Talk:Crown Dependencies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the United Kingdom. For more information, visit the project page.
??? This article has not yet received a quality rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Currency

Are Channel Island currencies accepted in the UK, like Scottish and Northern Irish are (even if the shopkeeper thinks you are strange)?

See British banknotes and Legal tender. But generally not worth the bother trying in England - exchange them at par in a bank.
Man vyi 17:43, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

"Like Scottish notes, they are not legal tender within the UK, but are sometimes accepted particularly at UK ports of arrival from the Channel Islands." This is confusing, Scotland is part of the UK. Should it say England and Wales?

Please see the articles referenced above. The quotation is correct, as Scottish notes are not legal tender in any part of the UK, including Scotland. 82.152.178.215 21:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Differences from dependencies and protectorates

What is the difference between a crown dependency and an overseas territory? (Apart from the "overseas" part?) Ben Arnold 22:00, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Put simply, the overseas territories are generally colonies of the United Kingdom (most now having moved to self-government, but the government was established by the UK). The Crown dependencies are territories that had their own system of government before they became attached to the Crown: in the case of the bailiwicks of Jersey and Guernsey, the Duke of Normandy became King of England; and for the Isle of Man, the Crown acquired the Lordship of Man. A protectorate is a territory that accepts (or is forced to accept) a level of outside control. The case of the Crown dependencies is theoretically closer to a personal union. Man vyi 07:20, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The difference is that the former does not belong to the UK, the latter does.
Also, Man vyi, you are confusing the UK with the sovereign of the UK, i.e., the monarch. Crown dependencies are held directly by the sovereign, not through the sovereign's largest possession, the UK. SamEV 21:38, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't think anything I wrote above could be interpreted as confusing the UK with the sovereign of the UK. Perhaps you could explain where you think my attempted explanation is confusing (so I can improve my explanatory style for next time)? Your explanation is certainly clear and more concise than mine! Man vyi 13:53, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Way to take criticism, Man!
Anyhoo, I happen to agree with you; you did not confuse the two. I'm sorry. I do have this one quibble left, this sentence: "The Crown dependencies are territories that had their own system of government before they became attached to the Crown..." This implies that this is the essential difference. In fact, the essential difference is only that crown dependencies are possessions of the monarchy that are wholly separate from the UK, which happens to be the queen's largest possession, as I wrote (or attempted to). Overseas territories, on the other hand, are under the UK's sovereignty. SamEV 02:26, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. You're right - the fact that the systems of government of the Crown dependencies have origins that pre-date the relationship with the Crown is incidental to the status of Crown dependency. It is, in my defence, a difference between the Crown dependencies and the overseas territories (whose systems of government were established by the UK) and as such an answer to the question. Nice working with you! Man vyi 07:08, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Thank you. And not a bad defense. Keep up the good work. SamEV 06:51, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Reading the above illuminating dicussion makes me wonder: what is the distinction between a crown dependency and a Commonwealth realm? I mean, I know the practical answer: Commonwealth realms are independent countries while crown dependencies are not. But how exactly is that not-independence expressed legally? I mean, they aren't possessions of a sovereign state (the UK); so what prevents them from being considered sovereign states themselves? --Jfruh 04:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd argue that the major diference is that UK (Westminster) Government no longer has the ability legislate for Commonwealth Realms. They had to request consent following the Statute of Westminster 1931, and lost the ability completely following later legislation (such as the Canada Act and the Australia Act). Jersey now is in the post-1931 Commonwealth state (there is a law that requires consent of local legislature) whereas Guernsey and Man only have a covention on this - Westminster could still intervene and has occasionally used the threat of this to get changes made. 82.152.178.215 21:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, but why does Westminster have the right to intervene at all? Surely that right belongs to the Queen, not the government of another kingdom of which she happens to be sovereign. I guess what I'm trying to get my head around is: if the crown dependencies aren't possessions of another sovereign state, in what legal sense are they not sovereign states themselves? --Jfruh 23:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
They are possessions of the British Crown, and are what are known in international law as 'law units' (seperate legislatures and adminstrations) of a country (Dicey and Morris, p26) - 'not one of them [the Home Nations] is a State known to public international law'. They are therefore considered sub-sovereign states - although the legal nicities of the dividing lines between British soveignty (which is the 'sovereign state' they are possessions of), and the UK are rather hard to spot sometimes.
Furthermore, Westminster intervenes via the process of an 'Order in Council', made by the British Crown, and importantly the Privy Councillor in question is a UK minister. All Royal Assent to legislative Acts of Crown Dependencies is also given or withheld by the Queen acting on the advice of a UK minister (currently the Lord Chancellor), and both are extremely important differences with Commonwealth Realms (which had the right to have their own ministers 'advise' since 1931). Therefore the UK presently has de facto control over the Crown Dependecies, even if de jure it is the Queen who nominally acts. Also, it has long been accepted that the Westminster (UK) Parliament has supremacy over those of the Crown Dependencies in those areas where it chooses to legislate (see Manx Public Law, Isle of Man Law Society/Tynwald, 1997 - pages 53-57). In the case of the Isle of Man, Tynwald was reconstituted by the UK Parliament following reinvesture (control by the British Crown), and the powers of Tynwald are those that have been granted since then (up until the 1950s) by the UK Parliament in dribs and drabs. As late as 1969 the Channel Islands didn't have any right to legislate for their own postal services, and it took UK legislation to grant them that right.
I hope that sheds some further light on it all - it's certainly a byzantine subject. Mauls 02:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I have a similar question: What is the difference between the Crown Dependencies today and the Proprietary colonies during the early English/British colonization?72.27.62.125 20:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discrepency

The Crown dependency article claims the Crown dependencies, including the Isle of Man, have associate membership in the EU, however, the article on Isle of Man claims it is neither a member, nor an associate member of the EU. Can anyone cite a definite source so that we may resolve this discrepency one way or the other? Johntex\talk 20:51, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

The UK government Department for Consitutional Affairs explains the situation [1] for other UK official bodies thus:
  • 16.The Channel Islands and Isle of Man are not Member States nor are they part of the UK Member State.
  • 17. The relationship of the Islands to the European Community is governed by Article 299(6)(c) of the Treaty establishing the European Community and by Protocol 3 to the UK's Act of Accession to the Community. By virtue of Article 299(6)(c), the EC Treaty applies to the Islands only to the extent described in Protocol 3. This provides that Community rules on customs matters and quantitative restrictions apply to the Islands under the same conditions as they apply to the UK; the Islands are inside the Community Customs Territory and certain aspects of the Common Agricultural Policy are applicable in order to allow free movement in agricultural products.
  • 18. Community provisions on the free movement of persons and services do not apply to the Islands. Islanders benefit from these provisions within the rest of the Community only if they have close ties with the UK (i.e. if they, a parent or grandparent were born, adopted or naturalised in the UK or have at any time been ordinarily resident in the UK for five years).
  • 19. The Islands neither contribute to nor are eligible to benefit from Community funds. They are not subject to Community measures on taxation, nor are they for any purposes within the EU's fiscal territory.
  • 20. Protocol 3 also provides for the application in the Islands of the European Coal and Steel Community unified tariff. The European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) Treaty applies to persons and undertakings established in the Islands.
The problem of concise definition is that the CI and IoM are clearly not members of the EU, but are clearly "associated" with it through the Protocol without being "associated states". Man vyi 10:29, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] English Crown?

Interesting that the official British monarchy pages on this subject refers to the Crown dependencies as being "dependent territories of the English Crown"... mistake or a technicality?

http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page4676.asp

Does the Wikipedia article address this in any way? David (talk) 02:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I looked into this, but could not find anything definite. It would be similar to the situtation that countries formed prior to the formation of the UKofGBandNI have. For example, Canada's constitution referes to the crown and queen of the UKofGBandI, but that crown no longer exists either. Quick reading of the various Acts constituting the settlement of the crown and the formation of the Union would also modify the crowns passage. So, the wording is correct, but subsequent changes makes it technically not so. But I will send an email to Man's Parliament and see if they have an opinion on this.Gary Joseph (talk) 09:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Colonies?

Taken from the first line of the current (14/06/08, 1:00 GMT) version of this page:

"The Crown Dependencies are possessions of The Crown in Right of the United Kingdom, as opposed to overseas territories or colonies of the United Kingdom."

Both Crown dependencies and overseas territories link to the correct pages, after all they are terms used by the British government and have a commonly accepted meaning. On the other hand, 'Colonies' links to a generic article about 19'th century empire building with some weak logic linking it to today's 'colonies'. I am not a regular editor on wikipedia, and accordingly I will not edit this page, but I believe that this reference is not NPOV.

Would it be possible for those who currently upkeep this article reconsider this particular entry? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.205.127.145 (talk) 00:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)