Would the real Progressive Labour Party please stand up?

Over the last two weeks the party, the PLP Government and Premier Alex Scott have each made statements on constitutional change and Independence that flatly contradict each other.

It may or not be a coincidence that Mr. Scott has launched a debate on Independence at the same time that Government House is seeking opinions on how constitutional change should be decided in the future.

But it has added an element of confusion to the debate right at the start.

That?s because the PLP (the party, not the Government) responded to the request by rejecting a referendum on any constitutional change and then stating: ?The elected government having received a mandate from the majority of voters is the most suitable institution to have the authority to initiate the process of constitutional amendments in partnership with (the British Government).

?We reject any effort to amend the constitution to entrench a procedure for future constitutional amendments whether consequential or substantive. We will not consider further amendment to the Constitution until such time as Bermuda is ready to move to Independence.?

The PLP Government statement, which will be published in full in tomorrow?s , said that the arguments for a referendum ?fall short of being persuasive?, and added that any constitutional change should follow open and frank discussion, which would include public meetings, the release of position papers and full public debate among both the public and in the House of Assembly.

?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,? the Government said.

?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.?

What does that mean? In effect, the Government is stating that a decision on Independence could be taken by the House of Assembly, without a General Election or a referendum, regardless of whether the Government has a mandate for taking such a step or not.

It goes on to say that any vote on constitutional change would have to evidence clear majority support and that ?such support would be reflected by there being some cross-party support?, without saying whether that means one Opposition MP or ten.

If that is not confusing enough, you then have Mr. Scott?s own statements.

On the one hand he rejects the need for any change to the process of Constitutional change from the one undertaken for the change to single seat constituencies, apparently forgetting the enormous public outcry that preceded it and the reluctance with which then-Premier Jennifer Smith initiated public meetings.

He then goes on to say that the Government is listening and has not ruled out the possibility of a referendum if there is great public demand. And yet that flies in the face of the statements of the Government he leads and the party he leads.

Nor has there been any explanation of how the Government would determine how much demand was enough for a referendum.

Still, nothing beats the statement attributed to PLP spokesman Scott Simmons in Friday?s Bermuda Sun in which he said that the PLP was opposed to referendums because in the Sun?s words, ?they end up being highly politicised?.

How could Independence, or any constitutional change for that matter, not be highly politicised?

As Opposition Leader Grant Gibbons stated last week, it is difficult to start debating the issues surrounding Independence if there is no clarity on how the decision itself is to be made.

And as of now, the answer to that question is as clear as mud.