Dear Sir,

When the subject of Independence for Bermuda was brought up by the Progressive Labour Party Government some 17 years ago, their independence-assessment report, called the Bermuda Independence Commission Report, was intended to “educate” the public on the pros and cons, made available in 2005. The BIC Report was mentioned in an article written on February 25, 2006, by the independent Washington DC organisation the Council on Hemispheric Affairs [see coha.org/Bermuda-independence-by-any-means-as-an obsession].

I was, at the time, part of the independent group known as Bermudians for Referendum, which launched a very successful petition signed by 15,523 registered voters representing more than 52 per cent of the valid votes in Bermuda, more than were cast for either political party in most previous general elections. The petition stated: “I am a registered voter in Bermuda and I believe the issue of Independence for Bermuda should be decided by way of a referendum and not by a general election.”

Now, here is the discussion again, and I would like to point out a few things about referendums.

First, a referendum is simply a free-choice “yes” or “no” direct vote by registered voters on an issue of major public importance. It is a people’s choice, a free choice, direct from all those voters who wish to vote. This is a system of democracy in its purest, most equitable, race-free form. It’s direct democracy.

Second, in order to achieve maximum fairness, a referendum should be held strictly as a stand-alone vote without political hindrance or interference from anyone, ie, it should not form part of the platform of a party in a general election. And it should be held at a time at least six weeks apart from any other political or other distractions, such as a general election.

Third, there is no point in holding a referendum if it is not agreed by the Government in advance that the results will be binding on it. This essential point of binding means that the Government must abide by the result of the referendum.

Fourth, even though a referendum on a major issue is likely to have a large turnout, it would be prudent to show that, for the motion to succeed, it should have a high percentage level of voters, ie, a majority of not less than 60 per cent. If both turnout and voting results show a substantial majority, then there should be no question about the result as it reflects what the people want. Incidentally, since the issue is Independence, it avoids any question of racial bias. A well-organised referendum bypasses the race question. People are voting on an “issue“ not a person. A referendum is not a “poll”.

Fifth, Soviet dictator Josef Stalin said: “It’s not the people who vote that count; it’s the people who count the votes.” In Bermuda, it might be that a selection of, say, 11 JPs chosen by the Governor from both parties and/or Independents would maximise the veracity and honesty of the vote-counting?

Sixth, there should be a time limit agreed as to when another referendum of this magnitude and importance to the island would be allowed to occur. If the majority vote showed positive for going Independent, then that is final. No going back. But if it were negative, then perhaps there should not be another such referendum allowed for a generation or so (two decades?).

Seventh, it should go without saying that both the pros and cons (upside benefits and downside risks) should be laid out in bullet form for ease of understanding and made available to the public well before the date of the referendum.

For example, the following are areas of potential problems and should be thoroughly discussed beforehand, assessing the best and the worst scenarios and comparing what our position would be related to other independent island nations (like Jamaica):

The economy; the national debt and servicing; inflation; currency devaluation; foreign exchange controls; visa and travel restrictions; crises involving crime, law and order; poverty; defence; hurricane damage or other natural disasters; and loss of low-cost education (UK) and the loss of other presently free benefits.

MICHAEL G. MARSH

Smith’s Parish