Email

Print

Early next month, Foreign Minister Wilfred Elrington is expected to join his Guatemalan counterpart in signing the Belize–Guatemala compromis in Washington D.C. It is a significant step forward which comes after the Cabinets in both countries have signed off on the document. But according to the Opposition, in Belize, Cabinet approval is not enough. PUP Deputy Leader Mark Espat told us that the document should have been taken to the National Assembly before next month’s signing.

Hon. Mark Espat, PUP Deputy Leader
“I believe that when the Foreign Minister goes to sign such a momentous agreement, such an agreement with far reaching implications that that compromis, that compromise agreement should have come before the House of Representatives and the Senate, should have been subject to a full meaningful and robust debate so that when he pens his signature to that agreement then it would be clear it had gone through a constitutional process. I am not in anyway suggesting that taking it to the Cabinet was not important. Of course that is the responsibility of the Executive. But there is also a legal argument. He will sign, in effect committing Belize to hold a referendum when the Referendum Act is clear, that referenda are to be called and summoned by the House of Representatives.”

Jules Vasquez,
Aren’t you all being fastidious, needlessly fastidious? The fact of the matter is the entire process is quartered back by a referendum, it has to get the people’s approval and that trumps all.

Hon. Mark Espat,
“If there is ever an issue to be fastidious about, it is the issue of our territorial integrity and I much prefer to be fastidious on the issue of our territorial integrity than to be flippant and I believe that the Prime Minister’s categorization of litigation risk is flippant in the extreme.”

Jules Vasquez,
Aren’t we compelled to sign the compromis no matter what? Is this not just one more step along that path first embarked upon by your government, what was your government, and it is not a binding or irrevocable agreement because that will ultimately be made by people. So in that regard, is it not harmless and just the fulfilment of a continuing process first embarked upon by your party?

Hon. Mark Espat,
“Well I think it would be more harmful were the Foreign Minister to sign this agreement on behalf of our country and our people and then for the Parliament to disapprove of the agreement. Would it not be more helpful for us to have that debate prior to his signing and for him to sign it knowing that he has the backing of the House and the Senate? I think that is the right way to do it.”

The PUP has not established a formal position on whether it will or won’t support taking the matter to a referendum. The UDP has said that it will adopt no formal position, but will instead allow its leaders a vote of conscience.