In the middle of last month an Anguilla Government-appointed Negotiating Team, discussing various proposed amendments to the island’s Constitution in preparation for the arrival of a UK delegation, suddenly postponed its work.

Chief Minister, Osbourne Fleming

Chief Minister, Osbourne Fleming, who was one of the participants, later announced that the Committee had decided that Anguilla should seek full internal self-government. He said that since that was a new matter, not yet discussed, the Government undertook to ask the British officials to postpone their visit to give the committee time to explain the implications of the proposed status to the people of the island.

Meanwhile, the Concerned Citizens took up the matter and staged a march to the Governor’s Office. They presented a letter demanding that there should be a draft Constitution reflecting the true aspirations of the people of Anguilla and that a referendum should be conducted prior to the commencement of formal negotiations on the Constitution.

An official response has now been received from London in a letter to the Chief Minister via the Governor’s Office. Mr. Fleming has undertaken to share the text of the letter with the general public in Anguilla. It reads as follows:

“Dear Chief Minister,
“I was sorry that you decided to postpone the first round of constitutional review talks, especially at such short notice. I was looking forward to exploring with you and your colleagues the recommendations set out in the comprehensive and valuable Report of the Anguilla Constitutional and Electoral Reform Commission dated 25 August 2006, together with any alternative proposals both your team and the UK team might put forward. However, I do understand your wish to be fully prepared for this important work.

“In case it might help you in your preparations, I should like to reassure you of the following points.

“First, there is no question of the United Kingdom Government wishing to force constitutional changes on Anguilla. The process of constitutional review is one of discussion and agreement between Anguilla and the United Kingdom, reflecting the process with the other Overseas Territories. In the absent of agreement, the current Constitution will of course continue. On the other hand, if agreement were reached between our delegations to revise the current Constitution, the United Kingdom Government would not seek to put that agreement into legal effect until there was evidence that it had the support of the people of Anguilla. That evidence should as a minimum consist of the endorsement of the Anguilla House of Assembly, as the elected representatives of the people. But it would be open to the Government of Anguilla to undertake additional means of public consultation, and the United Kingdom would welcome that. For example, in Gibraltar the new Constitution was approved in a referendum. In the Turks and Caicos Islands and the British Virgin Islands, further public consultation was undertaken by the local constitutional review commission before new Constitutions of those Territories were debated and approved by their respective Legislative Councils.

“Secondly, and indeed as the foregoing necessarily implies, nothing is finally agreed in the process of negotiation until everything is agreed. In other words, it is the package as a whole that must be acceptable both to Anguilla and the United Kingdom.

“Thirdly, in the light of the experience with other Overseas Territories, the process of constitutional review is likely to require several rounds of discussion. The first round is usually exploratory, with both sides establishing the parameters of constitutional reform. It is also an opportunity to clear a substantial amount of ground by reaching provisional agreement on a large number of uncontroversial issues. Subsequent rounds then address the more difficult issues, with a view to reserving the trickiest points for discussion with the United Kingdom Minister for the Overseas Territories at a final round in London. As I have said above, nothing is finally agreed until everything is agreed.

“Fourthly, the objective – at least from the United Kingdom perspective – is to explore thoroughly the constitutional arrangements for Anguilla with a view to agreeing a modernised Constitution with which both Anguilla and the United Kingdom are comfortable.

“Fifthly, the United Kingdom team approach the constitutional review with no preconceived agenda. We are ready to explore and discuss all of the recommendations of the Constitutional and Electoral Reform Constitution, as well as any alternative proposals you and your team might advance. The Commission have identified a number of possible improvements to the current Constitution. The United Kingdom team would also wish to discuss some changes to the fundamental rights instruments which already apply to Anguilla. But in all respects the United Kingdom team will be striving for the best possible outcome for Anguilla that is consistent with the United Kingdom’s continuing responsibilities for Anguilla.

“Sixthly, you can be assured of our constant good faith in this matter, of our determination to work hard for an excellent outcome for all concerned, and of our wish to conduct discussions in as friendly a spirit as possible.

“Finally, I wish you and your colleagues all the best in your continuing preparations. The UK team is available to meet you when you are ready to take this forward. We are happy for you to share this letter with others as you deem appropriate.

“Yours sincerely,
Ian Hendry, UK Constitutional Review Team Leader.”

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

World News