Will the Real Opposition Leader Please Stand Up?

grenville-phillips

Submitted by Grenville Phillips II, Leader of Solutions Barbados

After the BLP won all seats in Parliament, we were told that our Constitution is flawed. It is not that our Constitution did not anticipate all members of parliament sitting on the Government side with no Opposition. Rather, our Constitution does not allow it. Constitutionally, there must always be an Opposition in our Parliament.

To increase the protection of the public’s interests, our Constitution (section 74.1) makes it mandatory for the Governor General to appoint a Leader of the Opposition. If an opposition leader is not appointed, then the voters get to decide with another general election.

To avoid holding another general election, Mr Atherley decided to be the Opposition Leader. However, there are mandatory constitutional requirements that Mr Atherley must meet in order to qualify for that post.

Our Constitution (section 74.2) gives the Governor General strict instructions for appointing the Opposition Leader. There are only two options available to her. The first option is to appoint the person who “is best able to command the support of a majority of those members who do not support the Government”.

When the Governor General appointed Mr Atherley, he was a formal member of the BLP, who had sworn, on his sacred honour, that he would support the BLP’s policies. Moments after he was appointed, Mr Atherley confirmed that he did not oppose the BLP’s policies, but intended to ensure that the Government carried them out.

By his own admission, Mr Atherley disqualified himself from being appointed under the first option, which specifies that the post is for the leader of those “who do not support the Government”. However, even if he did not swear fealty to the BLP, Mr Atherley would still be disqualified under the first option. This is because the Constitution requires him to have “support” of other opposition parliamentarians, which he did not have.

The second option is to appoint the person who “commands the support of the largest single group of such members who are prepared to support one leader”.

Mr Atherley explained that he was only becoming Leader of the Opposition to satisfy the constitutional requirement that there be an Opposition Leader, and for no other reason. With the Bible on which he swore nearby, and with his family beside him, he promised the public of Barbados that he would not form a political party.

Mr Atherley was one individual, and not a leader of a group of parliamentarians. Therefore, this automatically disqualified him from the post under the second option, since a group is comprised of a minimum of two persons.

To force Mr Atherley’s appointment, some argued that since the Interpretation Act supports singular and plural being used interchangeably, his appointment was in order. Let us examine this assertion. The Interpretation Act (section 36.2) states: “words in the singular shall include the plural; and words in the plural shall include the singular.”

In the first option, Mr Atherley needed the support of other “members”. The Interpretation Act can only reduce this requirement to one other “member”, which Mr Atherley clearly did not have. In the second option, Mr Atherley needed the support of a “group”, which is already singular (the plural being “groups”). So the Interpretation Act cannot justify his appointment.

Since Mr Atherley is disqualified by both available constitutional options, then on what basis did the Governor General appoint him? We are told not to ask such questions. Instead, we are supposed to shut up, accept the farce, and believe the absurd idea that only in Barbados, the singular of “group” is “individual”.

If our Constitution can be broken (not bent) so easily, without any recourse, then our Constitution offers us no protection whatsoever. This establishes an extremely dangerous precedent, that is foreseen to be also abused by any other political administration. The members of the Barbados Bar Association, who believe this to be a farce, are doing our country a grave disservice with their silence.

Instead of trying to solve a non-existent constitutional crisis, the Governor General should have informed Mr Atherley that he did not qualify. To avoid another general election, Mr Atherley could have resigned from the BLP, and encouraged one other Member of Parliament to join him (the PM would likely have allowed it). Only then could he qualify for the post of Opposition Leader. Our Constitution simply does not allow him to qualify by himself, and the Governor General should have known that.

Since we cannot have a Parliament without an Opposition Leader, and since Mr Atherley’s appointment appears to seriously violate our Constitution, is Parliament, as currently constituted, rogue? If so, then we may now have a constitutional crisis.

Grenville Phillips II is a Chartered Structural Engineer and President of Solutions Barbados. He can be reached at NextParty246@gmail.com

118 comments

  • Vincent Codrington

    @ Grenville II

    We have had this discussion on this blog before, . Why are you raising this issue that has already been thrashed out by those with a deeper understanding of constitutions and constitutional law..?

    Like

  • @ Vincent

    Junior reveals more of his authoritarian personality than he thinks. He is a management theorist (ISO9001), an economist, constitutional lawyer, his passive/aggressive behaviour, his micro-aggressions, his intolerance of opposing views, his obsession with setting the agenda (do you notice that he only debates his posts?) and, following Dorian the blurring of his excellent advice on storm safety as a structural engineer and his politics.
    He is the only person I have called a liar on BU – a person who makes a statement deliberate to deceive, as he did about members of his protest group being afraid to reveal their names, then denied he said that, then gave an interview to Barbados Today confirming the same.
    Who are the officers of Solutions?

    Like

  • Q Who are the officers of Solutions?
    A Freedom crier is main apologist and attack dog on BU

    Like

  • Grenville,
    I have been following this issue with an open mind, and based on your article above, I now fully understand what John has been repeatedly trying to drum in our ears.

    To make a long story short, John has been stressing that we need a minimum of 3 members opposing the government in the Lower House to create a legitimate parliament (both Lower and Upper House). If you do not have a legitimate opposition in the Lower House, you cannot have legitimate opposition senators in the Upper House. Therefore, you do not have a legitimate parliament. Laws passed by an “illegitimate” parliament cannot be legitimate.

    Since we have already had the experience of 2 opposition members sitting in the Lower House before (1999-2003), I suggest we solve the current problem by adding another member to the opposition bench.

    His Honour Gline Clarke, MP is apparently not needed by the government at the moment. He can be tossed in with Atherley so that the constitutional bickering can stop, and so that “political play” can continue. That would be enough to satisfy me.

    However, if we want to satisfy John and keep all critics crying “constitutional foul” silent, we can add Her Honour Dr. Sonia Browne to the opposition benches until 2023. We would all know that these members are only “play play” opposition members “mekking mock sport” but the requirements of the constitution would have been satisfied. We do not need these to be 3 members of a political party, because parliament does not recognize political parties . We just need the 3 of them to identify collectively as a “group”.

    Problem solved. Constitutional crisis averted. National financial, economic, and social problems still remain to be tackled.

    Like

  • Vincent:

    This was in the queue for a while. That part of it was discussed on BU is coincidental. Please note that BU is not the only place where our articles are published.

    In addition, this has been concluded by constitutional lawyers who directed persons to the wrong sections of the Interpretation act, perhaps assuming that no one would read it. Well, we did and it does not support their arguments.

    Hal:

    The only confirmed liar on this forum is you. Your baseless accusations about me are ALWAYS wrong, without exception. You spend your time on BU trying to pull down others, especially those you think are way more accomplished than yourself.

    You keep being dismissive of my qualifications – even disparaging them. You keep telling me not to inform the public that I am a Chartered Structural Engineer. You seem bitter that we, in little Barbados, do not have to travel to the UK to become Chartered and obtain an international qualification.

    You need to grow up Hal? Your school-boy intimidation methods do not work with me. You had a distinguished career with the FT, and should be an elder on this site. Instead, you squander your influence and damage your legacy with hate. That is a bad road to travel, and those who have gone before you can tell you that it never ends well.

    Liked by 1 person

  • Walter:

    It would appear that once you use the Interpretation Act to convert plural entities to singular, then the minimum number of Parliamentarians needed to form an Opposition is 2, not 3. Mr Atherley simply needed to identify one more Member of Parliament to join him.

    Like

  • From what I am reading, we seem to have a banana republic. In my stupidity , I really thought we had a legitimate opposition.
    Am I to believe that the Governor General does not understand the constitution?
    Am I to believe that Atherley, his staff and the two opposition senators , are taking money from the taxpayers under false pretenses ?
    Are all the constitution authorities asleep?
    @ Walter
    Why would two government members of parliament cross the floor just to make an opposition?

    Liked by 1 person

  • William:

    If we do not have a legitimate Opposition, then we automatically have an illegitimate Parliament.

    The simple solution was for another Member of Parliament (MP) to joint Mr Atherley.

    If no one would join him, then two MPs could have formed the official Opposition.

    If two MPs were unwilling, then the voters would need to participate in another General Election.

    Like

  • William Skinner
    November 12, 2019 11:27 PM

    “@ Walter
    Why would two government members of parliament cross the floor just to make an opposition?”

    William Skinner
    From years of studying mathematics, I know that in order to prove mathematical laws, you have to test the “end points”. The “end points” are invariably the extreme results.

    The 2018 general election results in Barbados were extreme, and they amounted to an “end point”. The constitution calls for an opposition. I did not draft it. Neither did you. We all have to abide by and respect the constitution. Parliament is not legally constituted without an opposition, and since the electorate did not vote for one, one had to be artificially created.

    Grenville and John have argued that, despite the fact that we have so many lawyers in parliament, they failed to artificially create an opposition that met the constitutional requirements. Therefore, to carry John’s and Grenville’s argument to its logical conclusion, the Lower House is not legally constituted.

    Jeff Cumberbatch has already argued that when the constitution was amended after May 2018, the Upper House was not legally constituted.

    I have received no training in law (I have spent decades studying lawlessness, but there is no certification in that area) but after following the arguments, I am willing to believe that we have a constitutional crisis on our hands.

    For starters, how do we make those post-May 2018 constitutional amendments legal?

    Like

  • @ Grenville

    Why are we making this argument(s)
    sixteen months after the election.
    Sorry but this seems a colossal non argument to me.
    Seems we can’t get anything right the first time in this place!

    Liked by 1 person

  • @ Walter
    My position remains. If we are talking about creating an “ artificial” opposition , what does that mean. We either have an opposition or we don’t.
    Why did the government not oppose the GG appointing Atherley as the opposition leader?
    According to what I am reading here, we seem to be agreeing with Hal that we have a failed state. If parliament our majority institution is operating unconstitutionally, we are certainly on our way to a failed state. Even the judicial appointments can therefore be deemed bogus.
    Failed state or banana republic ?

    Liked by 1 person

  • Can’t you people sleep? What is keeping you up? Will share with you all at a later date what’s keeping me up. Today my son and I took a guided tour around the island. I had forgotten that it really is beautiful and interesting. Saw plenty of garbage even in the tourists areas, though.

    But on a day when I was reacquainted with the best of Barbados, I was also confronted with the worst.

    And it was dressed in the uniform of the Royal Barbados Police Force.

    I have lost all respect for the police. They are a big part of what ails Barbados.

    Like

  • @WB
    Jeff Cumberbatch has already argued that when the constitution was amended after May 2018, the Upper House was not legally constituted.
    ++++++++++++++
    We have never had the kind of legal agitators or private citizens that would take a Gov’t to Court to challenge the legality of a constitutional amendment so we have to live with the results. In any event taking a Gov’t to Court would require deep pockets and time, even if one wins it may end up being a Catch 22 situation.

    Liked by 1 person

  • The possibility of one party winning all sets exists so it must have happened somewhere in the world where a PARLIAMENTARY DEMOCRACY exists or atleast is supposed to exist.

    So, google it to see where and when!!

    No rocket science in this.

    You will find it has happened in two countries besides Grenada and Barbados.

    Canada and Singapore.

    So, what has been done in those countries to avoid another election?

    Like

  • We have never had the kind of legal agitators or private citizens that would take a Gov’t to Court to challenge the legality of a constitutional amendment so we have to live with the results.

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

    The GOB has been taken to court in the past and significant sums have been awarded.

    Who paid Al Barrak … was it $84 million?

    On paper, Greenland (Scotland District Association vs AG et al) was a defeat.

    It was lost at first instance, the AG asked for security for costs before it could be appealed and that legal tactic ended the matter!!

    Still, 25 years on, no garbage has been delivered to Greenland.

    The GOB effectively lost $50 million in trying to exploit its “victory”.

    Like

  • Sargeant
    November 13, 2019 2:05 AM

    @WB
    Jeff Cumberbatch has already argued that when the constitution was amended after May 2018, the Upper House was not legally constituted.

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

    He is now a judge.

    What does the amendment actually say?

    Like

  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1935_Prince_Edward_Island_general_election

    The 1935 Prince Edward Island general election was held in the Canadian Province of Prince Edward Island on 23 July 1935.[1] The Liberal party swept the board by winning every seat in every constituency. This was the first time in the British Commonwealth that a government would face no opposition in an elected chamber.[2] To date, this feat has only been accomplished one other time in Canadian history, the 1987 New Brunswick election.

    The Liberal Party, under Lea, won all 30 seats in the House of Assembly, a feat that had never been accomplished before in the Commonwealth. News media across the Commonwealth broadcast the story. When faced with this unusual institutional setup, Lea had several members of his own party act as members of the opposition, as an actual opposition party did not exist within the legislature.[3] This step was also used in the New Brunswick Legislative Assembly after the 1987 election, in which the New Brunswick Liberal Party won all 58 seats in the Legislative Assembly.

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

    What other Parliament in the Commonwealth has 30 seats?

    Like

  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1987_New_Brunswick_general_election

    The 1987 New Brunswick general election was held on October 13, 1987, to elect 58 members to the 51st New Brunswick Legislative Assembly, the governing house of the province of New Brunswick, Canada. The Liberal Party won power for the first time since 1967. They did so in an unheard-of landslide, winning all 58 seats in the legislature. This feat was only accomplished one other time in Canadian history, in the 1935 Prince Edward Island election.

    Background
    The popularity of Richard Hatfield, who had served as a popular premier from 1970 through the 1982 election, fell due to scandals in his last term. In 1984, during an official visit to New Brunswick by Queen Elizabeth II, Royal Canadian Mounted Police officers found marijuana in Hatfield’s luggage. Hatfield was later acquitted of marijuana possession charges. As reported by the media, Hatfield was also alleged to have hosted parties with young men where illegal drugs were used.[1] He was criticized by opposition parties and by the media for extravagant use of the government plane, which he used to travel to New York City where he visited night clubs, earning him the nickname “Disco Dick”.[2]
    In 1985, three Saint John-area Progressive Conservative members of the legislature (MLAs) challenged Hatfield’s leadership and led a brief caucus revolt after the Liberals won two by-elections in previously Tory seats, but Hatfield led the party through a fifth election.

    Campaign
    Hoping to boost his popularity enough to avoid defeat, Hatfield delayed calling the election as long as possible. It was finally held on October 13, 1987, five years and a day since the last election—the longest allowed by the Constitution of Canada. The Tories lost all of their seats, and Hatfield himself lost his own seat to Liberal challenger Allison DeLong by a staggering 19 points. Taking full responsibility for the defeat, he announced his resignation the night of the election while being interviewed by media outside of his Hartland home. Tory supporters had crowded into Hatfield’s home, but abandoned him early in the evening as the returns began to come in.
    Frank McKenna’s Liberals were virtually assured victory from day one, thanks to Hatfield’s scandals. However, they ran a very successful campaign that enabled them to garner an unprecedented clean sweep of the legislature. The New Democrats also suffered a moral defeat, losing their one seat—something they had won for the first time in 1982.

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

    Looks like marijuana caused the result!!

    Like

  • … and the idiot PM delayed the election!!

    So between marijuana and an idiot PM, the “impossible” happened.

    Which one do you think had the biggest impact, marijuana or the idiot PM?

    Like

  • When is our referendum on marijuana due?

    Like

  • “Can’t you people sleep? What is keeping you up? ”

    Lol..

    “So between marijuana and an idiot PM, the “impossible” happened.

    Which one do you think had the biggest impact, marijuana or the idiot PM?”

    As long as they have come to their fake christian understanding the whole lot of them….that the blood everyone is smelling in the water…is THEIR OWN…and they can take that comment to any of their offshore banks…

    Liked by 1 person

  • Hal:

    The only confirmed liar on this forum is you. Your baseless accusations about me are ALWAYS wrong, without exception. You spend your time on BU trying to pull down others, especially those you think are way more accomplished than yourself.

    You keep being dismissive of my qualifications – even disparaging them. You keep telling me not to inform the public that I am a Chartered Structural Engineer. You seem bitter that we, in little Barbados, do not have to travel to the UK to become Chartered and obtain an international qualification.

    You need to grow up Hal? Your school-boy intimidation methods do not work with me. You had a distinguished career with the FT, and should be an elder on this site. Instead, you squander your influence and damage your legacy with hate. That is a bad road to travel, and those who have gone before you can tell you it never ends well. (QUOTE)

    @nextparty246

    I’ll borrow a few phrases from the goodly gentleman to describe your post.

    Spot on!!! You are correct. Don’t mind the background noises. Keep digging.

    Like

  • https://www.nationnews.com/nationnews/news/242659/ftc-bwa-pay

    Off topic but….. so many reversals lately. SMH. Can’t we ever get it right on the first attempt????????? I guess I should be grateful that reversals are being made and wrongs are being righted.

    GP is correct – pressure does bust pipe!

    Barbadians take note. Get up stand up! Stand up for your rights!

    One small step for the sheeple. One giant leap for the people.

    Like

  • I think if you follow BU you will notice that there are certain ideas or topics that reoccur (often).

    I can remember seeing comments from 2011, and the topics and comments are just as relevant today. Let’s not bag and tag any part of the discussion,.

    Junior, as some refer to him, therefore, is no exception to any rule.

    To quote one fellow here “Don’t mind the background noises. Keep digging.” You are not going to win the hearts of all, but I am confident you will win a few.

    Keep digging, my friend

    Like

  • re To quote one fellow here “Don’t mind the background noises. Keep digging.” You are not going to win the hearts of all, but I am confident you will win a few.

    Keep digging, my friend

    YEA KEEP DIGGING AND PICKING WILTS & NITS
    BUT WHEN WILL SOLUTIONS BARBADOS PRESENT ANY REAL SOLUTIONS FOR BARBADOS?
    DOES SOLUTIONS BARBADOS REALLY HAVE ANY REAL SOLUTIONS FOR BARBADOS?

    JUST ASKING PATRIOTICALLY AND PERSISTENTLY AND WILL BE DOING SO PERENNIALLY

    Liked by 1 person

  • Had an eye-opening event this week. I was reduced to a state on associates with very old and feeble through a bacterial infection,

    I was surprised. One moment I was master of the universe, the next moment trying to figure out what was happening to me,

    For those of you with diabetes, pay attention to your diet, to exercising and to cleanliness. What worked yesterday may have to be adjusted for today. Your diabetes can be under control, but it finds another way to impact on your daily living. Be vigilant with this disease.

    Have a great day Barbados. Pay attention to you politics and economy, but keep your health and your children on the front burner,
    Have a great day Barbados,

    Liked by 1 person

  • @GP

    You continue to act puerile when it comes to Grenville. No wonder the young people going in a different direction. Lift the Rh bar.

    Liked by 1 person

  • ONLOOKERS

    SEE THE POT CALLING THE KETTLE BLACK WHEN MR SOLUTIONS BARBADOS WITH NO REAL SOLUTIONS FOR BARBADOS EXCORIATES HAL FOR BEING dismissive of HIS qualifications –ANN even disparaging them.
    :
    BUT MR SOLUTIONS WITH NO REAL SOLUTIONS HAS DONE THE VERY SAME TO OTHERS

    HEAR HIM AGAIN AS HE CONTINUES HIS RANT AND RAGE AGAINST HAL

    You need to grow up Hal? Your school-boy intimidation methods do not work with me. You had a distinguished career with the FT, and should be an elder on this site. Instead, you squander your influence and damage your legacy with hate. That is a bad road to travel, and those who have gone before you can tell you that it never ends well.

    ONCE YOU DONT AGREE WITH MR SOLUTIONS BARBADOS WITH NO REAL SOLUTIONS FOR BARBADOS YOU ARE A HATER AND NEED TO GROW UP AND YOU ARE USING school-boy intimidation methods AGAINST HIM

    INSTEAD OF PRESENTING REAL SOLUTIONS FOR BARBADOS, MR SOLUTIONS BARBADOS WITH NO REAL SOLUTIONS FOR BARBADOS CAN BE COUNTED UPON TO FLY INTO A RAGE AND RANT IN RESPONSE TO ANYTHING SAID ABOUT HIM THAT HE DEEMS UNSAVOURY

    HE WILL EVEN UNSUCCESSFULLY MIS-QUOTE MIS-INTERPRET AND MIS-APPLY BIBLE PASSAGES IN THE ATTEMPT TO BLAME AND SHAME FOLK AS DREADFUL SINNERS FOR THEIR SIMPLE HONEST OBSERVATION AND PERCEPTION THAT HE, MR SOLUTIONS BARBADOS REALLY INDEED HAS NO REAL SOLUTIONS FOR BARBADOS. UH LIE

    I AM SPEAKING WITHOUT MALICE AS A POLITE PATRIOT OF MY NATIVE LAND

    Liked by 1 person

  • RE You continue to act puerile when it comes to Grenville. No wonder the young people going in a different direction. Lift the Rh bar.

    NOT SO AT ALL
    I AM JUST TELLING THE TRUTH SIR

    RE No wonder the young people going in a different direction. Lift the Rh bar.

    THIS IS A VERY OBVIOUS NON SEQUITUR SIR. THE DIRECTION OF THE YOUTH TODAY HAS NOT ONE IOTA TO DO WITH MY CONSTANT SINCERE, HONEST PRONOUNCEMENTS THAT SOLUTIONS BARBADOS HAS NOT YET PRESENTED ANY REAL SOLUTIONS OF MERIT FOR BARBADOS

    Liked by 1 person

  • RE Your diabetes can be under control, but it finds another way to impact on your daily living. Be vigilant with this disease.

    DIABETES CAN NOT FIND WAYS TO IMPACT ON YOUR DAILY LIVING IF YOU HAVE IT UNDER CONTROL

    WHAT IS TRUE IS THAT

    1 DIABETES WILL MAKE ANY DISEASE YOU HAVE WORSE
    2 ANY DISEASE YOU HAVE WORSE WILL MAKE DIABETES WORSE

    ATTEND TO ALL SCRAPES AND BRUISES IMMEDIATELY AND EXTENSIVELY
    BE EXTREMELY CAREFUL WITH LEGS AND FEET ESPECIALLY, DUE TO LACK OF FEELING DUE TO PERIPHERAL NEUROPATHY AND DIMINSHED CIRCULATION

    Liked by 1 person

  • You have shared your opinion, move on. More Barbadians can do like him to offer public service. We may not agree with Grenville with every opinion he shares but he must be applauded for stepping out of his comfort level to try to make a difference.

    Make a difference or retreat to crabs in a barrel, something Black people have perfected:

    Like

  • SINCE ANY DISEASE YOU HAVE WILL MAKE DIABETES WORSE, ONE MUST WORK AS KEENLY TO HANDLE THOSE DISEASES AS YOU MUST WORK TO CONTROL YOUR DIABETES

    STRESS WILL MAKE YOUR DIABETES WORSE BY CAUSING RELEASE OF GLUCOCORTICOIDS FROM THE ADRENAL GLANDS WHICH WILL RELEASE SUGAR (I,E GLUCOSE) INTO YOUR BLOOD STREAM

    ONE IMAGINES THAT THIS IS CURRENTLY THE MAJOR CAUSE OF DEATH IN BARBADOS SINCE 2008, AND THAT IT WILL GET WORSE UNDER THE PRESENT GOVERNMENT

    Liked by 1 person

  • RE More Barbadians can do like him to offer public service. We may not agree with Grenville with every opinion he shares but he must be applauded for stepping out of his comfort level to try to make a difference.

    THAT IS THE MAJOR PROBLEM IN CONTEMPORARY BARBADOS AND THE CONTEMPORARY WORLD—-WE APPLAUD MEDIOCRITY

    ONCE YOU TRY, EVERYONE IS EXPECTED TO CLAP
    JUST TRY AND YOU GET A TROPHY FOR PARTICIPATION
    YOU DONT HAVE TO MEET ANY STANDARDS

    RE Make a difference or retreat to crabs in a barrel, something Black people have perfected:

    PLEASE KINDLY NOTE THAT I MADE A BIG DIFFERENCE WHEN I HAD THE OPPORTUNITY

    PLEASE KINDLY NOTE THAT WITHOUT EVEN TRYING, I JUST ATTEMPTED TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE WITH MY RESPONSES TO THEO ON DIABETES. uh lie?

    Liked by 1 person

  • William Skinner
    November 13, 2019 12:47 AM

    “@ Walter
    My position remains. If we are talking about creating an “ artificial” opposition , what does that mean. We either have an opposition or we don’t.
    Why did the government not oppose the GG appointing Atherley as the opposition leader?”

    William Skinner,
    I will repeat. The electorate did not vote for a parliamentary opposition. One is needed, so one had to be created. The “government” won all of the seats in the Lower House, so the “government” had to create an “opposition” out of itself. Therein lies the artificiality.
    The unprecedented situation (in Barbados) called for the Government and the GG working together, not opposing each other, so I am a little hard pressed in trying to understand why you are questioning government’s refusal to oppose the GG.

    Ostensibly out of frustration, annoyance, or exasperation, you asked aloud why we (collectively as a people) couldn’t get this right the first time.
    Have you ever watched a boxer take a punch, and then some seconds later, observed how his knees buckled? It is referred to as “a delayed reaction”. Whenever and wherever people are “asleep”, politicians take advantage of them. That is one of the fundamental laws of the universe. On this issue, we are now waking up. Better late than never.

    Out of a population of 300,000 people, one lawyer (Jeff Cumberbatch) and two other persons (John and Grenville) have brought us to this point of understanding. A light bulb ought to go on in all of our heads (an epiphany) and inspire us to get on the same page to demand that this constitutional problem be fixed.

    Instead of doing that, Vince Codrington summed up the attitude that we as a people tend to display in these matters:

    Vincent Codrington
    November 12, 2019 6:46 PM
    “@ Grenville II
    We have had this discussion on this blog before, . Why are you raising this issue that has already been thrashed out by those with a deeper understanding of constitutions and constitutional law..?”

    Three individual Barbadians are demonstrating to us, albeit belatedly (looking through your eyes), that “those with a deeper understanding of constitutions and constitutional law” ain’t worth what Paddy shot at.

    Like

  • LET ME CONTINUE HERE TO TRY TO MAKE A REAL DIFFERENCE AND OFFER A FEW REAL SOLUTIONS

    Diabetes is a disease that can have far-reaching health consequences that go beyond just your blood sugar levels. If you or a loved one has diabetes, even if it’s well-controlled, you need to be aware of possible complications, including kidney disease and heart disease.

    Infection is a real concern. Living with diabetes puts you at greater risk of infection, including skin and respiratory infections.

    High blood sugar weakens your immune system, leaving you a wide-open target for infectious bacteria. And ironically, once you get an infection, that same weak immune system means it takes a long time for it to heal. Hospitalizations could be longer than normal.

    If you or a loved one live with diabetes, you must be vigilant about more than your blood sugar. You must know the signs of infection, and catch them early so that treatment can take place before a minor infection turns deadly.

    3 types of infection to watch for

    Flu and pneumonia. Persons with elevated blood sugar can be more severely affected by common infections, like influenza and pneumonia.

    Research has shown that high blood sugar levels release destructive molecules known as dicarbonyls that interfere with the body’s natural infection-control defenses.

    Most people can easily catch the flu from being around someone who has it, or pneumonia the same way (through exposure to the Streptococcus pneumoniae bacterium). You can bet that someone with diabetes will be the first to catch it.

    If you have a fever, sneezing, runny nose or cough, don’t dismiss it. See your doctor right away. Get your vitamin D levels while you’re there. Vitamin D is vital to a healthy immune response and a deficiency can make diabetes four times as dangerous.

    Yeast and urinary tract infections. High blood sugar encourages the growth of Candida Albicans, the species of yeast that, if left unchecked, causes yeast infections.

    These yeast cells are more likely to grow in the mucous membranes of people with diabetes, most often in the vagina, but also in the mouth and nose. They interfere with the infection-fighting action of white blood cells, which allows them to replicate without interference, causing yeast infections.

    A vaginal yeast infection is intensely uncomfortable, causing irritation, discharge, and extreme itchiness. If symptoms aren’t relieved by over-the-counter creams or suppositories, or if you develop other symptoms like fever, it’s time to see your doctor.

    Diabetic neuropathy. People with diabetes are quite prone to nerve damage in the feet, which causes a lack of sensation. It makes it difficult to walk safely since you can’t really feel the ground under your feet.

    This same lack of sensation sometimes means that foot injuries go unnoticed and untreated. Also, some types of neuropathy can cause dry, cracked skin, which offers a convenient entry point for germs and infection to get into the body.

    If you supplement, try alpha-lipoic acid to strengthen your defenses. In Germany, it’s used intravenously for patients with neuropathy with success.

    Fortunately, there are precautions you can take that can greatly reduce the likelihood of your contracting these infections.

    Here are a few everyday preventive measures recommended for people with diabetes.

    You can reduce the risk of urinary tract infections, by drinking plenty of water to dilute your urine and ensure you void your bladder frequently. This helps flush bacteria from the urinary tract (an especially helpful habit following sex). Also drinking cranberry juice has been shown to help decrease UTIs.

    Finally, people with diabetes need to practice excellent foot care. This means inspecting them closely in the morning and at bedtime. Without sensation, injuries and foreign objects can easily go unnoticed.

    Be sure to wear socks and shoes that fit well and don’t irritate the feet. Again, blisters an irritations can easily progress to infection before they are noticed.

    HOPE THAT THESE REAL SOLUTIONS WILL MAKE A DIFFERENCE

    Liked by 1 person

  • Vincent Codrington

    @ David BU at 8 :20 AM

    You keyboarded : “crabs in a barrel,something Black people have perfected”. Well at least we good at something. Crawling out of a barrel, especially when it is perpendicular, is a worthy achievement, is that not so? Lol! Wuh loss !!

    Like

  • ACTUALLY VINCENT HE DID NOT SAY “Crawling out of a barrel,”

    THE CONCEPT OF ““crabs in a barrel” REFERS TO THE PHENOMENON OF CRABS PREVENTING OTHER CRABS FROM ESCAPING FROM A BARREL.

    THE CONCEPT OF ““crabs in a barrel” IS NOT A PRAISEWORTHY ONE FOR BLACK PEOPLE, WHO ARE NOTED FOR THIS PRACTICE

    PERHAPS IF YOU IN YOUR BOY DAYS HAD GONE CRABBING ON RAINY NIGHTS, AND STORED YOUR CATCH IN A DRUM, YOU MIGHT HAVE OBSERVED THE PHENOMENON REFERRED TO FIRST HAND.

    Like

  • @ Walter
    I was of the impression that we hold elections to elect a government. I did not know that elections were held to elect an opposition.
    I always understood that after the winner is declared whoever has the support of the minority of seats FORMS the opposition. Forming and electing are not synonymous.
    The government never created the current opposition and quite frankly if Atherley did not form one , we would have had none and it could not be created outside of elected parliamentarians.
    It cannot be successfully argued that the PM and GG formed or created the current opposition regardless of what any learned jurist states.
    Atherley singlehandedly formed the current opposition when he decided to no longer sit as a government member of parliament.
    To state that the citizens did not elect an opposition is therefore a classic non sequitur.
    BTW not having an opposition does not in itself create a constitutional crisis.

    Like

  • Vincent Codrington

    @ GP

    Thanks for the information on Diabetes and Ease of of Infections by opportunistic diseases. It is most enlightening and would be helpful in reducing the incidence of amputations in Barbados. Such information needs to be published more widely.

    Like

  • TheO:

    GP has provided useful advice on foot care for diabetics, and I thank him. You may invest in shoes specifically designed for diabetics if you have not already done so. A link follows your your consideration.

    http://diabeticsneuropathy.com/

    Jesus told his followers to follow Him in healing the sick. So I follow Jesus in saying to you TheOgazerts: be healed of this condition, completely and entirely, in the name of Jesus, Yeshua, the Messiah.

    May your strength return and exceed that normal for your age, may your eyes not be dim, your memory not fade, and your wisdom increase all of your days. May your words bear fruit for the hearers, whether a word of correction to the wayward or a word of encouragement to the despondent.

    May you place your trusting hand in the unfailing Hand of the God of our fathers, the Almighty Creator, the Father of our Lord Jesus, our Heavenly Father. Be Blessed this day and always TheO.

    Like

  • William:

    An active parliament without a constitutionally appointed Leader of the Opposition is a constitutional crisis. The post of Leader of the Opposition in our parliament is not optional, but mandatory.

    Like

  • Vincent Codrington

    @ William Skinner at 9 :00 AM

    Brilliant. Exactly my position from day one.
    I think that commenters forget that the primary purpose of elections, in our system of Government, is to elect a government.
    The opposition is secondary and of minor importance. All parties had an opportunity to argue their cases before the Electorate, The Electorate made a choice of that party which is more likely to achieve their aspirations.

    The Electorate did not empower the GoB to select an opposition or leader of an opposition. That discretion lies with the GG. To question the GG’s decision is unconstitutional.
    @ Walter
    @ John
    @ Grenville II

    The branch of mathematics you are relying on is wrong.Please consult Numerical Analysis with bounds. The constitution set the bounds/ boundaries. If you start wrong ,you end wrong.

    Like

  • William Skinner
    November 13, 2019 9:00 AM

    “@ Walter
    I was of the impression that we hold elections to elect a government. I did not know that elections were held to elect an opposition.”

    William Skinner
    I will repeat myself again. Our constitution demands an opposition for parliament to be legally constituted. It spells out the requirements that must be satisfied to appoint a leader of the opposition. I suggest you think about that for just one minute after you have read Grenville’s article.

    I leave impressions to artists and dental technicians. I am neither.

    Conclusively, it seems that we are looking at this issue from two divergent perspectives. There is nothing wrong with that.

    Like

  • de pedantic Dribbler

    NO!

    This entire discourse is counter initiative on base merits.

    The Parliament cannot be illegitimate if the entire nation has continued to act on its proclamations … I believe that is as straight forward and obvious as the nose on our face.

    1.How would we recover from the so called illegitimacy proclaimed here?

    Would anyone or anything sanctioned under this Parliament be null and void … How is Stark reality would that work? It couldn’t !

    For example, re the former Dean and our legal public advocate here … wouldnt it be tantamount to the biggest nonsense that he is now a judge appointed by the same illegitimate Parliament you all speak. (BTW as I recall he validated by his legal opinion that the action was legitimate).

    So let’s get real:
    1.The Electorate spoke and the officials so elected cut and contrived a process to facilitate the functioning of the national parliament …

    2.The constitution has been affirmed in so far as the very same elected citizens have determined so by their legislative actions.

    3.Thus UNLESS and UNTIL the matter is tested all the way to the CCJ (and ANY justice appointed under this regime would HAVE to recuse at first instance) then this discourse is DEFINITELY no more than a lovely moot but as the man said it’s otherwise “…a colossal non argument.”

    Liked by 1 person

  • de pedantic Dribbler

    Correction… ‘How in stark reality would that work…’

    Liked by 1 person

  • @ Grenville

    Pray tell : How can Atherley be removed ?

    Liked by 1 person

  • @ Junior 10.58

    Hal:
    The only confirmed liar on this forum is you. Your baseless accusations about me are ALWAYS wrong, without exception. You spend your time on BU trying to pull down others, especially those you think are way more accomplished than yourself.
    You keep being dismissive of my qualifications – even disparaging them. You keep telling me not to inform the public that I am a Chartered Structural Engineer. You seem bitter that we, in little Barbados, do not have to travel to the UK to become Chartered and obtain an international qualification.
    You need to grow up Hal? Your school-boy intimidation methods do not work with me. You had a distinguished career with the FT, and should be an elder on this site. Instead, you squander your influence and damage your legacy with hate. That is a bad road to travel, and those who have gone before you can tell you that it never ends well.(Quote)

    Here you go again with your passive/aggressive, micro-aggressive behaviour. Your modus operandi is fabrication. It is part of the image of yourself you want BU and the wider Bajan public to see. You are a fraud. What baseless accusations have I made about you, apart from your lying? Name a single one, about yo or any other person on BU.
    Forget about others, name a single occasion when I tried to pull you down, apart from calling out your duplicity, such a the bogus excuse you have given for being the sole spokesperson for Solutions.
    When I asked you to appoint (designated, elected, etc) other spokespeople you claimed that they did not want to be identified with Solutions for fear of losing their jobs.
    When I pointed out that others have left your party, joined another party, and have been publicly identified with it, you got aggressive, your usual tantrum. Even more, when I said it was a democratic issue you got angry. When I raised the subject again you said I made it up, then gave an interview to Barbados Today in which you repeated the same lie.
    Give me a single occasion when I have been dismissive of your qualifications, given that all I know about you are the qualifications you have claimed in public. I know nothing about you, or structural or civil engineering and have very little interest in the disciplines.
    You claim that I keep telling you not to inform the public that you are a chartered structural engineer; you are such a warped liar, give examples. ONCE I asked why is it necessary to put on a Solutions press release that you are a structural engineer; I have said the same about people who talk about their educational and professional qualifications.
    The other occasion was when y said that a ‘Chartered’ qualification was an international passport and I questioned it. You reply was something about a Canadian qualification. I ignored it because international recognition is not the same as an international passport.
    You have a diseased mind. I always say, and have said for years, that we should talk about IDEAS and not personalities, that is the reason why I question qualifications. It is not all about you.
    Then you talk about my ‘distinguish’ career with FT Group. Another fabrication. I do not know you, do not want to know you, and you do not know anything about my working life and so are not in a position to express an opinion on it.
    Further, whatever your judgement, it is not appreciated. I do not seek validation from you nor am I here looking for friends. Stop making it up. Who have you discussed my career with that allowed you to reach that decision?
    As to squander my influence; further nonsense. I have never sought nor had any influence on BU. My sole reason for coming on BU, as I have said, is to make sure that future generations will know that at least one of us asked questions about the way our country was governed.
    Let me spell it out for you: a number of great Barbadians have helped me to shape my view of the world, including the late great Leroy Harewood.
    They did that by allowing me to listen to their conversations, sometimes to join in, and most of all, explaining the complexities of sociality to me. I can never repay them. All I can do is try to pass on some of what I have learned to another generation.
    As to damage my legacy: DO YOU KNOW WHAT HATE MEANS? I may dislike, object to behaviours, find distasteful, even object to somethings, but I do not hate people. Hitler hated Jews, but then again you are a little Hitler. That Barbadianism has grown out of me.
    That, I suggest, says everything about you. You are bogus. Do me a favour before you go off back in to your little hole: publish a list of officers of Solutions Barbados and appoint other spokespeople.
    .

    Like

  • What can sensible people do except to hold yuh belly and bawl. Discuss the issues for crissakes!

    @Walter

    The point many are missing in this discussion is the nuance of the situation created by the 30-0 shellacking of the DLP.

    Like

  • Methinks this is purely an academic exercise. Long past the point of any solution.

    Me also thinks that most Barbadians are too busy trying to acquire their daily bread to be concerned with this matter which they cannot see the effects of.

    PS. I am not saying there are no effects. I am saying that most Barbadians will not see them and make any connection to the price of butter for their bread.

    Liked by 1 person

  • @ Vincent Codrington

    In our form of government the person responsible for challenging Atherley’s status will be the Attorney General. Any legal challenge will therefore have to be against the governmenmnet and attorney general. So far, I have not heard or read where the Attorney General has questioned Atherley’s role as opposition leader. Now ironically the same legal eagle, who apparently said that the act was unconstitutional, has been appointed a judge by the same administration that apparently ignored a constitutional lapse.
    The truth is that Atherley on this ocassion, out foxed everybody and won the day. The good thing is that Caswell, who gave yeoman service to BU is getting a little berry.
    So BU is producing: Jeff is a judge and Caswell is a senator. Keep up the good work David !!!
    Sometimes we have to laugh so that we would not cry.

    Liked by 1 person

  • @ David

    “@Walter

    The point many are missing in this discussion is the nuance of the situation created by the 30-0 shellacking of the DLP.”

    Every single Barbadian knows that anytime a party secures a two thirds majority, it can use that power to efffect constitutional change or what we call amendments to the constitution. The current administration has already demonstrated this with great alacrity and deft. However, that was the will of the people. The government did not get the majority by the power of the gun. It is a democratically elected government and the people have given the the constitutional dominance it now enjoys.
    For you to conclude that anybody is so asinine to miss this point is pure vacuity.

    Liked by 1 person

  • @TheoG
    I think if you follow BU you will notice that there are certain ideas or topics that reoccur (often
    +++++++++++
    This happens because they are never resolved to anyone’s satisfaction. The Gov’t moves on to the next issue and “We” move on to the next hot topic until like a rodent in a maze we make our way back to the beginning. The Gov’t is challenged and we are hearing about the lost decade 2008-2018 guess how many topics will resurface from that era? And if we are not satisfied, we will hear about OSA; Sandiford; Tom; Dipper and the list goes on. It is said that those do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it.

    Talking about the past do you remember the name Peter Allard and his relation to Graeme Hall? If you go into BU archives you can read all about him but guess who has resurfaced in the Canadian news media? Barbados may have been too tough a nut for him to crack but he is going after UBC, when you give your money there better be a quid pro quo.

    https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-donor-peter-allard-sues-ubc-demands-his-name-be-printed-on-all-law/

    Like

  • Vincent Codrington

    @ William Skinner at 10: 15 AM

    Barbados Underground is obviously providing a useful National Service. It has brought to attention of the power brokers a High Court Judge and an erudite and socially conscious Senator. Not bad at all. Onward and Upwards. Take a bow ,David. BU !!

    Like

  • Vincent Codrington

    @ dpD at 9 :30 AM

    I agree with the sentiments you expressed.
    The objective was to find a solution that was within the four corners of the Constitution and one that was satisficing. That is how the Westminster model evolves inventing solutions that allows the process to go forward. Some of us are educated but not all of us have learnt anything.

    Liked by 1 person

  • WURA-War–on-U
    November 13, 2019 3:46 AM

    “Can’t you people sleep? What is keeping you up? ”

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

    Slept 6 hours till first comment and woke to catch up on Rush Limbaugh.

    Listened for the approximate two hours and then got another few hours sleep with an AHI of less than 1 …. ie slept like a baby!!

    Like

  • The Apnea–Hypopnea Index or Apnoea–Hypopnoea Index (AHI) is an index used to indicate the severity of sleep apnea. It is represented by the number of apnea and hypopnea events per hour of sleep. The apneas (pauses in breathing) must last for at least 10 seconds and be associated with a decrease in blood oxygenation. Combining AHI and oxygen desaturation gives an overall sleep apnea severity score that evaluates both the number of sleep disruptions and the degree of oxygen desaturation (low oxygen level in the blood).

    The AHI is calculated by dividing the number of apnea events by the number of hours of sleep. The AHI values for adults are categorized as:[1][2]

    Normal: AHI<5
    Mild sleep apnea: 5≤AHI<15
    Moderate sleep apnea: 15≤AHI<30
    Severe sleep apnea: AHI≥30

    For children, because of their different physiology, an AHI in excess of 1 is considered abnormal. Pediatric patients presenting with AHI of 2 or greater will often be referred for treatment.[3]

    Like

  • I like numbers, and I know nothing from nothing leaves nothing!!

    The mathematician in me.

    Under all that hair on Billy Preston’s head there lurks a mathematician’s brain!!

    Like

  • Why did the government not oppose the GG appointing Atherley as the opposition leader?”

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

    Because until the GG appointed a leader of the opposition and he/she advised her/him of the two opposition senators he/she should appoint and he/she did so there was no possibility of Parliament and by extension, no Government.

    ie Nothing existed.

    In order for the HoA to beget anything, two opposites are needed!!

    Male and female if you like …. if you are familiar with the concept of procreation!!

    Male with no female and female with no male can’t beget anything, GG or no GG, Dean or no Dean!!

    What should have happened was adults should have sat down together and talked through a sensible solution to find a way to atleast manufacture an opposite until an election could be held to naturally create the opposites.

    Kind of like what was done in Canada in 1935 when big able adult people figured out a solution.

    Reverend Joe flouncing off on his own is a complete nothing and he defines the nothingness that is Parliament and by extension Government.

    So the Dean is strictly still a Dean and not a Judge!!

    The GG doesn’t exist under this cloud because idiot PM or no Idiot PM, the duly appointed PM anointed her!!

    Like

  • William:

    Removing Mr Atherley is not the point. It is to get him constitutionally appointed. The article describes how.

    Like

  • Vincent:

    You wrote: “The Electorate did not empower the GoB to select an opposition or leader of an opposition. That discretion lies with the GG. To question the GG’s decision is unconstitutional.”

    The GG cannot act outside of the boundaries of the constitution. She is also bound by the Interpretation Act. Even she, in using her discretion, cannot violate the Interpretation Act, or our Constitution. The Interpretation Act, Section 10.4 states: “This Act is binding on the Crown.”

    You also wrote: “The branch of mathematics you are relying on is wrong.Please consult Numerical Analysis with bounds. The constitution set the bounds/ boundaries. If you start wrong ,you end wrong.”

    The Interpretation Act specifies the “branch of mathematics” to be used. The constitution sets the bounds. When you violate the constitution, you have gone outside of the bounds, and that action is called “unconstitutional”.

    Like

  • Kind of like what was done in Canada in 1935 when big able adult people figured out a solution.

    Reverend Joe flouncing off on his own is a complete nothing and he defines the nothingness that is Parliament and by extension Government.

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

    Had all parties sat down like adults and reached a consensus on how to proceed, Barbados would have had a parliament and a Government.

    All it took was to do like the adults back in 1935 and 1989 in Canada.

    Agree a group of Members of the house through which questions from opposition parties who had contested the elections could be put.

    Let the group appoint a leader.

    Then let the GG appoint the leader of the opposition.

    The legitimacy of the opposition then would depend not only on the BLP but on Solutions, UPP, DLP etc and those who voted against the BLP.

    The pressure would then be on to get to the next election to regularize matters because agreements among adults are known to breakdown and in such a case, the legitimacy of the opposition would go with the breakdown.

    Like

  • … and the GOB would collapse!!

    Right now we have an accident waiting to happen!!

    Like

  • @GP
    Your 8:42 a.m post is priceless. I hope old geezers like myself take a good note of it.

    I hope others heed “You can reduce the risk of urinary tract infections, by drinking plenty of water to dilute your urine and ensure you void your bladder frequently. ”

    @GP2
    Thanks.

    Liked by 1 person

  • @John

    Is our system a first past the post?

    Like

  • I have been saying for months we have a one party state and will continue to have one until next elections maybe.

    You can debate the Atherley issue all you want but what is more important is the situation we found our self in. To have an opposition in name only is as good as no opposition at all. As far as I am concerned based on the last debate we have exactly that right now.

    Like

  • @John A

    Did you write the note today to explain the external debt was reduced by 27% and the average rate weighted down therefore savings negotiated by WO?

    Like

  • @ David.

    No sir not me

    Like

  • @ John A
    @William

    I have been following this argument for sometime and it is still a fog. Our electoral system is a first past the post one, which means that if a party contests every constituency there is a possibility, even if not probability, that that single party may return all 30 seats.
    But our constitutional experts say there is a parliamentary constitutional position of a Leader of the Opposition, that is leader of the leading minority party. Remember, under our system we elect individuals, not parties.
    If they are now saying the May 2018 is unconstitutional, does that mean that every bit of legislation and every appointment, including amending the constitution, has been unconstitutional? Does it mean the default was unconstitutional?
    If so, how then do we reverse this? Why was the MAY 2018 result NOT CHALLENGED IMMEDIATELY THEY CAME OUT? How could something as serious as this escape a parliament dominated by lawyers?
    Is Barbados a failed state?

    Like

  • @ David

    Them could say anything they want but as you have noticed the full data has not been published nor will it ever be.

    Without all the data exploring it further is pointless. So they could say they saved $4 billion or whatever they feel like, it can not be challenged as both Willy and Walter have pointed out.

    The opportunity was lost when our beloved opposition failed to grasp the bull by the horns in the debate.

    Just one question though did the 27% saving remember to take into account the increased value of the bonds as a result of the drop In interest, or are they only looking at the front end saving and forgetting to deduct the tail end bond increase?

    Anyhow as I said the discussion without total data is pointless.

    Liked by 1 person

  • Heard the leader of government business in the Senate shouting that over one billion will be saved in the first year, this will allow government to allocate resources in other needed areas.

    Liked by 1 person

  • @ David.

    Also is 27% of $500 million now $4 billion? Lol

    Man everytime they open their mouth on this issue more jobby drop out 😁

    Liked by 1 person

  • The matter is being debated in the Senate today.

    Liked by 1 person

  • @ David.

    You Remember the movie Jerry McGuire?

    Well his famous words were ” show me the money.” Mine would be “show me how you arrived at the money.”

    Them could say anything now after all the debate over so talk cheap.

    But ponder this. You reschedule $500M and save less than 1 full percent on it ( was roughly 7.2% before) how de ass on a debt with 10 years roughly left in it you can save $ 1 billion dollars in 1 year?

    So The whole debt was forgiven then? Then they say they save 27% on the$ 500M over the total period. I mean I know than difference between a billion and a million is only a few zeros but wuhloss what wunna was smoking?

    Liked by 1 person

  • By who different people or the same ones? Lol

    Liked by 1 person

  • Mr Phillips, what if you applied the Interpretation Act to section 74(2) and let the plural “members” become the singular “member”? Would not a single member of Parliament suffice for an Opposition then? You are fishing for legitimacy, methinks!

    Liked by 1 person

  • Vincent Codrington

    John

    The leader of the opposition must come from those elected to the House of Assembly.

    Like

  • @ John A November 13, 2019 2:42 PM
    “Well his famous words were ” show me the money.” Mine would be “show me how you arrived at the money.””
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    That is why my call for the publication of the spreadsheets which should support this $ 5 billion in debt servicing costs would shed real light on this contentious matter.

    The LoO is just a worthless piece of work hiding behind a dog collar stained with the remnants from a No.2 job.

    At least he should have asked for the calculations to be made a document of the House.

    Like

  • @ Miller November 13, 2019 3:23 PM

    That is why my call for the publication of the spreadsheets which should support this $ 5 billion [cash flow savings] in debt servicing costs would shed real light on this contentious matter.

    Like

  • Hal Austin
    November 13, 2019 2:28 PM

    If they are now saying the May 2018 is unconstitutional, does that mean that every bit of legislation and every appointment, including amending the constitution, has been unconstitutional? Does it mean the default was unconstitutional?

    If so, how then do we reverse this? Why was the MAY 2018 result NOT CHALLENGED IMMEDIATELY THEY CAME OUT? How could something as serious as this escape a parliament dominated by lawyers?
    Is Barbados a failed state?

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

    Yes it is a failed state.

    Lawyers do not understand the concept of zero and lawyers become judges ergo Judges can’t understand it either so something as abstract as the concept of zero will escape a lawyer.

    I am only half a lawyer as I have said before but part of the other half is mathematical so I was able to catch the fault!!

    Others did too.

    Challenging it immediately …. I was a voice in the wilderness if you recall from May 2018… the mathematical part if you like responding to a nullity!!

    How to fix it?

    Call elections, get a constitutional Parliament.

    The new Parliament can then confirm or not the various actions of the unconstitutional Parliament.

    So the Dean could stay on as a Judge depending on what the new constitutional Parliament decided.

    Like

  • How could something as serious as this escape a parliament dominated by lawyers?

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

    Easy, status quo!!

    Plus, the BLP was so busy whooping up the defeat the defeat that they had inflicted on their arch enemy to realise they got a lot more than they bargained for … in fact they held nothing!!

    Kind of like the dog, the bone and the reflection!!

    I reckon the 28-2 Parliament will take some looking at too!!

    Like

  • Vincent Codrington
    November 13, 2019 3:20 PM

    John
    The leader of the opposition must come from those elected to the House of Assembly.

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

    That’s not the only condition.

    He/she has to be a part of a group of those elected to the HoA who oppose the Government.

    No one could argue with the fact that there were many groups who aspired to form the GOB.

    No one could argue with the fact that only one group won seats.

    Therefore logic dictates that there is no group in Parliament which opposes the group who holds all the seats.

    No opposition is possible unless fresh elections are called or some form of agreement is reached among all the groups who sought to form the Government as to how an opposition could work until the next election solved the problem.

    Like

  • Vincent Codrington

    John

    Where in the constitution do you see that nonsense delineated as the solution for appointing a leader of the opposition? You need to review the literature on straight and crooked thinking.

    Liked by 1 person

  • I am only engaging in this discussion because I know that I have some brain cells that will never be utilized otherwise in my lifetime. This is simply an intellectual exercise for me.

    I have heard all kinds of fanciful notions as to the reason a Barbadian voter goes to the polls.

    A voter in Barbados goes into the polling booth to privately and confidentially put an X beside the name of an INDIVIDUAL candidate who is competing against other INDIVIDUAL candidates to represent the constituency in which that voter is registered. Full stop. Nothing more. Nothing less.

    There was nothing unconstitutional about the 30-0 result of the May 2018 General Elections of Barbados. The BLP earned, and continues to have, every right to form the government. I see no reason to scrap the results and hold a new election.

    The perceived problem related to our governance has originated with the declarations made, or not made, by the leader of the opposition up to the time of his appointment, and the number of members that make up the opposition.

    Joe Atherley has emerged as the leader of the opposition. It is felt that since Mr. Atherley did not declare himself to be part of an identifiable group opposed to the Government at the time of his appointment, his appointment was not valid. It is also felt that an opposition group comprised of only 1 member is not valid. There should be at least 2 members. It is further felt that 2 members are not sufficient. There should be at least 3 members.
    My position is that these arguments should be read and followed with an open mind. We are supposed to be a nation of laws. We have a civic responsibility to point out when laws are being broken, and to encourage efforts to enforce our laws.

    If any one of these arguments is valid, we need to rectify the problem to give legitimacy to our parliament. “How do we do that?” I ask rhetorically.

    I am too practical and pragmatic to think that Barbadians care about this issue. Frankly speaking, 99.9% of the Barbadian populace couldn’t care two hoops whether there is a leader of the opposition or not. Many of them are too focused on finding means to support their families. Some are primarily interested in begging for and getting that government job being held by someone they “know” voted against the BLP in the last election. Government ministers have to confront and evade this type of begging on a daily basis.

    Like

  • Is a 24-6 government more legitimate than a 30-0 ??

    Liked by 1 person

  • You guys can be talking about this for about another 8 years if Joe lose his seat and the BLP 30 – 0 again.
    Who really cares?

    Like

  • Maybe a better topic would be, of all the current parties around who do we think can succeed to become the official opposition leader after the next election ?

    Who do whe think can at least win one seat?
    Surely not not BU resident politico

    Liked by 1 person

  • TheOGazerts
    November 13, 2019 4:31 PM

    Is a 24-6 government more legitimate than a 30-0 ??

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

    You keep confusing HoA with Parliament.

    The HoA can only become part of a Parliament so long as there is a leader of the opposition.

    If the 6 can’t elect a leader of the Opposition then the HoA is not going to be a part of any Parliament.

    The 30-0 result cannot produce an opposition.

    So 24-6 with no opposition is the same as 30-0!!

    Neither one can produce a Parliament so neither one can produce a Government.

    What is the definition of Parliament?

    Forget the constitution for a minute.

    Like

  • parliament (n.)
    c. 1300, “consultation; formal conference, assembly,” from Old French parlement (11c.), originally “a speaking, talk,” from parler “to speak” (see parley (n.)); spelling altered c. 1400 to conform with Medieval Latin parliamentum.
    Anglo-Latin parliamentum is attested from early 13c. Specific sense “representative assembly of England or Ireland” emerged by mid-14c. from general meaning “a conference of the secular and/or ecclesiastical aristocracy summoned by a monarch.”

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

    It is about representatives of a country assembling together and having a formal conference or Parley.

    If the 6 can’t speak to one another like adults and elect a leader Parliament done!!

    But adults are supposed to be able to get past differences and figure out a way forward.

    If 3 of the 6 can get together and agree and elect a leader Parliament is on.

    The other 3 are independents unless they choose at a later date to join the opposition or the Government.

    This is too simple for all these words.

    Like

  • john2
    November 13, 2019 5:07 PM

    You guys can be talking about this for about another 8 years if Joe lose his seat and the BLP 30 – 0 again.
    Who really cares?

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

    It doesn’t matter if Parliament is constitutional or not.

    The Dudleys in it can only produce zero!!

    Zero from a constitutional Parliament or zero from a constitutional Parliament is still zero.

    Dudleys can’t get this concept figured out!!

    Like

  • As you can see in this link, 0 has been around for millennia in various civilizations.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0

    Like

  • Today Caswell was sharing licks in Parliament which was all well and good
    But what really got my ears to itch a little was when govt side asked him for solutions
    His responded by saying that govt could have collected years of back taxes from business that owed the treasury
    The interesting part was when govt responded by
    stating that it would have taken govt more than six months to collect the monies owed to the treasury and that govt was in a situation where govt needed fast cash to pay debt
    Now i did not hear Caswell response to govt
    However i left with the feeling that govt had a fire sale and sold out the workers to suffice the creditors

    Like

  • Lexis:

    You asked “what if you applied the Interpretation Act to section 74(2) and let the plural “members” become the singular “member”? Would not a single member of Parliament suffice for an Opposition then?”

    Our Constitution (section 74.2) requires the Opposition Leader “to command the SUPPORT of a majority of those members who do not support the Government”. The Interpretation Act means that Atherley just needed the SUPPORT of one member who did not support the Government. He did not have this SUPPORT.

    You are misinterpreting Section 74.2 to be that he does not need any support and that he can support and command himself. That misinterpretation is to break our constitution.

    Like

  • Govt says no more borrowing within the next four years
    Waiting to see how that strategy would work without having a growth strategy
    I hope they not having grandiose ideas of giving tax relief to the people in one hand and taking them back with the other hand.
    Will wait and see

    Like

  • @Grenville

    Your solution at at today given your interpretation of the Constitution is what again?

    This is your interpretation or are you being guided by a legal opinion.

    Like

  • Let’s say the BLP won 27 seats and the DLP, Solutions and UPP each one 1 seat.

    Suppose the 3 opposition members could not reach an agreement to oppose the majority group, the BLP, which had 27 seats.

    No Opposition, no leader no GOB!!!

    Lets say the DLP and UPP reached an agreement but couldn’t get Solutions on board.

    The GG would be faced with a group of two and an independent.

    The group of 2 can’t have a majority or a minority.

    No Opposition, no leader, no GOB!!

    All 3 have to agree to oppose the Government in mutually acceptable terms.

    A 1 member opposition and a 2 member opposition can’t work.

    Must be 3 or more up to a maximum of 14.

    Of course in reality the 3 independent members from the 3 independent parties are supposed to be adults who can find common ground.

    So, the 28-2 result we had for years starting 1999 or whenever was an unconstitutional Parliament.

    30-0 is just one more unconstitutional result.

    29-1 is another such result.

    The constitution works just fine!!

    Like

  • Mariposa
    November 13, 2019 6:28 PM

    Today Caswell was sharing licks in Parliament which was all well and good
    But what really got my ears to itch a little was when govt side asked him for solutions
    His responded by saying that govt could have collected years of back taxes from business that owed the treasury
    The interesting part was when govt responded by
    stating that it would have taken govt more than six months to collect the monies owed to the treasury and that govt was in a situation where govt needed fast cash to pay debt
    Now i did not hear Caswell response to govt
    However i left with the feeling that govt had a fire sale and sold out the workers to suffice the creditors

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

    Dudleys hard at work!!

    Like

  • Hal:

    Your pedantic response to justify your behaviour is like spitting into the wind.

    Like

  • @JohnNovember 13, 2019 7:12 PM

    Mariposa
    November 13, 2019 6:28 PM

    When you read the government of Barbados was carrying account receivables over 50 years old on its balance sheet you know it is not following generally accepted accounting principles. Serious government departments should age accounts and put past due accounts in debt collectors hands if no such agency exist in government. You collect from who can pay and write off those which cannot be collected after a specified period of time. Carrying accounts receivables which will never be collected on a balance sheet year after year leads to overstated assets and should not get past the auditor general.

    Like

  • TheOgazerts
    November 13, 2019 7:37 AM

    Had an eye-opening event this week. I was reduced to a state on associates with very old and feeble through a bacterial infection,
    I was surprised. One moment I was master of the universe, the next moment trying to figure out what was happening to me,
    For those of you with diabetes, pay attention to your diet, to exercising and to cleanliness. What worked yesterday may have to be adjusted for today. Your diabetes can be under control, but it finds another way to impact on your daily living. Be vigilant with this disease.
    Have a great day Barbados. Pay attention to you politics and economy, but keep your health and your children on the front burner,
    Have a great day Barbados,

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

    You should also get yourself tested to see if you suffer from sleep apnea if you haven’t done so already.

    Talk to your doctor.

    Google sleep apnea and diabetes if you need motivation.

    I know the change in my life I received just by addressing how I sleep.

    Four years ago I was diagnosed with sleep apnea after I was “accidentally” diagnosed with heart disease.

    As far as I was concerned at the time I was in good health, taking good exercise and eating sensibly.

    I don’t suffer from diabetes as far as I know but figure if sleep apnea has an effect on the heart then it can’t be good if you have diabetes as well.

    It is surprising for me to see how many persons close to me have been diagnosed with sleep apnea.

    Even my doctor is a convert and tells me that addressing it has changed his life too!!

    Like

Join in the discussion, you never know how expressing your view may make a difference.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s