300 years, two days and one vote: Public to decide Bailiff’s future

Thursday 16 November 2017

After two days of debate, Jersey's politicians have paved the way for the biggest change to the island’s constitution in centuries – islanders will now be asked to decide whether the Bailiff should retain his role in the States, or whether a ‘speaker’ should be voted in instead. But their decision won't necessarily be binding.

The decision came following two days of heated debate in the States Assembly.

Just two votes made the difference - a minimum of 25 were needed for the moves to go ahead, and States Members voted 25 in favour and 21 against. 

The motion to scrap the role unearthed deep divisions in the States over tradition versus democracy, and fractured the Council of Ministers, putting Chief Minister Ian Gorst at odds with one of his closest allies, Senator Philip Bailhache.

 Pictured: Senators Gorst and Bailhache were divided over the role.

Senator Gorst is seeking to oust the Bailiff from his States seat, while Senator Bailhache – a former Bailiff himself, whose brother now holds the role – wishes for the current position to remain. 

Putting the major change to a referendum was Senator Bailhache’s idea – one that was not supported by Senator Gorst, but was passed yesterday by a majority of States Members.

During the States debate, it was suggested that some Members had voted in favour of a referendum in the belief that the island would not support a change to the centuries old role.

Comparing it to Brexit, Deputy Judy Martin expressed concern that some Bailiff-supporting States Members would not respect the outcome of the referendum if it did not go their way.

The proposition for an elected speaker, which included the amendment to have a referendum, was adopted: 25 votes pour and 21 votes contre.

— States Assembly (@StatesAssembly) November 16, 2017

“You are really playing very dangerous games here today… Stop the games now. Do not do a Cameron… Do not use a referendum again to canvas public opinion if you don’t want to see the result through and that result may not go your way,” she told the Assembly.

Numerous members noted that the subject of the Bailiff had exposed fiercely held opinions across the island community in a way never before seen.

Constable of St Lawrence Deirdre Mezbourian said that she had at one point been subject to intimidation by an angry constituent – such were the strength of his views on the Bailiff: “I was shaking, Sir… I had never felt physically threatened prior to that point because of a comment that I had made as a member to this assembly,” she said.

“I think that experience is one of the reasons that I voted to support the amendment by Senator Bailhache to hold the referendum so that those people who do have views be they strongly held or otherwise are given the opportunity to tell us as their elected,” she said.

A referendum on an unexciting constitutional issue will be a waste of taxpayers time and money. The real focus next year should be on improving Islanders’ standard of living. It doesn’t help politics to have these sideshows.

— Reform Jersey (@ReformJersey) November 16, 2017

Following the vote, Reform Jersey, who support the separation of powers, hit out at the referendum.

In a tweet, they dubbed it as a "sideshow", arguing that it will be "a waste of taxpayers' time and money."