Cameron new prime minister
(CNS): Update 2:45 pm — Leader of the Conservative Party, David Cameron, has arrived at 10 Downing Street from Buckingham Palace, where Queen Elizabeth asked him to form the next British government. This followed talks with the third party Liberal Democrats to form some sort of coalition government. Gordon Brown has resigned as Leader of the Labour Party, which will now chose a new leader. In a speech made outside his new home, Cameron gave no indication of the deal made by the Lib Dems and the Tories. Nevertheless, a Tory in Number 10 will please the Cayman government, which appears to believe that the Conservatives will be more sympathetic to their opposition to introduce taxes to the islands.
However, given the size of the UK’s own deficit, it is unlikely that the new overseas minister is going to look more favourably on the CIG entering into further borrowing without some form of new revenue measures.
While the premier may have hinted that he would prefer a Conservative government, the reality is that the Tories would be far more likely to advise the CIG to push for even more public service cuts as well as some form of taxation. The Tories may be the party of a little bit less tax; they are by no means the party of no tax. In the end, although Cayman may bid farewell to Chris Bryant, the CIG won’t be saying goodbye to the UK policy when it comes to the impact of contingent liabilities.
Following talks with the Conservatives immediately following the elections, which resulted in a hung parliament, the Lib Dems opened up talks with Labour Monday morning but with many Labour MPs opposed to formingan alliance with the Liberal Democrats, those talks appear to have broken down irrevocably and the Libs returned to the Tory camp.
Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg is said to be looking for a coalition government, with members of his party given Cabinet positions. However, Cameron may baulk at that and the parties may be working towards a looser arrangement in which the Liberal Democrats agree not to vote down a Tory budget or trigger an election by joining the Labour party in a no confidence vote, but to vote on all other issues on a case-by-case basis.
A key issue for the Liberal Democrats is a reform of the electoral process.
Category: World News
Brown like Hitler came to power without the the peoples consent. Thank God he has gone because he was a control freak and the British were simply sleep walking into something bad for the counntry..
Hitler came to power as Chancellor as head of a coalition, so the analogy with Gordon Brown seems a bit weak unless by "Hitler came to power without the the peoples consent" you are referring to the populations of Poland, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Norway, Holland, Belgium and France.
Yep Vince Cable hates offshore even more than his boss the new Chancellor.
His crusade is very much to wipe out Jersey and all the other "tax havens" beyond that.
I do not think it is a good thing that there is a coalition government in the UK but one thing I know for sure is that it cannot be any worse than Gordon Brown.
I prayed for a Conservative victory for Cayman’s sake but I am just happy that Labour was voted out. Labour & the Liberal/Dems are just like the Democrats in the States, they mean Cayman no good. They fight against Cayman & other so called "tax havens" & they do everything in their power to hurt us. I am so pleased that I can now say "GOOD RIDDANCE GORDON BROWN"!!!!!!!!!!
Don’t forget this is a coalition government and the Liberal Democrats, whilst a long distant third, are now forming part of the Conservative/Liberal Democrat government.
Vince Cable, a Liberal Democrat MP and a long-standing critic of offshore banking centres has been given responsibility for business and banks at the Treasury under Conservative George Osborne.
Be interesting to see what kind of influence this Vince Cable will have on the overall government.
Don’t rest easy just yet!
All I can say to the people of the UK is be careful what you wish for.
Some people here wished for a UDP governement with Mckeeva in charge and that is what we got….now look where we are!
Ok.
Now let us see if and when Cameron will reveal the true deplorable state of the UK’s economy to the people.
Then we will see the blatant absurdity of the UK giving us the round around in regards to its "permission" to borrow a few quid.
Independent sources are claiming that even the IMF and World Bank have been summoned on the (UK) matter (sounds a bit third world-ish to me).
Not a good look folks … not a good look at all – especially when one takes into consideration that the UK is able to "print" new money out of thin air.
Thought she was the "mother country" – somebody oughta call social services on her – pronto!
Now just why do you think Cameron is going to do the same to the UK that Mac did to us. You must be UDP.
"Brownie your doing a heck of a job" – (Famous George Bush qoute on Michael Brown after Katrina)………..NOT!!!!
Cayman Island’s government should not cherish any false hopes!
The Conservative Party will have to deal with a hung parliament. We are talking about a Parliament that is so mixed-up, there will have to be debates upon debates to get anything done. Moreover, before any law can be made on our behalf, there will have to be alot of backroom deals and monies paid to the opposition (Labor and Libs) in order to get the laws pass.
The FCO minister can still be anyone. The "interests" that binds the Overseas Territories as inferior subjects to the crown, is still alive and well. It does not matter which party is in power. The next minister may very well demand that we tax or else.
Bear in mind that the FCO is traditionally a dumping ground for politicians the government doesn’t want involved in UK politics but can’t get rid of for fear of upsetting some fringe faction within their supporters – look at Chris Bryant!
Also remember (as pointed out above) that the FCO is traditionally run by the civil servants and their friends, not the minister, so it doesn’t really matter who is charge – if those policies were already in the pipeline changing the figurehead won’t makea bit of difference.
With the LibDems in the mix you can forget an over-friendly attitude to tax havens. On the other hand extending the local franchise is going to be fairly easy to persuade the next OT minister.
I personally feel that this is good news for Cayman!
Cayman is observing international standards in confining the right to vote to its citizens. For exampIe, ‘green card’ holders (theU.S. equivalent of permanent residents) do not have the right to vote in U.S. elections. EU citizens resident in Britain do not have the right to vote in national elections but only in local elections and EU elections. Further, it would have the effect of undermining the right to self-determination of Caymanians given the disparity in the adult expat vs. Caymanian population, and this in circumstances where the expat population is highly mobile and may be here today and gone tomorrow as their commitment to Cayman is based upon its continued economic success. And for those who would suggest that this would increase their commitment to Cayman, the reality is that that will not happen by merely granting further rights with no corresponding obligations. The moves by Maples and Calder and Walkers, two supposedly Caymanian firms, to Ireland to practise Irish law, by Maples Finance to Montreal and more recently of Walkers Corporate Services to Delaware bears me out.
In view of the foregoing, I can see no proper justification from any interference from the UK Govt. in that respect particularly given that it has just approved a new Constitution for us on precisely the basis that only full citizens have a right to vote.
Caymanians are already being marginalized in Cayman in a number of spheres. God help us if that were to happen. Every red-blooded Caymanian should oppose such a proposal.
This is an issue of the UK’s obligations under the Human Rights Act and the ECHR to UK citizens. For the purposes of the ECHR I can’t see Strasbourg taking anything other than a unitary view of the obligation to allow participation in voting for the legislature given the obligations under the relevant Protocol and the recent case law on that Protocol.
What happens in the US is irrelevant. As for EU citizens their electoral rights raise different issues but again are irrelevant for present purposes.
Let’s see who is OT Minister – I am sure that in a climate of fair electrol reform protecting the enshrined political rights of British citizens is not something which a new government would want to deny at the moment.
You see what you wish to see and your assertions have nothing to do with any objective analysis of the matter. What happens in the U.S. is not irrelevant in so far as it too is bound by international human rights obligations, e.g. in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
Article 25 of the ICCPR reads as follows:
The ICCPR was extended to Cayman. It has been cited by the European Court in applying the less explicit ECHR, as recently as 2009 in the Sejdic and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina case (which was concerned with denying citizens the right to vote on the basis of ethnicity. Hence my reference to international standards.
The ECHR does not explicitly recognize a right to vote but this has been interpreted by the European court as a corollary right of citizens to the obligation of the state to hold free elections.
The position of EU citizens is also not irrelevant as they have a common citizenship with British Citizens and the European court has ruled that EU citizens cannot be considered aliens in another member state whereas many of our expats would be considered aliens. It demonstrates that mere residence of whatever period in a country does not give one any international human right to vote in that country’s general elections. But you believe this is fine as a special case because it is in Britain and not in Cayman.
Much of what you say smacks of hypocrisy. There was no problem that BOTCs had no right of abode in the UK until 2002 when they were also granted British Citizenship. No question of the European Court taking a unitary view then. It was perfectly fine to make a distinction between British Citizens and BOTCs until the shoe is on the other foot.
International human rights law merely requires that each person has a right to vote in his own country. Your own country is obviously the country of which you are a citizen. If the citizens and govt. of country choose to extend their franchise further than that that is a matter for them. It is not a human right of non-citizens. The fact is that we are not a part of the UK, but an Overseas Territory of the UK and thus have a different citizenship, BOTCship. This stands in contrast to the position of the Dutch who have the same citizenship with those belonging to the Netherland Antilles.
Finally, even if your interpretation was correct (which it is not), if you have any knowledge of constitutional and human rights law, you will understand that there is also room for derogations from such rights if there is a reasonable or objective justification. One such justification, would be that the nationals would be completely overwhelmed by such an extension of the franchise.
The right of abode falls within the rights which were not extended to Cayman (i.e. the 7th Protocol).
There is no hypocrisy as far as I am concerned – for example there is a not dissimilar argument that Caymanians resident in Cayman have a right to participate in Westminster elections, but that is not the point being discussed here.
As the Privy Council recently made clear the concept of Caymanian, Falkand Islander or Bermudian is not to be equated with legal nationaility in the eyes of the Privy Council in the sense of being separate from the concept of Britian in terms of nationalities. As a British citizen in British territory seeking rights protected by Britain under the ECHR what goes on in terms of local (ie sub-national) systems is irrelevant.
And good luck with the derogation argument. There is not a chance of the argument that increasing the voting population by 10-20% as the basis for a derogation has any prospects of getting traction in London or more importantrly Strasbourg when it is likely that a very large proportion of the existing electorate were born elsewhere and are or were nationals of other states. It was a long long time since property rights in Guernsey were argued in Strasbourg . . . .
I am afraid I don’t understand the relevance of your first point.
Ditto for the second.
The concept of BOTCship is not contained in "some local (sub-national) system", but in the British Nationality Act. Clearly, it conveyed different rights or there would be no point to having separate nationalities. Britain could have chosen to go the Dutch route where everyone (including belongers of the Netherland Antilles) is a citizen of the Kingdom of the Netherlands and have the same rights, but it did not. I happen to think that the Thompson v. Bermuda Dental Board case that you allude to was not well argued on behalf of the Respondent as this fundamental point was completely overlooked.
Your appeal to this case is precisely the sort of hypocrisy to which I was referring. All of a sudden, when it suits, "we’re all British". We didn’t create the distinction, you did. What comes across is attitudethat "an Englishman should have rights in his own colony" as voiced by one a number of years ago.
As to your figures, I do not where you have got the idea that it would only be an increase of 10-20%. For example if this were extended to holders of Caymanian status and permanent residents it would easily be more than 50% of the existing electorate. (But of course you are only concerned about yourself and your fellow Brits, all the while pleading "fairness"). If that is not overwhelming the nationals then I don’t know what is.
You are very good at making sweeping pronouncements (this time about derogations), but poor at backing them up. Perhaps you ought to read about the derogations in respect of the right to vote under the EC Treaty available to EU States, e.g. Luxembourg, "where the proportion of citizens of the Union of voting age who reside in a given Member State but are not nationals of it exceeds ***20%*** of the total number of citizens of the Union residing there who are of voting age ".
1. Your point about it being a point only about "Brits" shows how little you know about the issues – the ECHR rights in question only would extend to UK nationals and not, unfortunately, anyone else.
2. As far as the ECHR regime is concerned the extension to the OT means that in the eyes of Strasbourg there is just one contracting party – the UK.
3. The Lux. derogation, is an issue of EU law and hence irrelevant, but in any event the UK signed up to the First Protocol without any derogation so like most of your points, the derogation point utterly irrelevant.
4. Your point on Thompson indicates that you think yourself to be a great lawyer (since you know how to argue cases better than advocates in the Privy Council). I hope you are just a keen and deluded amateur since from your woeful analysis I would pity your clients if you were allowed near a real case.
5. The point being discussed in this thread is not clear cut. There are arguments on both sides (but the best ones are not the ones you have made). But if I were a betting person, and golly gosh I sure am, I would place a hefty bet on the pro-extension argument being right and that the parts of the constitution restricting the vote would be declared incompatible with the UK’s obligations under the Human Rights Act if the matter was raised in London. And there is the rub, this is an issue of English law and ECHR jurisprudence. The parochial niceties of sub-national regional legislation would, like in Thompson, be largely ignored.
The only thing that you have shown is your pomposity and misguided sense of superiority. Unfortunately, this is what dictates your attitude on this whole issue. As usual there are more authoritative sounding pronouncements with no backing whatsoever. My comments about Brits was to correctly identify your motivation in this whole matter. The fact that that the UK is the "Contracting Party" is a separate point from whether the European court would regard Cayman as a country for these purposes. I have already demonstrated by other examples etc. that we would be so regarded. You have of course tried to step the basic point that the British Nationality Act (and not merely some local legislation) has given us a separate nationality and substituted instead an adhominem attack.
Obviously the UK (who was very keen in the negotiations that Cayman’s new Constitution contain international human rights standards and in particular the ECHR) saw no incompatibility between the recently approved Constitution and any right to vote under the ECHR, otherwise there would have been a derogation. As it stands, there was no need for a derogation because there is no breach. The point about Luxembourg is not irrelevant as it demonstrates what may properly be considered grounds for a derogation in the right to vote (if indeed a right did arise), contrary to your earlier unsupported pronouncements that there was "no chance" of a derogation on precisely that basis.
Unfortunately, your poor attitude is representative of the worst elements of your countrymen and you make the best case why Caymanians should vigorously oppose any widening of the franchise.
This is my last post on this subject regardless of any other noise from you.
"This is my last post on this subject regardless of any other noise from you." Are you five years old? Or from your crass generalisation at the end just an embittered nationalist/racist?
Bear in mind that although the new Constitution gives full citizens the right to vote in their members of cabinet during election, the UK’s Governor can if he chooses, undermine cabinet and impose laws for the UK’s interest (Constitution 2009 Part 2, Section 33). Hence, the socall "Democracy" of the Cayman Islands, is an illusion. In every election, the people are fooled or duped in thinking that "who" they elect, is their representative that can’t be touched or removed without their consent.
They duped Caymanians with this Constitution and they will do it again.
I can guarantee you that if Cayman doesn’t achieve "continued economic success", there will be a race to the door between the finance industry ex-pats and our own, Caymanian economic elite.
Anybody who believes that wealthy Caymanians will stick around for little "Jamaica" is smoking something illegal. They will be on the first flights to Miami and London.
Perhaps you should present the full facts rather than just those that you believe support your argument. Whilst you are correct that EU citizens resident in the UK do not have the right to vote in a General (Parliamentary) election, any citizen of a Commonwealth country resident in the UK does have the right to vote. Additionally a citizen of an EU country resident in the UK can vote in European or local elections.
It could be argued why should a Caymanian (or other overseas territory citizen) have the right to vote when resident in the UK when a UK citizen resident in an overseas territory does not?
I agree with you. The same criteria should apply to residency and work permit rights in the UK also – positive discrimination and roll ’em over just as they do to us. It cuts both ways.
I think you forgot that we are British Citizens now and cannot be rolled over in Britain. We did not ask for it and it was given on a non-reciprocal basis.
Yes Britain granted you this, along with voting and residency and god knows what else. And no, I didn’t forget – that was my point. In return Cayman rolls us over; no voting and no residency, just like any other country that has no connection whatsoever with Cayman. That’s fair I suppose?
I see. You were proposing that they take away vested rights, which we did not ask for and were expressly granted on a NON-RECIPROCAL basis, out of a sense of vindictiveness. It is plain commonsense that the UK can afford to grant a few tens of thousand Caymanians and other OT citizens (who are unlikely to take it up) that right – this was plainly stated in the House of Commons when the Bill was presented – but Cayman cannot afford to do so for 60m Britons. The UK deliberately postponed the offer of British Citizenship to its Overseas Territories citizens until after Hong Kong went back to the Chinese because a couple of million Hong Kong Chinese sweeping into Britain would have made a difference.
When I went to the UK as a student in the 1980s, I had to join the same immigration queue as any foreigner having no connection with Britain notwithstanding that my passport said "British".
You are right that a Commonwealth citizen presently does have a right to vote in UK general elections, but it has been proposed for this right to be removed so the trend is in the opposite direction.
I did specifically point out that EU citizens have a right to vote only in local or EU elections. You appear to have missed this.
We should have the right to vote in Britain because we are British citizens (and not simply BOTCs). You should equally have the right to vote in Cayman if you are Caymanian, ie. status plus naturalization as a BOTC. The proper basis is relevant citizenship.
Firstly, I did miss that you pointed out that EU citizens are only available to vote in EU and local elections so apologies for that.
But, my main point was that currently Commonwealth citizens can vote (regardless of proposals) and therefore comparison of the Cayman Islands model to the UK is less supportive of your point than comparison with, for example, the US model as the UK model is not purely based on British citizenship.
Whilst Caymanians are now British citizens rather than simply BOTC’s, you still had the right to vote previously. Personally as a Brit I never did agree with the idea of BOTC’s anyway and feel you should always have British citizenship but at least that has been corrected.
I also stated that ‘it could be argued’ as opposed to ‘I would argue’. Whilst I would like to be able to vote here as this is my home and I now have a greater allegiance here than I do to the UK, I appreciate the reasons why I cannot, though your path to British citizenship is/was far easier than mine will be to BOTC.
There are many expats who care more about the Cayman Islands than the countries we were born in. There are many who are not here to take what they can and leave, but rather consider this their home and want to see Cayman grow and prosper. Granted, it is not all and there are some who are here to take whatever they can from Cayman. It is sadly ironic that the rollover policy that was designed to protect Cayman actually, in effect, encourages those who seek short term gain rather than those who would contribute & commit more. If they leave, it is not necessarily that their commitment is purely based on the economic success of Cayman, it is most likely that in the event that economic success turns to failure then they will lose any right to stay here.
If citizens and the govt. of any countrywish to extend the franchise to non-citizens then that is their prerogative. However, it should not be confused with an internationally recognized human right of non-citizens to vote. That is my point. Pointing to commonwealth citizens right to vote in Britain does not mean that there must be reciprocity. Indeed, this is probably regarded as an anachronism by both the British and Commonwealth citizens.
If you would like to vote here then become naturalized as a BOTC, acquire Caymanian status, if you have not already, and register to vote. I for one will welcome you. If you are unwilling to take these steps then it must impugn the commitment and care you say you have to and for Cayman.
The problem with your analysis is, and I do not mean this to be facetious, from an ECHR perspective Cayman is not a country and would not be viewed as such in the eyes of ECHR jurisprudence such as to deny resident UK citizens the right to participate in elections for the legislature. Regional legislatures with significant legislative powers have been held to fall with the rights protected under the relevant protocol, and the LA will therefore be no different than such a regional legislature.
You are either being facetious or naive. Clearly, the ECHR recognizes that Cayman is a different jurisdiction from the UK and for this reason treaties entered into by the UK have to be specifically extended in order to apply to us. Previous to that there was no direct right of appeal to the European court from Cayman until 23rd February, 2006.
Notwithstanding that Aruba and the Netherland Antilles are parts of the kingdom of the Netherlands they are regarded under the ECHR as a separate countries within the kingdom.
Further there can be derogations that apply to the OTs or any of them but not necessarily for the UK.
The difference in citizenship is not merely a Cayman creation; it is in part set out in the British Nationality Act.
Contrary to what you appear to think we are not the equivalent of a county in England and the L.A. is not like a County Council. We are not a part of the UK, but Overseas Territories of the UK. In light of all the foregoing I do not see how the European court could ignore the constitutional relationship between the UK and Cayman including Caymanians right to self-determination which is the context in which the issue would be raised.
And at no point did I suggest it was an internationally recognized human right nor that there should be reciprocity. I suggested that using the UK system as an example for your point was not necessarily the best example, particularly as you highlighted one set of non-citizens who could not vote whilst there is another larger set who can.
Your last sentence deals in absolutes. I am more than willing to take the steps necessary, but remember it is not solely my choice. If, for example, the company I work for should collapse or relocate due to a deteriorating economic climate then I am given no choice but to leave. It would not be that I am not committed to Cayman. If I am rolled over, then it will not be that I am unwilling to take the necessary steps or that I am not committed to Cayman – it will be that I am not allowed to.
Naturally I am hoping that niether situation occurs and that I am able to take the necessary steps to acquire Caymanian status as given the choice, I would choose Cayman over the UK in a heartbeat.
Incidentally, I happen to agree with you on another point in that a few thousand Caymanians have no impact if migrating to the UK but a few thousand Britons migrating to Cayman would make a huge difference (and more to the point a few thousand more EU citizens). So, whilst a reciprocal arrangement would be fair, it would niether be sensible nor practical and would not be in the interests of Cayman, even if it would be beneficial for me personally.
"And at no point did I suggest it was an internationally recognized human right nor that there should be reciprocity. I suggested that using the UK system as an example for your point was not necessarily the best example, particularly as you highlighted one set of non-citizens who could not vote whilst there is another larger set who can".
Well if it is not for either purpose then I’m afraid I do not see any point in raising the right of Commonwealth citizens to vote in Britain. My point in raising the position of EU citizens was to demonstrate that there is no such international human right for non-citizens to vote in general elections in the country in which they are resident. The fact that Commonwealth citizens can vote does not disprove that; it is simply a voluntary gesture by Britain. I was by no means saying that Britain’s position should be emulated for the reasons already stated which you have now acknowledged.
Thank you. From a British expat who shares your sentiments; loves Cayman and the Cayman people with a passion; and would never ever leave if I had the choice.
Well it will soon be official. David Cameron will become the next Prime Minister. Lets see what this will mean for Cayman
Can we declare this day a national holiday?
Good Riddance!!!!
Glad to have Brown gone. pity he could not have carried Chris Bryan with him.
He did.