3 ms·

Is Jersey really powerful enough to create a tax haven? Or is it that powerful people in foreign governments purposefully let Jersey exist so that they can bene

Is Jersey really powerful enough to create a tax haven? Or is it that powerful people in foreign governments purposefully let Jersey exist so that they can benefit from its existence? Basically, what I'm questioning is whether the tax haven is Jersey's doing at all. Of course they are complicit but I don't think that it's up to them to decide to be a tax haven.

sandworm101 11y ago
>> London and Paris tussled over the islands for almost 300 years. Eventually, however, Pope Sixtus IV intervened and, in 1481, issued a papal bull of neutrality. England and France could wage war, but the Channel Islands, by religious injunction, could not. The result was that Jersey traded unimpeded with both sides, and thus its enchanted inbetween life began. It should be no surprise today's largely secular laws don't know how to deal with 15th-century papal bulls.
- notahacker 11y ago
  It's still perhaps a little surprising that this status quo has never been challenged on the British side, bearing in mind the UK has been radically anti-Catholic for most of the period since then, and unusually assertive about establishing overseas territories and colonies. (I suppose the practical answer is that that British rejection of the papal bull would invite the French to interfere militarily or even annexe islands much closer to their own shores than mainland Britain, and frankly any negative side effects of the in-between status historically weren't worth the cost of the warships to guard them)
  - sandworm101 11y ago
    I'd go further with the practicality and say that the British legislature was administering a thousand other colonies at the time (Canada) and just never bothered to address an issue over a crag smaller than many cities.
TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
Jersey is effectively owned by the Queen, albeit rather indirectly through her role as Duke (sic) of Normandy. In practice the day to day running of the Channel Islands is left to what's called the Privy Council, but the Queen gets final say. Parliament isn't involved. If the Queen objected strenuously to Jersey's role as a tax haven, it would never have become one. Jersey is one of those edge cases where the feudal nature of the British establishment becomes obvious. Parliament isn't quite only for show, but a lot of wheeling, dealing, and money hiding goes on behind the scenes. Neither the British parliament, nor City regulators, nor the EU have much oversight.
- pm24601 11y ago
  So does this mean the Queen is still the absolute ruler of some random bits of real estate? I always thought that the Queen was reduced to a figurehead status.
  - toyg 11y ago
    UK constitutional affairs are crazy; believe me, I've looked at them at several times. It's a rabbit hole of ad-hoc agreements for little bits of land here and there, acquired or controlled at various points in time by feudal or commercial means, and just maintained as they were or with minimal harmonization. It's the same at all levels, from the smallest of towns to the humongous London (the City or the Metropolitan Authority? it's all a mess...) to Crown Dependencies, Overseas Territories, etc etc. You then couple this legal patchwork with Common Law and a formalized-but-not-quite-fully-consistent parliamentary process, evolved day-by-day over several hundred years, and you can understand how very few people at any given time actually know who really should be in charge of this or that. What matters is that the right someone should be considered in charge at the right time on the right matter, correctness be damned. It's an extremely pragmatic stance on Power: it decouples highfalutin declarations of what Power is and where it comes from, in favour of simply making sure that Power exists and can be exercised for everyday purposes by trusted insiders without facing a riot. The current system has been running continuously for more than 300 years (and it's not incredibly different from the one it replaced, which was almost 600 years old at the time). Imagine maintaining a custom backend for 300 years, piling hack over hack because you're never allowed to rewrite it all from scratch. That's what the British system basically is. But going back to your question: of course the Queen is a figurehead, but it's because she decides to be so, as British monarchs have done since the Glorious Revolution. In theory, she (or her heirs) could, at any time, try to force the constitutional compromise, reasserting everyday powers that today are in Parliament hands (the list grows longer every year, as it often happens with elderly rulers)... but there is really no reason for her to do so: she is well looked after, paid handsomely to basically be a 365/24/7 global PR representative for her country, and allowed to own a large amount of wealth and property, some of which she (or rather her heirs) can directly manage and profit from (Duchy of Cornwall etc). Why would you give up all that and precipitate a disastrous conflict and potentially a civil war? For some misplaced pride of power, at 89, after having seen through (and won) the Cold War? So the powers stay there, she just doesn't use them (and would likely be rebuffed if she tried too hard to); she exercises influence were strictly necessary and that's enough to keep everyone happy. It's a bit like owning nuclear weapons without ever using them. This whole setup is also the reason some people still worry about the return of "activist" monarchs. HRH the Prince of Wales at various points tried to wield his unwritten power a bit... ungraciously, stoking these fears, but he seems to have recently accepted that his reign will be too short to really worry about, so we should be ok.

sandworm101 11y ago

>> London and Paris tussled over the islands for almost 300 years. Eventually, however, Pope Sixtus IV intervened and, in 1481, issued a papal bull of neutrality. England and France could wage war, but the Channel Islands, by religious injunction, could not. The result was that Jersey traded unimpeded with both sides, and thus its enchanted inbetween life began. It should be no surprise today's largely secular laws don't know how to deal with 15th-century papal bulls.

notahacker 11y ago
It's still perhaps a little surprising that this status quo has never been challenged on the British side, bearing in mind the UK has been radically anti-Catholic for most of the period since then, and unusually assertive about establishing overseas territories and colonies. (I suppose the practical answer is that that British rejection of the papal bull would invite the French to interfere militarily or even annexe islands much closer to their own shores than mainland Britain, and frankly any negative side effects of the in-between status historically weren't worth the cost of the warships to guard them)
- sandworm101 11y ago
  I'd go further with the practicality and say that the British legislature was administering a thousand other colonies at the time (Canada) and just never bothered to address an issue over a crag smaller than many cities.

TheOtherHobbes 11y ago

Jersey is effectively owned by the Queen, albeit rather indirectly through her role as Duke (sic) of Normandy. In practice the day to day running of the Channel Islands is left to what's called the Privy Council, but the Queen gets final say. Parliament isn't involved. If the Queen objected strenuously to Jersey's role as a tax haven, it would never have become one. Jersey is one of those edge cases where the feudal nature of the British establishment becomes obvious. Parliament isn't quite only for show, but a lot of wheeling, dealing, and money hiding goes on behind the scenes. Neither the British parliament, nor City regulators, nor the EU have much oversight.

pm24601 11y ago
So does this mean the Queen is still the absolute ruler of some random bits of real estate? I always thought that the Queen was reduced to a figurehead status.
- toyg 11y ago
  UK constitutional affairs are crazy; believe me, I've looked at them at several times. It's a rabbit hole of ad-hoc agreements for little bits of land here and there, acquired or controlled at various points in time by feudal or commercial means, and just maintained as they were or with minimal harmonization. It's the same at all levels, from the smallest of towns to the humongous London (the City or the Metropolitan Authority? it's all a mess...) to Crown Dependencies, Overseas Territories, etc etc. You then couple this legal patchwork with Common Law and a formalized-but-not-quite-fully-consistent parliamentary process, evolved day-by-day over several hundred years, and you can understand how very few people at any given time actually know who really should be in charge of this or that. What matters is that the right someone should be considered in charge at the right time on the right matter, correctness be damned. It's an extremely pragmatic stance on Power: it decouples highfalutin declarations of what Power is and where it comes from, in favour of simply making sure that Power exists and can be exercised for everyday purposes by trusted insiders without facing a riot. The current system has been running continuously for more than 300 years (and it's not incredibly different from the one it replaced, which was almost 600 years old at the time). Imagine maintaining a custom backend for 300 years, piling hack over hack because you're never allowed to rewrite it all from scratch. That's what the British system basically is. But going back to your question: of course the Queen is a figurehead, but it's because she decides to be so, as British monarchs have done since the Glorious Revolution. In theory, she (or her heirs) could, at any time, try to force the constitutional compromise, reasserting everyday powers that today are in Parliament hands (the list grows longer every year, as it often happens with elderly rulers)... but there is really no reason for her to do so: she is well looked after, paid handsomely to basically be a 365/24/7 global PR representative for her country, and allowed to own a large amount of wealth and property, some of which she (or rather her heirs) can directly manage and profit from (Duchy of Cornwall etc). Why would you give up all that and precipitate a disastrous conflict and potentially a civil war? For some misplaced pride of power, at 89, after having seen through (and won) the Cold War? So the powers stay there, she just doesn't use them (and would likely be rebuffed if she tried too hard to); she exercises influence were strictly necessary and that's enough to keep everyone happy. It's a bit like owning nuclear weapons without ever using them. This whole setup is also the reason some people still worry about the return of "activist" monarchs. HRH the Prince of Wales at various points tried to wield his unwritten power a bit... ungraciously, stoking these fears, but he seems to have recently accepted that his reign will be too short to really worry about, so we should be ok.