On The No-Confidence Vote
Readers of this forum may have noticed that I put up a poll on this issue, and put forward an argument in the comment section in favour of the no confidence motion. My main points were that Dr. Brown's actions were unconstitutional, and that his actions had compromised our nation, while at the same time an argument could be made that his actions amounted to treason in conspiring with the US.
For various reasons outside of my control, that poll is no longer available. The issue of the poll being made unavailable is not important however. After having some more time to think about the issue I would like to retract my previous statement in favour of the no confidence vote.
I understand there will be some confusion on this as a result. I want to stress that my points - as laid out in that no longer available poll, and on my own blog Catch-a-Fire. I remain furious about the way this decision was handled, and the fact that it should never have happened.
However, the more I think about this situation, the more I am confident that Dr. Brown is actually a victim of US-UK conniving. I realise that people are going to think I've gone crazy with conspiracy theories here, so I'll do my best to explain.
I do not think the US was able to move the detainees here without the UK knowing. I am aware that the US said they deliberately kept the UK out of the loop to 'sheild them from Chinese anger', but I don't believe that. I do believe that the move was done in such a way as to deflect Chinese anger, but I think the UK were part of that plan, deliberately so. This is not a new theory of mine, I had elaborated it on my blog. however, I had had trouble figuring out what the UK got out of the situation. I had thought at the time that perhaps they were getting some commitment from the US on business or military concessions. I still think this is likely, but I am more and more convinced that a huge part of the UK's objective was to take out Dr. Brown.
I think the UK had the intention of setting a trap for Dr. Brown. I think they (correctly) predicted the public backlash that Dr. Brown would receive, and this would set in motion a populist outcry for his dismissal, and a parliamentary move to do just this. The UK, in short, would prime the gun and get Bermudians to pull the trigger.
I think it is clear that I have ideological issues with Dr. Brown. I do. Some say I have personal issues with him, but that is false - I barely know him, and no where well enough at that to have a personal issue with him. I do disagree with his management style, and I do disagree with his decidedly New Labour ideology. That is all.
But I disagree more with imperialism, and I think that our two colonial powers, the USA and the UK have set Dr. Brown up. And I have no intention of helping play into their hands. This is a trap, and while it had me initially, I will have no part in it anymore. Dr. Brown deserves being condemned for this decision of his. But he doesn't deserve to be the victim of an imperialist plot.
I think this issue deserves great debate, and I will post a similar post on my own blog to maximise debate. I realise that I will have difficulty proving my thesis - its not like I can exactly break into top secret UK locations and find the proof. But knowing the history of US and UK I think this is certainly within the realms of high probability.
I call on all PLPers, and Bermudians as a whole, to discuss this issue. Give Dr. Brown and earful if you want to. But I cannot in good conscience support the no confidence vote anymore.
- J Starling's blog
- Login to post comments
Blog
Recent comments
- Thesis
1 year 10 weeks ago - We all have to start
1 year 10 weeks ago - Thanks
1 year 10 weeks ago - Best to you
1 year 10 weeks ago - Thanks for pointing that out
1 year 10 weeks ago - Clarifications
1 year 10 weeks ago - Moving over
1 year 10 weeks ago - Wow
1 year 10 weeks ago - Clarification
1 year 10 weeks ago - Thank You
1 year 10 weeks ago
Forum
- Making Our Building Codes Better For Hurricances
- Expanding The Bus System
- Speedbump Power Generation
- Fast Ferries For Flatts?
- 'Solar Trees' for Hamilton?
- Why has limey and his brigade infected the plp blogs?
- The Bermuda Regiment - Discrimination based on Convenience
- Crime in Bermuda: Does it Affect You Directly?
Syndicate
Comments
No confidence
While I see and partially agree with the US-UK "conspiracy theory" I don't know if I believe that Dr Brown was a pawn. He's a very intelligent man who thinks decisions through. I can't see how he would allow himself to be used in such a matter.
If Brown was used in such a manner then at the end of the day its still his own actions that are doing him in. While the US and UK may have laid the trap, Brown made the choice to enter it. Essentially what you're saying is these two countries bet on Brown's "my way or the highway" leadership style in order to solve another problem and he didn't disappoint. By operating in a matter outside of the Bermuda constitution he has made himself vulnerable to attack and I cannot in good conscience say that he should remain as leader.
If these two super powers could use Dr Brown's ego against him then couldn't another country? Couldn't the US and UK do it again? I just don't feel comfortable with that, I still think he should stand down.
Yeah, I can agree with that
I certainly agree with your points. My issue is only to ensure that we go into this with our eyes wide open and take account for the possibilities implied by this theory. I have no problem with Dr. Brown being removed from power, and a Bda Constitutional No Confidence Vote will do that and trigger a Special Delegates Convention to ensure a Party Constitutional change of Leadership is executed.
But we must take into account the possibility of a trap, figure out what the UK/US may be playing at, and make sure we don't play into their hands any further. Either that or I'm just a conspiracy nut - LOL. But at least this theory is testable, its just not all that easy to test unfortunately.
Seen seen
You're right about the sequences of events following a no confidence vote but like you I too am at a loss as to what the US/UK would get out of such a change. I do not think that the island itself would be on a much different course than we are now. Nor do I think that the US/UK would be able to infiltrate the rest of our leadership in a meaningful way to cause significant change.
I may be seen as a conspiracy theorist for entertaining your theory, and I'm cool with that. I like to think of it as entertaining all possibilities. Have you seen Zeitgeist and Zeitgeist Addendum? A must for any self respecting conspiracy theorist IMO. Lololol.
Regardless
While personally I don't see this as likely given Dr. Brown's comments, I don't think that it is really the point. The point is that he knowingly, deliberately and to be honest quite spitefully ignored the constitution that he has sworn to uphold. The fact that he personally doesn't like what it says matters absolutely naught.
It is just one more step along the path that he treads - one all his own. He does not govern according to the rules set before him, he prefers to break them and then occasionally ask for forgiveness from an incredibly forgiving electorate.
If we had a strong opposition his position would be untenable. He has had dissent from every corner of the island, even his own cabinet in his time as leader. His popularity remains below a quarter of those polled - indeed more oppose him than support him. This is not what we should demand from a leader.
The PLP have been elected the government. That is not the issue at hand. Dr. Brown is the issue at hand. There is not a vote on the PLP, it is just a vote on one man, and his one man style of governance.
We all exist in professional or societal situations where we don't like the rules. However, for society to function at a macro level, they need to be respected. That Dr. Brown has not even come close to apologising to anyone for breaking our consitution speaks volumes to me. He won't apologise because he doesn't think it was wrong. He doesn't think it was wrong because he doesn't agree with it. And he thinks that his opinion of our consitution matters so much that he can do as he pleases. That should be all we need to know.
Honest Question
Could you please cite the specific sections the Constitution that were allegedly violated along with the act that supposedly violated them? Please arrange it such that the quote from the Constitution is presented followed by an explanation of how it was violated. I think it would be helpful to heighten the dialogue around here by logically explaining your accusations instead of just leveling them.
A Start
I believe they have referred to Section 59 of the Bermuda Constitution as regards the No Confidence Motion. This reads:
Tenure of office of Premier and other Ministers 59
(1) If the House of Assembly by the affirmative votes of a majority of all the members thereof passes a resolution that it has no confidence in the Government, the Governor shall, by instrument under the Public Seal, revoke the Premier’s appointment: Provided that before so doing the Governor shall consult with the Premier and may dissolve the Legislature in accordance with the provisions of section 49(1) of this Constitution instead of revoking the Premier’s appointment.
(2) The Governor, acting in his discretion, may by instrument under the Public Seal revoke the appointment of the Premier if at any time between the polling in a general election and the first sitting of the House of Assembly thereafter the Governor considers that, in consequence of the changes in the membership of the House of Assembly resulting from that election, the Premier will not be the member of the House best able to command the confidence of a majority of the members thereof.
(3) The office of any Minister shall become vacant—
(a) if for any reason other than a dissolution of the Legislature the holder thereof ceases to be a member of the House of which he was a member at the time of his appointment as a Minister;
(b) if, under the provisions of section 31(2) of this Constitution, he is required to cease to perform his functions as a member of that House; or
(c) if he is elected to be the President or Vice-President of the Senate or the Speaker or Deputy Speaker of the House of Assembly or is appointed to or to act in any public office specified under paragraph (a) of section 30(3) of this Constitution.
(4) The office of any Minister other than the Premier shall become vacant—
(a) if his appointment thereto is revoked by the Governor, acting in accordance with the advice of the Premier, by instrument under the Public Seal;
(b) whenever the office of Premier becomes vacant; or
(c) if he is not, at the commencement of the first Session of the Legislature after a dissolution thereof, a member of the House of which he was a member at the time of his appointment as a Minister.
As regards the separation of powers (foriegn policy), I believe that he is being accused of contravening the Bermuda Constitution as regards Section 62:
Governor's special responsibilities 62
(1) The Governor, acting in his discretion, shall be responsible for the conduct (subject to the provisions of this Constitution and of any other law) of any business of the Government, including the administration of any department of government, with respect to the following matters— (a) external affairs; (b) defence, including armed forces; (c) internal security; (d) the police.
(2) The Governor, acting in his discretion, may by directions in writing delegate, with the prior approval of the Secretary of State, to the Premier or any other Minister designated by him after consultation with the Premier such responsibility for any of the matters specified in subsection (1) of this section as the Governor may think fit upon such conditions as he may impose.
In particular, I understand he is charged of contravening Section 62, Part 1, (a) 'external affairs'.
I understand that the Premier and the Minister of Immigration, Senator Lt. Col. Burch are arguing that they are acting within the remit of the Bermuda Immigration & Protection Act (1956). I concede I have only briefly scanned this legislation, but I fail to see what part they are basing their decisions on. Perhaps you, Rocksolid, would be able to enlighten us? To me this affair is strictly within the remit of 'external affairs' and I fail to see how it fails adequately within that of 'immigration.' I also note that the RG reports that actual lawyers are 'scratching their heads' regarding the legality of this decision (see http://www.royalgazette.com/siftology.royalgazette/Article/article.jsp?a...).
I hope that the above at least assists.
Thanks Jonny
Exactly, it's the external affairs and one could also argue internal security that come into play here. There's no way that bringing 4 essentially prisoners of war onto the island doesn't touch either of these areas. And if Dr. Brown wasn't sure, he should at least have asked someone for guidance.
I've seen nothing that leads me to believe he didn't know that he was contravening these. As the premier one would hope he was quite aware of our constitution - it's not even that big!
Evidence?
These Uighurs were never convicted of a crime. Moreover, an American court ruled that they could not be considered enemy combatants. What legal argument are you making that they threaten the internal security of Bermuda?
True
There were designated as non-combatants to the US by a CSRT, not an American court. Regardless, they were on the run from China for being classified anti-Chinese terrorists. They are also not allowed to travel to the US, indeed the US claims that they are safer without them there.
If 4 random people sent a letter to Dr. Brown claiming to be running from Chinese authourities in Afghanistan, who the US wouldn't allow to enter their borders, do you really think Dr. Brown would send over a learjet?
I don't deny there is the very real possiblity that these 4 are not dangerous. But the situation in which they've found themselves coming to Bermuda is certainly worthy of scrutiny, and that scrutiny should be with experts in security. I concur that they might come through clean as a whistle, but I'd still like to have seen that happen. While you may be willing to only trust the US on this matter, I think they are by definition biased. It is also worth asking why so many European countries would not accept them, if they are so trustworthy.
Correction
Parhat v. Gates overturned the CSRT (http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200806/06-1397-1124487.pd...). Read the opinion and you'll understand exactly why the Uighurs are not dangerous.
Eric Holder was an idiot for saying that it makes America safer. Blatant political pandering to xenophobic Americans.
And, you're also wrong about the EU not taking Guantanamo refugees. See:
http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/650876
One point
Fair enough on the first point that the CSRT was overturned, didn't know that. Still doesn't make me happy with the situation.
And I'm not wrong about EU nations rejecting these particular 4. Yes Albania accepted some last year, but they're hardly the representative nation of the EU. And they only accepted them for cold hard cash. The US had been trying to get the Uighurs to a host of European countries but they all said no, accept us, and Palau.
The New York Times reports that the administration contacted "around 100" foreign nations about the Uighurs. And ourselves and Palau agreed. So either the two of us are very clever, or the other 98 are very stupid/didn't want to get involved.
Looks like another lie
That the Bermuda police had vetted these 4 before the arrived:
http://www.royalgazette.com/siftology.royalgazette/Article/article.jsp?a...
Whoops.
Ryan you beat me to it...
...I was about to post the same RG article. Let's see Rocksolid spin this one away. Is this the RG printing untrue reports? Could the Commish and the Gov be out to discredit the PLP? I wonder which way he will spin it.
Surely, this gives clear evidence that this matter is an internal security matter which means that it falls under the remit of the U.K., is that not a constitutional matter Mr. Rocksolid.
I look forward to the spin you will put on this.
Ditto
I'm curious too.
This appears to be conclusive proof that Dr. Brown deliberately, knowingly LIED to the house about a matter of security.
In most countries that would be enough to see him resign. But I doubt Bermuda is like most countries.
Dr. Brown and Resignation
Ryan,
For all the respect that I have for Dr. Brown, over this issue I do believe cals for his resignation are justified. Leaders of democracies have resigned over less. I think it is the prudent and proper thing for him to do.
Done
Edited - not worth it.
Citations
25 (1) Without prejudice to any of the succeeding provisions of this Part, or to any pro vision of any other Part, it is hereby declared that it is unlawful for any person other than a per son—
(a) who possesses Bermudian status; or
(b) who is for the time being a special category person; or
(c) who is, bona fide, a visitor to Bermuda,
to land in, or having landed, to remain or reside in, Bermuda, without in each case specific permission (with or without the imposition of conditions or limitations) being given by or on behalf of the Minister; and, as respects any special category person or a bona fide visitor, such landing, remaining or residence shall be unlawful unless he conforms to any requirements imposed by this Part:
Provided that the Minister, in his discretion, may dispense with the requirements imposed by the foregoing provisions of this subsection.
--
The Bermuda Immigration & Protection Act (1956) does NOT allow the government to control the immigration of persons to Bermuda. That is under the purview of the Minister. The act does, however, stipulate broad powers of the Governor to deport people. See:
Power of Governor to make deportation order
106 (1) The Governor may, if he thinks fit, make a deportation or der in respect of a per son charged—
(a) who is a convicted person in respect of whom the court, certifying to the Governor that he has been convicted, recommends that a deportation order should be made in his case, either in addition to or in lieu of dealing with him in any other way in which the court had power to deal with him; or
(b) who is a destitute person; or
(c) who is a person in respect of whom the Governor con siders it conducive to the pub lic good to make a depor tation order; or
(d) who is a person whose presence in Bermuda is unlawful by reason of a contraven tion of any provision of this Act.
--
Given the specificity of the act, if the immigration of these 4 Uighurs into Bermuda is designated an "external affair," therefore, insofar as immigration deals with any foreign national, ALL immigration should be under the purview of Government House and almost the entire Immigration act is unconstitutional.
Honestly
Do you see no difference whatsoever between these 4 and any old 4 foreigners coming to our shores? Do you see no reason that the international community might care?
If you don't understand why these 4 represent an internationally releveant case, and therefore do fit into the external affairs categorisation, I don't really know how else to discuss it with you.
Rocksolid
This is an External Affairs matter because in order for the 4 detainees to have been brought here negotiations had to be held between Bermuda and the U.S. Clearly Dr. Brown took it upon himself to negotiate this with the Obama Administration, you admitted this yourself under another thread where you stated that those of us who supported an Obama Presidency should view this as assisting Obama and his Presidency. Additionally, these detainees did not come land on the shores of Bermuda as refugees, Bermuda sent a chatered plane to Cuba to collect them and bring them here. In otherwords, the Bermuda Government facilitated their arrival. Anytime there are policy and/or political negotiations between Bermuda and a country, other than the United Kingdom, it is an external affairs matters.
Question
In that case, is it unconstitutional for Bermuda to send a delegation to Washington every year to lobby Congress and the administration? How about all those CARICOM meetings our Ministers attend? Both relate to policy and political negotiations between Bermuda and a country other than the United Kingdom.
Could be wrong
But I think the point is that the Governor/UK know about these things, and have no problem with them as they're common place, typical actions.
Conducting atypical external affairs deliberately behind the back of the governor and UK is what people are annoyed about.
Honestly, I know it's your job to defend Dr. Brown whatever he does, but still, on this one I cannot understand how anyone can think that this wasn't an important enough decision to involve other stakeholders.
Agree...
Beachryan,
I agree with you and you raised a point I did not in my reply to Rocksolid...the Governor/U.K. are well aware of the lobby visits and the CARICOM affiliation. On this matter they only found out once the 4 were enroute to Bermuda, there was clearly deception.
Selective Enforcement
So, are you and Ry really arguing for selective enforcement of the Constitution?
Spin spin spin
Seriously try all you want to deflect the issue away from the fundamental point, which is summed up very clearly by the UK foreign office:
"We have underlined to the Bermuda government that it should have consulted the United Kingdom on whether this falls within their competence or is a foreign affairs or security issue for which the Bermuda Government do not have delegated responsibility"
This is not business as usual immigration. This is not an everyday, common external affair. This was a unique, new case. And even if everything turned out the same way in the end, Dr. Brown SHOULD HAVE CONSULTED WITH THE STAKEHOLDERS, as PART OF THE CONSTITUTION.
Question
So noted that you dodged my question and chose to spin instead.
Now, I have another question for you. I believe the act stated above says that the Premier needed to consult with the Minister in charge of Immigration. That was done. Please cite where it says that the Premier was Constitutionally required to consult with "the stakeholders" on immigration matters? Also please define "stakeholders?"
Simple yes/no will do
1. Do you understand that this was an atypical issue of external affairs?
2. Do you not think that the UK are stakeholders in this decision?
Answers
I look forward to you following my example and answering the questions I posed. Dodging them shows your commitment to spin, and not truth.
1) No. I understand it as an atypical immigration issue.
2) No. Based on the statutes set forth in the Bermuda Immigration & Protection Act.
I give up
At 1. If you don't see this as external affairs, I can't help you.
2. If you don't think the UK are stakeholders, I'm sure you think Hillary Clinton is a bit of a silly one for being on the phone with David Milliband Thursday morning. Over some immaterial small island immigration issue.
To be honest you must be pretty baffled by this whole thing. I mean, it can't just be the combined opposition creating these stories. Or does the combined opposition now consist of Reuters, the AP, every news channel in America and so forth?
Do you not find it even the slightest bit strange that you can find not a single person posting in agreement with you on this? That there is a march tomorrow against it? That I can turn on CNN right now and see video of these guys swimming in the ocean for the first time? Does that not all seem a little off given this is just an immigration issue for a small island nation? I mean, why does anyone in the international community even care?
Straw Men
Stop creating straw men. No one said it was immaterial. It's certainly a major international issue. It's certainly atypical. And, it's certainly worthy of the press attention it's received. I'm just trying to get you to articulate why this is an external affairs issue and not an immigration issue. Given the fuzzy standard of "external affairs" and the repeated blurring of the definition resultant from other permissable actions, you have yet to offer a legally accepted definition of 'external affairs' that is not contradicted by other actions of government.
Once again, I'll answer your questions even though you choose to ignore mine and spin away:
1) Majoritarian arguments are fallacies. First off, there's plenty of support for the PLP on this issue. Check out some of the Facebook discussions. Secondly, there are innumerable examples throughout history where the majority of people were wrong.
2) Yes, this is a major issue. No one is doubting that. Immigration issues do not necessary have to be "immaterial" and "small." Immigration issues can be quite explosive.
3) As for the march of intolerance, I can't wait to see it. It's billed as "We also want the Guantanamo Bay Prisoners leave Bermuda immediately." Talk about being on the wrong side of compassion, the wrong side of humanitarianism and, ultimately, the wrong side of history.
Are they....?
Does Bermuda not have lobbyists in Washington that it uses? Is the delegation sent to specifically lobby or to meet with the appointed lobbyists. If this delegation is sent to lobby and they are lobying on behalf of Bermuda's IB sector that could be construed as an Internal Affairs matter, could it not? With regard CARICOM, Bermuda is an Associate Member which means that it has no voting authority and as far as I am aware this status was approved by the U.K. via the Governor's office.