PROGRESSIVE LIBERAL PARTY COUNCIL
21st April 2005

CSME

Tonight it is my special honour to have been asked by the Chairman Raynard Rigby to address this council on the Caribbean Single market and Economy.  I am happy to be here.  You will have by now have realized that this is campaign season in The Bahamas with what now seems a concerted attack on the messenger of the Government’s policy in this regard.

The gutter press and the regular press have been engaged in what seems a co-ordinated campaign of disinformation and propaganda.  Others from the FNM have joined the fight over what is quite a simple and uncomplicated issue.  There is an attempt to create a lightning rod where there is no need for one, certainly not around the Caribbean Single Market and Economy.

I wish to repeat here something that I said yesterday at the House of Assembly:

“I will not engage in any public rows over this matter of CSME.  This is not a matter over which there needs to be a fight.  It is not a political issue.  There is only one question to be decided and that is whether this is in the best interest of Bahamians.  The Mission of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs under my watch is to smooth the way for Bahamians (as they move) around the world.  It is in pursuance of that mission that we have been speaking about the CSME to explain what I is and what it is not.  The fact of this Cabinet decision was announced in the House.  It has been explained by way of radio.  It has been spoken of in the news.  There is no secret about it and there is nothing to fear from it.  There is no drama in it.  There are no life and death issues in it.  This Minister is not on a frolic of his own.

“The ill informed commentary about this matter continues unabated, however, even in some surprising quarters.  It therefore seems clear that there are other motives in this matter, either some form of campaign to discredit at any cost the individual who is simply doing his job as a Minister of the Government or to discredit the party and Government that is seeking to do its job on behalf of the Bahamian people.”

I ended this way:

“In either case, I am happy to meet the challenge at any level the critics and detractors may wish to engage.  However, I have chosen to address the matter this morning, in this atmosphere: a reasonable statement with the facts for reasonable and discerning minds to hear and address.  I have no doubt, however, that those who wish to hear will hear and those who don’t; won’t”

On the heels of that therefore it was not surprising to hear on the radio today, from a surprising quarter that the Minister of Foreign Affairs is now someone who can no longer be trusted because he is biased on the subject, and the same is being said for Ambassador Archer.  This seems to me an incredibly indelicate and personal attack, which is unwarranted and should be rebuffed.  How is any of this personal?  What has it got to do with trust for the messenger?  What is being said is either true or untrue.  No one can demonstrate that anything asserted by this Minister is untrue.

There is one named critic who is a former Minister of the Free National Movement who   has also sought to assert this business about untrue statements.  Remember what I said about political season.  This former Minister of the Government who writes a column in the press was engaged in splitting hair the other day when seeking to defend something that needed no defence.  I told the public in response to the FNM spokesman on foreign affairs' comments that he was nervous about the trade agreements, that it was strange to find the FNM’s spokesman being nervous since they were the ones who committed us to these latest processes.  That is the truth.

One of the more intellectual progenitors of FNM propaganda, Sir Arthur Foulkes then joined in the defence when it was clear that the drowning former Minister did not know what he was talking about by suggesting that I by my defence was simply trying to fob off on the FNM a decision that the PLP had to make.

This is certainly not the case, and a defence by verbal sleight of hand.  The only point I was making in answer to Brent Symonette was that the FNM ought to state where it is on these matters.  Are they for it or against it?  And if you are against it, how can you be against it since you were the ones who committed us to the FTAA process, the CSME process, and the WTO process?  All done on the FNM’s watch.  This is not to blame them.  Indeed it is Arthur Foulkes himself who raised the spectre of blame.  I simply say that the country knows where they stood.  Where do they stand now?

This morning I read again with interest after saying this time and time again, questions from the former Minister about what does the Cabinet believe?  Where does the Prime Minister stand?  This lack of understanding seems as slow as molasses.  How many times does one have to say that the Cabinet made a decision on the 21st of December?  For the slow of mind, Cabinet means Prime Minister and 15 others.

There is a public education campaign going on.  There is consultation going on every day.  We are meeting with groups large and small.  We are seeking to answer all the questions, as we know them to be.  We think that we have answered all of the concerns of the Bahamian people on this, and still the discussion goes on.  The Government will then present a white paper outlining the issues and how we propose to address them.

One of the surest signs that a debate is being lost by your opponents is when they seek to get personal in a matter. You can find no other argument so let’s attack the messenger.

It is important therefore to be armed with the facts, because it appears that someone wants to make this a partisan battle.  It is important therefore that party members should be fully aware of what the facts are and be able to discus them intelligently.

Please be sure to reassure the people with whom you come into contact that there is no special drama in this.  What is being attempted by some individuals is to heat up a great political battle over something for which there is no battle, and for which there is very little risk if any to The Bahamas.  There is no chance that this Government of The Bahamas would agree to anything damaging to The Bahamas’ interests.  No possible chance.

Let’s us then go through what CSME actually will entail.  We have said that we are to say ‘NO’ to the free movement of people; ‘NO’ to the Caribbean Court of Justice, ‘NO’ to the monetary union and ‘NO’ to the common external tariff for the time being.

The only reason I said ‘NO’ to the common external tariff for the time being is because some rather sophisticated tax calculations have to be made for the country as we enter into WTO and one wants to be sure that there is a customs duty or other tax regime that protects the revenue.  But no one can argue that going forward - as close as possible - no customs duty will not be a good thing for the Bahamian businessman.

I will now take questions.