26.7 C
Belize City
Thursday, March 28, 2024

World Down Syndrome Day

Photo: Students and staff of Stella Maris...

BPD awards 3 officers with Women Police of the Year

Photo: (l-r) Myrna Pena, Carmella Cacho, and...

Suicide on the rise!

Photo: Iveth Quintanilla, Mental Health Coordinator by Charles...

I would vote NO, but…

FeaturesI would vote NO, but...

I would vote NO because this Guatemalan claim is preposterous, and we should have followed UBAD when they put in their 1974 manifesto that we should arm the Belizean people because when we became independent we would have to fight the bully to defend our turf, because a bully is what a bully is, someone who only respects a smack in the nose. But we voted for the PUP.

I would vote NO because Philip Goldson said that we shouldn’t become independent until the British settled the Guatemalan claim, that they (the British) reneged on a business deal for the increase of business between their two countries. While we know that Guatemala has no claim on the British (and even if they had a claim they couldn’t ask us to pay, but they have), the British should have settled their matter. But we voted for the PUP.

I would vote NO because George Price led us to independence in 1981, and the UN supported our right to self-determination and territorial integrity, intact, 8867, no more questions asked.

I would vote NO because NO country goes to court to ask judges if their entire country, or half of their country belongs to another country because they inherited it.

I would vote NO because the things our government is doing to secure a YES vote are wrong.

I would vote NO because I have absolute respect for all the people who are voting NO, although I don’t like a number of the arguments they have forwarded in their attempt to show that the British chaans the Guatemalans, but I understand that maybe that is the only way they can fight the unfair fight that the government is bringing to secure a yes vote.

Yes, I would vote NO, but I will vote YES. There’s this question Dr. Assad Shoman posed to the hosts of the WuB when he was on that show a couple weeks ago. Will Belize be safer if we go to the ICJ? The answer to that is, YES. There’s this other question: Is it smart for us to put our trust in the United Nations court? The answer to that is YES too. Yes, I would vote NO, but I will vote YES, and when Belize wins the case at the ICJ I will not be an idiot, an absolute a—s and tell the No-ers, We told you so.

Hmm, people who say the ICJ will be hard pressed to not give Guatemala some of our territory because the judges won’t want them to feel bad, need to factor in that if the ICJ rolls like that they will have to consider how we would feel to lose our land to somebody who never, not at any time in their existence, ever had any contact with this land we call home. I mean, from the Hondo to the Sarstoon, Guatemala has never been here, except for a little fake moment a way back when, when they tried to give out a contract in our country.

In fact, they tried the contract thing twice. The second time they did so was in 1992, when they invited bids from oil companies to explore in our country.

Leave George Price’s MAA alone

Ah, the PUPeez say we should scuttle George Price’s MAA, and we should do it before we vote YES in the referendum. The UDPeez say we will do it after the referendum, if we vote YES. They have yet to explain (so I understand) why we need to dump the law. As it stands right now, I wouldn’t touch any part of it. After we vote YES, we wait for Guatemala to make the next move. If they claim any part of Belize, we take away George Price’s MAA, and all friendliness.

One of the big complementary things to the MAA, and the Heads, and Ramphal/Reichler too, was reciprocal use of ports. After the ICJ rules for us, we’ll negotiate a deal on the use of our ports that doesn’t compromise our sovereignty.

Yes, voting YES is hard

How do you vote yes when, as Said Musa said when he first saw the Special Agreement, the possibility of Guatemala getting land should never have been included? But, if the possibility of Guatemala getting land was not included in the agreement, would Guatemala have agreed to go to court?

If the possibility of land wasn’t included, how could Guatemala hope to win rights when rights originate from land? But how could Belize agree to any deal which could include the possibility of losing land, when the United Nations General Assembly declared that we were signed, sealed, and delivered, Belize, 8867!

So, Belize’s leaders acquiesced to the possibility of losing land to get Guatemala to sign, and they did, leaders and people. And now Belize’s leaders are left with a catch, which is, how to get us to agree to the proposal with the outrageous possibility.

I will say that with such a difficult proposal to set before the people, the UDP should have been far more nationalistic, and less party, party, party, which they were.

Aha, Guatemala wouldn’t have signed the SA if the possibility didn’t exist that they would get land. And Belize shouldn’t have signed if there is a possibility for Guatemala to get land, because they don’t deserve any.

I’ll put my money on the folk at the Economist magazine who said we hold all the aces. I say that you don’t have to go to Mona Campus to know that 1859 absolutely trounces 1802. And to those who say that the compromis changes everything, I agree with the lawyers who say all Guatemala got there was a possibility. That possibility amounts to the same we got from the party that teased us with the possibilities of transparency and accountability. When all the adding and subtracting done, we got nohtn, and when it comes to terra firma Belize, so will they, Guatemala, get nothn.

Not with Major Jones

Major Jones has it like it’s all Said Musa dirt, why he and his party passed a law against crossing the floor. In his column in the Reporter last week, Jones wrote: “In 2001 Said demanded absolute loyalty, so much so that he adjusted the Constitution to ensure that he got it.”

Braa, in my books no Prime Minister has come close to Said Musa when it comes to embracing change. They can’t carry his shoes. It is under Said Musa that a government blessed semi-pro football, free radio, African and Mayan history in one high school. And it is under Said Musa that the political reform committee flourished.

It is Said Musa who was in with getting us going with Cuba, Said who first reformed the Senate, Said who put the elected Senate in his manifesto, although that last one might have just been a stab at political survival. A doant noa that. The man might be devilishly weak when it comes to his close friends, such as Ralph and Glenn and company, but nobody is all bad. Said is the reformist!

My recollection is that crossing the floor came out of the Political Reform Commission. I checked with a senior political activist/leader who I thought was a member of that committee, and he said he wasn’t (he should have been), but his memory has him on page with Major Jones, that it was Musa’s wikidnis why crossing the floor was outlawed.

Both heroes who rained on Said are off page. I went online and checked the 2000 report of the Political Commission, and this is what it says on crossing the floor, and the recall thing:

Recommendation 45: Right of Recall

The majority of the Commission does not recommend the introduction of a mechanism to recall elected representatives for Belize at this time.

Recommendation 46: Anti-Defection in the House

The Commission recommends that the Government of Belize, after public consultation, develops and enacts anti-defection legislation for members of the House of Representatives.

The Commission further recommends that in developing the Anti-Defection Act that:

(a) crossing-the-floor to join another political party in the House, and resignation from a political party in the House are included as part of the definition of defection;

(b) it be further debated if members voting against their political party’s position in the House, or abstaining from voting in the House should constitute defection;

(c) the mechanism for removing members who defect include the following process:
*  The leader of the party from which a member has defected informs the Speaker of the House;
* The Speaker declares the seat vacant;
* The member affected has 21 days to take the matter to the Supreme Court which would decide if there is cause for removal.

(d) If the removal of the member is not contested or is sustained by the Supreme Court, there is a by-election in the constituency in which there is a vacant seat.

It is good money that the anti-defection law was passed because the UDP, having been bitten more than once by defection, were terrified of it, and the PUP under Musa da mi love. Musa was too daam capitalist and his closest buddies had a field day with the national vault at the Central Bank, but he didn’t take advantage of the democracy the way these guys now do. About this abuse of defection, two members of the Opposition, one in 1974-79 (UDP) and one in 1989-93 (UDP), had defected to the PUP because, they said, they couldn’t do right by their people as members of the Opposition party. Then, in the 1993 squeaker that was won by the UDP, rumors abounded that the PUP had tried to buy two members of the UDP, to topple Manuel Esquivel’s 1993-1998 government.

There are Belizeans who have the innards of these matters and we will depend on them for more exposé. Me, I saw some defects in Mr. Musa’s leadership, but he wasn’t a villain when it came to the Judiciary and the political growth of our country.

That said, it is my opinion, yes, that on the matter of the Bill, he should have remembered Tammy Wynette and stood by his party. But on referendum day, YES.

Check out our other content

World Down Syndrome Day

Suicide on the rise!

Check out other tags:

International