A triumph of selective memory

From Tony Keogh.

IN his letter (JEP, 12 July) Pierre Horsfall does not seem to deny that the Privy Council petitioners had an element of constitutional vandalism. However, the real vandalism, according to him, has taken place in the States.

One of the qualities for hypocrisy to triumph is to have a very selective memory, and hope that everyone has the same kind of memory. If the constitutional vandalism is in the States, it began with his performance when the Clothier Report was first published.

He stood on the steps of the States’ Building, clutching the Clothier Report, like Chamberlain, when he returned from Munich with his ‘Peace in our time’ message. Pierre Horsfall’s message was ‘All or nothing at all, no cherry picking’. Then he began his cherry picking.

One of the initial debates soon after Clothier’s publication was as to whether it had constitutional implications. Pierre Horsfall, as president of Policy and Resources, fought tooth and nail against there being any constitutional implications. That would demand a referendum. This was the last thing that he and his cohorts wanted.

It was then pointed out that, if the section about the Bailiff’s role in Clothier was left in, the report would inevitably have constitutional repercussions; so the section in the report regarding the Bailiff was removed and put on the back burner. So the depleted Clothier Report was presented to the States for an ‘in principle’ vote. This way, the electorate was denied any say in a referendum as to the nature of a radical new form of government.

Almost all the toxicity in the States and in our form of government can be traced back to a lack of leadership and lack of trust in the people of this Island by failing to provide an opportunity in a referendum concerning Clothier.

A referendum over Clothier was a complete anathema to Pierre Horsfall at the time. Now, for reasons best known to him, a referendum is the best thing since the first cabbage loaf was produced.

As to the petitioners’ record in defending democracy around the world, that experience is not an excuse for constitutional vandalism. It merely makes them more culpable of such vandalism. They should know better.

This correspondence seems to be boiling down to who are the bigger vandals – the Privy Council Five or the States of Jersey. Pierre Horsfall and his co-petitioners do not seem to grasp that the Members of the States are our vandals, they are our elected vandals. Pierre Horsfall and company are certainly not.