here, such activities are most often conducted in countries with real expertise and experience of such activities, for example England and America.

I have never understood at any level why it is that our leaders sought to kow-tow to the English in relation to our economy. Although by dint of historical accident the English have a lot of power to do a great deal to assist the Island, they have not exercised those powers in such a fashion as to assist the ordinary people of the Island, or indeed the Island as a whole. The English exercise their powers in relation to Jersey on a self-interested basis.