Premier Dr. Ewart Brown's response to the British Government's decision to hold a review of banking regulations and safety in its overseas territories can most charitably be described as an overreaction in which his tone and language are in inverse proportion to the seriousness of the problem. The review, announced by British Chancellor of the Exchequer Alastair Darling last week, is being described as a way of ensuring that the banks and banking systems in its Crown dependencies, such as the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, and in its overseas territories including Bermuda and the Cayman Islands, are secure.

The case for a review of the Crown dependencies is most pressing, because the concern there is that in the event of a bank failure, the shareholders are most likely to come to the UK looking for a bailout. That seems less likely in Bermuda where there are only four banks, or even in Cayman, despite its thousands. Nonetheless, there are reasons why the UK would want to examine its Overseas Territories, even ones with high levels of self governance. One is that British depositors could still look to Britain for deposit insurance (which does not exist in Bermuda) in the event of a local bank failure. The other is the broader issue of reputation. Bermuda may be self governing, but a failure would still be reported as a bank failure in the British Overseas Territory of Bermuda.

So Britain has valid reasons, especially in these times of economic turmoil, when institutions as large as Citigroup can be seemingly brought to their knees within days, to be sure that the financial systems and institutions for which it could be judged to have final responsibility are safe.

Indeed, if the current economic crisis has shown anything, it is that national financial supervision can be totally overwhelmed in a global financial crisis in which a defaulted sub prime loan in Idaho can seemingly cause a bank to collapse in Iceland.

Far from complaining about affronts to self government, Bermuda needs to be preparing for more supra-national financial supervision.

But for Dr. Brown, this is an "intrusive intervention" on Bermuda's limited sovereignty, and given the lack of terms of reference or, apparently, consultation beforehand, it is understandable that he might be annoyed, although he seemed to be considerably more so than his Deputy Premier and Finance Minister, Paula Cox, who said earlier last week: "It is understandable that the UK would want to better understand the role of its Crown Dependencies and Overseas Territories in the global financial system. Bermuda is a well regulated, co-operative and transparent jurisdiction. The International Monetary Fund recently assessed Bermuda's supervisory regime for banking, insurance, trust business and investment business as being largely compliant with international standards."

Ms Cox may be more understanding because, as she infers, Bermuda is used to these kinds of reviews. The IMF, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and so on all have looked at Bermuda, and Bermuda generally has done well in these reviews, largely because of the enormous amount of ongoing work put in by Ms Cox and her Finance Ministry civil servants, the Bermuda Monetary Authority and private sector leaders.

Indeed, Bermuda can benefit from these reviews, and in welcoming them, shows that it is transparent and has nothing to hide. When Bermuda does well, or is cited as being a clean financial jurisdiction with information exchange agreements, it enhances Bermuda's reputation. To get the same kind of Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval from the UK Treasury would be no bad thing, especially as the Island is likely to have to continue to debate tax policy with both the US, the UK and the European Union.

But instead of welcoming the review, Dr. Brown tried to frame this argument as one in which Bermuda had to be "brought to its knees by this intrusive intervention" in return for the "convenience" of a British passport. Dr. Brown appears to be venting his frustration over the issue of British passports, which have become the compelling reason to retain colonial status. And in the use of his language, he shows that he fatally misunderstands the value of that document.

For Dr. Brown it is apparently no more than a convenience, a way to stand in a shorter queue. But for many Bermudians it is a passport to opportunities that could only be dreamed of before. The right of residence and employment in as many as 27 countries and the ability to study at low rates in world renowned universities in Britain is not a convenience; it is a passport to, potentially, a personally richer and better life, either back in Bermuda or abroad. Dr. Brown does not seem to see this, and in doing so fails to show that he wants what is best for the people of Bermuda.