Thursday, November 14, 2013 One question from the questions asked of Hon Mark Brantley, Leader of the Opposition in the Federal Parliament conducted by Juni on his radio station Freedom. Ring, ring, the telephone ring: Good afternoon caller, youre on the air.. said Juni. Good afternoon Juni and Mr. Brantley, my name is Roy Flemming the Deputy Political Leader of The National Integrity Party. I just want to make a quick input as it relates to the land for debt swap here in St. Kitts. The Parliamentary Opposition in my view is being totally disingenuous, as it relates to the land for debt swap, as it related to St. Kitts. The matter was debated in our parliament with the Opposition members expressing their strong opposition to the Land for Debt Swap Legislation. After a Bill is debated in parliament the success or failure of that Bill, that is to say whether it passes or not, whether it becomes law or not is determined only by the way our Parliamentarians vote. Low and behold when the debate was over and it was time to vote on the Bill, my information is that there was only one opposition member present in the person of Senator Vincent Byron. Six (6) of them were missing in action. During the debate there were seven (7) members who oppose the Bill and there were seven (7) members who supported the Bill. My understanding is that had those seven (7) Parliamentarians, who oppose the Bill, stayed in the House after the debate and voted No, then today there would be no Land for Debt Swap Legislation. I stand corrected. So my question is Mr. Brantley: Do you know why those Parliamentarians who oppose this Bill did not stay in Parliament and voted NO? And also, do you think it is fair for some of these politicians, same parliamentarians to have called on the unsuspecting citizens of this country to march in the hot sun, against a piece of legislation which they allowed to become law, by reason of their absence and failure, absence from the House and failure to vote against the Bill? I thank you Juni. Brantleys response: Juni, I have indicated publicly more than once, why I was not in the House to vote. And they have this notion that they call, Monday morning quarterbacking in the US. You know, after the game everybody know how the game should have been played. After the man gets out or whatever, everybody knows what stroke he should have played. The reality is that prior to that occasion, I am not aware of anytime, that people have stayed back to actually vote and say yea or Nea. The matter comes and if were in Parliament people say, yea or nea. But, the understanding then was that the Is will have it and that has always, has always been the purpose. What we used the debate then to do, was to articulate a different view point, to say to the public, listen, this is what our views are on a particular, on a piece of legislation, legislation. Juni: But, I think the point Roy Flemming was trying to make is that the votes would have been seven (7) in favour and seven (7) against. Brantleys response: Of course. Hes saying that now and it sounds great after the fact. But the reality, was at that time, Im talking about what the frame of mind was at the time. We wanted to express that there was a different way . We didnt appreciate the way it was being done and people stood up and articulated their views. Now I left, I think what would have been the last boat that I took to come back to Nevis. I believe, that debate I think went on until midnight or something of that nature. You, I and everybody else knows including Mr. Flemming, he said hes from which party, he says the Labour Party? Juni: No, hes from The National (chuckles) The National Integrity Party, N.I.P. Brantley: Well, Mr. Flemming from The NIP, he knows and we all know that it would be highly unusual for Parliament to continue until midnight. But, the Prime Minister clearly had a particular agenda which he served. Now Mr. Flemming with the benefit of hindsight should everybody, have stayed and if it took two, three days? Yes. I absolutely accept that with the benefit of hindsight, the answer to that is yes. But, we are where we are and we cannot go back in time. And, the question still remain: was it a good idea or not to swap the peoples patrimony for debt without any consultation with them? And, where we are saying there were other alternatives that could have been explored, that question still remains. So, whether you fault us for leaving or not being there to vote or not, it doesnt advance the overarching question of the swapping of ones patrimony in light of our peculiar history of slavery and landlessness. Is it a good idea? And so, I would love for him to call back to expound on whether or not he thinks it is a good idea with his National Labour Party. End
Posted on: Sun, 17 Nov 2013 13:02:35 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015