Bill Grandﬁeld
P O Box 1171
The Valley,
Anguilla, B.W.I

July 22, 2007

Sir,

Constitutional Reform

I would introduce myself. My name and address, as you see, are given above. I have had a close relationship with Anguilla for 34 years.I am a belonger and my only home is Anguilla.This letter is directed to you because you are designated a member of the team to negotiate the new constitution with representatives of the British Government.

I was interested in the march, on 20 July, to the Governors’ Ofﬁce to request a referendum on the course to be taken in the forthcoming discussions with the British on constitutional reform.The protest seems to have been stimulated, among other things, by a recent press release by the Chief Minister.The press release by the Chief Minister on 17 July states that the Anguilla Government has adopted a negotiating stance based on comments from the public and premised on full internal self government for Anguilla, where all executive power lies with the Government of Anguilla.The British Government would be responsible for external defense and security. I presume that only external security is implied.

From what I understand of the statement delivered to the Governor, the people of Anguilla are not conﬁdent that the Government are competent to act in their best interests. This concern extends beyond the realm of constitutional reform.
How have the Government informed themselves of what the public wants, and where and how did they receive these comments? The press release does not say. I wonder why no reference is made to the report by the Constitutional Electoral Reform Commission.Does the report not represent adequate comment by the public? In addition, the protesters on 20 July seemed to make no reference to this report. They requested to be advised on the possible avenues for constitutional reform and then to participate in a referendum to determine the course ahead. I wonder if they realize that their actions implied that, by application to the Governor, that they wanted a check on the Anguilla Government by the authority of the British Government.

It is interesting to note that Constitutional and Electoral Reform Committee set up in 2001 had by 2005 ﬁzzled out in confusion and no report or recommendations were produced.The chairman tried to report on the proceedings of the committee, as far as they went, but was subjected to heavy criticism from several quarters. As an aside, this seems to be in the best Anguillian tradition. The ﬁrst thing in 2006 we see the Governor establishing the Constitutional and Electoral Reform Commission. No reference is made to involvement in that action by the Chief Minister. Could people less charitable than myself think that seeds of decent were sown at this point I wonder?

But what does the Commission Report say? It is a long and carefully reasoned document that would take me a long time to take on board even assuming that I had a sufﬁciently long attention span. One or two things jump out of it however.

1. On page 27 clause 8 it states that Anguillans by and large are satisﬁed with the present (1982) constitution. However, I would recommend that everyone should read clause 9 on page 28 in full. A very small group agitates from time to time for full independence.The vast majority of Anguillans made it clear to the earlier Committee and then to the Commission that they did not wish to consider the issue of independence. Where does the Chief Minister get his mandate from?

2. On page 28 clause 9 regrets that the bar association did not participate in the process of the Commission. I am confused as to why we have so much interest now.

3. On page 29 clause 2 it states that the operation of the Order signed by or on behalf of the Queen to be read together with the Constitution is very unsatisfactory. One document capable of being understood by a laymen should be formed. But there is no signiﬁcant change to the present constitution recommended in the Commissions’ report as a whole.This seems to me to be a fundamental point.

4. Perhaps I misunderstand, but the constitution is based on the principle of checks and balances similar to that used in the UK where, in their case two houses have to agree on legislation and then it has to receive Royal assent to become law. I wonder what would happen if the Queen were ever to refuse assent! No, in fact I don’t. She would be kicked out.

The constitution contains provision for assent to legislation by the Governor as a proxy for the Queen. Could these calls for independence be based in the Anguillan ego being too big to submit to checks and balances which the British have taken hundreds of years to develop? Reasonably the American system rejects what is British but they have a carefully planned system of checks and balances. Would we want a government that did not have any form of control or accountability? Surely we realize that we must all be accountable to some one, to some higher authority. It is not sufﬁcient to make pious statements that they are accountable to the people. No one to my knowledge has yet said this however.

5. The Commission Report does provide for more consultation between the Chief Minister and Governor and does, in some places, restrict the Governor’s authority.

6. The Constitution is a complex and carefully balanced document and is not amenable to determining all the complexities by a simple referendum. How can one yes or no vote be applied to a variety of complex alternatives, even if we understood the implications of what was being proposed in each case? Further, the public have demonstrated an attention span insufﬁcient to form such an opinion.

It would seem to me that we have a perfectly adequate report from the Commission and our Government should be authorized and required to negotiate this on our behalf.When they believe that they have negotiated a document that is capable of operation in the best interest of the Anguillians, this should be given to everyone and explained to them as a matter of course. Then we can have a referendum to accept the propose constitution or to tell our Government to start negotiations with the British again.

Before I ﬁnish I would express concern over the way that the protest was led. While the people in general were interested in good governance in their interest and to their protection the leaders may have somewhere a hidden agenda. I would caution against letting our best intentions be hijacked to some one else’s perceived advantage that may not be ours.

Yours faithfully,

Bill Grandﬁeld

| Printer-friendly page | Send this article to a friend |

World News