Wednesday, May 26, 2010


May 26, 2010

From John Heys.

THE slow but inevitable ruination of this beautiful Island of Jersey by an incapable and dictatorial junta of senior States members must be exposed to the outside world, and stopped now as the mistakes are getting beyond recovery, with no accountability at all.

Once very prosperous tourism and agriculture industries have been run down in total favour of the so called finance industry. The Chief Minister and his cohorts disregard the writing on the wall and pump millions into a tax haven industry now under attack from many sides.

Things have slipped down hill to the point where our GDP is: Finance 58%; tourism, the one live mainstay of our economy, 3%; and agriculture, famous for the Jersey Royal, tomatoes, and flowers, about 1% – facts which our ministers ignore, stating how wonderful things are with billions of pounds invested/hidden here.

Senator Le Sueur recently proposed giving £100 million in tax relief to the finance industry, which, of course, a small economy like this cannot possibly withstand, so to make it up he suggested introducing a general tax.

Against many alternatives which he would not contemplate, he said that it would be introduced. Incensed, the Jersey people held a petition to which 20,000 signatures were penned. When it was presented, Senator Le Sueur’s comment was: ‘I do not care how many signatures there are, GST will be introduced’, and when informed that elderly people on small fixed incomes were finding it even harder to purchase affordable food, he said : ‘They will just have to shop around’.

Both comments are an example of the total lack of understanding and the dictatorship attitude under which Jersey suffers.

Many large companies and hotel groups operating and making big profits in Jersey do not pay income tax, while Jersey companies have to, and everyone is running around like chickens with their heads off because we now have a big shortfall in our financial situation, a painfully obvious result of a ridiculous policy.

The civil service is totally top heavy, grossly overpaid and unaccountable for huge financial errors. As an example, it was decided to contract a French firm to build an incinerator without taking account of cheaper alternatives or adequate public consultation, at the approximate cost of £107 million, and although the exchange rate between the euro and the pound was to be accounted for, it was ignored, and we now find that this glaring error could cost the tax payer £2 or 3 million extra.

There was an uproar from the public, so an inquiry was held in what Jersey calls ‘behind closed doors’ to discover just who was in the wrong. The result was that the matter had been dealt with, no one was sacked or moved, and that the matter is now closed. I cannot imagine many countries, except those like Zimbabwe, or Iran perhaps, having the sheer audacity to treat the public in such a dictatorial manner.

We are constantly spun by the ruling junta that we are so lucky to have the finance industry paying in so much money, making this Island rich, but they never mention that we are so rich that out of the 52,000 working people, 8,500 are on Income Support because they cannot afford to live, or that due to the wonderful finance industry, the average price of a three bedroom house is £470,000, or that Jersey per GDP capita is the 3rd richest country in the World, yet its minimum wage is the lowest in all of 27 EU member states, and that Jersey spends less than 75% of the EU average on social protection.

Jersey is a tax haven playing to the benefit of the rich financed by the poor, who pay 20% in tax whilst the rich have a nice sliding scale of tax, so on their first £million they pay 20%, on the next half £million 10%, and 1% from then on, so on a declared £10 million, their tax bill would run at just 3.5%, and even then that can be avoided.

A total disgrace is the huge civil service pay cheque: 270 get from £70,000 to £89,999; 62 get from £90,000 to £109,999; 36 get from £110,000 to £129,999; 19 get from £130,000 to £149,999; 22 get from £150,000 to £169,999 two get from £170,000 to £189,999; one gets from £190,000 to £209,000; one gets from £210,000 to £229,999; five get from £230,000 to £249,999. And, recently announced, one gets £287,089, of which £42,500 is a bonus when his department actually made a loss of £610,000. And we think the banking rewards are immoral.

We have been warned that money is scarce and belts will have to be tightened and painful economies made, yet our states departments have overspent more than £8,520,000, as far as we know, and not one member will be held to account.

Staffing levels have had to be scrutinised and redundancies painfully actioned, yet on the other hand Senator Ozouf has announced that another 127 posts have been created and 30 temporary positions introduced, and further adds that local jobs should go to local people when only the other week I wrote about dozens of top local jobs filled by outsiders and it continues practically every day, so who is he trying to convince?

It is painfully obvious that this island does not have the wherewithal to run itself and is being inexorably driven towards huge irrecoverable problems, with ever mounting costs due to mistakes, constant overspends, and with the tax evasion and avoidance procedures coming under scrutiny, so that when the numerous methods are exposed and get stopped, we will have no industry to fall back on.

Much of the blame unfortunately lies with the apathetic Jersey public. When there is a chance with elections to get rid of all the chaff in our States, only 33% of the people bother to vote, stating: ‘What is the point, there is no alternative’, or ‘They are all the same’.

I feel that we are at a point now when we must look to either the UK or the EU to step in and start to provide professional guidance with some form of local party politics to monitor the situations.

There are a number of good States Members struggling to introduce common sense, but they are constantly out-voted by the nodding heads controlled by the ministerial system.
It has even been suggested that Jersey declare UDI. With no help, guidance or watchful eye at all from the UK, we are in chaos now. Given a free hand, this Island would nose dive into ruination.

What is needed is party politics, where manifestos are published and members expected to abide by them, thus providing control and accountability.

I fear that unless drastic measures are taken now to halt and redress the downward rush, Jersey will find itself in the worst mess it has ever been in, and the finance industry will leave the sinking ship to go to where it can continue making fortunes in safety.

Article posted on 26th May, 2010 - 3.00pm


Tuesday, May 25, 2010

Jersey and Guernsey VAT scams undermine the UK economy

Tax Research UK

May 25th, 2010

Sometimes I wonder why I allow comments on this blog: so many commentators promote abusive ideas or simply seek to abuse the hassle quite often seems to outweigh the benefit. Then along comes comments, like the one I’ve already referred to this morning, or this one on the fundamental problems VAT abuse through Jersey and Guernsey causes to UK small businesses, and I realise providing a voice can be worthwhile:

The whole Jersey scam makes me mad. Very simply, I am losing money..!

I sell manufacturer own ink cartridges. "I can get those cheaper on the internet" is a common cry. When compared against mainland based retailers, my customers tend to see the error of their ways finding that I am indeed cheap and pay up!

But then there are the customers who have found the sites in the channel islands.

I was horrified to find a particular item that I was selling on my shelf for £12.85 is available for £10.90 on the web site that my customer buys his inks from. Do the maths… yes, that is the same price as I am selling it without VAT!!! How can I compete when there is a built in 17.5% discount The on-line retailer doesn’t even have to begin to be competitive. That particular customer could be worth £400 turnover each quarter to me on cartridges alone - not to mention the lost revenue to the public purse!

This loop hole MUST be closed. We cannot compete.

I recently had a letter from HMRC after I complained to my MP. In this letter, they stated that the VAT office are "monitoring the situation"..

I’m monitoring my P & L!


Thame, Oxfordshire

The foundations of Tax Justice

I am often asked what I mean by "’tax justice’. As a result, and as a contribution to the Briefing Sheet series I am developing, I have written the following summary of what I think tax justice is. It is also available as a briefing sheet.

Tax justice

Tax justice is a broadly based concept. It relates to individuals and all taxable entities. But it also relates to tax systems as a whole.

Tax compliance – the duty of the taxpayer

For the individual taxpayer tax justice is about tax compliance. This happens when the individual seeks to pay the right amount of tax (but no more) in the right place at the right time where right means that the economic substance of the transactions they undertake coincides with the place and form in which they report them for taxation purposes.

Tax and society

But tax justice is about much more than the individual: tax justice is also about the existence of tax systems that promote social well being within and between societies. It is about the creation of environments in which all people can prosper. That necessarily means that the state institutions and businesses that meet the needs of people can also prosper. But it means yet more than that: it means that those who fail to prosper are protected from misfortune until such time as they can prosper again.

That means tax justice is about four things above and beyond the duty of the individual to be tax compliant. First it is about understanding why we tax. Second it is about defining the attributes of a good tax system. Third it is about defining the process that delivers tax justice and finally it is about understanding transparency – without which tax justice is not possible.

The 5 Rs for taxing

There are five reasons for taxation. Tax is used to:

1. Raise revenue;

2. Reprice goods and services considered to be incorrectly priced by the market such as tobacco, alcohol, carbon emissions etc. and by providing tax reliefs e.g. for childcare;

3. Redistribute income and wealth;

4. Raise representation within the democratic process because it has been found that only when an electorate and a government are bound by the common interest of tax does democratic accountability really work; and finally to facilitate:

5. Reorganisation of the economy through fiscal policy.

If tax justice is to prevail taxes must be set taking all these considerations into account.

The 10 Cs of a good tax system

An efficient taxation system has nine attributes with one over-riding characteristic to which they all contribute. An efficient tax system is:

1. Comprehensive – in other words, it is broad based;

2. Complete – with as few loopholes as possible;

3. Comprehensible - it is as certain as is reasonably possible;

4. Compassionate – it takes into account the capacity to pay;

5. Compact – it is written as straightforwardly as possible;

6. Compliant with human rights;

7. Compensatory – it is perceived as fair and redistributes income and wealth as necessary to achieve this aim;

8. Complementary to social objectives;

9. Computable - the liability can be calculated with reasonable accuracy;

All of which facilitate the chance that it will be:

10. Competently managed.

In combination these are key attributes of a good tax system.

The 6 steps to tax justice

Tax justice can be defined as a six stage process:

1. Define the tax base. This is the first essential step in creating progressive taxation and in promoting the better use of resources within society.

2. Find what is to be taxed. If the tax base cannot be accurately located then there is no point trying to tax it.

3. Count the tax base. Unless the tax base can be quantified it cannot be taxed.

4. Tax the tax base at the right rates of tax. In the process making sure the inter-relationship between the various tax bases is properly managed to ensure that the essential revenue raising, repricing and redistributive qualities of a just tax system is vital.

5. Allocate the resulting revenues efficiently and to best social effect

6. Report - governments must be accountable for what they do with tax revenues or the democratic principle fails.

The 11 steps to financial transparency

Tax justice cannot happen by chance. To achieve it information is needed. That means all potentially taxable people, whether they are human beings or legal entities created under law, must be transparent about what they do, are and have done.

Financial transparency exists when the following information is readily available to all who might need it to appraise transactions they or others might undertake or have undertaken with another natural or legal person:

1. Who that other person is;

2. Where the person is;

3. What right the person has to enter into a transaction;

4. What capacity the person has to enter into a transaction;

And with regard to entities that are not natural persons:

5. What the nature of the entity is;

6. On whose behalf the entity is managed;

7. Who manages the entity;

8. What transactions the entity has entered into;

9. Where it has entered into those transactions;

10. Who has actually benefited from the transactions;

11. Whether all obligations arising from the transactions have been properly fulfilled.

Creating tax justice

Tax justice is not simple, as is already apparent. That, however, is not a problem: a great deal of what humans do is not simple, and yet it is achieved none the less. Tax justice is possible: that is what is important.

These five criteria, tax compliance on the part of taxpayers and the four sets of attributes on which just tax systems are built, are the foundations of tax justice. Together they create a world in which social justice can prevail for all.

That is what tax justice seeks to achieve.


Richard MurphyEthics, Tax justice
Greece’s Hat Trick: Tax Collection

Saturday, May 22, 2010

We need a bias to the poor, by Richard Murphy

Eva Joly :Tax Superhero 2010

May 20th, 2010

Christian Aid today (Thursday 20 May) announced the winner of its Tax Superhero of the Year award, which recognises outstanding individual work on the potential of tax to change the world.

Eva Joly, an activist, European politician and former judge, has beaten other nominees including the comedians Ricky Gervais and Graham Norton and is the winner of this year’s Award.

Norwegian-born Joly was elected as a Member of the European Parliament in 2009 for the Europe Ecologie list and represents Ile de France. She also chairs the Parliament’s Committee on Development. Her work has shifted the terms of the international debate about the vital importance of tax revenues to developing countries.

As a judge in France, Ms Joly famously investigated a half-billion Euro corruption scandal involving the state-owned oil company Elf-Acquitane, and received death threats as a result. Thirty people were eventually convicted in connection with the affair.

‘Eva Joly has a proud record of championing the vital role that tax revenues play in both rich and poor countries – and also of successfully fighting corruption,’ said Helen Collinson, Christian Aid’s Campaign Manager, Economic Justice. ‘She is an outstanding ambassador for tax justice and good governance.’

Christian Aid will officially announce Ms Joly’s award outside the Royal Exchange building in the City of London during its Alternative Tax Awards 2010 ceremony, from 9.30am on Thursday, 20th May. The date coincides with accountants’ own awards bash at London’s Park Lane Hilton.

In addition to Ms Joly, Christian Aid also received nominations for comedians Ricky Gervais and Graham Norton, for tax justice campaigners John Christensen, Richard Murphy and Alvin Mosioma and for investigative reporter Denis Roberts. Other nominees were the singers Billy Bragg and Katie Melua, the novelist Rhidian Brook and the Christian Aid board member Phil Hodkinson. Another nomination was for the organisation Blood:Water Mission, which works on HIV/AIDS and water.

Christian Aid launched its Alternative Tax Awards in 2009, to highlight its campaign about the vital importance of tax for developing countries. The organisation estimates that they currently lose around $160 billion a year as a result of tax dodging by unscrupulous companies trading internationally. This is a vast sum, equal to roughly one-and-a-half times the amount of money that they receive in development aid each year.

‘The money urgently needed to pay for education, medical care, sanitation and other public services which we in the UK take for granted,’ said Helen Collinson.

Christian Aid is campaigning for the introduction of a new accounting standard, country-by-country reporting, which would require multinational companies to publish the profits they make and the taxes they pay in every country in which they operate. It is also working towards the automatic, multilateral exchange of tax information between countries, to help governments more effectively counter tax dodging. In addition, the organisation supports the strengthening of poor countries’ collection of tax domestically, to help strengthen their governments’ accountability to their citizens.—————–

Eva’s great.

I’m more than happy to lose to her!

Wednesday, May 19, 2010

Britain concerned as EU crack down on hedge funds (Reuters)

European Union finance ministers backed stricter controls for hedge funds and private equity groups on Tuesday, handing a defeat to Britain's new coalition government at its first EU meeting.

The draft rules will control pay and borrowing at hedge funds as well as forcing them to disclose extensive information to watchdogs about how they are investing or short-selling, breaking a taboo for the secretive industry.

The regime, which puts hedge funds under the eye of a pan-European watchdog for the first time, is part of a wider set of pledges by world leaders to create a more stable financial system after the global economic crisis.

"We are determined to accelerate the pace of regulation," Wolfgang Schaeuble, Germany's finance minister, told reporters after the meeting.

"Up until now this was not regulated," he said of the hedge fund and private equity industry. "This hole will now be closed."

Spanish Economy Minister Elena Salgado announced an agreement, despite acknowledging some concerns were removed.

Britain had fought hard to water down the law and was still hoping to overturn a provision that refuses a single licence for foreign funds to do business across Europe, something U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has also objected to.

But London's objections were overruled in a rare break with an unwritten rule of Brussels diplomacy that says no country should be bullied into accepting a law it does not want.

British diplomats put a positive gloss on developments, described by hedge fund lobbyists as disappointing, saying they had reached the "best possible" outcome with a footnote to the ministers' statement that flagged their worries.

But experts see the new rules -- likely to take effect around 2012 -- as a decisive political victory given the symbolic importance of the industry for London.

Other political leaders played down any impression that Britain might have come off badly in the negotiations.

"Today, with goodwill and agreement from Britain and after very hard struggle in recent weeks, we have succeeded ... to rein in hedge funds," said Austrian Finance Minister Josef Proell.


Britain is worried the new law will drive its financial services elite out of London's West End, home to eight out of ten European hedge funds, to cities like Geneva.

But it is isolated. Only the Czech Republic backed it in opposing the approval of the new rules by the finance ministers, a weak alliance in the face of heavyweights France and Germany, who pushed for rigid restrictions.

George Osborne, the 38-year-old British chancellor, blamed the country's previous, Labour government for giving the new government a "hospital pass" -- a sporting term for a dangerous pass that the receiver cannot take without being hurt.

"I came here given a challenging position bequeathed to me by the previous government," Osborne told reporters after being outvoted at the first meeting with his peers. Officials said he did not speak during the deliberations on the issue.

Osborne now hopes to win a last-minute concession in negotiations with parliament. Late on Monday, its economic affairs committee approved its version of the draft law, backing the idea of a passport or EU licence for foreign funds.

Hedge funds have been accused of exacerbating Greece's borrowing difficulties by betting against its debt, although there are few trading records to prove that how much such betting took place.

The planned legislation would change that, proponents say, making it easier for supervisors to see what is happening as well as intervene by curbing short-selling, for example.

The hedge fund clampdown is part of a broader revamp of financial services in Europe, spanning curbs on banker pay to demanding lenders put aside more for unpaid loans.

On Tuesday, Germany's Schaueble also flagged a possible financial transaction tax.

"Agreement on a European initiative would come at the earliest if there were to be no such agreement at the G20," he said, referring to the meeting of developing and industrialised nations in Toronto in June.

(Reporting by John O'Donnell, Huw Jones, Gavin Jones, Sumeet Desai and Brian Rohan; editing by Stephen Nisbet, Ron Askew)

Thursday, May 6, 2010

The Jersey Passport issue

The cover of a Jersey Passport says:

"European Union, British Islands, Bailiwick of Jersey".

An indigenous Jersey person's passport says:

"Holder is not entitled to benefit from European Community provisions relating to employment or establishment".

The Passport Issue

"Holder is not entitled to benefit from European Community provisions relating to employment or establishment."

This message can be found stamped inside the passports of people of ' pure ' Channel Island and Isle of Man (Manx) descent as well as those born in the Islands to European parents, in other words, people who have a parentage that is not of the United Kingdom.

Channel Islanders and Manxmen are not covered by the rights of the freedom of movement of workers and, therefore, have no automatic right to work or start a business within mainland Europe.

The stamp first appeared in Islanders' passports after the accession of the United Kingdom to the European Community. The U.K. government negotiated on behalf of the Islands and the result of these negotiations was Protocol 3. It is because of this protocol that the stamp was put in the Islanders' passports.

Protocol 3

Treaty of Accession of the United Kingdom to the European Community: Protocol 3 On the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man

Article 1

The Community rules on customs matters and quantitative restrictions, in particular those of the Act of Accession, shall apply to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man under the same conditions as they apply to the United Kingdom. In particular customs duties and charges having equivalent effect between those territories and the Community as originally constituted and between those territories and the Member States shall be progressively reduced in accordance with the timetable laid down in Articles 32 and 36 of the Act of Accession. The Common Customs Tariff and the ECSC unified tariff shall be progressively reduced in accordance with the timetable laid down in Articles 39 and 59 of the Act of Accession, and account being taken of Articles 109,110 and 119 of that Act.

In respect of agricultural products and products processed therefrom which are the subject of a special trade regime, the levies and other import measures laid down in Community rules and applicable by the United Kingdom shall be applied in third countries.

Such provisions of Community rules, in particular those of the Act of Accession, as are necessary to allow free movement and observance of normal conditions of competition in trade in these products shall also be applicable.

The Council, acting by a qualified majority on a proposal from the commission, shall determine the conditions under which the provisions referred to in the proceeding subparagraphs shall be applicable to these territories.

Article 2

The rights enjoyed by Channel Islanders or Manxmen in the United Kingdom shall not be affected by the Act of Accession, However, such persons shall not benefit from Community provisions relating to the free movement of persons and services.

Article 3

The provisions of the Euratom Treaty applicable to persons or undertakings within the meaning of Article 196 of that Treaty shall apply to those persons or undertakings when they are established in the aforementioned territories.

Article 4

The authorities of these territories shall apply the same treatment to all natural and legal persons of the Community.

Article 5

If, during the application of the arrangements defined in this Protocol, difficulties appear on either side in relations between the Community and these territories, the Commission shall without delay propose to the Council such safeguard measures as it believes necessary, specifying their terms and conditions of application. The Council shall act by a qualified majority within one month.

Article 6

In this Protocol, Channel Islander or Manxman shall mean any citizen of the U.K. and Colonies who holds that citizenship by virtue of the fact that he, a parent or grandparent was born, adopted, naturalized or registered in the Island in question; but such a person shall not for this purpose be regarded as a Channel Islander or Manxman if he, a parent or grandparent was born, adopted, naturalized or registered in the U.K. Nor shall he be so regarded if he has at any time been ordinarily resident in the U.K. for five years. The administrative arrangements necessary to identify these persons will be notified to the Commission.

Letters regarding The Passport Issue: We want Protocol 3 re-negotiated

From 10 Downing Street, London SW1A 2AA 13.5.2002

" ... Mr Blair has asked that your letter be passed to the Lord Chancellor's Department who have responsibility for this subject so that they, too, are aware of your concerns and can send you any comments they may have direct. "

From Lord Chancellor's Department, Constitutional Policy Division, 50 Queen Anne's Gate, London SW1H 9AT 23.5.2002

" ... I can confirm that Jersey passports are issued under the authority of the Lieutenant Governor. In common with the Bailiwick of Guernsey and the Isle of Man, the United Kingdom is responsible for the Island's international affairs and defence. Apart from that, there is little I can add ... save to confirm that Protocol 3 to the Act of Accession provides that Channel Islanders and Manxmen are not eligible to benefit from Community provisions relating to the free movement of persons ... "

From The Bailiff of Jersey, Sir Philip Bailhache, The Bailiff's Chambers, Royal Court House, Jersey JE1 1BA 27.5.2002

" ... It seems to me, with respect, that your letter reveals a misunderstanding of the constitutional position. No discrimination is involved in the special position of Channel Islanders under the Protocol ....... Jersey is for all purposes save one outside the E.U. ..... We are therefore inside the Community for the purpose of freedom of movement of goods ..... The abolition of the restriction on the freedom of movement of Channel Islanders as defined by the Protocol could only be achieved by the re-negotiation of Jersey's position vis-a-vis the E.U. My understanding is that Jersey's government has no such intention at the present time, but this is of course a matter for our elected representatives. I am sending a copy of this letter to Senator Horsfall. "

42 Clubley Estate,
St.John's Road,
St. Helier JE23LF

7th November 2002

Dear Senator Horsfall,

It is clear from the attached letters from the Bailiff of Jersey and the Lord Chancellor's Department that to re-negotiate Protocol 3 of the British Treaty of Accession to the European Union in order to remove the clause excluding Channel Islanders settling or working in the E.U., action would have to be initiated by our elected representatives.

This issue is now particularly relevant in view of the British Overseas Territories Act, which came into force on 21st May this year and grants the rights of full citizenship to all inhabitants of Britain's overseas territories and allows them to live, train and work in Britain or anywhere else in the European Union. And this without giving up immigration restrictions to their various territories.

The exclusion of those with exclusively Channel Island ancestry hits most of those who courageously chose to stay in Jersey in 1940 even though they knew the Island was to be occupied by Nazi dominated German forces thus ensuring a continued British presence here. Those who evacuated and who did not have U.K. patrial status would now not be subject to the exclusion, having lived in the U.K. five years.

You are probably aware that exclusion of anyone without U.K. patrial status including British citizens of wholly or part French, Irish, Portuguese or other E.U. nationality is discriminatory ethnically and goes against the whole idea of equality of European nations enshrined in all E.U. legislation. We intend to continue to pursue this matter not only in the European Court of Human Rights at Strasbourg, which is not an E.U. institution, but also intend to seek redress at the Court of Justice of the European Community itself at Luxembourg.

However, we feel that the easiest way would be for our elected representatives to follow the advice of the Bailiff and initiate proceedings through the U.K. government in order to amend Protocol 3, bearing in mind the many concessions Jersey has made to the E.U. and the importance of this exclusion in the lives of a seriously wronged minority on the Island, particularly the young who may be unable to take up any immediate employment offers in the E.U. outside the U.K. It is in the light of what we have pointed out that we formally ask you to initiate such proceedings.

Looking forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely,

Jean Andersson
(Association for the Taxation of Financial Transactions for the Benefit of the People)

As of May 22, 2006 no reply from Senator Horsfall

" The problem is not public apathy about politics, it's political apathy about the people and the apathy is all at the top. " Tony Benn

Passport Update 2nd April 2003

In The States sitting on Wednesday 2nd April 2003 as reported in the Jersey Evening Post under the heading: " Islanders ' are able to work in EU despite lack of automatic right ' ", Senator Frank Walker said that although Jersey-born passport- holders did not have an automatic right to gain employment in the EU, in practice they were able to work.

Deputy Roy Le Herissier questioned whether P & R would be prepared to review the issue of Jersey-born passport- holders. He pointed out that these passport- holders, under Protocol 3 of the Treaty of Accession of the UK to the EU, were not entitled to live or work in the EU.

Senator Walker warned: " To revisit the issue of free movement of people, in order for Jersey-born passport-holders to be entitled automatically to live and work in the EU, would require revisiting the entire Treaty. The EU is unlikely to be willing to examine the applicability of the Treaty on a piecemeal basis. Even if it were, any change in the arrangements for the Island could involve revisiting the whole relationship between the Island and the EU. "

Clearly the Island authorities intend doing nothing about this. Whatever it takes we intend to continue campaigning until Protocol 3 is renegotiated. We want nothing less than a clear, unambiguous full passport like everyone else.

For further information please read Protocol 3.

Jerry Gosselin has a very interesting site which among other items outlines his experiences of the Jersey Passport Issue