Jersey Could Go It Alone

[Albert Tatlock]

to paraphrase Nigel Farage, who I thought summarised it quite well on his recent visit, is that "most MHKs don't know where their breakfast comes from"

Nigel Farage is a supercilious nincompoop. It's bizarre that the Liberal Vannin people have become involved with UKIP and their hysterical single issue obsession with all that is wrong with the EU.

 

The EU isn't going to be disbanded and it isn't going to be remodeled for the benefit of the sort of people who think that Nigel Farage has anything useful to contribute. He represents the sort of loonies who call 'Any Answers'.

I didn't say he was/wasn't - just that he seems to have got a good measure of most of our current MHKs Quoting someone doesn't always imply agreement with their stance on everything.

[pongo]

the LegCo should contain people who actually know about finance, international trade, economic theory, industry etc.

 

Right now we have an ex-SPC man, two radio bods, four former MHKs (one of whom was a banker) and a former police officer. Its a fairly mixed bag, and although I do not wish here to criticise any of them, I'm not sure they make up a second chamber conducive to sound government and parliamentary progress.

 

I disagree. I think that the Civil Service should (as it does) comprise experts and specialists who can then advise lay politicians from a variety of backgrounds. It's a good thing having a 'mixed bag'.

[Albert Tatlock]

It's a good thing having a 'mixed bag'.

I thought she'd gone?

[manshimajin]

I disagree. I think that the Civil Service should (as it does) comprise experts and specialists who can then advise lay politicians from a variety of backgrounds. It's a good thing having a 'mixed bag'.

 

Don't want to be seen as a Public Servant basher but there is a real limit to the competence and expertise that a 'smallish town size government' can expect to have if there is a quantum leap in demands - unless we (taxpayers) pay inordinate sums to 'consultants'.

 

Consider some of the points that AT has raised 'globalisation, citizenship, immigration, skills to health provision'. Now add on EU treaty negotiations, currency management, incorporation of the raft of EU legislation (90% of UK legislation is driven by EU legislation), provision of IOM Public Servants to work in Brussels/Strasbourg, agricultural subsidies, fisheries, consumer protection, member state relationships ets...etc...

 

Even on simple issues such as the EU Savings Directive I have found 3 different interpretations from 3 different IOM banks plus another one from Jersey...(admittedly not Public Servants but supposedly experts). Membership of the EU would be like climbing Everest when you're used to climbing Snaefell. Personally I could see no way of doing this other than by delegating administration to the UK. Luxembourg, the smallest member state has a population of 500,000. Maybe we should look for some intermediate relationship.

 

However I agree with Monsieur Tatlock that it needs a structured approach to identify what the issues would be to start the ball rolling and, I would add, to keep a very firm eye on cost/benefits.

[tameelf]

QUOTE (pongo @ Jun 29 2008, 04:02 PM)

It's a good thing having a 'mixed bag'.

 

dont forget the ex bankrupt

[triskelion]

I disagree. I think that the Civil Service should (as it does) comprise experts and specialists who can then advise lay politicians from a variety of backgrounds. It's a good thing having a 'mixed bag'.

 

Don't want to be seen as a Public Servant basher but there is a real limit to the competence and expertise that a 'smallish town size government' can expect to have if there is a quantum leap in demands - unless we (taxpayers) pay inordinate sums to 'consultants'.

The Island doesn't have a 'smallish town size government though.' The size you are refering to would, presuming you are using the UK as a benchmark, be the responsibility of a borough council, and have responsibilities not dissimilar to that of Douglas.

 

Make no mistake, the IoMG is a central Government, the size of the population over which it has responsbility are, to all intents and purposes irrelevant. It differs from the UK Government in a number of obvious respects, but has more direct influence over the emergency services, health care and education, which across the water would be handled by either County Councils or unitary authorities (usually City Councils). True, the tax base will always be relative to the size of the population, but given the estimates in the Jersey report, the figures do not seem all that big.

 

As for the possibility of a 'quantum leap' in demands, it is unlikely this would be the path taken to independence. The Jersey report does address the point that expertise will be needed, and suggests that the current civil service be seeded with those with such experience, rather than trying to hobble together a foreign office off the fly. The IoMG (or Jersey for that matter) could encourage this by offering graduate scholarships of some kind in exchange for agree to work for the Government afterwards.

 

Re: Me saying 'mixed bag,' I kinda poorly phrased what I was trying to say. A mixed bag would obviously be a beneficial thing, but it depends on the contents. Currently, the standard of nominees is pretty poor and the voting process is a shambles. Why would any of Island's best and most experienced want to sit in a house that has effectively been relegated to a worthless revising chamber, whilst being forbidden by general consensus from serving as ministers on the flimsy principle that they have not been popularly elected, as if that were an indicator of suitability.

 

Finally, yes, the Manx Government maybe receive the largest part of its funding via the Common Purse Agreement, but its important to remember that, in the event of independence, that revenue would, for the most part still be gathered. Now, given that the general impression is that the Island does well out of this agreement, it is not unreasonable to postualte that there would, in such an eventuality, be a shortfall for the Treasury. However, this could be predicted, and plans made to compensate for this.

[pongo]

yes, the Manx Government maybe receive the largest part of its funding via the Common Purse Agreement, but its important to remember that, in the event of independence, that revenue would, for the most part still be gathered. Now, given that the general impression is that the Island does well out of this agreement, it is not unreasonable to postualte that there would, in such an eventuality, be a shortfall for the Treasury. However, this could be predicted, and plans made to compensate for this.

 

Got any plans?

[manshimajin]

The Island doesn't have a 'smallish town size government though.' The size you are refering to would, presuming you are using the UK as a benchmark, be the responsibility of a borough council, and have responsibilities not dissimilar to that of Douglas.

 

I may also have phrased it badly - what I mean is not that the IOM government has similar responsibilities to a UK borough but that it has a population catchment the size of a smallish UK borough from which to draw the public servants it needs to administer a 'crown dependency'. In doing so it must also compete with the private sector which needs skilled people to generate the economic activity that is the driver of the Island's economy. Difficulties in recruiting skilled private sector people would be a major disincentive for investment.

 

My concern is also that independence would stretch public service competencies beyond breaking point (judging by Forum comments some members feel that point has already been reached). This would particularly be the case if the IOM Government had to take on EU level activities. The pressure on the Public Service and their ability to have sufficient numbers and skills to deliver competent administration is a key factor in taking self-government to further stages - and also what would this cost? A graduate scheme would be some help but what would be needed is experience and negotiating savvy.

 

I have not seen the Jersey report. However if a full EU relationship was developed this does not stop at foreign policy (indeed this is probably amongst the least of the issues). Membership of the EU involves inputs and continuing negotiations in respect to most areas of commerce as well as most areas of social and civil activity.

 

Frankly I just can't see the existing Member States being at all interested in either Jersey or the IoM being full Member States - maybe we could follow Iceland, Norway and Lichtenstein by being covered under the European Economic Agreement?

[Pink Po]

Jersey could go it alone

Time we looked at it seriously IMO - and at least started a public debate about the possibility - and possibilities.

 

I doubt that the IoM could have any viable plan to go independent; particularly in the current fiscal climate. You have to consider how the Island (as opposed to Jersey and Guernsey) balances the books. I understand that about 2/3 rds of the income the IoM raises comes from the VAT agreement with the UK, with 1/3rd coming from the direct taxation of Islanders and Island based businesses.

 

In Jersey or Guernsey 100% of government revenue comes from direct taxation so they are at least more in control of their destiny fiscally than we are which makes it easier to play the independence card. On this basis they have a better chance of successfully going it alone (although I doubt even then it would be viable as it would change their relationship with the rest of the world and may isolate their economies further).

 

The IoM has no option but to keep the link with the UK unless we can find a magic way of raising £300m or more in extra tax each year.

i Agree With This x

[Albert Tatlock]

Jersey could go it alone

Time we looked at it seriously IMO - and at least started a public debate about the possibility - and possibilities.

I doubt that the IoM could have any viable plan to go independent...

i Agree With This x

Can we not get away from this £300M? The short obvious solution would be to look at what Jersey do differently to us now, and see if their model would be appropriate for us - and if it is not, to look at possible alternatives. This £300M argument is analagous to 'I can't go anywhere in my car at the moment because my tyre is flat....therefore I will never get anywhere' - when the obvious answer is 'change the feckin tyre and move on'.

 

Edited to add both budgets:

 

Jersey 2008 Budget Document

 

Isle of Man 2008 Budget Document

 

 

_

[manshimajin]

Can we not get away from this £300M? The short obvious solution would be to look at what Jersey do differently to us now, and see if their model would be appropriate for us - and if it is not, to look at possible alternatives. This £300M argument is analagous to 'I can't go anywhere in my car at the moment because my tyre is flat....therefore I will never get anywhere' - when the obvious answer is 'change the feckin tyre and move on'.

 

Edited to add both budgets:

 

Jersey 2008 Budget Document

 

Isle of Man 2008 Budget Document

 

 

Thanks for including the Budgets. It would be good to get away from a limited discussion on £300 million and to focus in on what the benefits are and to look at costs in relation to these.

 

Can anyone explain to me how the Channel Islands seem to be able to exercise considerably more discretion on excise and VAT/GST than the IOM Governmen does? Is this something to do with the legal status in both instances?

 

Would it be a good starting point for debate on the Island to consider not so much how we become 'independent' but how we could move to have the economic liberties that seem to be exerised by governments in the Channel Islands. At the moment we seem to be independent on taxation but UK controlled on excise duties.

 

 

_

[John Wright]

There is not a £300 million question, and if there is a question over any figure, it is easy to resolve

 

We get an income from Customs duty and VAT some of which we collect and some of which is collected in the UK and all added together and then we get our share of it less what we have collected. How our share is calculayed has been carefuly negotiated. You don't think Westminster will subsidise us by giving us more than we are entitled to, do you?

 

It covers duties collected at Uk borders and also VAT paid in UK on purchases by IOM residents on mail order or IKEA runs etc

 

Yes if we no longer had a customs agreement with UK we woul;d lose some of that. But why, if we have independence, do we ned to tear up the customs and VAT agreement? We can still have one. If UK breaks up we can have one with England, it will have to be renegotiated.. There are many staes which have customs unions. You don't have to have the same customs duty rates and VAT rates because that can all be taken into account in the division calculation.

 

It is not only no bar to independence but continuing to have a customs agreement is not dependent on us not becoming independent. Neither is an ongoing customs agreement a negation, contra indication or contradiction of independence..

[Skeddan]

Can we have some clarification on this £300m please. Is this taken from the paper put out by 'Tax Research'? - if not, could someone provide the source for this supposed level of financial support from the UK. The £300m estimated in the 'Tax Research' paper appears to be bogus and based on hot air - in fact IoM contributes money to the UK (for 'defence contribution') and not the other way.

[triskelion]

The £300 million is the amount the Island receives in VAT revenues, via the Common Purse Agreement with the UK. For some reason people think independence would change this.

[thesultanofsheight]

Can we have some clarification on this £300m please. Is this taken from the paper put out by 'Tax Research'? - if not, could someone provide the source for this supposed level of financial support from the UK. The £300m estimated in the 'Tax Research' paper appears to be bogus and based on hot air - in fact IoM contributes money to the UK (for 'defence contribution') and not the other way.

 

I think to be fair the figure is published in the budget report which shows where actual government revenue comes from.

 

As John says its not a gift its a genuine and fair (?) slice of what we raise in VAT on local services and goods rather than the crap that Tax Research spread about it being some sort of "unfair" subsidy.