I am by all accounts,an ignorant Yank who knows very little about British politics or government. So I was wondering: if Britain becomes a republic thorough constitutional means,what happens to the Channel Islands bailiwicks,which are tied only to the crown,not to Britain per se?
If Britain Becomes a Republic,What Happens to the Channel Islands?
- Thread starter frustrated progressive
- Start date
Well the islands are considered a separate entity to the UK which includes Scotland England Wales and N.Ireland. As the channel islands are crown possessions they are not governed by the british government, but in the event of the uk becoming a republic there would probably be a huge legal and political mess over the islands, perhaps they would be independent countries, no one knows because there is no legislation or laws or anything at all to determine what would happen.
Thanks. I always thought that they would remain crown possessions,but, as I've said, I'm an ignorant Yankee.
It would be interesting to see the Channel Islands as a sort of monarchy-in-exile, but I don't know if the United Republic would allow that. I guess it depends on the sort of republic it is (i.e. radical or moderate)
I've seen proposals for a British republic which would be more to reduce the monarchy purely to a symbolic thing. They could keep their titles, their lands, and their trusts, but all constitutional functions would pass to a new republican authority, while the country would adopt the name "Commonwealth" and they would lose their status as constitutional heads of state.
In any event, that's a little off-topic. But either way the Islands could continue maintaining the Queen or future King as their constitutional monarch. (Isle of Man as well, btw.)
I imagine there would be a debate over their constitutional status. Even now they aren't technically part of the UK, but aren't considered independent because they have sort of a protectorate status vis-a-vis the UK, which is responsible for their defense and foreign policy (as well as providing them British citizenship). They could negotiate new treaties which preserve that kind of federacy.
In any event, that's a little off-topic. But either way the Islands could continue maintaining the Queen or future King as their constitutional monarch. (Isle of Man as well, btw.)
I imagine there would be a debate over their constitutional status. Even now they aren't technically part of the UK, but aren't considered independent because they have sort of a protectorate status vis-a-vis the UK, which is responsible for their defense and foreign policy (as well as providing them British citizenship). They could negotiate new treaties which preserve that kind of federacy.
Sideways
Donor
Well, I would think it would depend on a lot of things. Not least, what the monarchy decides to do.
At present, the queen is head of the commonwealth, and monarch of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, etc. The UK becoming a republic wouldn't affect those things. So technically, unless the queen stood down or the Channel Islands changed their rules, she'd still be in power there.
Usually, the queen is represented by a governor in the regions - I can't see that this arrangement would need to change if the monarchy was abolished in Britain.
So, the constitution of theChannel Islands wouldn't change and the legislation and agreements governing relations with the mainland probably wouldn't be affected.
At present, the queen is head of the commonwealth, and monarch of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, etc. The UK becoming a republic wouldn't affect those things. So technically, unless the queen stood down or the Channel Islands changed their rules, she'd still be in power there.
Usually, the queen is represented by a governor in the regions - I can't see that this arrangement would need to change if the monarchy was abolished in Britain.
So, the constitution of theChannel Islands wouldn't change and the legislation and agreements governing relations with the mainland probably wouldn't be affected.
I would imagine the governmental changes would result in the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man being centralised and formally a part of the new republic, probably on the same level of devolution to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. But as England666 mentioned, there is no law or precedent to follow here, so it's anyone's guess.
I imagine the UK Parliament could just pass a law renaming them "Republican dependencies" or whatever and business would continue as usual. (I mean, we're talking about a scenario in which Parliament has already drastically altered the UK constitution by eliminating the monarch; what's one more change?)
A more immediate question is what happens to the Scottish islands if Scotland goes independent? There are clauses in their crown ownership that they can't be part of an independent Scotland.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-their-own-if-scotland-votes-yes-9217514.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-their-own-if-scotland-votes-yes-9217514.html
I don't think Salmond likes to acknowledge that fact
I think they,or The Isle of Man, might become the capital of a government-in-exile,if the monarchy lays claim to Britain. Just asking,what happened to the Chanel Islands during the Civil War and Protectorate?I would imagine the circumstances that lead to a British Republic would most likely lead to the Islands remaining dependencies of the new British Republic. It's boring, I know, but the changes the Islands would probably be semantic. The US has successfully shown that Republics can have dependencies without issue, so it likely won't really change anything.
If it was by the very unlikely violent revolution path, you could potentially see the Islands(or some of them) become a stronghold/refuge for the Monarchy, but likely without a chance of reinstatement in the long term unless an also very unlikely outside intervention(USA, France, Germany) steps in to retake the British Isles.
EDIT: The reason I say that they may potentially become a refuge and stronghold is because that is what happened during the Civil War. That was a long time ago though, so don't know if the culture would still support that kind of thing.
If it was by the very unlikely violent revolution path, you could potentially see the Islands(or some of them) become a stronghold/refuge for the Monarchy, but likely without a chance of reinstatement in the long term unless an also very unlikely outside intervention(USA, France, Germany) steps in to retake the British Isles.
EDIT: The reason I say that they may potentially become a refuge and stronghold is because that is what happened during the Civil War. That was a long time ago though, so don't know if the culture would still support that kind of thing.
As I've asked before,WHAT happened during the Civil War? For Gods' sake,I'm an American! As an American,I know NOTHING of world history.
What "dependencies" does America actually have. I believe that our last one,The Federated States of Micronesia,became self-governing in '74,just handing us responsibility for defense.
If you don't know much about world history, that's one thing, but you don't need to denigrate all of your countrymen along the way. Believe it or not, some Americans are knowledgeable about things that have gone on beyond our shores.
It's not hard to learn about the English Civil War or about the U.S. territories. Here's a couple primers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Civil_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dependent_territory#United_States
The Parliamentary forces just occupied the islands.
Parliament treated itself as Charles I's successor in all his dominions. As well as the CIs and IoM, it went on to conquer Scotland and Ireland as well. Don't think it ever gave any of them representation in Parliament, though.
