Banner promoting anonymous crime reporting with a phone and contact number 1 800 TIPS (8477), featuring the Crime Stoppers logo and a QR code for submitting tips.

← Back

Your message to the BLOGMASTER was sent

The last Government put itself in a trap. Wasted spending pushed up the debt, and pushed up interest payments, so they raised taxes which stopped the economy from growing.” – Prime Minister Mia Mottley.

At last week’s public ceremony of the new Cabinet Ministers taking their respective oaths of offices, Prime Minister Mia Mottley in challenging her executive asserted that “it now falls to us to translate hope into action. … There is no time for pause, and there is certainly no place for triumphalism and exultation. We have serious work to do and serious problems to solve.” Who among us would disagree the urgency and delicate nature of things to be done to rescue Barbados?

During the same week, the perilous state of the Barbados economy was revealed and Barbadians got the confirmation that the ‘foreign reserves are at a tenuous stage’ and that the ‘deficit is unacceptably high’. Government’s arrears were said to be about $1.7 billion at September 30, 2017. This figure is expected to be significantly higher given the depth of maladministration that became a notable characteristic under former Prime Minister Freundel Stuart and his Finance Minister Christopher Sinckler.

These things when placed in the context of Barbados receiving more than 20 downgrades from international rating agencies and the high interest rates which they attracted on borrowing, further emphasizes the difficulty and scale of the work that PM Mottley and her Ministers must tackle. Urgency is the buzz word for the leadership tests that she will face in the immediate days and coming months if ‘Critical Mission’ is to resonate with the type of public support it attracted and led to a 30 – 0 victory for the Barbados Labour Party (BLP) on May 24th.

Informatively, Barbados’ current debt is approximately 15 billion dollars, or nearly 9 billion dollars more than the last administration had inherited in 2008. The island’s debt is the third highest in the world after Japan and Greece. This staggering jump in the national debt equates to around 175 percent (%) of Barbados’ Gross Domestic Product (GDP). The fact that these economic disclosures were confirmed by the first female prime minister in the history of Barbados, brought no satiety to the nation. After all, there were more disconcerting news and claims suggesting that since March 5th and without the oversight of the legislature, numerous perplexing (if not criminal) occurrences obtained regarding the awarding/disbursement and/or renewal of contracts, and other perceivably nefarious actions. The public needs answers to many of those issues with some calling for the figurative ‘necks’ of the former Prime Minister, former Minister of Finance, and other suggestively implicated Cabinet Ministers.

At the beginning of any term in office, such meaningful values as inspiration, hope, and confidence play major roles in the psyche of the governed and the support that the governing can anticipate. Prime Minister Mottley, more demonstratively than her immediate predecessor, has the capacity to draw lessons from history while staying in touch with today’s demands to safeguard the nation’s future. Already, Miss Mottley has shown that she has not only the political capital, but she possesses the will and confidence to act in a decisive manner. She may have been reduced numerically by one Member of Parliament, but that does not take away from the more accurate assessment that Barbados “is in need of serious, urgent action with respect to its economy and its Government.”

The Prime Minister’s approach to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) is not the easiest or most universally comforting position to take, but it clearly highlights that it will not be the slothful procrastination that sowed the seeds and devoured many previous opportunities for Barbados to turn around its downward trajectory under the Stuart and Sickler combination. In going to the IMF, and against the background that public servants are still aggrieved after being denied any salary increase for about a decade, it is imperative that PM Mottley keeps channels of discourse open, mutually respectful, and geared towards the national interest.

The evidence is suggesting that PM Mottley is keen to be informative, transparent, and accountable to the social partners comprising the ‘Tri-Partite’ arrangements, and to the broader the society in which we are all stakeholders. The fact is, the maintenance of a good industrial relations climate is a pre-requisite to sustained economic growth and social stability which all seemed to have been eroded under Prime Minister’s Stuart pedantic resolve to be silent. One can expect that Prime Minister Mottley will put a premium on success and delivering positive results based on implemented policies. These policy avenues will also depend on the morale and motivation that ignites the public service to action, and which would demonstrate that efficiency can be achieved without massive layoffs as being courted by a former Governor of the Central Bank. Dr Delisle Worrell previously refused to speak to Barbadians via the media and he too was part of the advisory grouping leading Barbados’ demise.

This writer would advocate strongly for public reform that emphasizes the technological knowledge and computer literacy skills of all public officers. This is consistent with the Manifesto pledge of the BLP stating that: “To fast track this new economy, Government, the private sector and individuals will need to embrace the digital economy … [and] the BLP Government will lead this transformation.” Ultimately, the state of readiness for a transformed economy will depend on Barbados’ best resource – its human capital – and this invaluable resource must be put to the best use so that the country in its entirety will reap the rewards of a public service, for example, being rewarded based on merit, ability, and productivity.

Finally, it takes more than optics and physical presence to safeguard democracy in Barbados. President Franklin Roosevelt once said that: “Democracy cannot succeed unless those who express their choice are prepared to choose wisely. The real safeguard of democracy, therefore, is education.” In full agreement, I am more inclined to watch the choices made by Barbados’ newest Leader of the Opposition, than to rush in and sing praises for an action that in of itself appears contradictory. All Barbadians should give both the new Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition to make their marks in attempt to build the best Barbados. PM Mottley has repeated her thrust for maximizing on education investments while Bishop Joseph Atherley in the selection of his first Senator, appears willing ‘to rock the boat’. However, and given the state of national affairs, all Barbadians need to become strict guardians of our heritage. This can be achieved by ramping up the teaching of civics, and demanding that all our processes and institutions work despite any shortcomings in the personalities at play.

(Dr George C. Brathwaite is a part-time lecturer at the University of the West Indies, Cave Hill Campus, and a political consultant. Email: brathwaitegc@gmail.com )


Discover more from Barbados Underground

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

169 responses to “The George Brathwaite Column – PM Mottley’s Urgency and First Tests”


  1. Mariposa,
    There is not even a secondary bond market, so you are stuck

  2. Jeff Cumberbatch Avatar
    Jeff Cumberbatch

    @ David, John may have a point. As of now, there are 17 members only of the Senate -10 from government, 6 appointed by the GG and 1 appointed by the Leader of the Opposition. However, the Constitution requires the votes of ALL the members of the Senate to alter the entrenched provisions of the Constitution. See section 49 (4)

    …shall not be passed in either House unless at the final voting thereon in the House it is supported by the votes of a majority of all the members of the House.

    The recent addition of Mr Williams and Mr Bradshaw will bring that number to 19 only. Two more are required!


  3. CLICO repeat??

  4. Georgie Porgie Avatar
    Georgie Porgie

    re The twin(n)ing of these two fools in the daily BU comedy must remind one of the acerbic Mutt and the asinine Jeff.

    IS THIS ANOTHER WAY TO PRESENT MY AXIOM……….BARE MOCK SPORT IN DE RUM SHOP?


  5. All and Sundry would soon see the cascading negative effect of Mia decision to default on barbados debt.


  6. Miller…hopefully they never meet and procreate, just imagine the misshappen progeny that will result..lol

  7. de pedantic Dribbler Avatar
    de pedantic Dribbler

    @Jeff I am unclear.

    Has the word “majority’ been superceded by ‘all’ in the phrasing “of a majority of all the members of the House”?

  8. Jeff Cumberbatch Avatar
    Jeff Cumberbatch

    Has the word “majority’ been superceded by ‘all’ in the phrasing “of a majority of all the members of the House”?

    @DPD, a majority of ALL the members off the House is clearly to be distinguished from a majority of the members of the House present and voting.

    Hence Ms Mottley’s nomination of the two pro tempore Senators, but she cannot do anything about the other two.

    Remember the no- confidence motion against PM Sandiford and why it failed?


  9. @Jeff
    Yours @11.40am

    One of those picks is the GG’s and she has named her rep, the other is Atherley’s since Atherley hasn’t nominated anyone (as yet) can we say he is thwarting the will of the PM?


  10. Or perhaps he is taking the time to make a sound decision

  11. Jeff Cumberbatch Avatar
    Jeff Cumberbatch

    One of those picks is the GG’s and she has named her rep, the other is Atherley’s since Atherley hasn’t nominated anyone (as yet) can we say he is thwarting the will of the PM?

    @ Sarge, I was unaware that the GG had named an alternate. Who is it?


  12. One of those picks is the GG’s and she has named her rep, the other is Atherley’s since Atherley hasn’t nominated anyone (as yet) can we say he is thwarting the will of the PM?

    ++++++++++++++++++

    Maybe Reverend Joe has seen the light!!


  13. If ‘ALL the members of the house’ total ‘N’..
    Then a ‘majority of all the members of the house’ is N/2+1.
    A positive vote by N/2+1 therefore seems to satisfy the requirement.

    Further…
    If the number of members of the house at the time of the vote is M (where M is less than N)
    Then the ‘majority of all the members of the house” should be M/2+2

    BTW..
    Is a 2/3 majority not the required vote for a change in constitution?


  14. M/2+1

  15. NorthernObserver Avatar
    NorthernObserver

    Wha is dat…cawmere math? N/2+1 is N/3. N/2 + 1. Maffematical punctuation.


  16. @Jeff

    The GG named an Independent Senator who is temporarily unable to take up her post because she is with the Barbados mission in London, her name escapes me at the moment but I am sure that the Gov’t is making arrangements to have her return quam cellerime.


  17. If ‘ALL the members of the house’ total ‘N’..
    Then a ‘majority of all the members of the house’ is N/2+1.
    +++++++++++++++++++++++

    For your mathematical model to be rigorously correct you have to add the condition that N is an even number.

    Otherwise your mathematical model will give rise to half of a seat which contradicts reality!!

  18. NorthernObserver Avatar
    NorthernObserver

    The other unsworn senator is Margot Wiggins

  19. Jeff Cumberbatch Avatar
    Jeff Cumberbatch

    Here is the relevant section-

    (1) Subject to the provisions of this section, Parliament may, by an Act of Parliament passed by both Houses, alter this Constitution.
    (2) Subject to the provisions of subsection (3), a Bill for an Act of Parliament under this section that alters any of the following provisions, that is to say
    (a) this section and section 1; (b) Chapter II;
    (c) Chapter III;
    (d) sections 28, 32, 35 to 39, 41, 41A to 41E, 42, 48, 60(2), 61,62,63 and 76 to 79 (other than subsection (7) of section 79);
    (e) Chapter VII (other than section 83);
    v) Chapter VIII;
    <s) Chapter IX;
    (h) any provision of Chapter X in its application to any of the provisions specified in paragraphs (a) to (g>,
    shall not be passed in either House unless at the final voting thereon in the House it is supported by the votes of not less than two-thirds of all the members of the House.

  20. Jeff Cumberbatch Avatar
    Jeff Cumberbatch

    The other unsworn senator is Margot Wiggins

    So she is ineligible too? She would need to be replaced to constitute a full Senate…

  21. NorthernObserver Avatar
    NorthernObserver

    The circle….isn’t one of the temporary senators the same person whose medical absence was relevant in the Sandiford vote?

  22. NorthernObserver Avatar
    NorthernObserver

    In Math I defer to John, he is the Bds Scholar not I.

  23. Are-we-there-yet Avatar
    Are-we-there-yet

    Jeff Cumberbatch;

    You said above “@DPD, a majority of ALL the members off the House is clearly to be distinguished from a majority of the members of the House present and voting.”

    You also said earlier: “@ David, John may have a point. As of now, there are 17 members only of the Senate -10 from government, 6 appointed by the GG and 1 appointed by the Leader of the Opposition. However, the Constitution requires the votes of ALL the members of the Senate to alter the entrenched provisions of the Constitution. See section 49 (4)

    …shall not be passed in either House unless at the final voting thereon in the House it is supported by the votes of a majority of all the members of the House.

    The recent addition of Mr Williams and Mr Bradshaw will bring that number to 19 only. Two more are required!”

    My declining brain power can’t seem to unravel this.

    If the full membership of the senate is 21 the majority of its members would normally be 11. If 19 members are already constituted the majority of its members would not change and therefore should still be 11 not 10. Could not the Government amass 11 of these 19 members and therefore be able to pass the matter under consideration?

    Perhaps what is not clear to me, and perhaps some other non-lawyers who have not read the constitution, is the phrase above: ” However, the Constitution requires the votes of ALL the members of the Senate to alter the entrenched provisions of the Constitution.” . Could you clarify that it is actually saying that ALL members of the senate must Vote and therefore record their individual position if the vote would alter any of the entrenched provisions of the constitution and that “all” of itself sigifies that all members must vote and actually supercedes what is stated at paragraph 3 above which actually implies that 11 votes ( the simple majority of the 21 members of the house) still stands as such but does not count unless all members of a fully constituted senate vote?

    Should or does the constitution clarify this possible anomaly? should or does it also clarify what constitutes a quorum and under what conditions?

  24. Are-we-there-yet Avatar
    Are-we-there-yet

    David; Your assistance in freeing up my last submission, if I have not controvened and of the spam algorithmic conditions


  25. Jeff

    There is a fundamental principle the constitution enshrines.

    There must be an opposition in parliament that gets it standing from those voters who opposed the Government!!

    The actual mechanism of how it ensures this principle is unfolding before our very eyes.

    No opposition with standing in the house of assembly = no senate

    No senate = no parliament

    The reason is obvious and we see it expressed in this case in the 41,000 voters who have no voice in our country’s parliament.

    That is an untenable situation in country which boasts of one of the oldest parliaments in the Commonwealth.

    There is only one outcome.

    It gives me hope that it is becoming harder to fill the senate.

    Reverend Joe may just surprise us all and teach us a lesson that we need to learn.

    We have been conditioned by 52 years of two party politics.

    We have never seen a real parliamentary democracy at work and it is frightening to make the change now to one.

    We are who have to make it work and our problem is we scared of responsibility and terrified of victimization.

    God will provide, he always does.

    The sargassum weed will depart these shores and we need not fear devastating hurricanes … not that we won’t ever get hit by one … but God will provide.


  26. I thought it went like this, any person serving in the capacity of consul or in a mission of their country…is effectively serving…in their country…the mission/consulate is seen as the property and soil of that country..

    EG..US embassy in Wildey, is on US soil in Barbados…

    Don’t know if Barbados interprets it differently to other countries….lol

  27. Jeff Cumberbatch Avatar
    Jeff Cumberbatch

    37. Subject to the provisions of section 38, any person who at the date of his appointment-
    (a) is a citizen of Barbados of the age of twenty-one years or upwards; and
    (6) has been ordinarily resident in Barbados for the im- mediately preceding twelve months,
    shall be qualified to be appointed as a Senator

    @ WellWell, the Constitution requires ordinary residence…


  28. In the UK, a citizen out of the country working as a state employee ie a diplomat, is officially and legally a resident. We need to review this clause in our constitution.
    Diplomatic residence, high commissions and embassies, are legally part of the guest nation. The host nation cannot enter a diplomatic residence unless invited in by the guest nation.
    At Greenham Common, when the yanks got violent with British protestors, the British police had to stand by and watch. They were powerless to do anything as long as the incident took place within the gate ie on US property.

  29. Georgie Porgie Avatar
    Georgie Porgie

    HAL

    WID ALL RESPECT

    WHY MUST BE DO ANYTHING, OR EVERYTHING LIKE THE BRITS OR THE STUPID AMERICANS?
    WHY?


  30. Jeff…it appears Mia has also changed that..I do agree that bajans in the diaspora should not be exiled from participating in what goes on in the government….not being vigilant and accepting any old crap from politicians, ministers etc since 1966 has cost the population dearly..involving those in the diaspora will bring a semblance of balance..it would no longer be that easy to pull the wool over the eyes of a trusting majority population..

    besides, the constitution must start reflecting this current era…it’s critically important…

    http://www.nationnews.com/nationnews/news/164597/senate-meet-friday

    “They were not resident on the island for 12 consecutive months prior to their appointments.

    People who hold dual citizenship will also now be eligible.

    Adams, a financial analyst, is the son of former Prime Minister Tom Adams, while McConney is a consultant and former consul general to Canada.

    In tabling the motion, Mottley said the Constitution was framed in 1966 and it was time to make the changes so Barbados could “draw on our talent wherever it is found”.”


  31. Residence is a red herring.

    Reverend Joe and Caswell determine if there will be a parliament or not.

    Residence is a distraction!!

    Mia and the BLP are just waiting on Reverend Joe to mek up he mind!!

    If he decides to come clean, elections and a huge weight lifted off his mind.

    If not, night and fog!!

    Reverend Joe really got the short end of the stick and you can see it, he has fallen away bad bad.

    There is always a price to be paid if you choose to do the right thing.

    But it makes you feel so damn good, you are on cloud 9.


  32. Can you imagine any of those jokers trying to pull a fast one on me with my level of experience…ha…well they got bajans and other Caribbean people living in the diaspora with an even higher level of experience..

    … the days for lawyers robbing the vulnerable and abusing the elderly, the days for politicians and ministers s misusing their titles, lying to the population, defrauding the electorate, selling out the rights and possessions of the population, etc…are coming to an end.


  33. The same issue arises if there is a 15 15 tie and the two parties can’t agree and both want to be the Government.

    Government and the opposition will be indistinguishable.

    Perhaps the GG may have the power to break the tie but if there was no give in either party, then there would be no opposition so back to the polls.

    In reality however, that would never occur because the two parties are not distinguishable and they would reach a negotiated settlement for the good of each other.

    One member might switch and like Son Mitchell, could become PM.

    Now if there was the power of recall, the member who witched allegiance would be recalled and a by election would result, although I am not sure who would call it!!

    Perhaps that might create a 15/14 majority and BT’s mathematical model would apply.

    For me the only change to the constitution if it does not exist already would be to create the power of recall..

    That way, the people’s voice would always be present in parliament.

    The minus is that there might be no stability in Government and that is a big minus.


  34. Georgie Porgie,

    Two reasons: the Vienna Convention on diplomatic immunity; and, at the time of independence the British government gave Barbados a model constitution. What we have now is how it has been mutilated. If you want to see another example of this, see the Trinidad and Tobago constitution with is constitutional court.


  35. @ Jeff who wrote ” the Constitution requires ordinary residence ”

    Makes sense to me.

    There are hundreds of Bajans resident in Barbados who would make competent senators.

    However Adams is Bajan political ” royalty”. lol

    McConney is a very “accomplished” female and should be a good senator.

    http://www.barbadosintoronto.com/uploads/6/8/0/8/680878/kay_mcconneys_biography_april_2017.pdf

  36. Are-we-there-yet Avatar
    Are-we-there-yet

    Jeff Cumberbatch;
    I did not see your comments at 12:52 and the subsequent ones before I posted my enquiry at 1:11. That post seems to be in a semi permanent moderation phase and I would like to modify the questions I asked at that time, below.

    The full membership of the Senate is 21 members. Therefore a majority of ALL the members of the Senate is 11 and is clearly different from, let’s say, a majority of the members of the Senate. e.g. yesterday 17 members were present for the first meeting which clearly exceeded the required majority of 9 Senators.

    Similarly a 2/3rds majority of ALL the members of the Senate would be 15 and therefore 17 members present might actually be able to pass a motion that required 15 ayes.

    I think you or someone else had earlier stated that a quorum is only 8 members so presumably if all 17 members attended yesterday’s meeting it would have been legally OK. But would it have passed the conditions for achieving a 2/3 rds majority of ALL votes, i.e. 15 aye votes in a situation where you seemingly indicate that ALL the potential votes in the Senate must be present for counting?

    Is it legally required that ALL members be present for a constitutional vote to be taken; or for achieving a quorum; or for even passing a normal vote not requiring a 2/3 rds majority?

    Is this situation clearly taken care of in the Constitution itself or even the Interpretation Act?


  37. If the senate is short of 2 members how can the Senate meet on Friday and amend the constitution? Will those seen as knowledgeable in matters of the law make their concerns publicly known before Friday?


  38. The things you find when you go digging sorry googling.

    “The values and culture of Canada are very muck akin to that of the Caribbean,”. “I think this country has the right idea about how to exist as a global citizen at a country level as well as at individual level.

    I closely identify with the values of this country because of family ties here, I chose to stay here as well. I can’t think of another place other than my home country Barbados where I would rather be at at this particular point in time.

    Home is where your heart is and my heart is definitely here because of the values of this country and because of how it shows up in the world.”

  39. Disgusting Lies and Propaganda TV (formerly CBC TV and Radio) Avatar
    Disgusting Lies and Propaganda TV (formerly CBC TV and Radio)

    @John i think you need to reduce the cups of coffee or the red bulls you consume daily…you will bring your blood pressure to boiling point for no reason….There is always a solution for everything under the sun…it is if people have the will to do it…if there is a 15-15 tie at the polls as had ALMOST happened at the last elections….a solution will be found including going back to the polls…What you are highlighting is one of the deficiencies of a first past the poll system, in our system of government…..we will cross that bridge when we reach it
    Right now we have a massive economic problem that require all hands on deck…we also have brought to our attention some of the gross malfeasance from the DLP…they know they did wrong and are too shame..notice you hear very little from DEM….really and truly a forensic audit must take place and some of the wrong doers must either be exposed, pay back the money or locked to hell up. Any govt that knows what the DLP did and let them go scotch free CANNOT be taken seriously when it comes to transparency and accountability. The DEMS are CRIMINALS they should be exposed thoroughly!!!!!!

  40. charles skeete Avatar
    charles skeete

    Two comments
    I agree with the position of illegally appointed Leader of the Opposition with regardsim49@yahoo.com to amending the Constitution to accommodate appointments to the Senate in breach of the Constitution rather than from among the pool of resident talent available. Thus, I firmly believe that these constitutional breaches tarnished what would otherwise have been a seamless and exuberant transfer of transfer of power and secondly what difference is there in Jeff’s point from mine in his query about
    the passing of the amendment to accommodate the Non resident Senators without the MAJORITY Senators in place


  41. Is it legally required that ALL members be present for a constitutional vote to be taken;

    +++++++++++++++++++

    I don’t believe so.

    But before the Senate comes into being I believe there must be 21 members.

    After that, it can meet and conduct business once 8 or more are present.

    A quorum can’t ratify a change in the constitution if 2/3 of 21 is required.

    That is 14.

    A 2/3 majority is to be distinguished from a simple majority which would be 11.

    But my understanding is that before that point is reached, the senate needs to be properly constituted with 21 members.

    All 21 may not be able to attend a specific meeting thereafter, but they need to exist for the senate to exist.

    All opposition, Government and independent senators I believe must be in existence.

    I suspect they might not meet if an opposition member was indisposed as there are only 2.

    BT, you see how your model, even if properly punctuated, breaks down with the Senate, N/(2+1), sorry (N/2) +1 = 11.5 seats vs 11.

    BODMAS Rule


  42. Right now we have a massive economic problem that require all hands on deck

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++

    That’s the point, this present way keeps 41,000 out of the equation and assures discontent from the word go.

    It undermines the government.

    Mia and the BLP knows better … at least I hope so!!

    If not I hope Reverend Joe leads her to the light (small l) which is I believe, humbugging his head bad.


  43. Ping Pong
    June 6, 2018 4:52 PM

    If the senate is short of 2 members how can the Senate meet on Friday and amend the constitution? Will those seen as knowledgeable in matters of the law make their concerns publicly known before Friday?

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    I see it that way too.

    Yes, 17 will allow the 14 (2/3 of 21) to be present but will the Senate any force if the full 21 are not appointed.

    … and yes, 17 > 8 so a quorum will be present … but will the Senate even exist.

    Sounds like Friday will be a milestone and will determine if we are going down in flames!!

    I have hope, I saw bare blue at the Crane today suggesting the worst has passed.

    The weeds are moving and Miami Beach looks clear.

    The scales are being lifted from people’s eyes perhaps?

    I will continue to monitor as a Rasta up there told me a fellow told him there got a patch coming that is bigger than the whole of Barbados … whether that is just talk or not … time will tell.

    Perhaps it means Reverend Joe will be tested again one final time … the wiles of the devil!!

    Be strong Reverend Joe!!


  44. @ John
    For your mathematical model to be rigorously correct you have to add the condition that N is an even number.
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Wrong again John… Bushie don’t HAVE to do that…
    It could also be qualified by ‘Int.(N/2)+1 … LOL

    Look Boss, You are COMPLETELY wrong about this business of there needing to be a full senate in order for government to be legally established.
    If this was the case then any opposition leader could permanently frustrate government by simply not naming a full slate of opposition senators….. and there are many that would do exactly that….

    In fact, these various entities have the POWER to nominate a maximum number of senators …BUT if they decide NOT to do so, they that is their loss… business will go on without them.

    If even government is short of their maximum numbers – (because they choose to make silly “willy nilly” amendments to the constitution) then business goes on happily …and those who have been SWORN IN by the GG will constitute the ‘members of the Senate’ at the time.

    NOTHING could be simpler …and it is all in line with Roberts Rules…. as Jeff will soon emerge to admit… 🙂

    Anyway….
    What wunna people SHOULD be talking about is the upcoming BUDGET being prepared by the PM in the face of suddenly ‘discovering’ that we are even more deeply in debt than De Liar Worrell and the Stink Liar had been leading us to believe….(surprise surprise…)

    If wunna think that an intelligent woman like Mia don’t know what MUST be done in the circumstances… then wunna may be even more brassy than Bushie has concluded……


  45. ” Three members of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) community, have officially lodged a petition with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.”

    http://www.nationnews.com/nationnews/news/164701/lodge-petition-buggery-law


  46. @Georgie Porgie June 6, 2018 2:57 PM “HAL: WID ALL RESPECT. WHY MUST BE DO ANYTHING, OR EVERYTHING LIKE THE BRITS OR THE STUPID AMERICANS? WHY?”

    Actually it is not Hal, it is not the British, it is not the the Americans.

    It is the Vienna Convemtion on Diplomatic Relations:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_Convention_on_Diplomatic_Relations


  47. John. Where you get the notion that we will have to go back to the polls. That is a non issue.


  48. David. Why is my post stating I am new to BU and awaiting moderation.


  49. Did you send me an email with the said info?


The blogmaster invites you to join the discussion.

Trending

Discover more from Barbados Underground

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading