OCEAN 2000.  January 2001

I have, in the past, likened the European Union to an Octopus, its tentacles stretching far and wide, drawing Countries large and small ever closer to itself, dragging them downwards into the murky depths of despair that is the European Union. Yup, I even wrote a poem along those lines.

Never for one moment did I realise that those tentacles would reach to the other side of the world. They have of course, with the help of our very own Government.

It was when I came across the term "Ocean 2000", which I have to admit foxed me for a short while, but all became revealed as I dug deeper into the subject to find that our "Dependent Territories" has had a 'modernised' name change to become known as "Overseas Territories".

Throughout the reading of this subject, I wondered on more than one occasion, just to what depths our beloved Government has to sink to in order to obey its masters in the European Union?

The British Overseas Territories comprise Anguilla, Bermuda, The British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, the Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, Montserrat, the Pitcairn Islands, St Helena and its dependencies Ascension and Tristan da Cunha, and the Turks and Caicos Islands; the territories of the British Antarctic Territory, the British Indian Ocean Territory and South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, (which have no indigenous population); and the Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotirui and Dhekelia in Cyprus.

From this moment on I feel sure the government would like you to believe that this has nothing to do with the European Union, for at the beginning of the government White paper I am looking at, "Britain and the Overseas Territories-A Modern Partnership", the EU is not mentioned, and all is done in the name of "Modernisation" to which the Government is committed. Modernisation is at the core of its vision, its direction, and its policies. "We are applying this process of modernisation systematically-to the economy, to the health service, to education, to crime prevention and to jobs". Etc, etc. Only towards the end does the paper reveal the "benefits" the EU will bring to their Islands. (We in this Country, already know about these so-called "benefits").

Within a few months of coming into Office, by August 1997 The New Labour Government began a review of our Countries relationships with the Dependent Territories (as they were called at that time) and in particular at the growing significance of the offshore financial centres in some territories-in particular, Bermuda, the Cayman Islands and the British Virgin Islands. Work has already begun on the redrafting the constitution of the latter.

"The purpose of this review (so this paper reads) was to ensure that the relationship reflected the needs of the territories and Britain alike, and to give the territories confidence in our commitment to their future". (My emphasis, for what our Government was about to do, our government Minister sure needed to 'give them confidence' in him). Is this why they 'chose' not to go independent?

The Sovereign Base Areas in Cyprus were excluded because of their specific character as military bases. And for different reasons Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands were excluded.

The Crown territories of the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man are also not included here. All overseas territories are, with the exception of Gibraltar, outside the European Union. Gibraltar is within certain competencies of the EU, although it is not a member of the customs union.

With the name change comes an "element of mutual obligations which means, where Overseas Territories allow themselves to become homes for gangsters or their money or where their political systems fail to pass the tests of democratic accountability and respect for human rights, they might be pressed to recognise that they risk forfeiting any security guarantees".

Now we are getting to the nitty-gritty for that to me, sounds a wee bit like blackmail, and that these small Islands are simply awash with criminals, even though this has never bothered any British Government before.

It strikes me that although several of the overseas territories perhaps need to improve their financial controls; it is not fair, or just, that they should all be accused of promoting tax evasion. 

 I wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that the British Government signed the 1997 EU code of Conduct against "Harmful Tax Measures" and that Member States are committed to ensuring that the principles of the code are adopted in all their overseas territories?

If all the overseas territories are forced to comply with the EU's measures it could potentially cause irreparable damage to their economies and, more particularly, to the financial services sectors of several of those territories. The proposed EU changes to taxation may well threaten to undermine the viability of overseas territories that have built up sound reputations as offshore financial centres. 

Any end to the well administered offshore financial activities in overseas territories will not only damage terminally the Islands economies, but it will ensure that individuals and companies who use such facilities go elsewhere. As will any "Recommendations on disclosure", which tackles tax evasion by the exchange of information on the widest basis, along with tackling banking secrecy too.

There is a draft decision of the EU Council, which, if agreed, could take effect at the end of March in which the OCEAN 2000 proposal would establish a direct relationship between the Caribbean and the European Commission requiring the Overseas Territories to manage their relationship with Brussels direct. In other words, Britain may be a passenger on the train, but it is definitely not the engine driver.

So, is our Government ceding to the European Union ever more of this Nation's responsibilities?  Is this really in Britain's interest to allow this to happen? In what way is it in Britain's interest? Do the people of this Country want this to happen? Have they been asked? Do the people of the overseas territories want this to happen? Do they also know that this is forever? 

Was the possibility of independence gone into thoroughly enough by the Islander's or the UK? It most certainly was by the EU and that is exactly why this is happening.

What will happen to the Islands should the United Kingdom have to withdraw from the European Union? Never even been given an airing I bet.

The Government has decided that British citizenship-and so the right of abode-should be offered to those British Dependent Territories citizens who do not already 'enjoy' it and who want to take it up.

Under European Community law, by giving British Dependent Territory citizen's British citizenship will mean giving them certain European Community rights of free movement and residence in the EU and European Economic Area member states. (Plus a lot of other goodies from the EU they forgot to mention) 

One intriguing paper I came across was about tax regimes proposed for Gibraltar and the Channel Islands which was so 'confidential' that our very own Members of Parliament were initially denied access to it, yet by the making of a simple phone call to Brussels, papers were produced those who 'made the call'.

Bearing in mind that Gibraltar and the Channel Islands have autonomous jurisdiction for tax purposes, why is an EU Code of Conduct Group deciding what should be done with these Island's tax systems, or even asked about these developments?

If these Islands do not do as requested, would the United Kingdom force them to conform to the EU's demands? Would the UK go to such lengths? Could they?

To me the whole situation is an absolutely disgusting state of affairs and if Members of our government cannot see this for themselves, then they should resign forthwith.

The fact that our Crown Dependencies and other dependent territories are discussed before a European Union Committee and the tag 'confidential' applied and no access given to the Country that these same countries are 'dependent' on, is disgraceful. It does point out once again, that decisions are not made here in our Parliament, Ah yes, they can be discussed and debated but that is all. 

Our Members of Parliament may, if they so wish, continue to go through the charade, the 'make-belief' of making a decision, but in the end, they have to come up with the 'right' answer. It reads well in Hansard but in the end, they have to reach for the rubber stamp, plonk it on the pad and away it all goes to join all the rest that has gone before. It is, and will change, for the quiet revolution started with the WI.

There is no doubt at all, in my mind that the proposals in question, known as OCEAN 2000, would change for ever the relationship that Britain has had with their Overseas Territories. The OCEAN proposal would indeed establish a direct relationship between the Caribbean and the European Commission requiring the Overseas Territories to manage their relationship with Brussels direct. Although it would in principle provide financial support, it would at the same time, require the territories to make fundamental choices on trade relationships and on currencies.

I have read the Statement given by Robin Cook 17th March on this subject and I am sickened by his conclusion and his twisted words which speak of his White Paper setting out the basis for a" modernised and strengthened partnership between the United Kingdom and our Overseas Territories. We already have a firm basis for that partnership founded on three centuries of shared history". 

After three centuries of shared history, all it took this Government to start to destroy it, was just three months.

Can we really condemn these defenceless Islanders, that have such widely differing needs and ways, to the "one size fits all" policy of the European Union?

What a stupid question to ask? This Government knows that about 65% of its millions of people in this Country neither want's the Euro, nor any further integration into the European Union. As the government care not one jot about them, why should they concern themselves over the few 'thousand or so' inhabitants in those far away Overseas Territories?

They would perhaps, do well to remember that the loving embrace of the Octopus can only be appreciated by another Octopus-for anyone else, that embrace spells catastrophe and death no matter who "they" are.

Britain and the Overseas Territories http://www.fco.gov.uk/news/newstext.asp?2125
"Partnership for Progress and Prosperity" as above.
Hansard Lords and Commons.  European Union