UBP's submission to the BIC

The UBP have given me a copy of their submission to the Bermuda Independence Commission. You can download it here.

It's 42 pages long and its title suggests it was submitted to the BIC on 8 June. Which rather gives the lie to the Premier's suggestion, made at the BFR press conference today, that the UBP "didn't really make a submission like everyone else".

Comments

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 21.09.05 at 00:31]

Having read through this document, I have found it says absolutely nothing about the UBP's position on Independence. Under the title "UBP's Position" there is only opinion regarding the format by which Independence should be decided. Big surprise that the UBP prefers a referendum, the format that I personally favour (followed therafter by a General Election) and I think the majority favour the referendum approach as well. Why did the party bother using this section title if they weren't prepared to state their position?

This document is the typical UBP position - "What ever the population decides is also our decision"

Say what you will about the PLP and I would be the first to agree that it has done a poor job with this exercise but at least its position on Independence is crystal clear, the party supports it fully.

I just wish the UBP would take a chance and state whether it supports or opposes Independence.

"At the core of the United Bermuda Party’s belief in self-determination is the conviction that the people themselves must determine Bermuda’s destiny, not the British government, not the United Nations, not Cabinet Ministers and not MPs."

Well, duh! I think we all agree on this.

To the UBP:

"Please stop waffling and fence sitting and tell us once and for all whether you oppose or support Independence for Bermuda. Please stop treading lightly on this issue for fear of losing votes and tell us how you honestly feel."

Does anyone not agree that the electorate should know where each political party stands on significant issues for Bermuda?

[Sergio on 21.09.05 at 00:55]

I agree with you Gilbert. It just seems like it's convenient for the UBP to take a "neutral" position and do nothing.

They bring nothing to the table and this is why the PLP has been heading towards the election as a way to decide the issue of independence. While i also prefer the referendum, i can see why the PLP has taken their position. The only way that the opposition will clearly state their position as well as provide a clear strategy for going independent (whether it's now on 10 years from now or 20 years from now) is if it is forced to via the election.

Still prefer the referendum though.

Btw, excellent use of the CIA world factbook for most of the information. To me, their submission seems like a B- college paper. I also found it convenient that they emphasized portions that suited their case rather than having a more well rounded argument. Well done

[Tiger Bay on 21.09.05 at 07:50]

I don't think the UBP's position is foolish at all: it says that the populace has the right to decide whether independence right for us, and that a referendum is the best way to accomplish that. Sounds quite democratic to me.

The issue of independence should not be a political lever between parties; it's our collective future and it should be us, collectively, to decide if we want it.

Every issue should not have a binary dividing line between PLP and UBP.

[Bill Cook on 21.09.05 at 07:51]

GG,

Have not read the document myself yet.

Basically I agree with you that it would be better to have a position on any major issue affecting the country.

I think the stance was that there are other things of greater urgency than independence right now, but as you say not wanting to alienate voters has been a policy for a long time.

Bear in mind there were UBP members who supported independence and they may have wanted to stay neutral for that reason.

Nevertheless if one considers that the public seemed to be opposed to independence at this time judging by the polls possibly they could have been a bit more courageous.

I am not a politician but do observe that it pays to do that which is morally correct but it is unusual for any political party not to do that which is politically expedient.

If the decision had been mine I would have clearly stated that Bermuda is not ready for independence at this time,plain and simple and in my opinion would reflect the majority viewpoint.

To do something that will divide at this time is unwise as we have serious problems to solve first,which will require a concerted effort from everyone.

As a matter of interest if you were the UBP how would have responded ?

[Phil on 21.09.05 at 08:13]

Two points.

First, I think it's perfectly reasonable for the UBP not to take a position on this. Independence should not be a party political issue (note that in other countries political parties sometimes do not take positions on contraversial issues, which are put to a free vote). It should be up to each member of the population to decide, regardless of political affiliation. Indeed, saying you support a referendum (which takes party politics out of it), then saying the UBP should be either pro- or anti- (which makes it a party issue again), seems contradictory to me.

That aside, the UBP would be foolish to take a position either way. If they adopted a pro- position, then they'd be at odds with 65% of the electorate and basically saying "regardless of who you elect at the next election you're going to get independence". If they adopted an anti- position, then it makes it much easier for the PLP to fight an election on the issue (something the UBP are opposed to), as you have one party who is for and one party who is against.

Their position is perfectly reasonable and makes good political sense too.

[Tiger Bay on 21.09.05 at 08:19]

I tell ya, Guilden's holding out to be PLP honorary consul to the Bahamas. Get his own diplomatic moped! ;)

[Adjustah on 21.09.05 at 08:27]

"Independence should not be a party political issue (note that in other countries political parties sometimes do not take positions on contraversial issues, which are put to a free vote)"

That's the point, actually - in Bermuda this IS a party political issue - indeed this seems to be the next PLP political platform for an election.

Free vote? AH-HAHAHA! Well, you see what happened at the Referendum Petition presentation. We have no free vote, apparently. Ironic behavior from the "People's Government" - not listening to the people. It's a good thing that noone actually voted for Alex Scott for Premier, eh?

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 21.09.05 at 08:53]

Bill,

Surely we elect persons to political office becase we believe they can lead. I am not saying that the UBP needs to tell the electorate what it should or should not do but any major political party should have an opinion on a matter as important for Bermuda as Independence.

Therefore, if I were the UBP I would state categorically what the party position is regarding the matter of Independence. I think the UBP owe it to their members, supporters and the electorate at large.

The information is the paper produced by the UBP comes from the CIA World Fact Book. It is not a document the UBP should be proud of as it is more of a document one would present as a college project not a political party that held the Government for 30 years and is trying to regain that position.

The document really says nothing more than has been published in the Royal Gazette.

It just seems to me that the UBP will sit on the fence on any major topic facing Bermuda, except when the PLP makes a mistake, than they have all the backbone in the world.

I will be very honest, someone like Christian Dunleavy is very good for the UBP because at least he has the guts to say what he really feels (he does not favour Independence at this time, he has set out his views on improving education in Bermuda, etc.) and although he and I may differ on some issues I have a great deal of respect for him because he is unafraid to state his position clearly. His party colleagus can learn a great deal about leadership from him.

How can leaders be taken seriously and respected if they are afraid to lead?

Tiger,

I never suggested that Independence should be a political lever between parties but surely the electorate should know where each party stands on every major issue.

[Bill Cook on 21.09.05 at 09:00]

Limey,

You make very sensible points.

Do you not agree though, that the UBP should to a greater extent, communicate better on their view, rather than be viewed in less than a positive light ?

I agree in politics you have to be so careful making any statement that could be used against you, as words so often are.

Thats where the skills of your public relations comes in to play,which is so very important.

[Phil on 21.09.05 at 12:50]

Bill

Do you not agree though, that the UBP should to a greater extent, communicate better on their view, rather than be viewed in less than a positive light ?

I've always found their position to be clear. However I believe they are holding a press conference on the subject today, which hopefully will clear things up.

[Longtime Lurker on 21.09.05 at 13:36]

I don't see why the UBP should have a pro- or anti-independence position. They support a referendum on independence; perhaps the only area that they should clear up is whether or not they would actually hold such a referendum if they were elected.

Political parties should be formed naturally because like-minded individuals with the same political philosophies need to work together to accomplish their common goals. They shouldn't be used to force a particular party view on a group of politicians! If the politicians in the UBP have a variety of differing views on independence, but all agree that a referendum is the best method of determining the public will on the issue, what's wrong with that being their official stance? Anything else seems dishonest.

If more people (both politicians & the public) voted with their conscience rather than with their party, we'd all be a lot better off.

[SmokingGun on 21.09.05 at 14:04]

I totally agree the UBP should not hold a position at this time. As individuals each and every member has a right, not an obligation, to state whether they are pro or con. This is strictly about a referendum for the people to vote ye or nay. If the UBP wanted to aknowledge that they feel that they would be confident in leading Bermuda under a new constitution then that would likely come during a general election.

[Bill Cook on 21.09.05 at 14:09]

Limey,
Yes I basically feel I know how they feel.

Yet as I said, I feel a strong clear statement that they dont consider it a priority etc.so its good they will hopefully explain their position to the press.

Lurker,
The pro referendum stance is pretty clear and you are correct if it goes to referendum then it should be up to the individual regardless of party to vote accordingly and privately.

Some do vote their conscience but regrettably suffer for it which prevents some doing so.

[loki on 21.09.05 at 14:10]

I agree - I think that the issue of indepencdence is a matter of conscience, not politics, and I don't think it's appropriate for either party to have an official policy on whether they support independence. Whether Bermuda is to become independent is a matter for the people, not Government and certainly not political parties.

[Adjustah on 21.09.05 at 14:17]

Loki,

True, but what part of Banana Fuggin' Republic do you not understand? We can do whatever we want!

Emperor Scott, Earth to Emperor Scott, your approval rating is in the toilet and you are obviously getting some seriously bad advice...

I'm off to Smiths, er, Trimingams, er, wherever to buy a pith helmet, flak vest and some hip-waders, 'cause the poo-poo is piling up...

[Big Bad Wolf ^..^ on 21.09.05 at 14:39]

Limey you dont know the History. Last time round the NLP and the UBP came together and supported a referendum on Independence.The PLP boycotted the vote and told their members not to vote.Now that the PLP are Government they expect the UBP and the NLP and other political groups to fall in line with their thinking of supporting Independence through an election.It was hard enough convincing the UBP to poll the National view on Independence but there was a real split in the UBP on Independence. The NLP had members for and against Independence but we were all in total agreement that a referendum was the fairest and best way to poll the Bermudian people, without other political issues confusing the Independence question.This was before the hand over of Hong Kong and in many ways there were more reasons at that time to consider going it alone.Nothing stays static and with the granting of EU passports and the globalization of enconomies into four major blocks arguments for micro status nationhood are quickly becoming irrelevant.It does not help that the PLP were narrowly reelected to Government without a platform and no mention of establishing BIC or flirting with Independence as a political issue.Finally with the PLP polarizing the country along racial lines,they have created a Government with little support in opposition benches and a support base on race only.The PLP effectively divided the country at the last election and then they discarded their own leader,who had narrowly won them Government again. It is a total mystery why they would attempt to pick up the poisoned chalice of Independence.

[Bud on 21.09.05 at 14:40]

Can someone explain to me why independence should be treated any differently from any other challenge facing this island? Education, crime, housing, etc. - we look to our leaders for their points of view and guidance on all of these issues. Why should independence be treated any differently?

The UBP doesn't have to take a collective yes/no position on indpendence, but as elected officials they are obligated to provide some kind of opinion on the country's future. All they have to do is spell out what they think are the positives and the negatives and leave the rest up to the voters. They don't have to conclude into a party pro or con stance. I just want to know what MPs from the both parties think about this move. Is that not what we elected them to do? Would anyone argue that it is entirely legitimate for the MPs to not offer any comment at all on the positives and negatives of what some claim is the biggest issue facing this island?

[loki on 21.09.05 at 14:45]

"The UBP doesn't have to take a collective yes/no position on indpendence, but as elected officials they are obligated to provide some kind of opinion on the country's future. All they have to do is spell out what they think are the positives and the negatives and leave the rest up to the voters."

We don't need to be educated by politcal parties, which us what you're suggesting. I'm perfectly happy with the viewpoint that they've put forward: their official stance is that it is simply a matter for the people to decide via referendum.

[loki on 21.09.05 at 14:51]

Got a sneaky feeling that there will be a referendum, whether Scott and his cronies like it or not (not). I also have a feeling that the result of such a referendum will result in a major egg/face interface. I genuinely don't think that this Government quite understands just how cynical and distrusting the community - black and white - has become towards it. I really don't think 'they' get it, somehow.

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 21.09.05 at 15:14]

Loki,

I have to agree with you. The PLP has made a complete mess of this and I think there is a great deal of discomfort with and distrust of the party.

As I have said many times, my view on Independence is very well known, however, I do not agree with it being shoved down anyone's throat. The way this has been handled has been extremely divisive, just look at the reactions right on this site.

The divisiveness is not the issue itself but the way it has been handled. I do not know if it is the case but it seems that there have been many things regarding this issue done in an underhanded manner by the current government.

The reality is that in any dependent country that wants to progess the matter of Independence is always going to be there and it should be considered from time to time but it should not be forced and it shouldn't be treated as something that MUST happen and must happen NOW.

[Bud on 21.09.05 at 15:15]

"We don't need to be educated by politcal parties, which us what you're suggesting. I'm perfectly happy with the viewpoint that they've put forward: their official stance is that it is simply a matter for the people to decide via referendum."

We don't need to be educated by political parties? Politicians are elected to debate and provide leadership on the challenges facing this island. You can call it education if you want - what they are required to do is tell us what they think and will do. It is remarkable that we will demand greater transparency from the Government, but not from the Opposition. Of course when the Government says, "We don't care what you think," it is offensive leadership, but when when the Opposition says, "We weren't going to tell you what we think anyway," it all makes good leadership.

It's like as if the OECD or some other tax regulator wanted to impose a new rule, a rule that in your opinion would lead to the downfall of Bermuda, and if the Government wholeheartedly supported this new rule, you'd be totally comfortable with the Opposition remaining entirely silent merely because the issue was put to a referendum?

The reality is as John Swan puts it, the UBP cannot afford to be transparent about where it stands on something as controversial as independence. If it was transparent, their would be in-fighting, likely along racial lines. This is exactly what happened in 1995, and look what happened. This isn't in the public's best interest - it is in the UBP's best interest. Even if you had a dual referendum/election, the UBP could not afford to be transparent. Imagine what would happen if we had a yes vote on independence and the UBP.

[Big Bad Wolf ^..^ on 21.09.05 at 15:24]

I do not think that will happen on the current national mood Bud.We have had two referendums .The first was over Capital punishment....Bda vote said keep it on the books.Then we had the vote on Independence the poll was a resounding NO against Independence.True vote not reflected as the PLP boycotted the vote. Capital Punishment was abolished when the PLP came into Government as they have always been against it,and the British wanted it off our books.

[Bud on 21.09.05 at 15:29]

That's besides the point. I just don't get how anyone can support the UBPs lack of transparency on an issue that is supposed to amount to be of such critical importance. You slam the Government for not being transparent and then support the Opposition for not being transparent. What gives?

[observor on 21.09.05 at 15:46]

Bud

“It is remarkable that we will demand greater transparency from the Government, but not from the Opposition”

The Opposition aren’t the ones in power and therefore don’t have to be accountable for government’s (mis)actions.

" how anyone can support the UBPs lack of transparency on an issue that is supposed to amount to be of such critical importance"

How are the UBP trying to obfuscate their position? It’s completely clear. Independence is a choice to be made by the people not for the people. Not by a political party.

[Bud on 21.09.05 at 15:58]

"The Opposition aren’t the ones in power and therefore don’t have to be accountable for government’s (mis)actions.

How are the UBP trying to obfuscate their position? It’s completely clear. Independence is a choice to be made by the people not for the people. Not by a political party."

Observer, the UBP's position on the voting method for issues like independence is very clear. It's position on independence is shrouded in secrecy. Does the UBP (or specific MPs) think that independence is something worth pursuing or not? Do you have the answer to that question? I don't. All I know is that they believe that a referendum is the best way to make a decision on the issue, but this has nothing to do with whether or not they believe that the country should go down this path. Exactly how is this lack of leadership and transparency acceptable?

[Slowhand on 21.09.05 at 16:01]

I'm curious as to what Bud is afraid of.... Perhaps that the UBP were to come into power not having made clear their intentions?
he supports the PLP... so that could not possibly be it!

[SmokingGun on 21.09.05 at 16:26]

Bud, as you know, there is a big difference between education and transparency. If members of the PLP or the UBP want to tell us the reasoning behind why, when or how we should consider independence then sure that's education to a degree. If they wish to tell us the difference between a general election vs referendum then that's education too. Transparency is when you take a position and come straight out with it. As the UBP has only stated they are interested in making sure whatever is decided is via referendum then as far as I'm concerned they have been transparent.
The PLP has spent a lot of time and money on the BIC Report for the purpose of education so it's not really the opposition's place to re-hash it. If the PLP want to show transparency then they should simply state they favour taking the island independent through a GE or via referendum if that's their intention.

Truth is, there are a ton of Bermudians who are highly educated and accomplished who are for PLP, UBP, NLP, or whatever, and they are black, white or in between and I think the current PLP leaders of this island are insulting all of us by not coming straight out and stating if there is a vote it will be left to the individual via referendum. This is a massive decision that involves everyone. Crime, education and housing can all be dealt with on a personal level: buy security, send your kids away, sell a house and move into a condo. Changing a country's constitution is of national importance.

[Tiger Bay on 21.09.05 at 16:28]

The PLP Thought Police have gotten to Bud. They're still pissed that Jake got away.

[Big Bad Wolf ^..^ on 21.09.05 at 16:48]

I guess will see him on Tuesday!

[Bud on 21.09.05 at 16:51]

Slowhand,

"I'm curious as to what Bud is afraid of.... Perhaps that the UBP were to come into power not having made clear their intentions?
he supports the PLP... so that could not possibly be it!"

Believe it or not, it actually is possible to support independence and not support the PLP. I'm not afraid of anything. I just perceive dishonesty in claiming that the UBP is being transparent.

Smoking,

"As the UBP has only stated they are interested in making sure whatever is decided is via referendum then as far as I'm concerned they have been transparent."

How can you claim that they are being transparent when they have only disclosed their feelings on how to vote, and not which way to vote? Their collective and individual reasons for supporting or rejecting independence are held in secret, are they not?

"The PLP has spent a lot of time and money on the BIC Report for the purpose of education so it's not really the opposition's place to re-hash it. If the PLP want to show transparency then they should simply state they favour taking the island independent through a GE or via referendum if that's their intention."

Precisely - If it is deemed that the report is biased, then shouldn't we expect the Opposition to take the Government to task? Do we not rely on the Opposition to provide an alternative point of view? And let's be honest, the report would have been less biased if they participated on BIC. But all this is besides the point. The Govt has made clear its position on election vs referendum, and they have begun to articulate why we should seek independence. The Opposition's reasons for supporting or rejecting independence is a secret. How can you call that leadership? If their thoughts on which way to vote are irrelevant to a healthy democracy, then isn't their opinion on the mechanism irrelevant too?

[Bud on 21.09.05 at 17:02]

Tiger Bay,

You can come up with whatever snippity comment you like, but the fact remains that the UBP is not being transparent on its independence position. They are not providing any leadership on the subject at all. Their only position is that issues of this magnitude must be settled via a referendum. Until you can tell me what the UBP position is all your ahem, charisma, amounts to naught. Care to deny that their refusal to comment is mere political expediency? Care to provide a logical argument for why independence should be treated any different from any other pressing issue?

[SmokingGun on 21.09.05 at 17:37]

Bud, please for one moment think of what has actually happened. The BIC Report was only presented to the Government and then to the public within the past couple of weeks. In June, the UBP only presented a request that whatever the outcome of the BIC Report was that if the Government decided to shoot for independence then do it via referendum with some attached histories on other former colonies. They hadn't seen nor been privy to the thing and therefore seeing as they have only had the finished copy in their hands for pretty much as long as you and I have, then what other action could they take? This was a commission not a debate.
I am sure the UBP will gladly dissect and debate the report at an approriate time.

[Pitts Bay on 21.09.05 at 17:39]

Bud

It is perfectly normal (I believe) in the Westminster system for a party to decline to take a position on a particularly important issue and leave it as a "free vote". If a party takes a position, then the MP's are generally required to toe the line.

I would assume that the UBP members are generally split as to whether they individually do or do not support independence. What good does it do (in the real world, not the hokey kokey Bermuda political world) for a party to take a position on this issue when their party could be equally divided on the issue. That would cause division in the party. (or maybe that is what you want.)

Is it not better so say that there are varying views by particular MP's, however, we as a party want to say that if the people want independence, then we, as a Party, will respect and support that view. If the people do not want it, then we will not support going to independence.

This is all perfectly normal in my mind. I think you must be bitter because the PLP and the Independence by Election issue seems to be going down the drain and you are clutching at whatever weak argument you can find to bolster your earlier statements

[Tiger Bay on 21.09.05 at 17:48]

Bud, from your comments it looks they finally paid for DSL at Alaska Hall! Lack of transparency is refusing to investigate fraud and graft at high levels in your government.

[Phil on 21.09.05 at 17:50]

Bud

You're right - in most policy areas we do want our politicians to tell us what they think. But there are some subjects, typically issues of conscience, where a party does not express an opinion and its MPs may vote as they choose, for example capital punishment and abortion.

Those Bermudians who support a referendum feel that independence is another issue that transcends party politics. You may not agree, of course, but that doesn't mean that the UBP's position is not a position. It is.

The UBP would have to do a lot of work before they could say what they would do if Bermudians expressed a desire for independence. They are not going to spend the time doing that work unless they think this is something Bermudians want to do, any more than they are going to spend time formulating a policy on which colours people should be allowed to paint their houses. Most Bermudians don't feel there's a need.

Only if a referendum was held at which Bermudians expressed a desire for sovereignty, would the UBP be obligated to tell us how they would do it (whether in power or Opposition).

If an election is held and the PLP choose to make independence part of their platform, the UBP don't have to say what they would do if they won, just as the PLP don't have to talk about their plans for a Ministry of Race Relations and Economic Empowerment just because the UBP has set one up. If they say nothing about it, you can safely assume that means they'll do nothing about it if you elect them.

[Uncle Elvis on 21.09.05 at 19:11]

Me, I prefer a party that says, "Hey, tell us what you want", rather than "Alright, here's how it's gonna be whether you like it or not".

The question at the moment ISN'T whether or not we go Independent, it's how we decide. THEN we move on to whether or nor we do.

The UBP is answering the question at hand, quite strongly, I might add, and not projecting into the future.

It seems that, for many of the Pro-Independence folks (By no means all, I hasten to add), it's a foregone conclusion that we're doing it. We're not.

We're not going Independent.

Not yet.

We still have to decide if we are and we're arguing over how to go about it.

I don't think the UBP need to have a stance on Independence (Gah! I keep typing independAnce. My one spelling hangup and it has to be the issue of the day!), as it's not an issue... yet, dig?

Yeah, it would be nice to hear what the plans would be if it would happen, or at least that there are plans, but it's not a neccessity yet.

They also didn't promise everyone and their mother to be the "Party of the People" and a "Party full of Transparency". Full of something, yes, but...

[Tiger Bay on 21.09.05 at 19:18]

Latest Government trick today when the Archives cancelled their appointment at the last minute to accept a copy of the referndum petition. Incredible. It's like they want to pretend it's not there, kind of like the UBP submission to BIC that they claim did not happen.

[Bud on 21.09.05 at 20:03]

Limey/Pitt's Bay,

Can you explain what is stopping the UBP from opting not to take a collective position while at the same time allowing its MPs to vote freely and tell the public why they are voting which way?

I've said it numerous times already - the party does not have to take a collective opinion on independence, so why do you keep behaving as if I'm demanding one? Neither of you have provided a reason for why MP's should not have to publicly disclose what their individual opinions are on a sensitive subject like independence, abortion, gay rights, etc. if given the free conscience vote. Neither of you have provided a justifiable reason for individual silence. And you call this transparency and leadership?

A simple question has been asked - what do they think about the pros and cons of independence? They are collectively and individually refusing to answer that question. That is not what we elected them to do.

Actually, forget it. This place is a UBP safehaven, so I'm moving on - can someone tell me how to get to that other free speech forum? Post a link please.

[loki on 21.09.05 at 20:15]

Bud, sweetheart,

I'm sorry that you've seen fit to throw your toys out of your pram, but the fact that you are incapable of seeing others' viewpoints as reasonable, whilst disagreeing, doesn't make your position any more valid. By all means, go and hang out at the HateSpeechForum - I'm sure you'll find a sympathetic ear there, sweetie.

Kiss, kiss. Must dash, petal......

[Bud on 21.09.05 at 20:27]

Loki,

Until someone can give me a reason for why individual MPs should not have to disclose their points of view on independence, then I'll see the discussion as being dishonest. Just send me the link to the other forum if you have it please.

[loki on 21.09.05 at 20:38]

"Until someone can give me a reason for why individual MPs should not have to disclose their points of view on independence"

Presumably, that includes PLP MPs, right? Or does the rule only apply to the UBP?

Look, I'm not going to give you the address to the HateSpeechForum, as I'm not going to encourage more discussion over at that hate-filled site. It is largely (though not exclusively) populated by whites whose views would not be out of place in 1950s Alabama. There's no point in going there, as anything in support of the PLP would probably get you an instant ban (and I'm NOT kidding). Trust me, don't bother. My advice - not that you asked for it, mind - is to stay around here and try to be more tolerant of views that differ from your own. Calling people 'dishonest' because they don't agree that MPs should at this stage have to reveal their thoughts on the pros and cons of independence is neither constructive nor reasonable. Take a deep breath, try to understand, even if you don't agree. At least have the decency to give your fellow blog-squatters some credit and acknowledge that their views are sincere.

[Phil on 21.09.05 at 20:42]

Bud

Why don't you ring up all those UBP MPs and ask them? Their numbers are here. They may tell you which way they'd vote in an referendum on the subject, they may not. But remember they have no obligation to tell you because they'd be voting as citizens, not as members of the UBP. It would be their private opinion, not the opinion of their party.

[Raptor on 21.09.05 at 20:46]

Bud, you're wrong. This place is not a UBP safe haven.

[Bud on 21.09.05 at 20:47]

Loki,

From my very first post:

"The UBP doesn't have to take a collective yes/no position on indpendence, but as elected officials they are obligated to provide some kind of opinion on the country's future. All they have to do is spell out what they think are the positives and the negatives and leave the rest up to the voters. They don't have to conclude into a party pro or con stance. I just want to know what MPs from the both parties think about this move. Is that not what we elected them to do? Would anyone argue that it is entirely legitimate for the MPs to not offer any comment at all on the positives and negatives of what some claim is the biggest issue facing this island?"

Satisfied? I've been saying the same thing all along, yet for some reason people keep pretending like I'm insisting on hearing a collective point of view. If the point of view here is that individual MPs should not have to disclose their point of view on major subjects, then fine - I'd love to hear your justification for that. As it stands, I find no acceptable reason for why an elected official getting paid with my tax dollars should have the option to not tell me what they think on a particular issue. I see no integrity in demanding the Government to do something that we will not ask of the Opposition. That simply is not being transparent.

Please post the forum link so that I can see for myself. Thanks, Mr. Mischief.

[loki on 21.09.05 at 20:55]

"Would anyone argue that it is entirely legitimate for the MPs to not offer any comment at all on the positives and negatives of what some claim is the biggest issue facing this island?"

Because their opinions are IRRELEVANT. If there was going to be a vote in the House by MPs on whether Bermuda should be independent then, yes, they should have to answer to their constituents. THIS IS NOT THE CASE and there's nothing that they can do in their individual capacities to decide the issue. As has been said many times in this thread - although you do not agree with it - independence is not something that should be a political issue. It is an individual matter of conscience. You don't agree with that. Fine. Agree to disagree and stop trying to be so superior by acting as though you alone have 'seen the light' on this issue.

[Bud on 21.09.05 at 21:02]

"But remember they have no obligation to tell you because they'd be voting as citizens, not as members of the UBP. It would be their private opinion, not the opinion of their party."

C,mon... Ha ha ha ha ha You can't be serious?

When Lois and Jennifer took those titles, what did everyone say? They are hypocrites. Why? Because the long-held party position has been pro-independence, and at least with Lois, criticisms of the Empire have been made. I agree with these criticisms of the two dames whole-heartedly. They are hypocrites. The point I'm making is that they are under an obligation to explain their positions as long as they are MPs. As evidenced by the public reaction, they were not merely accepting those titles as Citizens.

With the UBP not taking a party position, individual MPs have more freedom to speak their minds than PLP MPs who are against independence. But these leaders are staying silent - for what purpose I ask you rhetorically?

Someone pleeeeeze post the link!

[Uncle Elvis on 21.09.05 at 21:06]

My question to you is Why should they HAVE to disclose?

Why should they be forced to? They aren't our elected leaders, this isn't election time...

It's not like you'd listen to them anyway...

[Bud on 21.09.05 at 21:09]

"Because their opinions are IRRELEVANT. If there was going to be a vote in the House by MPs on whether Bermuda should be independent then, yes, they should have to answer to their constituents. THIS IS NOT THE CASE and there's nothing that they can do in their individual capacities to decide the issue."

Their opinions are irrelevant? What kind of crazy talk is that??? They are the leaders of this country, and they have an obligation to share their views on which way the country should go on any matter. Before they even get elected to the House we demand to know their views on where this country should go on pertinent issues. We fry a party for failing to produce a platform. And now you are telling me that their opinions on something like this are irrelevant. PLEASE, save it for the caucus meeting!

I would really like to move house. Are you really not going to post the link?

[sleepy on 21.09.05 at 21:12]

Why won't the Premier and his Cabinet take a position on referendum vs election?

[Bud on 21.09.05 at 21:13]

"My question to you is Why should they HAVE to disclose?

Why should they be forced to? They aren't our elected leaders, this isn't election time..."

They aren't our elected leaders? What on earth are you talking about! You don't have to be part of the Government to bear this responsibility. Both the Government and Opposition members are elected leaders. Both receive taxpayers' salary. Until they give up that salary, they are responsible to us. We have selected them to do specific jobs - one to run the Government and the other to keep the Government in check. How can you say that they are not our elected leaders?

Is the silly season over yet? *&#^!@