Mec Vannin Make Believe

[Skeddan]

The rest of Skeddan's arguments I think can be neglected - all countries that have seen a takeover by another population group can be said to be occupied - the New Zealanders didn't quietly sit down with the resident population and agree terms, likewise the USA, Australians etc - at some point it has to be accepted as status quo and developed from that point which has been the case since the 1860's.

 

Frances, when the Treaty of Waitangi was signed in 1840, there weren’t any ‘New Zealanders’; the treaty, which is the founding document of the country was signed between the British and heads of the various Maori Iwi. The terms and principles which were agreed in the Treaty of Waitangi are very much in force today in Aotearoa/New Zealand. Indeed there is an ongoing Tribunal dealing with claims concerning breaches of the Treaty, and millions of dollars of compensation has been paid together with restitution of land and other treaty rights.

 

A key reason why there was such a treaty with Maori was the legal principle espoused by Lord Coke in the 17th century concerning relations with Christian and/or civilised people (with concept of property ownership), who it was said, could not simply be put under English subjugation, and that no legal title to their territory could be obtained by such means. Perhaps your view might, at a very great stretch, have been arguable 20 years ago, provided of course you’d be prepared to argue that the Manx were not a Christian people nor civilised in the 18th Century, and thus hold that IoM was ‘terra nullius’ in the same way that Australia had been held to be prior to Mabo v. Queensland. From these treaty and native title issues it should be evident that your view - that one has to accept the ‘status quo’ from some arbitrary timepoint (you suggest 1860) - has no standing. Maybe you might think this is how it ought to be, but such a notion is certainly not recognised in English Law or International Law.

 

If this is your reason for dismissing my arguments, I’d suggest your argument is flawed and has not been properly thought through.

 

The rest of Skeddan's arguments I think can be neglected

 

Frances, I hope I’m wrong about this, but I have to say I think this seems very high-handed.

 

I have offered a perfectly cogent and coherent explanation of the constitutional relationship between IoM and the UK, offered prima facie support for this view, noted that there has never been any clear and coherent alternative explanation offered, noted that such explanations have consistently been fudged, and indicated that there are serious, if no insurmountable difficulties in putting forward any credible alternative explanation of the nature of this constitutional relationship.

 

I have invited you and others here to provide a clear and coherent explanation of this constructional relationship which might offer an alternative to the explanation I have offered. The Kilbrandon Report couldn’t, or wouldn’t explain it and only offered non-answers which fudged the question. I put the question directly to you in my post #341 of 9th January in the ‘King of Mann’ thread, to which you have given no response.

 

If you are unable to give satisfactory answers to the arguments I have given, cannot offer substantive counter-arguments, and cannot even offer challenges or objections to the view I have offered, then can you claim to be justified in rejecting this view following an objective and considered assessment? If not, then what is this except a trite and intellectually lazy dismissal lacking any support other than an uninformed high-handed opinion on the matter? That’s not something I’d expect from you, and I’d ask you to think again whether these arguments may justifiably be ‘neglected’ without proper consideration as it would seem you are suggesting here. I’d be happy to clarify, substantiate, and explain further, and I would more than welcome you or anyone putting challenges or objections which might ultimately disprove the hypothesis. It’s not about scoring points, it’s about getting to an objective and well-informed understanding of this constitutional relationship; something I’d say is clearly lacking.

 

I sincerely hope I have not offended you, been unduly critical, or be perceived as making a personal attack when rather I would seek to appeal to your intellectual integrity and ability. I trust you are better than to resort to the kind of patronising moralising historianship which was common in the 19th and early 20th centuries (“one must not be troubled by such difficulties”, “one may be sure there is a satisfactory answer which need not concern us here” and other such trite fudges one encounters from some so-called historians)

 

I’d also stress that the historical, legal and constitutional issues are all inter-related. As you know, many of the key historical documents are legal instruments, such as letters patent, and to understand these historical primary sources requires an understanding of the relevant legal technicalities. This in turn needs to be informed by considering these in historical context. Though I disagree with some of your interpretations which follow standard secondary sources and the orthodox historiography, you have a wealth of knowledge and familiarity with the primary sources, and an invaluable grasp of a huge range of material.

 

I would readily accept that the way I have expressed some these views and arguments may have stuck you as lacking the sober detachment of a reasoned and sound objective analysis, and may thus, understandably, have led you to judge the arguments accordingly. I hope you will re-evaluate and will be able to reconsider the arguments I have put without the need to rephrase in the dry and dusty language of an academic paper. I may also be at fault for not clarifying the fact that on this topic I am not ‘messing around’, ‘on a wind up’, or the like. I’m not.

[Skeddan]

..the low tax, comprehensive grants for education and so forth is more than enough to buy my complacency.

 

Are you suggesting the low tax, education grants etc. would stop if there was an EEZ and the IoM was no longer paying this nefgildi?

 

You can find out how much has been paid in 'Imperial Contribution' here:

 

dbweb.liv.ac.uk/manxstudies/sm/theses/KitGawneMA.pdf

 

(You might also consider that the amount that might be recovered from the UK in a restitution claim is, at a ballpark, anywhere between 800m and 1.3Bn depending on the rate of interest one uses (6% - 6.5% here). It may not be a lot for the UK, but I'd guess it would go a long way in IoM. That is quite a lot that has been sucked out of IoM by the UK on this 'contribution' alone.)

[Skeddan]

//off topic

 

Have you tried Germolene?

 

Is this topical?

Can it be used to clear up 'Crown Dependency'?

[VinnieK]

..the low tax, comprehensive grants for education and so forth is more than enough to buy my complacency.

 

Are you suggesting the low tax, education grants etc. would stop if there was an EEZ and the IoM was no longer paying this nefgildi?

 

Nope. I'm suggesting I'm sufficiently content not to be that bothered about the issue of whether or not we're the victims of a wicked imperialist plot.

 

Which we're not.

[Frances]

first point is that whilst I don't hide my identity it is difficult to know against whom I am responding - I've never claimed to be expert in this area and my background in not in law.

 

On the VAT topic I'd suggest that Manx figures include excise duty (as this too came under the common purse) whereas this is seperated out in the UK figures. I would expect VAT as such, to be about the 1/800 of the UK figure though I'd expect fuel excise duties to be relatively lower (as apparently is the case when comparing Scotland to England) but the missing 230M 'subsidy' is I think explained by this.

 

On the constitutional point then I suggest you read Kit Gawne's PhD thesis (I think Liverpool 2007 and I understand a book is in preparation which looks at 19th + 20th constituional arrangements with London) - there are other excellent texts eg that by David Kermode "Offshore Island Politics" is excellent - though he avoids any pre 19th constitutional matters but does come out with statement that linkage to UK has been beneficial for Island.

 

The exact constitution I would agree is fudged (but then so is that of the UK) - when the English crown threw out the Scots from what it saw as a strategic Island too close to English and Irish shores I doubt if they fully thought through the niceties (the last days of the Kingdom of Man are well covered by R. Andrew McDonald in his Manx Kingship in its Irish Sea Setting 1187-1229 (pub 2007) + his earlier book on Scotland and the Western Isles) - it was 'given' to the Stanley family, the legality of this gift was the basis of the long drawn out court case in the last days of Elizabeth who took the Island under her control when she was worried about possible Spanish attacks - James then re-ceded it to the Stanleys confirming the nominal payment of two falcons at coronations. The development of Man as a base for the running trade caused problems from early 18th C and as no douubt you are aware plans were afoot in 1726 to re-acquire the regalities but if you read the Atholl papers I've transcribed you can see that the Atholl lords had friends in high places and they were not realised until 1765. At this time the loss to the English treasury was enormous and there were serious scuffles between customs cutters and Manx boats. Your views on the running trade may differ - the act of running goods into England etc was itself illegal under English law, the Island authorities turned a blind eye to these acts though the merchants kept themselves at arms distance from the dirty end of the business - my own take is that it is rather like some of the 'terrorist' states who supplied arms to the IRA (but obviously lower on the moral scale) - 'we are not responsible for any harm' argument.

 

The current constitutional arrangements are I suspect beneficial to the Island - cut the link with the UK and through it the EU and I suspect the Finance Sector will be on the boat in the morning. It is how the Island got here constitutionally that may be interesting academically but I doubt would have any import on today's politics - that said I have no idea of your motives in attempting to get me to fall into any one of the potential elephant traps when someone is working outside of their expertise.

[oldmanxfella]

I did not ever claim that this VAT is booty plundered off the Manx people. However you have not countered my argument since you do not answer the issue I raised about EEZ’s or the ‘defence contribution’, and have only shot down a straw-man argument of your own making.

 

Excuse me if I don't understand your obsession with EEZ's.

 

They are defined thus:

 

EEZ

 

Wikipedia states: Generally a state's EEZ extends to a distance of 200 nautical miles out from its coast. The exception to this rule occurs when EEZs overlap; that is, state coastal baselines are less than 400 nautical miles apart. When an overlap occurs, it is up to the states to delineate the actual boundary

 

Forgive me if I'm wrong but with the IOM you would be taking about an overlap between the UK and the IOM, and Ireland / the EU with the IOM to name the most obvious. Therefore regardless of whether you declared an EEZ given the IOM's position of being virtually equidistant between the EEZ's of the UK and Europe the boundary your potentially left with is probably eqivalent to our territorial waters anyway.

 

Please state clearly what the hell you are talking about and what benefit's you're talking about.

 

I've still seen no case at all for suggesting that the relationship the IOM has with the UK is not a). profitable and b). of benefit to the Island as a whole.

[Skeddan]

oldmanxfella, no apology needed, rather good on you for looking into this for yourself and trying to get the facts straight. It’s not very well explained and this Wikipedia description is particularly confusing as EEZs no more overlap than national borders overlap,

 

The likely Manx EEZ would have a boundary running along the midpoints of ‘baselines’: lines running from various waypoints along the Manx coast to the nearest adjacent non-Manx coastal points. There’s a whole process and tribunal for dealing with objections to what might be claimed (and dealing with issues such as small islands, fine details of boundary delimitations etc.), and states may of course negotiate changes to this, with a kind of horse-trading, but this is generally the standard way the boundaries of an EEZ are determined.

 

In short and simple terms, all the area around IoM which is closer to IoM than anywhere else would fall within a Manx EEZ. Draw a line half-way between IoM and anywhere else, and you just about have it.

 

If you look on a map and see how IoM lies in relation to the UK and Ireland, you’ll see that a Manx EEZ would extend quite a bit further than the 12 mile limit of Manx territorial waters, and would extend to very near current gas platforms.

 

The benefits, as I stated are primarily in gas and oil. The Irish Sea has very significant reserves, and a not-insignficant proportion of this would fall within a Manx EEZ (if ever one was declared). Maybe not enough to make IoM a member of OPEC, but still…. Establishing such an EEZ would give rights to various resources within that zone. Not having already had an EEZ means that various resources such as fish have already been expoited. Is it shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted? Well, it will be if the oil and gas gets exploited in the same manner.

 

oldmanxfella, you are right – I should explain simply and clearly. The basic idea might be illustrated in a very simplified way in the following analogy:

 

You have a great big lake of liquid gold in the fields between your house and your neighbour’s. Your neighbour is busy pumping out the liquid gold from their side of the lake. You’re not in on the act. That’s because you haven’t yet staked a claim to a property boundary beyond your backyard. You have every right to claim the boundary to almost all the way to your neighbour’s side of the lake, you just haven’t done so. If you did this, you could start pumping out the liquid gold as well. Leave it too long and the lake is going to be drained dry by your neighbour.

 

(As you might gather, in this analogy, liquid gold = oil & gas, the ‘fields’ is the Irish sea beyond the territorial waters, which is the backyard, and the new property boundary which has not yet been claimed is the EEZ. You only have to see who is extracting gas and where this is happening to get the rest).

 

To carry on the analogy a bit further….

 

Why hasn’t a claim been staked so you too can get in on this liquid gold bonaza? There is a very able and astute property manager looking after your property on your behalf, who is, supposedly, acting in your interests. It also just so happens that your property manager is appointed by your neighbour. All the dealings between your property manager and your neighbour are ‘confidential’ and ‘secret’ and kept from you, and even your servants have to sign confidentiality agreements with your neighbour. This property manager can stop your servants telling you anything which is against your neighbour's interests and can also veto any of your servants should they attempt to take it into their hands to stake this claim for you.

 

Now you say you have every confidence in your property manager, and that you think your neighbour treats you very well by looking out for your interests (for a sizeable fee). You say this is a ‘special relationship’, and you are very certain you do very well out of it (even though your neighbour doesn’t allow your servants to give you the details about this). In fact you are convinced you are getting the better end of the deal, and are very happy since you haven’t seen anything to prove otherwise.

 

(For ‘property manager’ substitute Lt Governor and the Administration, servants = MHKs, and the fee = the imperial/ defence contributions).

 

I wouldn’t insult your intelligence by suggesting you’d be so trusting and naïve in such a simple and obvious situation. However when a whole cloud of obscure technical mumbo-jumbo is condensed down to plain speaking, this analogy isn’t too far off the mark.

[Albert Tatlock]

An interesting DTI oil and gas map (with clicky links for detail in each quadrant shown). Notice the UK licenced area that buffers to the islands 12nm international limit.

[Skeddan]

An interesting DTI oil and gas map (with clicky links for detail in each quadrant shown). Notice the UK licenced area that buffers to the islands 12nm international limit.

 

Nice one Mr Tatlock.

 

There is another map which though not as detailed as the one Albert Tatlock found, is easier to see relative to IoM:

 

http://www.og.dti.gov.uk/information/bb_up...es/plate11s.gif

 

I may be wrong, but it looks very much to me like the "Millom" gas field lies at least partially within what would be a Manx EEZ. It may be that some of the platforms also lie within this area from what I can make out from this map:

 

http://www.centrica.com/files/jpeg/map_morecambe_bay.jpg

 

Anyone has good charts etc. can measure this properly and check other fields and platforms- I don't have the charts etc. myself (or even a printer and pair of compasses).

 

It seems that about 0.64 billion cubic meters a year is being extracted just from Millom:

 

http://www.og.dti.gov.uk/information/bb_up...elds/millom.htm

 

That's not to say IoM doesn't get any gas from the Irish Sea - it does - quite a lot as its used for electricity generation as well - only it's bought from the UK

[oldmanxfella]

oldmanxfella, no apology needed, rather good on you for looking into this for yourself and trying to get the facts straight. It’s not very well explained and this Wikipedia description is particularly confusing as EEZs no more overlap than national borders overlap,

 

The likely Manx EEZ would have a boundary running along the midpoints of ‘baselines’: lines running from various waypoints along the Manx coast to the nearest adjacent non-Manx coastal points. There’s a whole process and tribunal for dealing with objections to what might be claimed (and dealing with issues such as small islands, fine details of boundary delimitations etc.), and states may of course negotiate changes to this, with a kind of horse-trading, but this is generally the standard way the boundaries of an EEZ are determined.

 

In short and simple terms, all the area around IoM which is closer to IoM than anywhere else would fall within a Manx EEZ. Draw a line half-way between IoM and anywhere else, and you just about have it.

 

If you look on a map and see how IoM lies in relation to the UK and Ireland, you’ll see that a Manx EEZ would extend quite a bit further than the 12 mile limit of Manx territorial waters, and would extend to very near current gas platforms.

 

The benefits, as I stated are primarily in gas and oil. The Irish Sea has very significant reserves, and a not-insignficant proportion of this would fall within a Manx EEZ (if ever one was declared). Maybe not enough to make IoM a member of OPEC, but still…. Establishing such an EEZ would give rights to various resources within that zone. Not having already had an EEZ means that various resources such as fish have already been expoited. Is it shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted? Well, it will be if the oil and gas gets exploited in the same manner.

 

oldmanxfella, you are right – I should explain simply and clearly. The basic idea might be illustrated in a very simplified way in the following analogy:

 

You have a great big lake of liquid gold in the fields between your house and your neighbour’s. Your neighbour is busy pumping out the liquid gold from their side of the lake. You’re not in on the act. That’s because you haven’t yet staked a claim to a property boundary beyond your backyard. You have every right to claim the boundary to almost all the way to your neighbour’s side of the lake, you just haven’t done so. If you did this, you could start pumping out the liquid gold as well. Leave it too long and the lake is going to be drained dry by your neighbour.

 

(As you might gather, in this analogy, liquid gold = oil & gas, the ‘fields’ is the Irish sea beyond the territorial waters, which is the backyard, and the new property boundary which has not yet been claimed is the EEZ. You only have to see who is extracting gas and where this is happening to get the rest).

 

To carry on the analogy a bit further….

 

Why hasn’t a claim been staked so you too can get in on this liquid gold bonaza? There is a very able and astute property manager looking after your property on your behalf, who is, supposedly, acting in your interests. It also just so happens that your property manager is appointed by your neighbour. All the dealings between your property manager and your neighbour are ‘confidential’ and ‘secret’ and kept from you, and even your servants have to sign confidentiality agreements with your neighbour. This property manager can stop your servants telling you anything which is against your neighbour's interests and can also veto any of your servants should they attempt to take it into their hands to stake this claim for you.

 

Now you say you have every confidence in your property manager, and that you think your neighbour treats you very well by looking out for your interests (for a sizeable fee). You say this is a ‘special relationship’, and you are very certain you do very well out of it (even though your neighbour doesn’t allow your servants to give you the details about this). In fact you are convinced you are getting the better end of the deal, and are very happy since you haven’t seen anything to prove otherwise.

 

(For ‘property manager’ substitute Lt Governor and the Administration, servants = MHKs, and the fee = the imperial/ defence contributions).

 

I wouldn’t insult your intelligence by suggesting you’d be so trusting and naïve in such a simple and obvious situation. However when a whole cloud of obscure technical mumbo-jumbo is condensed down to plain speaking, this analogy isn’t too far off the mark.

 

Maybe you could explain it in a slightly less condescending way that i might understand?

[triskelion]

I remember them having exploration rigs in view of Douglas, so they have looked for it.

[Skeddan]

oldmanxfella, I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to be condescending.

 

My post to which you first responded in this thread stated:

 

an EEZ is an exclusive economic zone - the exclusive right to fishing and natural resources in a 200 mile limit - or halfway to the nearest neighbour - which any country may declare, and which for some reason IoM has not. Just in case anyone is not aware, there are HUGE oil and gas fields in the Irish Sea, and the UK is pumping out the gas at this very moment. IoM might even become a member of OPEC, but for not having an EEZ...

 

This seems to be a fairly clear and straightforward statement. However I think similies and analogies are sometimes useful – at least I find them so, since they can bring a fresh understanding to a problem (as Wittgenstein observed). Using such an illustration really was not meant to be in any way condescending, but rather was offered because I mistook the nature of the difficulty you have in understanding this.

 

The simplest and most succinct way of putting it might be to say that there are significant and very valuable gas reserves (and even perhaps drilling platforms) which are within what would be the IoM’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ); IoM would get the benefit of this rather that the UK if IoM were to claim its EEZ. As I noted before, an EEZ is an exclusive economic zone - the exclusive right to fishing and natural resources in a 200 mile limit - or halfway to the nearest neighbour - which any country may declare, and which for some reason IoM has not.

 

If there is anything you don’t understand about this, do please be specific about what that is, and I will try to answer as best as I can.

[triskelion]

Since no one is drilling in Manx territorial waters, there seems to be little need to declare an EEZ and there seems to be little immediate benefit for doing so.

 

I understand that the gas and oil in British waters that is being is extracted could well be the same as that inside Manx waters, but that does not precipitate a need to declare an EEZ.

 

Furthermore, all this talk of joining OPEC is bizarre. Why the Island, which is at pains to show itself as a centre of responsible and regulated business, would want to associate itself with a shady cartel made up rather suspect states I don't know.

 

Even if the Dti were to issue extraction licenses, the Island would have little further control, as which ever company were to purchase them would have to use its own facilities, presumably in the UK.

[Lonan3]

Why the Island, which is at pains to show itself as a centre of responsible and regulated business, would want to associate itself with a shady cartel made up rather suspect states I don't know.

Isn't that the same reason why we're not full members of the EU?

[triskelion]

Why the Island, which is at pains to show itself as a centre of responsible and regulated business, would want to associate itself with a shady cartel made up rather suspect states I don't know.

Isn't that the same reason why we're not full members of the EU?

Ooooooo