We read in last week’s Anguillian the emollient words of our Chief Minister at the closing of the 17th OCT-EU Forum in Tahiti. The Honourable Victor Banks is nothing if not ingratiating. But for whose advantage? Is it, as it should be, for the advantage of the people of Anguilla, or is it, in reality, for the advantage of the Honourable Victor Franklin Banks and his inner circle?
On 13th February 2019, the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee published a Report entitled “Global Britain and the British Overseas Territories: Resetting the relationship” – Fifteenth Report of Session 2017–19.
The major issues in contention with the British Government at this time were highlighted in the Report as:
• firstly the proposed piecemeal changes to the Constitution, which are clearly calculated to give the ruling party an electoral advantage in next year’s general election and which the Chief Minister hopes the British government will impose by Order in Council;
• second is the stated intention of the UK Foreign Affairs Committee that Overseas Territories that have not yet legalised gay marriage will be forced by the UK to do so; and
• thirdly the change that is called for in the qualifications for citizenship by descent.
Less controversial, but no less difficult, is the issue of the quotas on the number of people in the Overseas Territories who can access the UK National Health Service when their own health systems cannot provide the care and treatment they need.
On 5th December 2018, Mr Banks had stated in evidence to the UK Foreign Affairs Committee that he “would be rather general with [his] comments and speak to the issue of the relationship – what it means to be British as an Overseas Territory”.
He went on to suggest that consideration be given to a “more appropriate department” of the UK government (than the Foreign and Commonwealth Office) to interface with Anguilla, such as the Cabinet Office, “as we are neither a foreign state nor a member of the Commonwealth”. He added that he would like a Minister to be appointed with the British Overseas Territories as his sole brief, to increase the accountability of Her Majesty’s Government and to safeguard the Overseas Territories’ democratic processes and protect against undue influence from elsewhere.
He further proposed that the Overseas Territories should be reclassified, “separating them and introducing a new rank of countries of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland for the more viable and advanced British Overseas Territories, in support of a global Britain”.
He also proposed the introduction of a citizens’ charter between HMG and the citizens of the British Overseas Territories to enhance transparency and introduce accountability for the execution of the duty of care they are owed by HMG, whose actions affect their lives and livelihoods, and a revision of the role of Governor and the nomination of candidates from a wider base of skills and experience, beyond that of the UK civil service, thereby reducing exposure to potential conflicts.
On 1st March 2019, at the Association of the Overseas Countries and Territories of the European Union, in Tahiti, French Polynesia, Mr Banks made no meaningful political statement that could ruffle the feathers of the UK Ministers upon whom he is dependent for political and strategic favours. He did not mention the major issues of contention referred to above.
But where is his consultation with the people of Anguilla over those issues? His relative silence on them is in stark contrast to the rage publicly expressed in the vast majority of the other Overseas Territories.
The Prime Minister of the Cayman Islands, Alden McLaughlin, said the report, published on 21 February, was “shameless and shameful. The day the UK government seriously considers that persons who are not Caymanians can stand for office is the day, if I’m still able, if I’m alive, I lead the charge for independence.”
Bermuda’s Premier, David Burt, promised to fight the proposal which he said was a “tone deaf” idea which ignored his island’s history. “The right to vote is perhaps the most highly valued right in a democracy. To suggest that non-Bermudians should have the right to determine the direction of our country, via the ballot box, ignores the history of voting rights in Bermuda and is a tone-deaf recommendation which we will strenuously resist,” Mr Burt told the Royal Gazette newspaper.
My view reflects the view of other Overseas Territory leaders and former leaders. It is that the report is of the utmost concern. If its recommendations are implemented by the UK Parliament it will fundamentally alter what it means to be an Anguillian. We would be vulnerable to the British coming to Anguilla and voting out our representatives and putting in their own. Furthermore, they are seeking to impose on us their cultural values, by threatening to enforce the recognition of gay marriage. There is no logic in requiring, in territories that are geographically, culturally and environmentally distinct, identical social values. If this occurs, Anguillians will want to think very carefully about the level of protest they should engage in against the report’s recommendations. As far as I am concerned, no fundamental change should be made to our constitution or to the colonial relationship without the express wish of the Anguillian people through a referendum. If such a change were forced through, I would be the first to advocate independence from Britain.
What conclusions should we draw from this disparity of concern by the Chief Minister for the views of his electorate. The answer is quite obvious. He would go to any lengths to avoid offending the British, while hoping that Lord Ahmad will make good on his intention to implement piecemeal constitutional reforms, favourable to the sitting government, by means of an Order in Council (the equivalent of a “dictat” from the mother country).
But we must maintain our hope – the hope that within little more than a year Anguilla will have elected a different government: a government whose first duty and loyalty is to the people.
