Thursday, November 26, 2009

8/7 or 9/6 OR it is over forever

It's's not good now....move's my turn's over....the game's shut down...SORRY!

Well, I was in shock last night. I knew the yes vote would never meet the 67% but mi ass...almost 40%. I proud, shame and angry at the same time for the nation. An exercise in democracy...but was it tainted to some small degree?

But there is a part of me that is sad - I had the things that I wanted taken out and things I wanted added. Those range from issues that would have affected the wider populace for the better and those that conformed to my personal convictions. But I dare any opposer to say that their objections passed 10% of the changes/additions to the Consitution?

So, we have discarded many positives for a few negatives. It may well be that those negatives would have tainted the whole nation and eventually nullified the positives. It may also be that we have lost out on improving the standard of nationhood...not living, (as some gurus claimed it would not have done). I think of the Ombudsman (who the hell doesn't have a complaint against a Government officer)...the CCJ (nuff said on thatin a previous blog)...the list goes on.

What I think has to be realised by everyone is that the vote last night shows that unless there is a 8/7 or a 9/6 split in Parliament, Constitutional reform will not likely be successfully tackled by any of the country's present leaders. It is indeed something that will require a bi-partisan mandate.

Sad that it would have to forced...foisted upon them merely because the split demands it in order to get a 2/3 majority, just at the Parliament stage. I do not think any wise-thinking and strategically-minded politician would embark upon this process again without such numbers. To do otherwise would mean that we would be repeating the months between Sept. 3rd 2009 and Nov. 25th 2009 - and only positive history should be repeated and even then its echo should be improved upon.


  1. just a quick note: we don't need a new constitution to institute the ccj - barbados didn't change theirs, nor did guyana, and they recognise the ccj's judgements... there's a lot in the new constitution that could've been changed WITHOUT constitutional reform...

    jus my 2 cents... :-)

  2. ps - i linked you over on my blog... ;-)

    good post...

  3. Call me cynical but it won't change any time soon. I don't even think the NDP will touch it in the immediate future.

  4. abeni i totally agree... sad eh?

  5. Actually Will we do need to change the Constitution to get the CCJ as our final Court of Appeal. Although we were all British colonies, there are slight differences in each island.
    I'll get the reference sometime and post it.

  6. Oh, Will, thanks for the link over...

  7. Will,

    SVG epiphany already said it, but i'll reinforce: SVG (and most of the OECS countries) DOES need a referendum to move to the CCJ. The Privy Council clause is a "deeply entrenched" provision of our constitution, and to change deeply entrenched provisions, you need a referendum.

    In fact, in Jamaica, where it isn't as difficult as it is in the OECS, the former gov't tried to move to the CCJ by legislation (like barbados/guyana), but that law was deemed unconstitutional (by who? the privy council!) -- jamaica also needs a referendum.

    Like you said, Barbados and Guyana have different set-ups. Belize doesn't need a referendum. Trinidad doesn't need one. I don't think Bahamas need one. Just about everyone else needs one. (no clue about haiti and suriname).


I dare you to test my conviction in my words by leaving your own