[BBC News] Freedom of Douglas for Cavendish

[jimbms]

First, Salisbury. As I mentioned, I believe that the IOM is a crown dependency by default - nobody could be bothered to do the right thing and annexe it into the UK - I suspect it wasn't thought worth the trouble. The IOM's status as a crown dependency means that the crown can really do whatever it likes - in theory. And that means that it could still annexe the IOM. Given that, its status is effectively much the same as Salisbury's because it could be made to be exactly so at the stroke of a pen.

 

There's no doubt that IoM is a 'Crown Dependency', or that it is a possession of the Crown, but what does this mean exactly? Dependency... (Hmmm - the Baltic states were 'Soviet Dependencies' - part of 'an extended USSR'). In any event, surely it means a non-independent terrtory seperate from but subject to a ruling power (whether the ruling power is mean and bad like the Russians, or nice and good like HMG). I think it safe to say that one of the features of a Crown Dependency is that it is a territory that is not part of the UK but is subject to the UK (via Queen in Council or Queen in Parliament). That sounds like it should have a right to self determination.

 

You say "The IOM's status as a crown dependency means that the crown can really do whatever it likes - in theory. And that means that it could still annexe the IOM. Given that, its status is effectively much the same as Salisbury's because it could be made to be exactly so at the stroke of a pen."

 

The argument seems to be that the crown could annex, so IoM may be treated as if it has already been annexed. (Saddam could at the stroke of a pen have made Iraq democratic. Given that...). I can't see how such a notion could be seriously argued. One has to look at the status as it is, and deal with facts: IoM is not part of the UK. Salisbury is.

 

Leaving that aside, I'm interested in the reasons why you think the crown has such a unilateral power to annex IoM.

 

I'd argue it could not. The reasons are:

 

a) if IoM is a non-independent territory eligible for self-determination, doing so would be in breach of ergo omnes principles of international law and would not be valid.

 

b) conversely if IoM is not eligible for self-determination because the Crown does not own the sovereignty, this would also be invalid (just as an annexation of Hong Kong or Iraqi annexation of Kuwait would not have been a legal annexation in international law).

 

c) at least so far, no robust case has been made out showing that IoM does not fall into either of the above categories ('self-determination' or 'territorial integrity'). Until and unless the Crown can make out its title and right to effect such annexation (e.g. by right of conquest), one cannot assume such an annexation would be legal. (show the treaty etc.)

 

 

I'm also wondering if you are suggesting a Crown Dependency is some sort of 'exceptionalist territory' - one where the Crown can (in theory) do whatever it likes. Is the argument: Crown Dependencies have an extraordinary, and unique status, which is entirely aberrant, and this allows the Crown extraordinary and unique powers, unconstrained by considerations that apply in the rest of the world (and this effectively allows the crown to do whatever it likes). I don't understand the theory. Could the crown deport the population? Commit genocide? How far do these powers go and what is the source of this power? (Divine right?) Sounds like a rather fanciful and desperate way of trying to get out of a hole - especially if there is a perfectly rational and sensible alternative (Occam's Razor). If that can be shown to be the only possible sound conclusion one can draw, ok - but I wouldn't leap to this (though some might dearly relish the idea of being entirely subject to the personal autocratic power of the Queen).

 

Second, sovereignty. You will recall the debates over the Falklands/Malvinas at the time of the Falklands war. There was a great deal of discussion, and one thing that came out clearly was that Britain's claim was enormously strengthened by the fact of possession over a long period - squatters' rights, in other words. I suspect that the same argument could be used in respect of the IOM against any claim that the queen is not sovereign. After a while, de facto becomes de jure. If you go back far enough, most land titles (in the old world) came about because a man with a sword stood on a piece of ground and said: "This is mine".

 

i.e. 'prescription' I've looked at that, but there are very strong arguments against (including decisions by ICJ). It would take a bit to detail these arguments - if you're interested I'd be happy to do so. Still all this gets you is the possibility of an argument that the crown owns the sovereignty - not why there is no right of self determination (as there is in the Falklands).

 

However re Falklands you will note that like Gibraltar it is disputed sovereignty and dealt with through the UN 'Special Political and Decolonization Committee'. (UK claims sovereignty and says sovereignty cannot be transferred without exercise of right of self-determination - however as sovereignty is disputed, it is not clear that right can be exercised as this may be prejudicial to the sovereign rights and territorial integrity of Argentina / Spain). The UK is very vigorous about the right of self-determination for Gibraltar and the Falklands - why not IoM?

 

Exemption. This where we really differ. I don't agree that it is necessarily the case that the UK considers the IOM to be exempt from a right to self-determination. .... Up until now, I doubt if it has been seriously considered, and even if it had been, I would expect that whatever was decided was kept under a hat for the sake of an easy life.

 

You seem to suggest that the UK is failing in its duty, negligent and even using wilful ignorance to avoid tackling the question. What you are suggesting is that the UK is behaving illegally and in breach of its international obligations (!). That's a pretty serious accusation to make - and would need good evidence to support it - and so far I've seen none. I think you sense conspiracy or cover up where (in my view) none exists.

 

However regardless of what the UK do or don't think, or choose not to think, the current question is whether or not IoM is exempt - and if exempt, what basis there could be for this.

 

By "a sort of extended UK" I mean things like the NHS, NI, VAT, telephone numbers, post codes, mail services, all of which are specifically UK-related services or matters that one would not expect to be shared with another "territory". Certainly none of these things were shared with any colonies.

 

OK. However none of these things serve to make IoM part of the UK itself or count for or against a right of self determination - the key issue is that it is not part of the UK, but a non-independent territory subject to the rule of the UK.

 

I doubt you'd think the UK could have 'decolonised' Kenya by adminsitrative arrangements re NI, telephone numbers and post codes, and entering into a VAT agreement. French Polynesia is an interesting one - France claims this is domestic territory and purportedly has been annexed to France. They return members of parliament, so, it is argued, enjoy self-determination through integration, and is not subject to foreign rule. IoM has not been annexed, and there is not this political intergration.

 

I think there is a great deal about the IOM's relationship with the UK that is "unclear", and that it probably suits the UK, and, to a large extent, the IOM, to leave it that way. Clarity might lead to the realisation that something ought to be done differently, and that would require work, money, and possible political fall-out. While the IOM is basically content, and not being a nuisance, I think Whitehall is happy to maintain the status quo.

 

It may suit the UK, but in what sense does it suit IoM? (I've argued that ungrounded perception that UK has greater powers than it actually has may lead IoM to be less vigorous in its dealings with the UK. This can lead to Manx interests not being pursued as fully and forcefully as they might be otherwise).

 

You say "Clarity might lead to the realisation that something ought to be done." If so what can be said in favour of burying head in sand?

 

Cost? It may take some work - but not too much, nor would it be unduly expensive. Can one justify not having clarity over such a fundamental question? I don't see political fall out over clarifying respective rights, responsibilities, clear delineation of limits of power, and so on. Identifying and exercising legitimate rights shouldn't be considered 'hostile' - though of course Whitehall may be happier if IoM stays in the dark and is more 'amenable'.

 

So I think you sense a conspiracy or cover-up where (in my view) none actually exists. I am inclined to think that politicians and civil servants crave an easy life, and are happy to let sleeping tigers lie.

 

No, I really don't see it as conspiracy or cover-up, just that Whitehall have preferred to maintain a circumspect silence and 'constructive ambiguity' for reasons of political expediency, and IoM has placidly gone along with this.

 

I don't think the notion that the crown does not own sovereignty is some terrible wrongdoing that's been hidden - just a state of affairs that has arisen from some legal quirks and which is perfectly legitimate and legal (but which it is perhaps convenient not to make explict if no need to do so). If anything it is cock-up rather than conspiracy - and that tends to be brushed under the carpet. I'm not sure one could even claim nonfeasance or misfeasance by the UK, let alone malfeasance as perhaps in the case of the Chagos Islands. If anything I think the UK is very scrupulous about complying with all legal obligations with IoM - even if it means some tap dancing around bumps in the carpet.

 

To dismiss my argument as 'conspiracy theory' is prejudging the question of whether or not the crown owns sovereignty (an ad hominem argument). I'm just trying to get at what the situation actually is with an open mind, and presenting arguments and counter-arguments which are open to challenge - not making unsubstantiated and unverifiable accusations about some 'web of lies' or the like.

 

In any case I haven't seen any lies. Just a fudging of the questions, and keeping things vague, obscure and within the bounds of the 'constructive ambiguity'. It is non-official publications, poor historians and Wikipedians who make all sorts of bogus and misleading statements. When there is a legal duty involved - e.g. the Kilbrandon Royal Commission, the matter is simply tap danced around - e.g. " 'it's complex' " - and left at that.

 

In fact there is a basic principle that one should not presume wrongdoing - but should work on the basis of the assumption that public officers are carrying out their duties in a lawful manner. This is why I don't accept you notion of negligence, or wilful blindness / contrived ignorance and failure to 'ensure respect' for ergo omnes principles of law. I certainly see no reason to conclude that the UK are acting unlawfully by a wrongful denial of a right of self-determination.

 

In my view the UK's conduct re IoM is entirely lawful (But maybe some conspiracy theorists will think otherwise). However unless one supposes 'the powers that be' are acting unlawfully, it seems impossible to come to any conclusion other than that the Crown does not own sovereignty and IoM is a de facto possession of the Crown i.e. a 'dependency' - or, if you like, a 'Crown dependency'.

 

Nothing wrong with that, and at least one gets a clear and straightforward explanation of IoM's status. If you can show a flaw in this reasoning, or offer a clear and sensible alternative explanation of the 'Crown Dependency' and IoM's status in International Law (other than 'obscure'), I'd really really like to hear it.

 

Skeddan,

 

I'll come back to you on this tomorrow.

 

S

I vote for this post to be 'Post Of The Year', on the simple basis it takes a year to read.

We could make it longer if we try harder

[Gladys]

Why freedom of Douglas, he is a Laxey lad isn't he?

 

No strong feelings either way, but if he starts defacating in the public parks I will be back on here with more than a few strong words.

[VinnieK]

First, Salisbury. As I mentioned, I believe that the IOM is a crown dependency by default - nobody could be bothered to do the right thing and annexe it into the UK - I suspect it wasn't thought worth the trouble. The IOM's status as a crown dependency means that the crown can really do whatever it likes - in theory. And that means that it could still annexe the IOM. Given that, its status is effectively much the same as Salisbury's because it could be made to be exactly so at the stroke of a pen.

 

There's no doubt that IoM is a 'Crown Dependency', or that it is a possession of the Crown, but what does this mean exactly? Dependency... (Hmmm - the Baltic states were 'Soviet Dependencies' - part of 'an extended USSR'). In any event, surely it means a non-independent terrtory seperate from but subject to a ruling power (whether the ruling power is mean and bad like the Russians, or nice and good like HMG). I think it safe to say that one of the features of a Crown Dependency is that it is a territory that is not part of the UK but is subject to the UK (via Queen in Council or Queen in Parliament). That sounds like it should have a right to self determination.

 

You say "The IOM's status as a crown dependency means that the crown can really do whatever it likes - in theory. And that means that it could still annexe the IOM. Given that, its status is effectively much the same as Salisbury's because it could be made to be exactly so at the stroke of a pen."

 

The argument seems to be that the crown could annex, so IoM may be treated as if it has already been annexed. (Saddam could at the stroke of a pen have made Iraq democratic. Given that...). I can't see how such a notion could be seriously argued. One has to look at the status as it is, and deal with facts: IoM is not part of the UK. Salisbury is.

 

Leaving that aside, I'm interested in the reasons why you think the crown has such a unilateral power to annex IoM.

 

I'd argue it could not. The reasons are:

 

a) if IoM is a non-independent territory eligible for self-determination, doing so would be in breach of ergo omnes principles of international law and would not be valid.

 

b) conversely if IoM is not eligible for self-determination because the Crown does not own the sovereignty, this would also be invalid (just as an annexation of Hong Kong or Iraqi annexation of Kuwait would not have been a legal annexation in international law).

 

c) at least so far, no robust case has been made out showing that IoM does not fall into either of the above categories ('self-determination' or 'territorial integrity'). Until and unless the Crown can make out its title and right to effect such annexation (e.g. by right of conquest), one cannot assume such an annexation would be legal. (show the treaty etc.)

 

 

I'm also wondering if you are suggesting a Crown Dependency is some sort of 'exceptionalist territory' - one where the Crown can (in theory) do whatever it likes. Is the argument: Crown Dependencies have an extraordinary, and unique status, which is entirely aberrant, and this allows the Crown extraordinary and unique powers, unconstrained by considerations that apply in the rest of the world (and this effectively allows the crown to do whatever it likes). I don't understand the theory. Could the crown deport the population? Commit genocide? How far do these powers go and what is the source of this power? (Divine right?) Sounds like a rather fanciful and desperate way of trying to get out of a hole - especially if there is a perfectly rational and sensible alternative (Occam's Razor). If that can be shown to be the only possible sound conclusion one can draw, ok - but I wouldn't leap to this (though some might dearly relish the idea of being entirely subject to the personal autocratic power of the Queen).

 

Second, sovereignty. You will recall the debates over the Falklands/Malvinas at the time of the Falklands war. There was a great deal of discussion, and one thing that came out clearly was that Britain's claim was enormously strengthened by the fact of possession over a long period - squatters' rights, in other words. I suspect that the same argument could be used in respect of the IOM against any claim that the queen is not sovereign. After a while, de facto becomes de jure. If you go back far enough, most land titles (in the old world) came about because a man with a sword stood on a piece of ground and said: "This is mine".

 

i.e. 'prescription' I've looked at that, but there are very strong arguments against (including decisions by ICJ). It would take a bit to detail these arguments - if you're interested I'd be happy to do so. Still all this gets you is the possibility of an argument that the crown owns the sovereignty - not why there is no right of self determination (as there is in the Falklands).

 

However re Falklands you will note that like Gibraltar it is disputed sovereignty and dealt with through the UN 'Special Political and Decolonization Committee'. (UK claims sovereignty and says sovereignty cannot be transferred without exercise of right of self-determination - however as sovereignty is disputed, it is not clear that right can be exercised as this may be prejudicial to the sovereign rights and territorial integrity of Argentina / Spain). The UK is very vigorous about the right of self-determination for Gibraltar and the Falklands - why not IoM?

 

Exemption. This where we really differ. I don't agree that it is necessarily the case that the UK considers the IOM to be exempt from a right to self-determination. .... Up until now, I doubt if it has been seriously considered, and even if it had been, I would expect that whatever was decided was kept under a hat for the sake of an easy life.

 

You seem to suggest that the UK is failing in its duty, negligent and even using wilful ignorance to avoid tackling the question. What you are suggesting is that the UK is behaving illegally and in breach of its international obligations (!). That's a pretty serious accusation to make - and would need good evidence to support it - and so far I've seen none. I think you sense conspiracy or cover up where (in my view) none exists.

 

However regardless of what the UK do or don't think, or choose not to think, the current question is whether or not IoM is exempt - and if exempt, what basis there could be for this.

 

By "a sort of extended UK" I mean things like the NHS, NI, VAT, telephone numbers, post codes, mail services, all of which are specifically UK-related services or matters that one would not expect to be shared with another "territory". Certainly none of these things were shared with any colonies.

 

OK. However none of these things serve to make IoM part of the UK itself or count for or against a right of self determination - the key issue is that it is not part of the UK, but a non-independent territory subject to the rule of the UK.

 

I doubt you'd think the UK could have 'decolonised' Kenya by adminsitrative arrangements re NI, telephone numbers and post codes, and entering into a VAT agreement. French Polynesia is an interesting one - France claims this is domestic territory and purportedly has been annexed to France. They return members of parliament, so, it is argued, enjoy self-determination through integration, and is not subject to foreign rule. IoM has not been annexed, and there is not this political intergration.

 

I think there is a great deal about the IOM's relationship with the UK that is "unclear", and that it probably suits the UK, and, to a large extent, the IOM, to leave it that way. Clarity might lead to the realisation that something ought to be done differently, and that would require work, money, and possible political fall-out. While the IOM is basically content, and not being a nuisance, I think Whitehall is happy to maintain the status quo.

 

It may suit the UK, but in what sense does it suit IoM? (I've argued that ungrounded perception that UK has greater powers than it actually has may lead IoM to be less vigorous in its dealings with the UK. This can lead to Manx interests not being pursued as fully and forcefully as they might be otherwise).

 

You say "Clarity might lead to the realisation that something ought to be done." If so what can be said in favour of burying head in sand?

 

Cost? It may take some work - but not too much, nor would it be unduly expensive. Can one justify not having clarity over such a fundamental question? I don't see political fall out over clarifying respective rights, responsibilities, clear delineation of limits of power, and so on. Identifying and exercising legitimate rights shouldn't be considered 'hostile' - though of course Whitehall may be happier if IoM stays in the dark and is more 'amenable'.

 

So I think you sense a conspiracy or cover-up where (in my view) none actually exists. I am inclined to think that politicians and civil servants crave an easy life, and are happy to let sleeping tigers lie.

 

No, I really don't see it as conspiracy or cover-up, just that Whitehall have preferred to maintain a circumspect silence and 'constructive ambiguity' for reasons of political expediency, and IoM has placidly gone along with this.

 

I don't think the notion that the crown does not own sovereignty is some terrible wrongdoing that's been hidden - just a state of affairs that has arisen from some legal quirks and which is perfectly legitimate and legal (but which it is perhaps convenient not to make explict if no need to do so). If anything it is cock-up rather than conspiracy - and that tends to be brushed under the carpet. I'm not sure one could even claim nonfeasance or misfeasance by the UK, let alone malfeasance as perhaps in the case of the Chagos Islands. If anything I think the UK is very scrupulous about complying with all legal obligations with IoM - even if it means some tap dancing around bumps in the carpet.

 

To dismiss my argument as 'conspiracy theory' is prejudging the question of whether or not the crown owns sovereignty (an ad hominem argument). I'm just trying to get at what the situation actually is with an open mind, and presenting arguments and counter-arguments which are open to challenge - not making unsubstantiated and unverifiable accusations about some 'web of lies' or the like.

 

In any case I haven't seen any lies. Just a fudging of the questions, and keeping things vague, obscure and within the bounds of the 'constructive ambiguity'. It is non-official publications, poor historians and Wikipedians who make all sorts of bogus and misleading statements. When there is a legal duty involved - e.g. the Kilbrandon Royal Commission, the matter is simply tap danced around - e.g. " 'it's complex' " - and left at that.

 

In fact there is a basic principle that one should not presume wrongdoing - but should work on the basis of the assumption that public officers are carrying out their duties in a lawful manner. This is why I don't accept you notion of negligence, or wilful blindness / contrived ignorance and failure to 'ensure respect' for ergo omnes principles of law. I certainly see no reason to conclude that the UK are acting unlawfully by a wrongful denial of a right of self-determination.

 

In my view the UK's conduct re IoM is entirely lawful (But maybe some conspiracy theorists will think otherwise). However unless one supposes 'the powers that be' are acting unlawfully, it seems impossible to come to any conclusion other than that the Crown does not own sovereignty and IoM is a de facto possession of the Crown i.e. a 'dependency' - or, if you like, a 'Crown dependency'.

 

Nothing wrong with that, and at least one gets a clear and straightforward explanation of IoM's status. If you can show a flaw in this reasoning, or offer a clear and sensible alternative explanation of the 'Crown Dependency' and IoM's status in International Law (other than 'obscure'), I'd really really like to hear it.

 

Skeddan,

 

I'll come back to you on this tomorrow.

 

S

I vote for this post to be 'Post Of The Year', on the simple basis it takes a year to read.

 

Me too.

 

Yes.

[Sebrof]

First, Salisbury. As I mentioned, I believe that the IOM is a crown dependency by default - nobody could be bothered to do the right thing and annexe it into the UK - I suspect it wasn't thought worth the trouble. The IOM's status as a crown dependency means that the crown can really do whatever it likes - in theory. And that means that it could still annexe the IOM. Given that, its status is effectively much the same as Salisbury's because it could be made to be exactly so at the stroke of a pen.

 

There's no doubt that IoM is a 'Crown Dependency', or that it is a possession of the Crown, but what does this mean exactly? Dependency... (Hmmm - the Baltic states were 'Soviet Dependencies' - part of 'an extended USSR'). In any event, surely it means a non-independent terrtory seperate from but subject to a ruling power (whether the ruling power is mean and bad like the Russians, or nice and good like HMG). I think it safe to say that one of the features of a Crown Dependency is that it is a territory that is not part of the UK but is subject to the UK (via Queen in Council or Queen in Parliament). That sounds like it should have a right to self determination.

 

You say "The IOM's status as a crown dependency means that the crown can really do whatever it likes - in theory. And that means that it could still annexe the IOM. Given that, its status is effectively much the same as Salisbury's because it could be made to be exactly so at the stroke of a pen."

 

The argument seems to be that the crown could annex, so IoM may be treated as if it has already been annexed. (Saddam could at the stroke of a pen have made Iraq democratic. Given that...). I can't see how such a notion could be seriously argued. One has to look at the status as it is, and deal with facts: IoM is not part of the UK. Salisbury is.

 

Leaving that aside, I'm interested in the reasons why you think the crown has such a unilateral power to annex IoM.

 

I'd argue it could not. The reasons are:

 

a) if IoM is a non-independent territory eligible for self-determination, doing so would be in breach of ergo omnes principles of international law and would not be valid.

 

b) conversely if IoM is not eligible for self-determination because the Crown does not own the sovereignty, this would also be invalid (just as an annexation of Hong Kong or Iraqi annexation of Kuwait would not have been a legal annexation in international law).

 

c) at least so far, no robust case has been made out showing that IoM does not fall into either of the above categories ('self-determination' or 'territorial integrity'). Until and unless the Crown can make out its title and right to effect such annexation (e.g. by right of conquest), one cannot assume such an annexation would be legal. (show the treaty etc.)

 

 

I'm also wondering if you are suggesting a Crown Dependency is some sort of 'exceptionalist territory' - one where the Crown can (in theory) do whatever it likes. Is the argument: Crown Dependencies have an extraordinary, and unique status, which is entirely aberrant, and this allows the Crown extraordinary and unique powers, unconstrained by considerations that apply in the rest of the world (and this effectively allows the crown to do whatever it likes). I don't understand the theory. Could the crown deport the population? Commit genocide? How far do these powers go and what is the source of this power? (Divine right?) Sounds like a rather fanciful and desperate way of trying to get out of a hole - especially if there is a perfectly rational and sensible alternative (Occam's Razor). If that can be shown to be the only possible sound conclusion one can draw, ok - but I wouldn't leap to this (though some might dearly relish the idea of being entirely subject to the personal autocratic power of the Queen).

 

Second, sovereignty. You will recall the debates over the Falklands/Malvinas at the time of the Falklands war. There was a great deal of discussion, and one thing that came out clearly was that Britain's claim was enormously strengthened by the fact of possession over a long period - squatters' rights, in other words. I suspect that the same argument could be used in respect of the IOM against any claim that the queen is not sovereign. After a while, de facto becomes de jure. If you go back far enough, most land titles (in the old world) came about because a man with a sword stood on a piece of ground and said: "This is mine".

 

i.e. 'prescription' I've looked at that, but there are very strong arguments against (including decisions by ICJ). It would take a bit to detail these arguments - if you're interested I'd be happy to do so. Still all this gets you is the possibility of an argument that the crown owns the sovereignty - not why there is no right of self determination (as there is in the Falklands).

 

However re Falklands you will note that like Gibraltar it is disputed sovereignty and dealt with through the UN 'Special Political and Decolonization Committee'. (UK claims sovereignty and says sovereignty cannot be transferred without exercise of right of self-determination - however as sovereignty is disputed, it is not clear that right can be exercised as this may be prejudicial to the sovereign rights and territorial integrity of Argentina / Spain). The UK is very vigorous about the right of self-determination for Gibraltar and the Falklands - why not IoM?

 

Exemption. This where we really differ. I don't agree that it is necessarily the case that the UK considers the IOM to be exempt from a right to self-determination. .... Up until now, I doubt if it has been seriously considered, and even if it had been, I would expect that whatever was decided was kept under a hat for the sake of an easy life.

 

You seem to suggest that the UK is failing in its duty, negligent and even using wilful ignorance to avoid tackling the question. What you are suggesting is that the UK is behaving illegally and in breach of its international obligations (!). That's a pretty serious accusation to make - and would need good evidence to support it - and so far I've seen none. I think you sense conspiracy or cover up where (in my view) none exists.

 

However regardless of what the UK do or don't think, or choose not to think, the current question is whether or not IoM is exempt - and if exempt, what basis there could be for this.

 

By "a sort of extended UK" I mean things like the NHS, NI, VAT, telephone numbers, post codes, mail services, all of which are specifically UK-related services or matters that one would not expect to be shared with another "territory". Certainly none of these things were shared with any colonies.

 

OK. However none of these things serve to make IoM part of the UK itself or count for or against a right of self determination - the key issue is that it is not part of the UK, but a non-independent territory subject to the rule of the UK.

 

I doubt you'd think the UK could have 'decolonised' Kenya by adminsitrative arrangements re NI, telephone numbers and post codes, and entering into a VAT agreement. French Polynesia is an interesting one - France claims this is domestic territory and purportedly has been annexed to France. They return members of parliament, so, it is argued, enjoy self-determination through integration, and is not subject to foreign rule. IoM has not been annexed, and there is not this political intergration.

 

I think there is a great deal about the IOM's relationship with the UK that is "unclear", and that it probably suits the UK, and, to a large extent, the IOM, to leave it that way. Clarity might lead to the realisation that something ought to be done differently, and that would require work, money, and possible political fall-out. While the IOM is basically content, and not being a nuisance, I think Whitehall is happy to maintain the status quo.

 

It may suit the UK, but in what sense does it suit IoM? (I've argued that ungrounded perception that UK has greater powers than it actually has may lead IoM to be less vigorous in its dealings with the UK. This can lead to Manx interests not being pursued as fully and forcefully as they might be otherwise).

 

You say "Clarity might lead to the realisation that something ought to be done." If so what can be said in favour of burying head in sand?

 

Cost? It may take some work - but not too much, nor would it be unduly expensive. Can one justify not having clarity over such a fundamental question? I don't see political fall out over clarifying respective rights, responsibilities, clear delineation of limits of power, and so on. Identifying and exercising legitimate rights shouldn't be considered 'hostile' - though of course Whitehall may be happier if IoM stays in the dark and is more 'amenable'.

 

So I think you sense a conspiracy or cover-up where (in my view) none actually exists. I am inclined to think that politicians and civil servants crave an easy life, and are happy to let sleeping tigers lie.

 

No, I really don't see it as conspiracy or cover-up, just that Whitehall have preferred to maintain a circumspect silence and 'constructive ambiguity' for reasons of political expediency, and IoM has placidly gone along with this.

 

I don't think the notion that the crown does not own sovereignty is some terrible wrongdoing that's been hidden - just a state of affairs that has arisen from some legal quirks and which is perfectly legitimate and legal (but which it is perhaps convenient not to make explict if no need to do so). If anything it is cock-up rather than conspiracy - and that tends to be brushed under the carpet. I'm not sure one could even claim nonfeasance or misfeasance by the UK, let alone malfeasance as perhaps in the case of the Chagos Islands. If anything I think the UK is very scrupulous about complying with all legal obligations with IoM - even if it means some tap dancing around bumps in the carpet.

 

To dismiss my argument as 'conspiracy theory' is prejudging the question of whether or not the crown owns sovereignty (an ad hominem argument). I'm just trying to get at what the situation actually is with an open mind, and presenting arguments and counter-arguments which are open to challenge - not making unsubstantiated and unverifiable accusations about some 'web of lies' or the like.

 

In any case I haven't seen any lies. Just a fudging of the questions, and keeping things vague, obscure and within the bounds of the 'constructive ambiguity'. It is non-official publications, poor historians and Wikipedians who make all sorts of bogus and misleading statements. When there is a legal duty involved - e.g. the Kilbrandon Royal Commission, the matter is simply tap danced around - e.g. " 'it's complex' " - and left at that.

 

In fact there is a basic principle that one should not presume wrongdoing - but should work on the basis of the assumption that public officers are carrying out their duties in a lawful manner. This is why I don't accept you notion of negligence, or wilful blindness / contrived ignorance and failure to 'ensure respect' for ergo omnes principles of law. I certainly see no reason to conclude that the UK are acting unlawfully by a wrongful denial of a right of self-determination.

 

In my view the UK's conduct re IoM is entirely lawful (But maybe some conspiracy theorists will think otherwise). However unless one supposes 'the powers that be' are acting unlawfully, it seems impossible to come to any conclusion other than that the Crown does not own sovereignty and IoM is a de facto possession of the Crown i.e. a 'dependency' - or, if you like, a 'Crown dependency'.

 

Nothing wrong with that, and at least one gets a clear and straightforward explanation of IoM's status. If you can show a flaw in this reasoning, or offer a clear and sensible alternative explanation of the 'Crown Dependency' and IoM's status in International Law (other than 'obscure'), I'd really really like to hear it.

 

Skeddan,

 

I'll come back to you on this tomorrow.

 

S

I vote for this post to be 'Post Of The Year', on the simple basis it takes a year to read.

 

Just consider how long it takes to write!

 

S

[Sebrof]

Why freedom of Douglas, he is a Laxey lad isn't he?

 

No strong feelings either way, but if he starts defacating in the public parks I will be back on here with more than a few strong words.

 

Laxey Lad, not Laxa tive.

 

S

[Skeddan]

Regarding the Queen being the Queen of the Isle of Man, Someone mentioned her being Lord of Man.Yet if you got to the list of all the titles the Queen holds, there is no mention of her being Lord of Man, so is this just some sort of made up Honary title?

 

It seems to be a title that some people like to think she has, but, as you note, this isn't listed among the titles she holds in any official records. IOMG may say she is Lord of Man on their website, but this doesn't make this is an official title.

 

If the Crown had purchased all the various rights, then this would be an official title (and would be used in giving assent to Acts of Tynwald). But there is no mention of this in the list of titles she holds.

 

Maybe this is just evidence of yet another official error, and it is merely remarkable coincidence these all happen to mistakenly or maliciously imply the Queen is not Lord/Queen of Man and does not own the sovereignty of IoM.

 

Maybe the simple answer is that she doesn't own sovereign rights or hold this title.

[Lonan3]

That's all right, and sorry for being rude. But I do think that if you aren't interested in a thread, the best thing to do is not read it.

The title of the thread is [bBC News] Freedom of Douglas for Cavendish

So how about, if you aren't interested in a thread, don't bloody well hijack it!