Overview
The Crown Dependencies and Overseas Territories have a distinct constitutional relationship with the UK. While they govern themselves and are financially independent, their close connection to the UK—particularly through defence, foreign affairs, and international treaties—means decisions made in Westminster can impact them significantly. Despite this, these territories have no formal representation in Parliament, and the question of whether they should has rarely been seriously considered.
Brexit serves as a clear example of how these issues can arise. As the UK redefined its relationship with Europe, the complexities of negotiations and the challenges of establishing new frameworks exposed the difficulties faced by the territories in navigating decisions made without their input. From trade disruptions to legal uncertainties, their lack of a direct voice in shaping such critical outcomes has highlighted what some see as a democratic imbalance.
If a UK Prime Minister can sign treaties or even declare war on their behalf, why shouldn’t Crown Dependencies have an MP to represent their interests?
As the UK continues to navigate its post-Brexit identity, the question of representation for the Crown Dependencies and Overseas Territories raises important questions about fairness, governance, and the broader constitutional relationship between these territories and the UK.
Interview: Andrew Rosindell MP, Chairman of the Crown Dependencies and Overseas Territories APPG
Democratic Deficit
Rosindell begins by making an important distinction: "The Crown Dependencies are not part of the United Kingdom, and I’ve never argued that they should be”, he says.
“Their relationship with the UK is through the Crown, which is why they are called Crown Dependencies. They are self-governing and autonomous, and that’s exactly how it should remain."
He highlights their financial independence, particularly the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. "They pay their way, they’re self-sufficient, and they don’t rely on UK taxpayer subsidies. In fact, their financial services industries provide enormous value to the UK economy. Jersey, for example, directly contributes to the UK Exchequer by supporting the City of London."
Rosindell is keen to point out that this autonomy, however, does not exempt them from the effects of decisions made in Westminster. "They don’t decide on foreign affairs, defence, or international matters. Yet the UK government signs treaties, manages intelligence, and takes decisions—like Brexit—that significantly affect them, and they have no direct say. That represents a democratic deficit."
Rosindell argues that this lack of representation creates an imbalance in decision-making. "When we have a general election, we elect a government with a foreign secretary, a defence secretary, and others who make decisions that directly impact the Crown Dependencies and Overseas Territories. Yet the people in those territories have no vote or influence over who those decision-makers are. How fair is that?"
He asserts that representation could address this imbalance. "If a UK Prime Minister can sign treaties or even declare war on their behalf, why shouldn’t Crown Dependencies have an MP to represent their interests? It’s about ensuring their voices are heard and that all British people are given the same democratic rights."
Implementation
When discussing the details of how Parliamentary representation could work, Rosindell suggests emulating the Danish model.
"France’s overseas territories send representatives to the French Parliament and are treated as part of mainland France. I’m not suggesting that kind of integration”, he states.
“What I’m proposing is more like the Danish system, where Greenland and the Faroe Islands are autonomous but send representatives to the Danish Parliament to speak and vote on issues that affect them. They’re not part of Denmark itself, but they are part of the Danish Kingdom." This model, he explains, allows those territories to maintain their autonomy while having a direct voice on key issues.
Rosindell acknowledges that representation would need careful structuring. He suggests that larger territories like Jersey, Guernsey, the Isle of Man, Bermuda, and Gibraltar could each have their own MP while for smaller territories such as St. Helena, Pitcairn and Montserrat, Falkland Islands etc., may require shared representation, or be linked to a UK constituency where they have a connection.
“We would need to look at the number of electors as we do with UK constituencies”, he says, “but the principle remains the same: they deserve a voice."
Rosindell is also quick to point out a structural anomaly within the UK government itself. "The Foreign Affairs Committee handles Overseas Territories, even though they’re British, not foreign. Meanwhile, Crown Dependencies fall under the Ministry of Justice—the same department as prisons. This is not the correct place for them.”
He argues that both the Crown Dependencies and Overseas Territories should fall within the remit of the Cabinet Office, which deals with constitutional matters.
The benefits of representation
A key issue, Rosindell says, is the lack of understanding about Crown Dependencies and Overseas Territories among MPs and the wider public: "Many MPs don’t know what they are or how they relate to the UK. Some think they’re just tax havens, which couldn’t be further from the truth. The Crown Dependencies, for example, are self-sufficient and contribute significantly to the UK economy."
He fears this lack of understanding could lead to damaging policies. "One day, a government—perhaps even this current Labour one—might misunderstand their role and impose policies that harm the territories. That’s why representation is so important. It would clarify their constitutional relationship and protect their unique interests."
He continues, “If someone elected from Guernsey or the Cayman Islands could stand up in Parliament, it would help educate MPs and the wider public about their contributions and challenges. It would also represent the clearest statement that these twenty-one territories and dependencies are fully British and part of our wider UK family."
Indicative of this misunderstanding is the term “dependencies”, which Rosindell views as outdated. "It implies reliance”, he says, “which doesn’t reflect reality.”
“These territories are anything but dependent. I prefer the term ‘Crown Territories.’ It’s more accurate and respects their autonomy."
While Rosindell acknowledges that representation would be partly symbolic, he insists it would have real benefits. "If there were an MP for Guernsey, they wouldn’t need to be in Parliament every day. But when laws with a potential impact on Jersey, Guernsey, or the Isle of Man are being debated, they could say, ‘What about us? How will this affect us?’ Their expertise would be invaluable."
He adds, "At the moment, they rely on friendly MPs such as myself and others to raise their concerns. While I’m always happy to do so, my primary responsibility is to Romford. It’s not my job to formally represent them. They need someone who truly understands their unique issues and can advocate for them directly."
Representation without taxation?
When asked whether providing representation without taxation might pose an issue, Rosindell argues that they more than pay their way.
"Their financial services industries are vital”, he says. “Not only do they support the City of London and generate wealth that benefits the entire UK, but these territories also support British foreign policy and trade, yet they have no representation in decisions that affect them."
He continues: "We now allow British citizens who’ve lived in, for example, New Zealand for decades to vote, but someone living on the Isle of Man, whose lives are much more directly affected by UK decisions, have no say. That’s not right."
The future of representation
Rosindell reflects on his time on the Foreign Affairs Committee, where he proposed setting up a parliamentary committee to allow premiers and chief ministers from Crown Dependencies and Overseas Territories to present their concerns directly. "Even that modest proposal was rejected”, he says. “There’s a reluctance to address these issues, but we need cross-party support to make progress."
Ultimately, Rosindell sees representation as a step toward addressing the broader democratic imbalance. "This isn’t just about CDs. It’s about the 21 territories that make up the British family. They deserve a voice on all issues that affect them, whether it’s constitutional matters, global environmental policy or international trade in addition to defence, security, foreign relations and international treaties."
"It’s time to bring clarity and fairness to this relationship”, he concludes. “These territories are a vital part of the British Realm, and they deserve to be represented as such."
As our interview comes to an end, Rosindell’s passion for the issue is clear. For him, representation is not just a matter of principle but a practical step towards addressing the democratic deficit. While the issue is not currently high on the agenda, representation could be a significant move toward safeguarding the future of the Crown Dependencies and Overseas Territories within the British constitutional framework by ensuring their interests are not neglected.