This is the text of Walton Brown Jr.'s submission entitled at the United Nations Caribbean Regional Seminar on Decolonisation in Canouan, St Vincent and the Grenadines

Mr. Chairman, the Special Committee has been examining the important issues relating to the non-self governing territories since 1990 and through its activity has kept the issue alive in the eyes of the international community. While it may not be at the forefront in terms of global issues, were it not for the sustained work of this committee the administering powers or colonial powers-choose the nomenclature you wish-would have by now carefully pushed the issue of self-determination into their own private corner. In this corner, Mr Chairman, they would have had unfettered control to deal with their territories in a manner consistent with their interests alone. I would like to therefore commend the Special Committee for its work over the years. It is my hope, however, that the work of the Committee be complete by the end of this decade and there will be no need for a third decade to accomplish the full measure of self-determination, a right inherent in all non-self governing territories.

I have been invited by the Special Committee to address the issue of constitutional options for the non-self governing territories. In this regard, Mr Chairman, I will be confining my remarks to the British Overseas Territories, the largest block of such territories and an area I think can provide us with important lessons about the decolonisation process and the role of the administering powers.

For all intents and purposes independence is the only constitutional option available to the people of the overseas territories that they can themselves choose. Not only have successive British governments made this clear, it would also seem to the express will of the people that they either endure the or move toward independence.

The notion of Associated Statehood, while fashionable in the 1970s, effectively has no place in the modern era. This status was really meant as a stepping-stone toward independence ? as envisaged by both the British and the colonies that acquired it ? and cannot now be seen as a constitutional point of finality. Free association while a concept recognised as a legitimate form of self-determination, has not been a concept actively discussed or even contemplated by the Overseas Territories for a generation.

Of course, Mr. Chairman, this view will now need to be modified in light of the provocative comments made by the distinguished Chief Minister from the Turks and Caicos, the Hon Michael Misick, who evoked the names yesterday of not the United Kingdom, but rather Canada and the Cayman Islands. Whatever emerges as the express will of the people, after careful consideration and an abundance of information, which will need to be examined by any duly elected government in an overseas territory.

For the most part, however, the governments and the people in the territories view independence as the only meaningful manifestation of self-determination. In this regard, Mr. Chairman, in the fifteen years since the Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism was declared in 1990 there has been no substantive progress in any of the territories toward independence, or indeed any other form of self-determination. It is true there was a referendum on independence in Bermuda in 1995 and the result was clearly was not in favour of any move toward statehood. This referendum was, however, mired in bowels of party politics and the result made no meaningful statement about the voters' views on independence. In fact, this referendum represents an excellent case study of what not to do when organising a referendum.

Mr. Chairman I will not go into the details of this referendum here as I have already submitted a detailed analysis of this at an earlier Regional Seminar. The practical outcome, however, is that the manner in which the referendum was held stifled all debate for the next ten years.

The road to independence has typically been won in the British Empire through a revolution or an election. The first option has in all likelihood been placed in the dustbin of history. The second option has been the means by which many if not all of the former British Caribbean territories won their independence. It remains a legitimate option for any territory to pursue provided it represents the express will of the people. The British preference for a referendum can simply remain that ? they would be hard pressed to make it a requirement if a political party won an election decisively after having campaigned on an independence platform. It would be doubly difficult if the two main political parties in an overseas territory both campaigned for independence and differed only in the mechanics of stepping down the path to statehood. The British Labour Government would also have a hard time explaining to the global community how an election in say, Bermuda, cannot decisively reflect the opinion of the people on independence and simultaneously argue their own election results, in which 36 percent of the voters gave Labour a 60 seat majority, provide them with a mandate to govern.

Mr Chairman, an election therefore remains a legitimate option to decide on the question of independence. Indeed, it is the hallmark of the representative form of government. A referendum is equally valid, even though it is a form of direct participation in the political process and can at times conflict with representative government. Seductive in its appeal, a referendum has immediate resonance. It is simple; a straight vote; one question; the answer is "yes" or "no". Fashioned with integrity, it is not difficult to come up with suitable wording that is supported by those on either side of the issue.

From a ruling party viewpoint, a referendum offers safeguards an election cannot. If the governing party campaigns for Independence during an election and loses, they lose power. That same party campaigning for a "yes" vote and losing in a referendum simply has to say they respect the will of the people and move on-their political power intact.

Perhaps the critical issue for any country seeking to decide the issue by referendum is: what majority represents a legitimate decision? In Bermuda's ill-fated walk down referendum lane the operational legislation required that 40 percent of all voters had to vote "yes" in order to validate the outcome in that direction. In other words, a minority veto. But on what principle can a decision such as this allow for a minority of electors to decide the outcome? The British have intimated they would prefer to see a substantive expression of the people's will in any referendum but again this would be hard to sustain in light of global practices in the area of referenda. Every country that has had a referendum to join the European Union has had the decision rendered by a simple majority ? in some cases the slimmest of majorities. If this is the standard globally why should it be any different for an overseas territory?

Mr Chairman, earlier in my remarks I mentioned that independence was the only constitutional option available to the nationals of the overseas territories that they can themselves freely choose. I would like to use this opportunity today to mention what I see as a disturbing trend that is re-shaping the very nature of the relationship between the overseas territories and the United Kingdom/European Union. I refer this as the Eurofication of the overseas territories. In practice, it represents .

There are two key elements to this. First, there is the re-classification of all overseas territories' nationals as full British Citizens. While all colonial subjects were British subjects along with residents of the UK until 1983, that year saw three classes of citizens created to prevent the Hong Kong Chinese British subjects from potentially claiming their right to live in the UK after 1997.

The three types were (1) British Citizen (2) British Dependent Territories Citizen (BDTC) and (3) British Overseas Citizen. Three years ago the British Government made all BDTCs full British citizens once again. Mr Chairman, as much as this is something greatly valued by a number of people in the overseas territories this is, fundamentally, a right granted to individuals and does not in any way alter the constitutional relationship between the UK and the Overseas Territories. But by providing the opportunity for work and residence in any of the member states of the European Union this provides a compelling (reason) for some to maintain the status quo.

The second element of this Eurofication should, however, make it patently clear that that the status quo is shifting ground and may do so rapidly in the years to come. We are already aware that the European Court of Justice has a level of involvement insofar as it now represents the de facto final court of appeal on legal matters. What is less obvious is what the European Constitution portends for the overseas territories. This constitution recognises the overseas territories-albeit in an appendix-as part of the areas covered by it. More revealing, there are a set of parameters laid out in this document that refer to the levels of tax/duty an overseas territory can impose on imports from a European Union member state. While this provision offers flexibility in terms of not restricting the ability of the overseas territory to raise revenue for the public purse it nevertheless grants constitutional authority to the EU over a matter that until now had been the exclusive preserve of the overseas territories themselves. This is a serious precedent that more fully ties the OT's to the EU than any grant of citizenship. And this has taken place without, as much as I can determine, any consultation with the OTs, no input from the people.

In one deft move the precedent has now been set for the EU to assume tremendous control over the overseas territories. It represents a much closer integration with the administering power yet there are no greater political rights accorded.

Mr. Chairman, in my previous submissions before this august body I have documented some elements of a gradual reassertion of British power since the British White Paper in 1999, that rather than seeing a greater devolution of power, we were seeing retrograde steps.

With the EU constitution we are witnessing an altogether new level of integration ? one taking place without the express will of the people of the overseas territories. I submit this needs to be reviewed as a matter of urgency.