6

The British Foreign Secretary has declined to veto the repeal of gay marriage in Bermuda, part of the British Overseas Territories.

When did Britain last veto, or threaten to veto, legislation in such territories, especially for issues not involved with foreign affairs?

  • Are you even sure they've ever done so? – Denis de Bernardy Feb 8 '18 at 12:51
  • 2
    Britain certainly prevailed upon the Hong Kong authorities, in the 1970s, to abolish the death penalty for murder, and it drew protests from the then colony. Indeed, since the ultimate right of appeal in all Crown dependencies, (and in some Commonwealth countries) is to the Privy Council, death penalties are invariably overturned. – WS2 Feb 8 '18 at 14:57
  • @WS2: Though that's not technically legislation. It's more like overturning a judge's decision. And as you noted, it was then still, technically, a colony. (It became a British Dependent Territory in 1981.) – Denis de Bernardy Feb 8 '18 at 16:59
  • 1
    In 2004, Britain effectively took control of the Pitcairn Islands. I'm not sure if Island Council's views on the age of consent count as a valid legislation, though. – default locale Feb 9 '18 at 7:29
  • 1
    On a related note, in 2009, the UK took direct control of the Turks and Caicos Islands, due to government corruption. New elections took place in late 2012. – Steve Melnikoff Apr 4 '18 at 14:42
4

The Channel Islands are not British Overseas Territories, but they are a Crown dependency and the Crown does have the power to veto laws created in the Channel islands. Thus are in some ways similar to a Overseas territory.

The island of Sark is a small populated island in the Channel Islands. It has a small Parliament (the Chief Pleas), that also acts as an executive. Prior reform, the Chief Pleas was dominated by the owners of feudal landholdings on Sark, (called "tenants"). There was pressure from the UK government to reform the Chief Pleas and make it more democratic. Sark proposed a Parliament composed of equal numbers of "tenants" and resident non-landowners. The UK Lord Chancellor made it clear that this was insufficient reform, and that the veto would be used, if this proposal were to be formally presented for Royal Assent.

This gives an example of the threat of veto being used to change an internal matter of a Dependency of the Crown, (although not an overseas territory)

Ultimately this ended up in the Supreme Court, as two of the Tenents are the Barclay Brothers, and they wanted to preserve their rights as Tenants. The court decided that the UK government were within their rights to use prerogative powers in this way.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.