You tell me, fellow countrymen, because it certa inly does not make sense to me. This nonsensical talk about independence is enigmatic. It is a riddle. To me it does not hold water! I cannot understand why anybody, in his or her right mind, would encourage people to give up what they have for what they don’t have. It is common sense that a bird in hand is worth a million in the bush.
It is frustrating to listen to someone, whom you thought knew better, and that could understand the irrationality of the independence issue as promoted by the CM, talking the same nonsense. But it has to be discussed and looked at it sensibly. It is difficult to come up with a good reason to support what the CM wants us to do. He has personal problems with HMG and he wants them out. Furthermore, he wants us to help him to chase them out. But his feelings on the issue are not sufficient cause to make anyone rally behind him blindly. Seriously, though! Do we really need to sever our constitutional links with HMG in order to make Anguilla a better place? Many Anguillians do not think so!
The majority of people here know that there is nothing to be gained and believe that, in fact, more could be lost. We do not have to look too far back to make an assessment of the British and other contributors to our economy. Yes, we are a British Overseas Territory (BOT) and expect more financial assistance from the UK but, at the same time, we must ask who has given us more than they have. If the relationship is based on who can give us the most, and in our estimation a particular donor is not contributing enough – should we then end that relationship “pronto” and say “adios y hasta la vista”? A proper and robust relationship should not be that callous.
Some years ago, when addressing another issue, Victor Banks raised the question of sustainability and the need for Government to regularize its operations. The logic in Banks’ argument, taken to its conclusion, infers that regularization enhances the predictability that is necessary for proper governance mainly in spending. Banks’ concern is that all government activity should be designed to produce for the betterment of its people. This should be the litmus test for us to go by, particularly in this milieu and state of the public debate. It comes back to Victor Banks’ idea expressed in the House of Assembly: Do we want a relationship that is steady and predictable? Or do we want to replace it with the uncertainty in a system where donors only give to get?
Therefore the genuine question is, taking everything into consideration, would we be better off if we “jumped ship” now, or anytime within the CM’s schedule, and thereafter go “skulling” on our own?
But to figure the proper course of action we have to compare what we have with what we might gain in exchange. But what does that evaluation say? This is important and central to the dialogue because it must be based on fact and not on fiction. One may have his own opinion, but he is not entitled to his own facts and that is the challenge for the Chief Minister. On balance, a fair assessment of this case would lead to the preference for British presence. Do the facts as they have unfolded over the years point, to or warrant, a British exit at this time? I believe, quite to the contrary, the facts show that in the period of time since the British have been back they have had a hand in everything that has been done for the betterment and improvement of Anguilla. So what is our “beef”? Are they not doing enough, and are they not doing it fast enough? Well who decides how much and when, and under what relationship?
So as the CM talks about his deadlines, we have to consider the pros and cons of the debate as realistically as we can. We know the British qualities and their expectations, and they understand our limitations. We know no other country in the manner that we know them and that they have helped us. It therefore boils down to the fact that we don’t want a proper relationship. We are looking for a money contact where, when we are stuck, some donor country would show pity on us and gives us “a little something” and then move on. So it seems! What is in the future for that kind of existence?
Generally speaking, being a BOT is more than just being the recipient of charity. BOTs get more benefits and political rights in Britain and the European Union that any other country has or have so far been able to offer us. What the CM is talking about is wishful thinking and totally unrelated to the real world of politics and economic development that we need. His approach is ineffective in the pursuit of political modernity.
There is more to BOT status than a one shot deal of pity and pittance. What we must realize is that we want more than a project here and there. What we really need is a sustainable partnership with opportunity for the betterment of Anguilla. We can use the BOT arrangements to help us to do that even if we have to apply patience and perseverance. You see, fellow Anguillians, we can’t afford to “jump out of the frying pan into the fire”. There is room to fine-tune the BOT system as we move along. This much we know and also understand the politics of it. The AUF understands and will be on board for any improvement that is in the best of Anguilla.
How better off are our cousins in the other islands under the other system? Are they better off than us? Primarily, the BOT arrangement replaces the old colonial system that only the CM talks about, and brings in a system that a Caribbean person, Baroness Amos, spoke about on the floor of the House of Lords. It is well thought out and is a modern statutory arrangement. Maybe it is not designed with the personal interest of the CM in mind, but it was designed for better relationships, better partnership and the general betterment of the islands before independence. Until we get there, there is no need to hit the panic or exit-button. Because this status allows us constitutional freedom to run things locally; easier travel than most of the rest of the Caribbean; citizenship and the rights of abode in UK; the rights to live and work in the EU; the benefits of DFiD, mutual obligations and responsibilities deriving from the partnership; and freedom to aspire to self-determination and independence when we are ready.
Adding up the BOT column comes to more than when you add up the independence column. Only thing more you get with independence is a piece of paper and a flag. So what is the point, which the CM is making? This is modern political interaction. The days of Tshombe, Patrice Lumumba, Hastings Banda and Hughes are gone. Nowadays people communicate with email and memos. They do not walk up and down in the hot sun saying they have a march. That is not useful in this period. Not since the March on Greening in a period of great political upheaval, and dynamic change, have we seen a march used as a tool for political planning. Is that where the CM head is? That is certainly backward!
So we want less nonsense and more common sense. What we want is a system that best meets our needs, and for the CM himself to acknowledge that he is climbing up the wrong tree. We are looking for grafted mangoes not for gineps.
Fellow Anguillians, in this the age of communication and interaction in this global village, no man is an island. This is not the time for knee jerk action or for the egotist. Fellow Anguillians, don’t let your heart rule your head! THINK! The future is ours! What the CM is saying is “misunderstood history”!
