After a parliamentary motion calling on government to start preparations for a consultative referendum on St. Maarten’s independence tied in votes a second time (see related story), it is deemed rejected. The six members who opposed such on Monday were mainly concerned with this being an own task of the legislative rather than the executive branch.
Also not unimportant, it was argued that the elected representatives should start by adopting a Referendum Ordinance that meets constitutional requirements. However, according to National Alliance (NA) faction member Darryl York, this has been in discussion since 2012.
Parliament President Sarah Wescot-Williams during a recent press conference of the Democratic Party (DP) committed to spearheading such legislation. This would further regulate the referendum’s scope and what topics can be put to a public vote.
She said drafting the bill would require input from all members and the High Councils of State as well as experts in the field. Her call for a well-thought-out approach in any case seems to make sense.
The question is also whether a “yes” or “no” choice for political independence suffices. Many who in principle support the ultimate goal might wonder exactly how this will be realised and what the potential consequences are.
Issues such as Dutch citizenship, financial dependence, guaranteeing basic including legal rights and defence ought to be addressed. For example, one could imagine debt forgiveness and a possible “golden handshake” being part of the strategy.
A term of say 10 years should be considered too. In other words, calling for a referendum is one thing, but what’s the plan?
