October 27, 2009 - This is an eye-opening glimpse into UK's perceived authority to
suspend territories' self-governance whenever they see fit.
"The Gibraltar Constitution contains a specific reference to our right to self determination. So does the Cayman Islands Constitution of June this year.
This has not prevented the High Commissioner for the Eastern Caribbean, newly appointed Governor of the Caymans, from making a statement that the Cayman Islands and all the other British overseas territories could have their Constitutions suspended and be ruled by their Governors as has been the case in the Turks and Caicos, should such a need arise.
The fact that we have a modern Constitution from 2006, or that the Caymans have one since 2009, tells us nothing about the degree of self government attained. Bermuda’s 1968 Constitution is still the least colonial in content but is certainly not the most modern. In our judgement modernity is not the defining criterion for the attainment of a full measure of self government."
http://www.panorama.gi/localnews/headlines.php?action=view_article&article=5166&offset=0
Here is an excerpt from the Commission of Enquiry Report By: Sir Robin Auld. Does the UK even believe that they have authority to take Turks and Caicos Islands? Let us know what you think.
1.15 The Islands, as a British Overseas Territory, are not constitutionally part of the United Kingdom (UK). They have enjoyed varying degrees of self-government over the years, subject to oversight from the UK exercised through an Administrator or Governor. The fundamental relationship between the UK and the TCI, as with all other of its Overseas Territories, is to assist and guide them to full independence when they are ready for it. That aim is at the heart of the UK’s obligations under the United Nations Charter, Article 73 of which imposes on it, as the administering power, a solemn and heavy responsibility to recognise that the interests of the Territory’s people are paramount. That includes a duty to promote their well-being, including their political, economic, social and educational advancement, just treatment, protection from abuse and a move to self-government.
Section 1.59 of the enquiry report admits that the complaints submitted were in the form of psydonym or anonymous sources which were "general or anecdotal nature, were in the form of hearsay. Overwhelmingly, the information presented a picture consistent with that given to the UK Foreign Affairs Committee."
Section 2.7 concedes that Turks and Caicos enjoys "a booming tourist economy, attracting a surfeit of overseas interest and investment in tourist developments." This evidences that the economy was in fine stimulus from foreign investors, developments and tourism. All of that properity has ceased since UK's arrival. The people of Turks and Caicos are out of work and without prospects with the closing of the resorts and loss of resulting jobs.
2.34 "First there are payments made by potential or well-established developers and other businessmen to PNP funds or to PNP Ministers individually, purportedly as political donations. These are sometimes made direct, but are also often made through and held by a third party, such as an attorney or close business or family associate. Wealthy developers and other businessmen usually made their donations on terms of strict anonymity and with no restrictions as to use, political or otherwise. Why the secrecy? Why no strings attached to its use?" This is the basis for the UK to establish that businesspersons were bribing ministers and Michael Misick? This is the basis for stalling the economy in Turks and Caicos by putting developers and others out of business and thus citizens out of work? The donors did not specify a use? This is in an inapporpriate conclusion to guilt and a shameful example to the world of alleged bribery.