Miss Take Posted March 3, 2008 Share Posted March 3, 2008 Hi Skeddan, do you fancy coming round to mine to liven up a dinner party I'm having? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skeddan Posted March 4, 2008 Share Posted March 4, 2008 There is some relevant and interesting material regarding Taiwan's status which can be found here - http://www.taiwanadvice.com/ This basically argues that Taiwan is unincorprated territory of the United States which and is adminstered by the military government of the occupying power (a US Military Government). It's well argued and makes sense of Taiwan's status, and also shows that such status may be relatively benign. Making sense of IoM's status involves a somewhat similar exercise and has some parallels to Taiwan. Among useful reference materials are the "ABCD Chart of Territorial Cession after War" http://www.taiwanadvice.com/chartabcd.htm To what real extent is the Governor a member of the executive though? IMO the Governor of the Isle of Man – appointed by the Crown is a military position with responsibility for peace order and good government of the territory under occupation (just like other military governors, e.g. as appointed by principal occupying power in Iraq). Though this might be considered a 'ceremonial role' it is not, but rather one which carries significant 'velvet glove responsibilities'. As John Wright observes: The Governor used to be the control mechanism used by Whithall, originally with an absolute veto. His powers are less nowm those of the AG much enlarged. he sits in the political power house to advise bu also to say Mr Brown he say no. That, among other things (like ensuring compliance with relevant occupation law etc.) is what military governors are there for. Note also the extent of these powers - i.e. those of a military government as stated in 'A Review of the Scope and Structure of Government in the Isle of Man' 1.1.2 Prior to 1866, whilst Tynwald and the House of Keys (in an unelected form) existed, the Government of the Isle of Man was essentially the Lieutenant-Governor, who was appointed by the Crown to administer its personal possession. Even after the reforms of 1866, when the House of Keys became popularly elected as a quid pro quo for Tynwald acquiring the right to retain certain limited tax revenues for the benefit of the Island and having some say in how the Governor performed his functions, the Governor was still unmistakeably "the Government". http://www.gov.im/lib/docs/cso/review/revi...ctureofiomg.pdf (p.19) The current Governor, Vice Admiral Sir Paul Haddacks KCB is very well qualified for a role as military governor. http://www.gov.im/cso/crown/biography_gov.xml It is also interesting to note the military backgrounds of many former Lt Governors and 'colonial administrators', or rather military governors of IoM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dodger Posted March 10, 2008 Author Share Posted March 10, 2008 It was good to read that the council of ministers agreed to this clause as they will be the ones determining the amounts, before passing it to the Governor for checking and ratification! http://www.tynwald.org.im/papers/early/keys/epk040308b.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted March 11, 2008 Share Posted March 11, 2008 There is some relevant and interesting material regarding Taiwan's status which can be found here - http://www.taiwanadvice.com/ This basically argues that Taiwan is unincorprated territory of the United States which and is adminstered by the military government of the occupying power (a US Military Government). It's well argued and makes sense of Taiwan's status, and also shows that such status may be relatively benign. Making sense of IoM's status involves a somewhat similar exercise and has some parallels to Taiwan. You take this seriously! Christ, now there I was thinking I'd be the only person on the IOM to have trawled that bloody site - wrong again! Skeddan, please be very careful with the internet - it is full of interesting ideas, but they must be taken with a pinch of salt. Trying to understand Taiwan's constitutional position is complicated and could well involve the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in the next 20 years. Lots of loons and even right thinking people are wondering what to do - this is a wonderful counterfactual, but meaningless re-the Isle of Man. It is an interesting issue with unwritten constitutions etc - there is a lack of clarity in such relationships - and that lack of clarity allows all sorts of riggle room - sometimes a good thing, sometimes a bad thing. In an age of lawyers who like to be able to argue over commas for days on end - and hence usually leave all punctuation out - unwritten constitutions are dying out and so rather than arguing over what people said and thought was going on in 1671 or whatever you can find out what respective governments actually say their relationship is: makes things a lot easier! UK Department of Constitutional Affairs Joint Statement IOM-UK Govs on IOM international position It would be fascinating to debate what the UK would do if 'King Tony Brown went mad - told the Gov to F-off, declared that the fairies have dominion and that Mannin will protect us with his mists? But is it really relevent. If the IOM voted in a democratic, verifiable election to go its own way, it could, as can Scotland, Northern Ireland etc. States under military occupation can't do this and banging on about just makes you sound a bit cracked! Enjoy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skeddan Posted March 11, 2008 Share Posted March 11, 2008 Chinahand – I don’t know enough about Taiwan to be able to form a firm opinion on this. Though I do think the website presents an interesting argument, I do take this with a pinch of salt. However the site does have some general references to principles of occupation law, military government, civil affairs administrations etc. and provides a quick link resource on such topics. The question isn’t to do with an unwritten constitution, but the legal relationship between the UK and IoM. There is certainly lack of clarity as to exactly what this relationship is (personal union, political union, or something else – and if so what exactly). That lack of clarity, or ‘wriggle room’ is the kind of ‘constructive ambiguity’ that diplomats use, but as St John Bates noted, it ought to be possible to give an answer about the legal basis of this relationship (even if it would be diplomatic not to). The DCA link you give doesn’t do this – rather it uses the well worn formula of providing descriptive features of the relationship. Before getting into what options might be available to IoM one has to first get to grips with the nature of the legal and constitutional relationship with the UK. At the least one should expect there to be clarity and transparency as to the nature and basis of the relationship – something that is now lacking (and which IMO is an issue in itself). As I’ve said before the exact nature and basis of this relationship is always fudged in official accounts such as Kilbrandon. It is presented as obscure and mysterious in a way that suggests it is ‘unknowable’. Given a choice between this mysterious non-explanation and a straightforward legal analysis fitting with facts and established principles, why would you think it more rational to keep with the mysterious and obscure? Supposedly it is a Very Proper relationship which as described has all the characteristics of an Administering Power but goes by another name – one that is more diplomatic and politically acceptable. I’ve argued that the characteristics of the relationship fit with the UK actually being an Administering Power - this is a simple, straightforward and IMO a legally coherent analysis. Alternatives which suggest that the UK has sovereign title simply do not fit and do not offer a coherent analysis. If there are fatal flaws in that argument and a better explanation, I’d very much like to hear it. If indeed the UK’s relationship with IoM is that of an Administering Power, that is not necessarily a bad thing – or some wicked evil conspiracy, or even any grave and unthinkable wrongdoing by the UK. It could even afford IoM greater autonomy and protection than might appear to be the case under the undefined legal relationship currently accepted – i.e., strange as it may sound, it could actually be a good thing for IoM. It is not conspiracy theory – simply the only sensible answer I have been able to find so far which answers to the relationship between UK and IoM. Just because it doesn’t fit the orthodox paradigm (which fails to offer any sensible explanation), that doesn’t make it rational to dismiss that analysis out of hand. Nor should you assume assume that if it did prove correct it would be a threat and therefore is something best left obscure. If you think you are better off in a state of ignorance protected by mists of obscurity - enjoy!. Alternatively, by all means offer objections, questions, alternatives, counter-arguments or views on what this may or may not mean. It would also be sensible to consider that the matter is an open question until addressed by competent legal authorities. If you want to consider it as crackpot, do so – I’m simply floating what seems to me to be a sensible answer and noting what appear to be flaws in alternative explanations. I think the question of the relationship is an interesting one and worth getting to the bottom of – if you or others have a better explanation which stands up to scrutiny or can show good reason why the view I’ve offered should be rejected, that would be progress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dodger Posted March 11, 2008 Author Share Posted March 11, 2008 There is some relevant and interesting material regarding Taiwan's status which can be found here - http://www.taiwanadvice.com/ This basically argues that Taiwan is unincorprated territory of the United States which and is adminstered by the military government of the occupying power (a US Military Government). It's well argued and makes sense of Taiwan's status, and also shows that such status may be relatively benign. Making sense of IoM's status involves a somewhat similar exercise and has some parallels to Taiwan. You take this seriously! Christ, now there I was thinking I'd be the only person on the IOM to have trawled that bloody site - wrong again! Skeddan, please be very careful with the internet - it is full of interesting ideas, but they must be taken with a pinch of salt. Trying to understand Taiwan's constitutional position is complicated and could well involve the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in the next 20 years. Lots of loons and even right thinking people are wondering what to do - this is a wonderful counterfactual, but meaningless re-the Isle of Man. It is an interesting issue with unwritten constitutions etc - there is a lack of clarity in such relationships - and that lack of clarity allows all sorts of riggle room - sometimes a good thing, sometimes a bad thing. In an age of lawyers who like to be able to argue over commas for days on end - and hence usually leave all punctuation out - unwritten constitutions are dying out and so rather than arguing over what people said and thought was going on in 1671 or whatever you can find out what respective governments actually say their relationship is: makes things a lot easier! UK Department of Constitutional Affairs Joint Statement IOM-UK Govs on IOM international position It would be fascinating to debate what the UK would do if 'King Tony Brown went mad - told the Gov to F-off, declared that the fairies have dominion and that Mannin will protect us with his mists? But is it really relevent. If the IOM voted in a democratic, verifiable election to go its own way, it could, as can Scotland, Northern Ireland etc. States under military occupation can't do this and banging on about just makes you sound a bit cracked! Enjoy! Points worthy of note, we are a possession of the UK! They can impose law, or amend ours! I think it would be interesting to see if we could become a sovereign state?! We would have better tourism as people would want to benefit from our duty free. We could get back our 12 mile limit! We could decide if we wanted to bring in a law without recourse to the UK via the AG or Chief Secretaries office. I wonder how much we pay for UK civil servants? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skeddan Posted March 11, 2008 Share Posted March 11, 2008 I think it would be interesting to see if we could become a sovereign state?! That depends on what the legal relationship with the UK is. As it stands IoM is not a sovereign state. Before 1765 it was (as I noted before). If UK is an Administering Power, then IoM's sovereignty is 'suspended' while under the UK - not extinguished. IoM thus might be a sovereign state already - in which case the route to regaining sovereignty is different from a new state emerging and the creation of a new sovereign entity - e.g. in the way Kosovo has become. Chinahand is right about being able to declare independence, but not being able to simply do so if under Administering Power. There are important differences - hence the status needs to be worked out to answer the question. You are right in some of the advantages - and weighing these up with disadvantages and what it might mean would have to be worked through. It would also probably make IoM more democratic (by usual measures) and as studies suggest, this has positive effect on economic performance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted March 12, 2008 Share Posted March 12, 2008 There is some relevant and interesting material regarding Taiwan's status which can be found here - http://www.taiwanadvice.com/ This basically argues that Taiwan is unincorprated territory of the United States which and is adminstered by the military government of the occupying power (a US Military Government). It's well argued and makes sense of Taiwan's status, and also shows that such status may be relatively benign. Making sense of IoM's status involves a somewhat similar exercise and has some parallels to Taiwan. You take this seriously! Christ, now there I was thinking I'd be the only person on the IOM to have trawled that bloody site - wrong again! Skeddan, please be very careful with the internet - it is full of interesting ideas, but they must be taken with a pinch of salt. Trying to understand Taiwan's constitutional position is complicated and could well involve the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in the next 20 years. Lots of loons and even right thinking people are wondering what to do - this is a wonderful counterfactual, but meaningless re-the Isle of Man. It is an interesting issue with unwritten constitutions etc - there is a lack of clarity in such relationships - and that lack of clarity allows all sorts of riggle room - sometimes a good thing, sometimes a bad thing. In an age of lawyers who like to be able to argue over commas for days on end - and hence usually leave all punctuation out - unwritten constitutions are dying out and so rather than arguing over what people said and thought was going on in 1671 or whatever you can find out what respective governments actually say their relationship is: makes things a lot easier! UK Department of Constitutional Affairs Joint Statement IOM-UK Govs on IOM international position It would be fascinating to debate what the UK would do if 'King Tony Brown went mad - told the Gov to F-off, declared that the fairies have dominion and that Mannin will protect us with his mists? But is it really relevent. If the IOM voted in a democratic, verifiable election to go its own way, it could, as can Scotland, Northern Ireland etc. States under military occupation can't do this and banging on about just makes you sound a bit cracked! Enjoy! Points worthy of note, we are a possession of the UK! They can impose law, or amend ours! I think it would be interesting to see if we could become a sovereign state?! We would have better tourism as people would want to benefit from our duty free. We could get back our 12 mile limit! We could decide if we wanted to bring in a law without recourse to the UK via the AG or Chief Secretaries office. I wonder how much we pay for UK civil servants? I wonder how much the UK Government pays to the Isle of Man, from what I have read in this article it is a lot of money. http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Documents/TRIoM3-07.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skeddan Posted March 12, 2008 Share Posted March 12, 2008 I wonder how much the UK Government pays to the Isle of Man, from what I have read in this article it is a lot of money. http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Documents/TRIoM3-07.pdf These figures are based on hot air - and were discussed here:- http://www.manxforums.com/forums/index.php...t=0#entry294185 Money goes the other way - IoM pays the UK (as a defence contribution). This is about £2.5M a year. However it seems IoM has to pay for the Barrule to protect the limited fishing rights it has. Also its worth noting that if IoM returned to the kind of suzerainty arrangement which existed before 1765 then the UK would still be responsible for defence and Manks would still enjoy rights of being British Citizens, consular protection etc. - which they had for the cost of a pair of falcons once in a while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 I wonder how much the UK Government pays to the Isle of Man, from what I have read in this article it is a lot of money. http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Documents/TRIoM3-07.pdf These figures are based on hot air - and were discussed here:- http://www.manxforums.com/forums/index.php...t=0#entry294185 Money goes the other way - IoM pays the UK (as a defence contribution). This is about £2.5M a year. However it seems IoM has to pay for the Barrule to protect the limited fishing rights it has. Also its worth noting that if IoM returned to the kind of suzerainty arrangement which existed before 1765 then the UK would still be responsible for defence and Manks would still enjoy rights of being British Citizens, consular protection etc. - which they had for the cost of a pair of falcons once in a while. Thanks for pointing out the earlier thread, I missed that topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 There is some relevant and interesting material regarding Taiwan's status which can be found here - http://www.taiwanadvice.com/ This basically argues that Taiwan is unincorprated territory of the United States which and is adminstered by the military government of the occupying power (a US Military Government). It's well argued and makes sense of Taiwan's status, and also shows that such status may be relatively benign. Making sense of IoM's status involves a somewhat similar exercise and has some parallels to Taiwan. Among useful reference materials are the "ABCD Chart of Territorial Cession after War" http://www.taiwanadvice.com/chartabcd.htm Sorry to raise this thread from the dead! It seems Skeddan has either left, or morphed into someone else, and probably only he will be interested in this - and even then its debatable - but the issue he raises above about US military government of Taiwan has got all the way up to the Court of Appeal in the USA - they said that answering this question involves politics and they don't do politics so they refused to say one way or the other who has soverignty over Taiwan! Clicky Quick edit to add - I bet this will go to the Supreme Court - if you read the judgement the Justice is squirming! [The] Appellants may even be correct; careful analysis of the SFPT might lead us to conclude the United States has temporary sovereignty. But we will never know, because the political question doctrine forbids us from commencing that analysis.... At first blush, it is difficult to challenge [the] Appellants’ reasoning. Fascinating stuff if you've spent years following the Taiwan question! Shit I'm a nerd! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skeddan Posted April 12, 2009 Share Posted April 12, 2009 Hi Chinahand - no, I've not left, nor morphed into anyone else, and yes it is interesting. "temporary sovereignty" is a nice phrase. The political question doctorine as I understand it is essentially the 'Act of State' doctorine, which further suggests that this is under prerogative powers. Well at least the judge thought it through that far rather than just ridiculing out of hand as I think you did - and which isn't really the way to get to the bottom of questions about legal relationships. But back to IoM and legal relationship with the UK: there is an unanswered question, I've put forward reasons why the relationship is one of defacto (or 'temporary') sovereignty (as per occupying power), which seems the only rational coherent way to account for all the quirks and peculiarities (saying it's 'ambiguous' or 'mysterious' isn't an explanation of the legal relationship but evading explanation). The best you've come up with is using a cartoon to ridicule the notion the UK only has defacto sovereignty. I had hoped to find some mature discussion on the topic, and perhaps persuasive cogent counter-arguments. Sadly there's been little more than trite dismissal and ungrounded dogmatic insistence that it ain't so. When someone has their head buried in the ground, you generally find they are talking out of their backside, and the most you get from that is hot air and shit. (Oh yes, there was the 'dancing on pinheads' comment too - making out that the question of constitutional relationship is of no importance whatsover - as if it will be just exactly as you choose to think it is - no matter what. A bit delusional IMO, but then so is your cartoon world approach to such questions) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triskelion Posted April 12, 2009 Share Posted April 12, 2009 ? You've compared the Manx situation to that in Taiwan, which you later admit to not understanding, then stated what the role of the Governor is in your opinion, and then mock-supported your position with some selective quotations relating to historic powers. Not a very strong case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.