PHILIPSBURG--A motion presented by National Alliance (NA) Member of Parliament (MP) Ardwell Irion, urging government to begin preparations for a consultative referendum on political independence for St. Maarten by December 31, 2027, was rejected on Monday after a second vote resulted in a tie. The motion saw six votes in favour and six votes against.
The first vote on this motion, which occurred during the debate on the 2025 draft budget in January, also ended in a tie of seven votes for and seven votes against. At that time, Party for Progress (PFP) MP Ludmila de Weever was absent. She was present for the meeting on Monday, but she did not vote, briefly moving away from her seat when her name was called and returning after her time had passed to vote.
The MPs who voted in favour of the motion included initiator Irion, along with Francisco Lacroes (UP), Franklin Meyers (SAM), Darryl York (NA), Omar Ottley (UP), and Lyndon Lewis (NOW). Opposing the motion were Veronica Jansen-Webster (URSM), Dimar Labega (DP), Raeyhon Peterson (PFP), Sjamira Roseburg (URSM), Chris Wever (URSM), and Sarah Wescot-Williams (DP).
At the start of the meeting, MP de Weever voiced concerns about the process of the motion, stating that it started incorrectly. She asked whether Parliament could caucus or give the requestors a chance to pull back the motion since it is assigning a task that belongs to Parliament to government. She stressed that the task should not be assigned to the Council of Ministers (COM), but rather should start in Parliament.
"What we are doing is assigning a task that belongs to Parliament to the COM, [for the COM] to come back and tell us about it, but it starts here. It’s not something we hand over to the COM to do," she said.
She was also concerned about misinformation about the topic. "What is going out in the public is a bit of misinformation. It looks like it's a discussion, but the process started incorrectly in the beginning. It has to originate in the House of Parliament."
MP Lacroes echoed some of De Weever’s sentiments, but proposed that the motion, given its importance to the country, should have been scheduled at a time when all MPs were present in the House. "This should have been scheduled at a time when all MPs were available, and if that meant postponing, it should have been postponed,” Lacroes said.
Wescot-Williams clarified that the meeting was solely about voting on the matter, not reopening discussions. "The discussion regarding the essence of the motion has already been discussed. Now, it is just the voting," Wescot-Williams explained.
MP York acknowledged that the importance of the motion had been highlighted by Irion through recent communications. "My colleague Irion has been vocal in the past weeks and sent a few letters for updates on the budget. While we haven’t gotten an answer yet, any updates would be appreciated," York noted.
Although it was not necessary, Wescot-Williams allowed MPs to motivate their vote.
Irion was the first to take the floor stressing that despite the procedural issues, Parliament had been hesitant to address the issue of a referendum for independence. "The accountability of the referendum is in Parliament, and maybe the motion wasn’t done right, but the body of Parliament has consistently been afraid of addressing this topic and delaying getting it done,” Irion said.
MP De Weever said it was nonsensical for Parliament to vote on an issue it has the authority to handle itself. "It’s a little bit nonsensical for us voting on something that is our authority. This is not the right way to do it. I will make sure to clarify the right way to do this," De Weever said.
MP Lacroes also weighed in on the procedural confusion, recalling that the last referendum attempt, faced issues. "At no point does the motion say that Parliament needs to do the work. It says urge the government, and I thought this was the idea of a referendum—to urge the government to start preparations."
MP Peterson stressed the importance of doing things the right way. "A referendum is regulated by law. I am not one for passing the buck on to the government. Let’s do it the right way, and if that’s the wish of Parliament, let’s make sure we follow the proper legal procedures," he stressed.
MP Roseburg concurred with the need for better procedural handling and advised for Parliament to form a committee to work on decolonization and related legislative issues. "We need to use our time wisely and form a committee of decolonization with members who are willing to contribute so we can start the work and continue with the legislation," Roseburg suggested.
MP Wever added that education was key in understanding the proper procedures for a referendum, stressing that a vote against the motion should not be seen as a vote against independence. "We need to do things the correct way, and for the House of Parliament to do the correct steps to proceed and have a proper referendum done," Wever said.
Despite the division over procedural matters, MP York concluded by noting the ongoing discussion of a referendum had been on the table for several years. "What I find incredible is that we are still talking about a law that has to be made in 2025. People have been talking about this since 2012. Why are we still discussing it?" York asked.
MP Ottley, while echoing similar sentiments about the importance of a referendum, expressed confidence that the issue would not be forgotten. "The people will not forget when this is voted against today. Time will tell, and let's see who will head all committees and bring forth the laws that we speak about," Ottley said.
