EU forces feudalism to end on Channal Islands.

[LordShiva]

Heresson

[TheStinger]

Sorry to be correct about this, but the the EU are not forcing this. It is the fact that they have signed up to ECHR that is forcing them to. They are seperate things, although they do have europe in the title.

Russia is signed up to the ECHR

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Riesstiu IV
If the French (and Spanish and Dutch) hadn't intervened then : no successful American revolution.

We would be drinking Earl Grey tea, fannies would be at the front, not back, we would use lifts not elevators, and biscuits would be cookies.

Fixed.

[Dry]

No invasion, no WMD?
Not funny!

[BeBMan]

Yeah, at least we should send some tanks, like Sov did when one of the "brother countries" thought it could come up with its own ideas

[Riesstiu IV]

Originally posted by molly bloom

Fixed.

I drink Earl Grey tea.

[Dinner]

I'm more of a green tea person myself. Nothing wrong with a nice cup of Earl Grey though.

[Riesstiu IV]

Green tea tastes like piss. Don't ask me how I know that.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

ECHR Opressors!

[Dinner]

Wrong thread.

[thesarkeetimes]

Supporters of the status quo insist their system is fundamentally fair. "There are many places where the European Court of Human Rights and the United Nations could focus on promoting democracy rather than this small community that has not committed war or persecution, and has lived happily on its own for hundreds of years without any trouble," says Reginald Guille, the Chief Pleas' speaker of the house.

I'd say the Barclay brothers are to blame for going to court.

How very strange for Reg Guille to say that - I am surprised by it.

I do know - in fact it's common knowledge - that the Barclay brothers have petitioned the Queen in Council to not approve the change. Reg Guille on the other hand has said this in an e-mail to the Ministry of Justice (this coming from a document which was intended to be secret but was released under the Freedom of Information Act):

From: Seneschal [mailto:seneschal@sark.gov.gg]
Sent: 14 January 2008 14:29
To: Hughes, Mark
Subject: LC's Letter

Dear Mark

Thank you for the recent call, I didn't get my copy because it was sent to the wrong address ending in .gov.uk when it should have been 'seneschal@sark.gov.gg', however the Seigneur sent me a copy.

I have to say that I am disappointed that any reference has been made in the LC's letter to the roles of the Seigneur and Seneschal as I fear that will give ammunition to those who wish to defer progress and will make the task of the Seigneur and myself much more difficult in getting the Reform Law recalled and Option A put in place of the currently proposed make up of Chief Pleas.

I am meeting with the Seigneur later this afternoon to plan how we can now progress matters, with the waters having been muddied.

Regards

Reg
Lt. Col. R.J. Guille MBE
Seneschal of Sark

(LC means the Lord Chancellor, and Option A means the "fully democratic" constitutional reform; the Seneschal is complaining about the Lord Chancellor's rejection of the reform and LC's suggestion that the reform proposal is not yet mature and requires further thought, and that in particular the Seneschal's powers ought to be reviewed before the Privy Council can approve any reform. The Seneschal is concerned that reviewing the law further will delay reform). The Seneschal wrote a further letter to the MoJ which a Treasury Solicitor's department employee Sukhinder Lalli summarized as follows:

(a) The Seneschal indicates that during the week in which he wrote the letter he had called the office of Mark Hughes at the Ministry of Justice to enquire about the progress of the Reform Law and the Real Property Law, and had been informed that it was unlikely that those laws would be considered by the Privy Council at its meeting on 12th December 2007.

(b) The Seneschal expresses his concern at this delay and indicates that late consideration of the laws by the Privy Council will put in jeopardy the proposed date - 10th December 2008 - for elections of a reformed Chief Pleas. The Seneschal states that after the Reform Law and Real Property Law are granted Royal Sanction, a significant amount of work will need to be done drafting subordinate legislation to give effect to those laws.

The fact is, if the reform is delayed, it might not happen at all. On the other hand if it does happen, the Seneschal gets to become quite a bit more powerful. My perception of him has always been that he wants reform and that he wants it in a hurry. Indeed it's always seemed to me that he was the main man pushing the reform law and that it might not have gone very far but for his efforts. Perhaps I'm wrong? I'm certainly confused by his latest statement. But here are the cold facts: under the new rules he is the only remaining unelected member of Chief Pleas (apart from the Seigneur who has very limited powers) and he gets the following powers for life (something that's never happened before):

- he is the executive head of the legislature, executive and judicial branches of the Sark government
- he is the electoral return officer (=he has the duty to fill any uncontested seats in a parliamentary election, but it is not prescribed how he has to do it. Seats do get to be uncontested in Sark elections because the posts are unpaid and the job is onerous)
- he is the sole licensing authority for all tourism related businesses
- he gets to set the Chief Pleas agenda, what gets on it and what does not, and in what order, which laws and what propositions get to be debated and which do not
- he gets to change, accept, or reject, members' propositions unilaterally depending on whether he likes them or doesn't like them. They still get to be those other members' propositions, even if they're changed - and the members can't change them back to their original wording (or any other) without his permission
- he decides who speaks in Chief Pleas and who doesn't, and in what order
- he can (and does) tell other members to shut up and sit down, and interrupts them, without having to give justification. No one else can interrupt him, or anyone else.
- he has the power to eject another member from the Chief Pleas chamber.
- he can propose that another member of Chief Pleas be permanently deprived of his Chief Pleas seat by a majority vote of the house.
- he is the only person who can call a meeting of Chief Pleas (even the whole of the rest of the house can't do it if they all want it unanimously)
- etc. etc.

What the Barclays have to gain out of the reform though is less clear to me - in fact they don't seem to do terribly well out of it at all, particularly as they seem to be mortal enemies with Reg Guille. Perhaps someone can point out the obvious point I seem to be missing.

[LordShiva]

[thesarkeetimes]

Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave
ECHR Opressors!

The ECHR has nothing to do with it.

Sark is not bound by the ECHR, since it is not what is called a "High Contracting Party" to the ECHR (in simple terms, Sark is not a signatory to the convention). The UK is, and the UK has committed itself to giving Sark residents ECHR rights, while at the same time the UK has no jurisdiction on Sark to enforce any such commitments.

Sark is bound by the Bailiwick Human Rights Act 2000, which "incorporates" the ECHR into domestic law, much as the UK Human Rights Act 1998 does incorporates it into UK domestic law.

But both those Acts contain an express exemption to the effect that the legislature remains sovereign and is put under no obligation to pass any law to comply with the ECHR. The ECHR is only incorporated in so far as it forbids the executive to do anything which breaches the ECHR. It also compels the judiciary to interpret existing law to be compatible with ECHR in so far as this is possible (there is no effect on legislation which is manifestly incompatible). This express exemption is enshrined in Section 6(6) of either Act (the UK and the Guernsey law are virtually the same) which says this about what is and what isn't made illegal by the Human Rights act by virtue of breaching ECHR:

“An act” includes a failure to act but does not include a failure to—

(a) introduce in, or lay before, Parliament a proposal for legislation; or
(b) make any primary legislation or remedial order.

So the irony is that Sark was never under any obligation to reform at all, but the Lord Chancellor (being a part of the UK Government's executive) is bound not to recommend for Royal Assent any new law which is incompatible with the ECHR. So any old Sark law can stay, but no new Sark law can come into existence unless it's ECHR compliant.

The Reform Law has everything to do with political vested interests all round (on Sark, on Guernsey, in the UK, and even in the EU) and little - if anything - to do with the ECHR.

Nothing is more telling of this fact than the fact that the Reform Law that's the front runner to receive Royal Assent on 9 April is quite manifestly not ECHR compliant - the Seneschal's role for example is in manifest, utter breach of Articles 6, 14, Article 3 of Protocol 1 etc. of the ECHR - and yet all the various parties whose vested interests are satisfied by the law and should not give it their rubber stamp of approval - have had no problem keeping their eyes closed and doing so nevertheless.

[Colon™]

We have more Sarkese than Japanese on this forum.

[Krill]

I am quite suprised that on this relatively small forum we have someone from Sark commenting on the issue...