Power Lost To Westminster?

[VinnieK]

However much a foreign government may consider it a 'legitimate act' would the Manx Government readily consent to having ID Cards imposed if it meant political suicide? I am a little unsure how you can impose them unless you have Manx Govt support. Would the UK Government not let us enter UK territory unless we had ID Cards?

 

The UK government has always had the power to legislate for the Island, against its will if need be, and can specify acts to apply to the Island, or obtain an order in council. It's true that consent is usually sought, but it doesn't have to be.

 

I'm not sure how accurate it is, but wikipedia cites the 1967 Marine Broadcasting Offences Act as an example of the UK parliament (successfully) legislating for the Island against its wishes. If true, this is a pretty good example of intrusive legislation without consent over a relatively piffling issue (pirate radio).

 

Incidentally what happens to the IOM's status if the UK Government becomes an England-only Government? Would we be an English Crown Dependency?

 

I think so.

[manshimajin]

The UK government has always had the power to legislate for the Island, against its will if need be, and can specify acts to apply to the Island, or obtain an order in council. It's true that consent is usually sought, but it doesn't have to be.

But how does it enforce its will? Presumably by crude threats in response to the Chief Minister saying bu**er off to the UK PM?

 

Armed marines storming ashore and the UK PM outside No.10 saying "Rejoice! we have retaken the Isle of Man' or financial sanctions?

 

Now what happened to that Manx Independence thread....

[Cronky]

But how does it enforce its will? Presumably by crude threats in response to the Chief Minister saying bu**er off to the UK PM?

 

I think it's more likely to be subtle threats to the Chief Secretary who then sells the policy on to the Chief Minister.

[cheeky boy]

I can't think of a occasion when the Manx government has stood up against Westminster, so any change in the wording of the agreement is probably academic

[immortalpuppet]

I wonder if they asked Queen david if this was ok

[Cronky]

I can't think of a occasion when the Manx government has stood up against Westminster, so any change in the wording of the agreement is probably academic

 

How about ID Cards? The 2006 Act includes the Isle of Man yet Tony Brown says we are not getting them.

[cheeky boy]

I can't think of a occasion when the Manx government has stood up against Westminster, so any change in the wording of the agreement is probably academic

 

How about ID Cards? The 2006 Act includes the Isle of Man yet Tony Brown says we are not getting them.

 

 

Probably because we already have them in the form of our driving licence, coupled with the fact that to get on and off the island these days requires a passport to get the tickets

 

Should the UK insist we have ID cards then you can be sure we will get them regardless of any noises from the wedding cake

 

See: birching, disclosure of bankng information etc. etc.

[triskelion]

Just consider that the UK Home Office is a huge organisation. If they put their minds to running rings round the Isle of Man they will probably get away with it.

Since it was broken up, HMG Home Office no longer has responsibility for Crown Dependencies. They now fall under the remit of the Ministry of Justice.

[Skeddan]

IMO VinnieK has summed up UK powers pretty well.

 

If I remember this 2006 agreement was hailed as a bit of a step forward - it makes a concession that IoM ought to be consulted beforehand. Agreement isn't needed, but before it wasn't necessary to even consult.

 

I don't know how binding this agreement is on the UK. The copy the IOMG show on their website isn't even signed by the UK, so if that's the only copy IOMG have it's a bit worthless. (Anyway 'consult' can simply mean a quick phone call to get the 10 second view from the CM before ploughing on with it regardless).

 

In short, the 'treaty' seems to me to be a bit of puff to give the impression of greater autonomy for IoM - probably to look good and also to reassure the finance industry the UK won't sign IoM up to anti-tax avoidance agreements. The reality is UK can impose legislation and has responsibility for international relations just as before.

 

Does anyone know of any treaties that the UK has signed up for on behalf of IoM since this agreement? (e.g. extradition of hackers to US).

[Cronky]

Probably because we already have them in the form of our driving licence, coupled with the fact that to get on and off the island these days requires a passport to get the tickets

WRONG! You do NOT need a passport to buy a ticket to or from the Isle of Man.

 

Where did you get that idea from?

[Chinahand]

Incidentally what happens to the IOM's status if the UK Government becomes an England-only Government? Would we be an English Crown Dependency?

 

I think so.

No that's about face - the IOM is a crown dependency totally different from UK dependent territories - which presumably would become English Crown dependencies IF Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland became independent; though such a process would inevitably result in a broader consitutional settlement re. the remaining dependent territories. That might effect the IOM, but the IOM's consitutional position is not de jure connected with the UK's - they are parallel.

 

There's the monarch, the monarch rules via the Privy Council. The Privy council is constitutionally independent of the UK - governing the UK is one segement of its job - technically the UK Cabinet is a commitee of the Privy Council, but the Privy council also has the job of governing Canada, Australia, parts of the Caribean etc etc - all of these jobs are also segmented off to Governor Generals, sub commitees etc etc.

 

With the IOM there is a split - domestic legislation is hived off to Tynwald with the Governor in most cases responsible for giving Assent. The Department of Constitutional Affairs web site I linked to earlier points out that the IOM is different from the Channel Islands in that Assent can be given locally, though by the Governor, while the CI have to pass legislation back to London for the Queen in Council to give Assent.

 

For international legislation the Monarch has decided to give responsibility to the UK segment of the Privy Council. If the UK altered that wouldn't affect the constitional link of the IOM. To take a silly extreme example the Monarch could transfer responsibility for the Island's international relations to the Canadian section of the Privy council without effecting the main link which is that the IOM is a Crown Dependency, independent of the UK.

 

This is of course all de jure and not de facto. The IOM could not exist without the customs union and common purse. Those are agreements and there are mechanisms for either side to break those agreements if they wish. There are a thousand ways the UK government could express its disapproval of IOM actions.

 

But realistically the idea of a huge break isn't necessary. The entire process is nudging along. The Monarch has given responsibility for good governance to the UK - they audit our legislation - that is where they have a de facto ability to influence our legislation.

[WTF]

Probably because we already have them in the form of our driving licence, coupled with the fact that to get on and off the island these days requires a passport to get the tickets

WRONG! You do NOT need a passport to buy a ticket to or from the Isle of Man.

 

Where did you get that idea from?

 

 

probably from the need these days for photographic ID? same if you want to swap currencies at a travel agents. passport is the usual as if you are a traveller you are likely to have one? . second to that is a driving licence, but other ID's with a photo can be used. i have changed currencies and proved who i am to get a driving licence with my work ID.

[Chinahand]

The passage you quoted only goes as far as to mention that we're particularly sensitive about being given the chance to consent to legislation, and that it would be against usual constitutional practice to legislate for our territorial waters. It's quite a weak statment with regards to the issue at hand, especially since it says nothing about issues where the UK deems its security to be at risk.

 

It's not impossible to imagine the UK government deciding that domestic security overrides regular constitutional procedure with regards to the crown dependencies, especially considering that it regards fighting the threat of terrorism as beyond the regular laws and procedures we have now. The UK government is also quick to point out that terrorism is an international phenomenon, often cutting across national borders: for (a hypothetical) example consider elements of a terrorist cell trained in Pakistan, operating in Britain and planning an attack elsewhere in the world. Given this it's plausible that the UK government would consider imposing ID cards on crown dependencies a legitimate act in view of it's domestic and international responsibilities.

 

I also think mandate is a much overused term these days. In our case parliament requires no mandate, it has the power to legislate for the Isle of Man and we must always remember that the practice of consultation (which can be conducted and subsequently ignored if need be) and consent is a traditional indulgence, not a firm constitutional requirement.

 

The UK government has always had the power to legislate for the Island, against its will if need be, and can specify acts to apply to the Island, or obtain an order in council. It's true that consent is usually sought, but it doesn't have to be.

 

I'm not sure how accurate it is, but wikipedia cites the 1967 Marine Broadcasting Offences Act as an example of the UK parliament (successfully) legislating for the Island against its wishes. If true, this is a pretty good example of intrusive legislation without consent over a relatively piffling issue (pirate radio).

 

VinnieK I not sure that I totally agree - as I've said there is the defacto reality, but I think it is very difficult for the UK parliament to legislate on purely domestic matters - the examples you site are shipping and airspace (telecoms) related. Which, as you admit, are covered as exceptions in the link I quoted.

 

For purely domestic issues the UK would have to make the case that the IOM is incapable of legislating for itself. Those powers exist, but it is difficult to see how the UK could reasonably enforce them short of very exceptional circumstances.

 

The cynics amoungst us may like to claim the UK can do what ever it likes, but they have to use the legal structures that do exist. I think I am on constitutionally robust ground saying that the UK cannot pass a UK bill that brings in ID cards or whatever on the Island. They can bully the IOM to do it, and I suppose create a governance crisis on the Island - cancelling common purse or whatever - and then say they have to step in under their "emergency powers", but these are not reasonable scenarios.

[triskelion]

Chief Minister to reply: http://www.gov.im/lib/news/cso/declarationonisl.xml

 

Bascially he's saying that previously the UK wasn't required to do anything, and now it has to at least consult, and that the declaration only applies to international affairs.

 

I agree with the earlier poster who said Mr Moffat was feeling a bit attention starved and wanted to try and stir up a bit of controversy.

[Skeddan]

I think I am on constitutionally robust ground saying that the UK cannot pass a UK bill that brings in ID cards or whatever on the Island.

 

Whether or not ID cards might be imposed on IoM by the UK depends on the constitutional relationship between IoM and UK. The closest thing to a clear statement about this is the Kilbrandon Report.

 

Suppose that IoM is a de facto possession of the Crown rather than a de jure possession - as seems to fit precisely with the evidence. The UK's powers would thus be delimited in much the same way as an Administering Power is responsible for territory under its control according to Occupation Law. It is responsible for international relations, and peace, order and good government. It cannot change the existing laws per se, but can impose ordinances and regulations on the de facto possession for peace, order and good government. Censorship of press, curfews, gun control, etc. and of course ID cards may all legitimately be imposed if necessary for security purposes. Purely domestic laws not effecting security and public order must be respected according to the principle of a 'mandate from the absent sovereign'.

 

Chinahand, if you can make a robust case that IoM is not a de facto possession of the Crown, then perhaps you could argue that the UK could not pass a bill that brings ID cards on the Island. If it is a de jure possession, then presumably it is in a personal union, in which case the UK Parliament would have no authority whatsoever over IoM - which is contrary to what is clearly stated by Kilbrandon and the UK's exercise of control over IoM since 1764. I don't think you are 'on constitutionally robust ground' in claiming that the UK cannot pass such a bill that brings ID cards to IoM. (But I do think it would be more politic for the UK to have IOMG introduce this voluntarily rather than be seen to exercise this prerogative).