Difficult Conversations – Was it Worth It?

Grenville Phillips

All people like to hear what they want to hear – even if it is not true. There are three common reasons to tell people what is not true: (i) to encourage them, (ii) to avoid trouble, and (iii) to deceive them.

When children are learning to play musical instruments, their parents may tell them that their initial poor renditions are good – to encourage them to keep practising. A newly married man may think that he has options if his wife asks him if she looks slim. Those married for a while understand that there is only one right answer.


We accept exaggerated compliments from individuals, because we know that the giver had no ill intent. But untruths from corporate and national levels can be dangerous to everyone.

A business selling unsafe products may deceive people in a nation that their products are safe. When consumers are inevitably harmed, the business is negatively branded, and its employees are implicated in the scandal. The longer the deception continues, the worse it will become – for everyone.


A nation does not try to deceive its citizens. Rather, a nation and its citizens normally try to deceive the world. It may start as an innocent mistake – a leader misspoke. But when the citizens conspire with the Government to promote the deception, both may suffer the terrible consequences of negative branding.

The historical record of knowledge transcends law, politics and religion. It is assumed to be accurate, and is taught as fact to children of all nations. Corrupting the historical record is not tolerated, since all people rely on it for research. Tragically, we have corrupted this shared historical record. Fortunately, we can correct it now with no consequences – or be implicated in the certain scandal to follow.


In 2005, the Barbados Labour Party (BLP) administration passed the Referendum Act, CAP 11A. In 2007, they promised Barbadians that they would get their consent with a referendum, before making Barbados a Republic. [1]

In their 2008 election manifesto, the BLP promised Barbadians that they would “consult the public fully by way of a referendum”, before making Barbados a Republic. [2]

On 15th September 2020, the Governor-General of Barbados read the Throne Speech, stating that Barbados would “become a Republic by the time we celebrate our 55th Anniversary of Independence.”

The following day, the Queen’s response was published: becoming a Republic was “a matter for the government and people of Barbados”. [3]


The following day, on 17th September 2020, the Barbados Labour Party administration informed the international news media that Barbadians had given their consent for Barbados to become a Republic. They claimed that it was at the 2018 General election, stating: “we certainly campaigned on it in the manifesto”. [4]

On 28 June 2021, Foreign Policy reported: “Mottley, who has campaigned on republicanism, won a landslide victory in 2018 elections when her party won all 30 seats in the House of Assembly.” [5]

On 22 November 2021, the National Geographic reported: “Charismatic and outspoken, Mottley campaigned on republicanism to become the nation’s first female leader in 2018.” [6]

On 26 November 2021, iNews UK reported: “She campaigned on republicanism, ahead of her landslide victory in 2018 elections.” [7]


The truth is that there is no mention of any plan to make Barbados a Republic in the BLP’s 2018 general election Manifesto. Further, none of the nine political parties that participated in the 2018 General Election campaigned on Republicanism. All adult Barbadians, both at home and in the diaspora, know this to be true.

To their utter shame, this generation of Barbadian: leaders, politicians, historians, poets, teachers, pastors, journalists, entertainers, writers, media practitioners, and youth leaders seem willing to support the corruption of the shared historical record of all nations.

There is always a reckoning. Our children will inherit the consequences of this reckless support. At that time, they may ask whether our active or passive support for deceiving the world was worth it – and we better have a good answer to give them.

Grenville Phillips II is a Chartered Structural Engineer. He can be reached at NextParty246@gmail.com
[1] Still A Voice. Nation, 26 November 2007.
[2] Barbados Labour Party Manifesto 2008, page 77.
[3] The Guardian UK, Patrick Wintour (Diplomatic Editor), 16 September 2020.
[4] Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Phil Williams (Chief Foreign Correspondent), 17 September 2020.
[5] Foreign Policy, Stéphanie Fillion (United Nations based foreign affairs reporter), 28 June 2021.
[6] National Geographic, Jacqueline Charles (Pulitzer Prize finalist, 2018 Maria Moors Cabot Prize winner), 22 November 2021.
[7] iNews UK, Michael Day (Chief Foreign Commentator), 26 November 2021.


  • It was quite obvious from 2018 that the ONLY GOAL was to NORMALIZE CORRUPTION and make it acceptable to the people in Barbados and the Caribbean then spread their nasty dangerous POISON all around…and many imps and pimps were already willing to accept this EVIL and Black DESTRUCTION in their and their familily’s lives….



  • ‘Beach battles’ of yesterday, that should have never been necessary and that that you thought were fought and won raise their ugly heads every year.

    The same ‘beach battle’, but with more variants than covid-19, will again surface in some form in the near future.


  • Gotta go.

    Keep on hitting those ‘corruption’ notes wura. You have moved from insane to prescient.

    Enjoy the day, all.


  • @ William Skinner,
    Here’s another country heavily in debt whose government appears disinterested in their own citizens. The political climate in Portugal is remarkably similar to Barbados.

    The link below is an extremely long read.
    Loosing our precious beaches could be the least of our problems.



  • Lawyer to Govt: Review republic measures

    One of Barbados’ senior attorneys is critising the measures the Mia Mottley administration took which led to the island becoming a republic.
    Garth Patterson, a senior partner at LEX Caribbean law chambers, has gone a step further by sending a series of emails to Attorney General Dale Marshall, which were also circulated among the members of the Barbados Bar Association.
    In those letters, Patterson explained that Parliament went about it the wrong way, may have exercised powers that it did not have and had accidentally left out important reforms from the new republican Constitution for Barbados.
    In his correspondence with the Attorney General, Patterson explained that the effect of what Parliament did in enacting the Constitution (Amendment) (No. 2) Act, 2021,
    was to reproduce the old 1966 Constitution, which had been provided to Barbados by the Queen at the time of Barbados’ Independence, but to leave out the many important reforms to that Constitution that had been passed by Parliament since 1966.
    The Queen’s Counsel queried why it was that the Government did not follow the examples of Trinidad and Guyana, who both became republics by getting rid of their old Independence Constitutions and passing entirely new ones.
    Patterson said Government had taken half-baked constitutional measures in making the historic move to get rid of the monarchy and replace the Queen with a home-grown President.
    He said while he was fully supportive of Barbados becoming a republic, he was concerned the Government had botched the constitutional process of doing that. Referring to the remarks made by the Attorney General during the Parliamentary debates in the House on September 28, 2021, when the bill was read for the second time, Patterson said that, “on the Attorney General’s own admission, the Government had “plucked up from the dust” the old, colonial, constitutional document,
    made a with few changes and then re-enacted it as our new Constitution.
    “But, they left out the important bits and pieces of constitutional reform that Parliament had made over the span of 55 years since independence,” he added.
    He noted that during the debates the Attorney General had taken the Opposition Leader, Bishop Joseph Atherley, to task for his remarks questioning the process and suggesting that the Parliament was getting it wrong. The Opposition Leader had pointed to the examples of Guyana and Trinidad, suggesting that they had moved to a republic in the proper way.
    In response to Atherley, Marshall had said that Trinidad “did more or less the same thing” as Barbados was doing, “except instead of amending the Constitution, Trinidad threw out the whole old one and enacted a new one, but we are not doing that – we are doing half of that. They revoked the Independence Order and then they put a new Constitution in place. That is what they wanted to do that suited them; we are not there.”
    Patterson said he had a problem with the Government only going “halfway” on such an important legislative measure, noting the legal consequences were far-reaching and problematic.
    “It was a momentous inflection point for our country, and the new republic of Barbados deserved better than half a constitution,” the veteran lawyer added. (BA)

    Source: Nation


  • Told them from the beginning that RoB is half of a republic and therefore INVALID.

    There were at least 17 to 19 amendments to the constitution since 1966.


    Yall will pay for reverting to a slavery constitution.. not everyone is asleep and following wannabe slave masters/dictators blindly. Not everyone is slave minded.


  • Miller, Pacha, William , TLSN


    and they are so confident in their criminality they actually saw themselves getting away with it.


  • With over 1100 lawyers and many constitutional scholars, I would love to see someone agree with or sternly correct Mr Patterson.

    Staying silent and keeping their head below the parapet convinces me that GP3 is correct.

    But the GoB may be like the duck struggling in the water. Calm and inactive above the surface of the water, but a hive of legal activity below. I suspect they will drop some constitutional amendments on us shortly.


  • This is a matter which has to be tested in court, until it occurs it is another opinion.


  • de pedantic Dribbler

    @David, what exactly are u suggesting “has to be tested in court” re the constitutional re-enactment/change to Republicanism!

    What Patterson has written was well ventilated by others – no less the LoO.

    The issues as they and others have expressed them – substantive (leaving out amendments over the years) and emotive (like the one about redeploying the old colonial coded constitution (despite our new status) are valid… BUT the parliament has enacted the ‘new’ constitution … so it’s the law, not so.

    Is someone going to test a matter which has the force of a previous amendment but supposedly not now availed by this new one!

    I have not read the new document so I surely can’t opine factually but it would seem absurd to me in basic law that this new document could now simply INVALIDATE statuary amendments made over the years – just so!

    A careful reading on what’s before us and a similarly careful reading of what’s to be done by the govt is required … I give them the basic benefit of doubt that they would NOT invalidate us into illegality by enactment a nonsensical new/old constitutional.

    They may have gone about it the wrong way but surely they and their hoard of lawyers in the AG’s office are not lawless idiots!



  • @Dee Word

    Paterson is repeating the government botched the patriation of the constitution, what are you going to do about it besides adding another opinion?


  • de pedantic Dribbler

    LOL… lil ole me … nada.

    Because simply stated there is nothing as I see it that can be done.

    I am merely wondering what u see as any LEGITIMATE court test..

    There is legal noise and thrn there is legal visionary seeking case precedent … as is the situation with Phillip’s legal matter on change to Republicanism any proceedings brought to the court on this matter would be the former in my view!

    Has the govt invalidated, superceded or substantively changed the existing laws of the land by enactment of this constitutional doc; have they confused legal affairs!

    Unless that’s the reality then what legal eagles like Patterson are arguing is excellent legal theory/jurisprudence but it DOES NOT move to the precedent seeking legal visionary case status, as I see it.

    So yep… just my diddly-sqat impact opinion!

    Blessings of the season to you, your family, team and the entire BU collective!

    Peace out.


  • Grenville was right from day 1….a fraudulent pre 1966 steeped in slavery constitution, generationally, STEEPED IN BLACK ENSLAVEMENT in 2021 is now the standard to DESTROY Black lives….and they thought they would slip it in, sleight of hand, how easy it is to get past sentimental fools…


  • Let me rephrase…cause Grenville also got it twisted with his dependency on a colonial crutch…….. but he was right about the fake republic being a FARCE..he just did not know at the time that the wannabe slave master would bring back the 1650s slavery constitution and eliminate the 55 YEARS worth of amendments…..


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 )

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