President of the Chamber of Commerce Cris Valdes-Dapena said Bermuda should not be crying for a referendum over proposed changes to the Constitution -- but instead asking for measures to be put in place over how amendments are carried out.

She said she was shocked to discover that there were no safeguards written into the present Constitution to ensure that it could only be amended appropriately and with the full knowledge and consent of the people.

The business leader said the Constitution should include provisions describing the ways in which the people being governed would consent to having details of it changed.

And she said calling for referenda and public forums about the proposed Government amendments, which could see single-seat constituencies formed and new boundaries drawn, was "putting the cart before the horse''.

Ms Valdes-Dapena said: "A constitution, as I understand it, is a document in which peop le s et out in detail the structures and mechanisms by which they consent to be governed.

"It is a fundamental underpinning of democratic Government. A constitution should also include provisions describing the way(s) in which the people to be governed will consent to having their constitution altered. Any constitution which lacks such a provision is fatally flawed because it contains, by that omission, the seeds of its own destruction.'' The president said she had no idea about the anomaly until the Premier Jennifer Smith tabled her proposals for change in the House of Assembly at the end of August.

But she said people were wrong to now start shouting for a national vote on the changes until provisions over how alterations are made were firmly in place.

Ms Valdes-Dapena added: "We should now not be clamouring for a referendum or a constitutional conference or any discussion at all regarding any particular amendment to the Constitution regarding seats or constituencies.

"It would be putting the cart before the horse.

"We should not address at this time any lesser matter than the integrity of the Constitution, itself specifically, how it may be amended in the future to deal with these subordinate issues.

"It is our duty to correct this error. It is the absolute moral obligation of the Government to facilitate our bringing our voices together to determine what definition we wish to put in place for how our Constitution may be amended in future.'' Controversy erupted when the Premier announced her surprise proposals at the final session of the House before the Summer recess.

Her intention, she said, was to allow MPs to read her proposals and then debate them when they reconvened this autumn.

S he has ruled out a constitutional conference or referendum on the issue, leading to accusations from the United Bermuda Party that the proposals will be bulldozed through.

T he Premier claims the Boundaries Commission, which will be drawn from both parties and will look at her proposals, will ensure independence.

However, The Royal Gazette reported this week claims by Senator Mark Pettingill that the recommendations made by the Boundaries Commission will be a "smokescreen'' because the Premier could veto them.

The Premier failed to respond to that claim before the story went to press.

And then on Wednesday, a Government Information Services spokeswoman said the Premier saw no need to comment on it as it had already appeared in the newspaper.

Leader of the Opposition Pam Gordon said in an ideal world, she would agree with Ms Valdes-Dapena on the need for safety measures being put in place.

However, she said as Government had already moved one step further by tabling proposals for change, the right step would be to hold a constitutional conference and referendum.

She added: "It is not a case of us putting the cart before the horse.

"In this case, the barn door is open and the horse has already taken off, so now we have to send someone to catch it.'' Cris Valdes-Dapena GOVERNMENT GVT