Former Premier and Opposition Leader Pamela Gordon surprised her colleagues Friday when she refused to go along with her party's call for a constitutional conference and a referendum on the Boundaries Commission report.

Her stance transformed what would otherwise have been regarded as a foregone, predictable, conclusion to a moral victory for the ruling party. And while her own colleagues quickly dissipated, ecstatic PLP MPs, including the Premier, practically lined up to compliment Ms Gordon outside the House of Assembly when it was all over.

Opposition Leader Grant Gibbons, however, put on a brave face when contacted later Friday night.

Ms Gordon had in January last year authored the party's position that a conference be held and even took an 8,000 signature petition to Whitehall. But in a hard hitting, passionate speech, likely to be her swan song, she demanded instead that the UK Government be accountable to Bermuda and tell the Island of its intentions.

The United Bermuda Party (UBP) agreed to approve the Report but wanted to add on a motion asking the United Kingdom Government to convene a conference to address an independent speaker of the House of Assembly, the future mandate of the Boundaries Commission, how constitutional changes are to be made in the future, compulsory reregistration of voters and a referendum to ratify the Commission's recommendations.

Ms Gordon, who was the last on her side of the aisle to speak on the Report, saved her shock for the end of one of the most powerful speeches of the day.

"I am very respectful of the Leader of the Opposition. I am respectful of my colleagues but I want to make it clear that unless, and until, I can get an indication from the United Kingdom Government of what is their next step, I could not comfortably in all my own morality support a call for a constitutional conference or a referendum," she said to cheers from the Government benches.

"And it's not because I'm bucking anybody... It's a point of principle, Mr. Speaker, that where we go from here is fully dependent entirely on the United Kingdom Government." She added that a conference may turn out to be necessary but "at this time we don't know anything. And, unfortunately I have to say that some of the issues that have been raised are issues for this House, not for a constitutional conference and so realistically I would like, if nothing goes to the United Kingdom Government, I would like one particular thing to go forward and that is you tell the people of Bermuda what you are going to do for us, to us before we can go and make a proper, informed decision before we can take it to the people of the country and have them understand exactly where we go from here. They need to come to the wicket to further help the people of Bermuda. Then we can move forward in the kind of harmony that we need in order to keep this country together for our children and our future generations."

The United Kingdom has already said that it will decide the next steps following Friday's debate. And it made it clear that a constitutional conference was not ruled out or in.

Ms Gordon had led her party's call for a referendum and a constitutional conference in January, 2001 as Opposition Leader.

But she told her House colleagues that she had done further research in the months leading up to the debate which forced her to change her mind.

She said that the records show that the British had made it clear during the 1966 constitutional conference that Bermuda would not be allowed to change the Constitution by itself without going to Independence.

"I didn't realise it had already been addressed," she told The Royal Gazette after the marathon debate. "It was addressed in 1966. Unless the new UK Government is prepared to change its position and allow us to change the constitution without the overseeing eye of the Order in Council, then it makes a nonsense."

Asked if he was surprised by Ms Gordon's stance, Dr. Gibbons said that she had not discussed it with him and that she had missed the caucus meeting in which the party formulated its position.

"But to some degree it was consistent with what I was saying that one of the reasons we put forward the motion was to bring greater certainty... I said that we were certainly open minded and we were looking for some sort of way to deal with these issues. The conference was one way and if there were other ways, we were prepared to be open to them and look at them..."

Ms Gordon confirmed that she did not know of her party's motion, which was defeated by a voice vote, and said that had there been a count vote on the add-on motion she would have abstained.

"It makes nonsense asking for a conference or a referendum when we don't have a clue what the British Government's next move is going to be. It may not be necessary because in this aspect of the process there was unanimity. We don't need a conference with unanimity." She said no one knows whether the British Government is prepared to even make any amendments to the Constitution.

With the UBP soundly defeated on its add-on motion, Dr. Gibbons said the party's next moves "may well" include an approach to the British Government.

"I am pleased by the result and I look forward to seeing the next step," said Premier Jennifer Smith. She said she had been surprised by Ms Gordon's position. "And I just wanted to say to her - because when you criticise, you must always compliment - I was quite pleased by the strength of character that she exhibited when she took the position that she took."

Attorney General Dame Lois Browne Evans said, however, that she had not been surprised by Ms Gordon's reversal. Dame Lois, who was a key participant in the development of the Constitution since party politics began, had sat with Ms Gordon on the Boundaries Commission for almost nine months.