We note the invitation tendered by Government House to the public to make submissions as to the public?s recommendations on how future constitutional changes and amendments should be made. We further note that Government House has signalled by comments made publicly that it wishes to canvass the people of Bermuda and to consult with interested parties in Bermuda on future proposals for constitutional amendment.

We have already recorded to the Governor that in our considered view this was not the most appropriate method to seek the public input. Rather it should have been for the democratically elected Government to initiate such a request to the people of Bermuda. Through the office of the Premier, we have already strongly registered our concerns and reservations with the Governor. We disapprove of the attempt to dilute our role in this significant process and to usurp the legitimate functions of the democratically-elected Government.

There is much to consider in reviewing proposals as to how amendments to the Bermuda Constitution should be addressed. This, especially since at this stage, the most likely factor that could necessitate a constitutional change would be a concerted move towards Independence for Bermuda.

Accordingly, it is important to ensure that there is ample scope in any proposed procedures to provide for there to be adequate and proper communication and feedback solicited from the people of Bermuda and also to ensure that there is transparency and openness. Yet at the same time, due regard has to be given in acknowledging the role of the constitutionally and democratically elected Government, and the pivotal role that the Government must play in any such process and also in determining the way forward for any further constitutional changes.

As a Government, we believe in open and frank discussions on the substantive issues affecting Bermuda. It is in the public and national interest for our citizens to be properly informed on the far-reaching ramifications of any future constitutional changes and we endorse and embrace efforts that seek to do this.

However, notwithstanding this, it must be noted that a cardinal feature of democracy is that the character of Government depends essentially on the results of the most recent General Election.

Governments stand or fall by the results of a General Election and we would expect that as the constitutionally and democratically elected Government with a clear and decisive majority that we will play a lead role in initiating, fostering and fermenting the discussion, but not to the exclusion of any other interested parties, including the Opposition.

The PLP Government has always been in the vanguard of change. In fact, when in Opposition, our 1976 Election Platform stated that since Bermuda was moving towards Independence, a bipartisan committee should be set up to ensure a national consensus on fundamental issues such as citizenship and the vote. This reflects clearly our commitment to seek the mandate of the people and not to unilaterally or capriciously seek a change in our constitutional status without obtaining the people?s support. Evidently, based on our prior commitments and public utterances, this underscores our consistency to the fundamental principle of seeking the people?s will. Accordingly, the fact that we advocate a collaborative and partnership type approach in the present climate is not at variance with our customary stance.

However, notwithstanding this, we advocate a process to foster and spearhead debate so as to encourage a broad consensus in how we chart the way forward. This in itself does not abrogate or dilute our legitimacy as the democratically and constitutionally elected Government to prescribe the mechanism used to ascertain the will of the majority of Bermuda?s people on future constitutional change.

In our view, there should certainly be the palpable and clear recognition and the acknowledgement that we are the Government. As the Government, we should be in the vanguard of spearheading the discussion on future constitutional change and in prescribing the process for effecting any subsequent constitutional changes.

In our considered view, this would involve and entail a process that is very much similar to the process that was followed in the Legislature in debating the Report of the Boundaries Commission and the eventual constitutional changes that led to single-seat constituencies.

We recommend an approach where there is a clear and decisive majority vote following any debate in the House of Assembly. It is our decided view that there should be a clear and decisive majority supporting a decision on future constitutional changes, that is clearly evidenced in the House of Assembly. It should be noted that while we do not favour or recommend entrenching a numerical ratio per se, it is acknowledged that we consider we have a clear mandate for advancing any recommended constitutional change as the democratically elected majority Government.

We have considered the arguments advanced on the merits of using a referendum as the ?litmus test? and benchmark for recording public sentiment as to further constitutional changes and maintain that they fall short of being persuasive.

Further if there is a sincere and genuine desire to give voice to the people, then a robust and coordinated schedule of public meetings, discussions, the dissemination of policy and discussion papers and informed public debate both in the House of Assembly and the wider public domain must be encouraged and supported. This, notwithstanding that there may be disparate views.

Such efforts must be encouraged and supported in a tangible way in considering any decision on proposals to recommend to the people of Bermuda substantive constitutional change. This could include, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, a decision as to whether or not Bermuda should seek to obtain its independence from the United Kingdom and to alter its constitutional status from a British Overseas Territory to an independent country.

We consider that as the democratically elected Government, having received a mandate from the people, we have the legitimate authority to lead and initiate the process for any further constitutional change. This clearly does not obviate the necessity for there to be wide public discussion and consultation and dialogue with the Opposition and the wider community.

Prior to representing and advocating any formal position, we would consider it essential that there be a full debate in the House of Parliament and a vote taken in the House that demonstrates and evidences a clear majority support for any such proposals. We would anticipate that such support would be reflected by there being some cross-party support.

In fact, as we note above, we would expect that the pre-conditions for any constitutional change would include, inter alia, broad and wide public dialogue and discussion prior to any debate in the House of Assembly. This debate would be followed by a vote of Members of Parliament present and eligible to vote in the House of Assembly and should record a clear and decisive majority of support for the proposed constitutional changes.

In the absence of the involvement of the public, we could not consider that a decision that advocates constitutional change would be defensible. Yet, at the same time, as the democratically elected Government, it would be fair to say that we would resist any attempts to thwart the will of the majority of the people of Bermuda, who through their elected representatives by a decisive majority have expressed their desire to change Bermuda?s Constitution or Bermuda?s constitutional status. This would be particularly disquieting if the UK Government, whether directly or through Government House, contrived mechanisms with the seeming intent to frustrate the will of the majority of Bermuda?s people. Once the process as outlined above has been followed, then in our view the pre-conditions have been met for the Bermuda Constitution Order 1968 to be amended by an Order in Council.