referendum plans in tatters and the public in confusion.

As an issue, Independence came from nowhere. Depending on what happens in the House this Friday, it may disappear again, at least for a time.

For those who lost the thread as it wound from the Premier's office, through Cabinet, the United Bermuda Party caucus, the House, the Senate, the Cabinet, the caucus, and on and on, here's a recap of where Bermuda stands and how it got there.

On October 5, 1993, the UBP won its seventh consecutive mandate, but by a slim majority.

In the run-up to the vote that saw 22 UBP and 18 Progressive Labour Party MPs elected, the word "Independence'' did not pass the lips of Premier the Hon.

Sir John Swan, Opposition Leader Mr. Frederick Wade, nor the vast majority of Bermudians.

Asked about Independence at a news conference the day he called the election, Sir John replied: "I have always said, and it's the party's position, that a referendum would be the route.'' He then pointed to the UBP campaign platform and said: "It's not in this blueprint.'' Both statements were true. But they gave nobody cause to expect what happened soon after October 5.

Sir John first raised Independence in a speech at the Dependent Territories Conference in London on November 24. But it was Britain's announcement in December that she would close the Royal Navy Base, HMS Malabar, that became the unlikely jumping off point for the current debate.

Sir John described the impending closure as "a further erosion of ties with the British Government,'' and Cabinet Ministers were soon saying Independence was back on the agenda.

Why? Sir John has said the US and British military Base closures announced since the election have placed the Island at "a crossroads,'' and only by together examining and deciding on their future can Bermudians unite.

There has been no shortage of other speculation. The Premier is known to personally support Independence, and might see his present term as the last chance for Bermuda to achieve it under his leadership. Others believe the UBP knows it will lose the next election and wants its version of Independence for Bermuda, not the PLP's. A new Cabinet dotted with young Swan loyalists and without Independence foe Mr. Ralph Marshall might have also emboldened the Premier.

There is no doubt that most of the UBP caucus has supported Government's referendum plan from the start. But with 21 voting MPs compared to 18 for the Opposition, Government needs the support of nearly all its members to get legislation through the House of Assembly.

In February, the Independence Referendum Act 1994 -- which called for a referendum on Independence after a Commission of Inquiry was held -- passed the House 20-18. The Hon. Ann Cartwright DeCouto, who abstained, was the only Government MP to break ranks.

The bill (although called an act, it is still a bill until it receives Senate approval and Royal Assent) then moved onto the Senate, where two unusual things happened.

First, Independent Senator Alf Oughton said consideration of the referendum bill should be delayed until the House dealt with a motion from Opposition Leader Mr. Frederick Wade rejecting Government's call for a Commission of Inquiry.

Since the referendum bill made reference to a Commission of Inquiry, it only made sense that Mr. Wade's motion be dealt with first, Sen. Oughton said. He won the support of two other Independent Senators and the three Progressive Labour Party Senators, and on March 2 his motion passed 6-5.

The spotlight then shifted to Mr. Wade. Many expected him to bring his motion forward at the next meeting of the House. But others felt the position taken by the Senate could allow him to delay the bill indefinitely. As long as he did not bring forward his motion, the bill could not pass the Senate.

Mr. Wade's first chance to debate his motion came on March 11. He asked that it be carried over.

That move brought a change of heart in the Senate, where Sen. Oughton said he felt "used''. His intention was to give Mr. Wade a chance to debate his motion, not delay the bill.

The Senate then decided to deal with the bill, but took a second unusual action. By the same 6-5 vote that approved Sen. Oughton's earlier motion, it approved an amendment that he said was designed to assure any referendum decision on Independence reflected the majority view of Bermudians.

As written, the Independence Referendum Act 1994 would require only a simple majority of votes cast to decide the Independence question. Critics like Sen.

Oughton said they were concerned that voter turnout for the referendum could be low. If only 50 percent of eligible voters turned out, and just over half of them voted in favour of Independence, the question would actually be decided by only about 25 percent of the voters.

Sen. Oughton did not feel that was good enough. Instead, he said, the referendum should not be decisive unless a majority of eligible voters cast ballots one way or another. In other words, if there were 10,000 eligible voters, 5,001 would have to say "yes'' to Independence, even if only 7,000 turned out at the polls.

By this time, the House had broken for Easter, and Government's original plans to hold a referendum at the end of 1994 were looking very unlikely.

In the UBP caucus, MPs like Mr. Trevor Moniz, Dr. David Dyer, and the Hon.

John Stubbs were voicing sympathy for the Oughton amendment, which the Premier had described as an affront to the democratic system.

Mrs. Cartwright DeCouto still opposed Government's referendum plan. And while still toeing the party line when it came time to vote, Education Minister the Hon. Clarence Terceira and Tourism Minister the Hon. C.V. (Jim) Woolridge had been outspoken critics as well.

As well as having concerns about the size of a majority that would decide Independence, many in the UBP shared Progressive Labour Party concerns about the vehicle that had been chosen to explore the pros and cons of the issue.

With its powers to subpoena witnesses and compel testimony, a commission seemed heavy-handed and intimidating. There were also concerns that it would be called by the Governor to report to the Governor, rather than Parliament.

Two things had to worry Premier Swan and his Cabinet. Backbench dissent meant that either Mr. Wade's motion or Sen. Oughton's amendment might pass. If either happened without a change in UBP policy, confidence in both the Premier and the Government would be shaken.

A compromise was needed, and on April 26 Cabinet devised one that later won the approval of caucus. The Commission of Inquiry would be dropped and replaced by a commission that reported to Parliament. And to address the concern about a mandate for Independence, the referendum would only be decisive if there was a voter turnout of at least two-thirds.

To accomplish its plan, Government would withdraw the original Independence Referendum Act which the Senate amended and introduce a new one that included the desired changes.

That was when things really got complicated. Although it planned to withdraw the original Independence Referendum Act 1994 in its entirety, Government still had to deal with the amendment that was recommended by the Senate.

Should it first defeat the Senate amendment and then introduce its new referendum bill, or do it the other way around? The uncertainty that hung over that decision, heightened by doubtful support from a handful of backbenchers, was compounded by another concern. Under the Rules of the House of Assembly, there were doubts about whether a second Independence referendum bill could be introduced during the same session of the House that had already seen a similar bill debated.

Former House Clerk Mr. John Gilbert, for one, felt that the second bill should not be allowed.

Before the House sat, Government consulted with the Speaker. His interpretation was that the new bill could be introduced for first reading, but that the original Independence Referendum Act would have to be withdrawn before the new bill could be read a second time.

That would allow the Government to introduce the new bill for first reading and later deal with the Senate amendment and the original bill.

Government Whip Mr. John Barritt's later claim that he was "blindsided'' showed that Government did not expect what happened next.

When the PLP forced a vote on first reading of the new bill, Dr. Stubbs and Dr. Dyer were not in their seats. That meant that even Mrs. Cartwright DeCouto would have to vote with Government for it to carry the vote 19-18. If she abstained again, the Speaker would have to vote to break a tie, and the Hon.

Ernest DeCouto's support was anything but certain.

In any event, Mr. Moniz joined Mrs. Cartwright DeCouto in abstaining.

Government lost the vote 18-17, without the Speaker having to take a stand.

That vote was an enormous setback, but Sir John was not ready to give up.

He called for the Senate amendment to the original bill to be brought forward, and proposed a change to the Senate amendment that would bring it more in line with Government thinking.

Where the Senate called for a majority of eligible voters to decide the referendum, Sir John's amendment called for a minimum two-thirds voter turnout, with the question then decided by a simple majority of votes cast.

The amendment proposed by the Premier was not put to a vote last week.

Depending on what the UBP Cabinet and caucus decide this week, it still might be debated on Friday.

Something else happened last Friday with important ramifications for Government's referendum plan. Mr. Wade's motion rejecting a Commission of Inquiry, which by then was consistent with Government policy, was passed by the House without objection.

Had Mr. Wade's motion passed and Government's new bill been introduced -- as Government had intended -- that would not have created major difficulties.

But as things now stand, Government has been left to work with the original bill that says the referendum will be preceded by a Commission of Inquiry. And the House has said a Commission of Inquiry will not be held.

Yesterday, House Clerk Mr. James Smith said the House has already passed the original Independence referendum bill in its entirety, and now can only deal with the part the Senate amended.

The House could not, for example, remove references to a Commission of Inquiry contained in the bill. "Definitely not,'' Mr. Smith said.

If that is true, the Independence referendum plan could be dead.

GLOSSARY Commission of Inquiry -- Established under the Commission of Inquiry Act 1935, it is a quasi-judicial fact-finding body appointed by the Governor. A commission may subpoena witnesses and compel testimony. Past subjects of commissions include the fishpot ban and population control.

Green Paper -- A Green Paper is a Government discussion paper setting out the facts on an issue. Instead of a Commission of Inquiry, the Opposition wants a Green Paper on Independence. Premier the Hon. Sir John Swan is now considering that. Government last produced a Green Paper on Independence in 1977.

White Paper -- A statement of Government policy on an issue, it usually follows a Green Paper. Former Premier the Hon. Sir David Gibbons presented a White Paper on Independence in 1979.

The Hon. Ann Cartwright-DeCouto.