PLP "secretly" agreed to join CSME since last December (CAFTA precursor)

The Nassau Guardian ^ | May 12, 2005 | TAMARA McKENZIE

[hedgetrimmer]

The Progressive Liberal Party has secretly agreed since last December to join the Caribbean Single Market and Economy (CSME) in July, reported former Attorney General and Holy Cross MP Carl Bethel on Tuesday night.

Addressing hundreds of Free National Movement supporters at its "report card" rally at the Prince Charles Shopping Centre, Mr Bethel alleged that this secret decision by the PLP Cabinet has never been announced to the public, but was done in the dark and in the "dead of night."

"By secretly agreeing to join the CSME without telling you about it, or consulting you before they agreed to do so, the PLP government is backstabbing the Bahamian people. This is almost an act of political treachery of the highest order towards the Bahamian people," Mr Bethel charged.

Mr Bethel stressed that no elected government, be it PLP or FNM, has the right to sell out or give away the sovereignty of the Bahamian people. He added that the plan to copy the European Union and create a "Caribbean Union" is more far reaching upon the national sovereignty of The Bahamas than the FTAA [Free Trade Area of the Americas] or WTO [World Trade Organization], as these trading blocs not wish to set up any regional government, or allow for the free movement of labour.

Mr Bethel also refuted recent remarks made by Foreign Affairs Minister Fred Mitchell who was quoted in a local daily as stating that the CSME was not a trading bloc. Mr Bethel said such a statement is "blatantly untrue" and the PLP is "deliberately deceiving the people."

Mr Bethel asserted that if The Bahamas is to obtain any exemption from the provisions of the CSME, which call for the free movement of people, it could only be decided by a special committee of Caribbean Prime Ministers and not by the sovereign government and Parliament of The Bahamas.

The former Attorney General also called on the government to stage a referendum to decide whether or not to join the CSME. He expressed that it is the height of "arrogance" for the PLP to act as if they know better than the Bahamian people, so much so that they will not even be allowed to have a say in the matter.

"They just ga jump up in July, go south and sign away the national sovereignty of The Bahamas. They gatta be joking.

"There must be a national referendum on this question before the PLP government of Fred Mitchell sells out our national sovereignty by signing on to the CSME. The FNM demands a national referendum on this issue of fundamental importance. The Bahamian people, not Fred Mitchell should decide," Mr Bethel suggested.

The former Holy Cross MP also highlighted that even though the PLP says the law as it stands only allows for "constitutional referendums," that deal directly with proposed changes to the Constitution, Parliament can pass a new Act to allow a Consultative Referendum to be held.

Mr Bethel also dashed those claims of a referendum being an "expensive" exercise. He pointed out that it would be infinitely more expensive to The Bahamas, to allow the Bahamian people to be dragged "kicking and screaming" into the CSME by a "wicked, unresponsive and unpatriotic" government.

According to Mr Bethel, it has always been the position of the FNM that the CSME was initially realistic. He also added that it has always been the position of the FNM that no decision would be made on the CSME before there was proper consultation and the Bahamian people consented. He also advised that the CSME was a "real concern" and was not a "political football."

Also focusing on a segment of the CSME known as the Right of Establishment, Mr Bethel warned that from the moment The Bahamas signs onto the CSME, the Right of Establishment becomes automatic. He said citizens of CSME counties will have a human right to enter The Bahamas and "set up shop" and vice versa. He added, however, that most of the traffic would flow into The Bahamas.

Mr Bethel said Bahamians might welcome large numbers of Caribbean lawyers, doctors, architects, accountants and dentists, but the Bahamian people should make this decision and not the government.

"No government has a right to do so without the expressed mandate from the people. There must be a referendum before the PLP puts pen to paper and, once again, sells out or gives away the Bahamas to foreigners," Mr Bethel concluded.

[hedgetrimmer]

Also focusing on a segment of the CSME known as the Right of Establishment, Mr Bethel warned that from the moment The Bahamas signs onto the CSME, the Right of Establishment becomes automatic. He said citizens of CSME counties will have a human right to enter The Bahamas and "set up shop" and vice versa. He added, however, that most of the traffic would flow into The Bahamas.

Mr. Bethel is a member of the Bahaman parliament.

There are a number of concerns voiced in this article about the "free trade" agreements that can be directly correlated to the "free trade" agreements the USTR is currently promoting including CAFTA. The "right of establishment" is ubiquitous in NAFTA, CAFTA and the FTAA.

[hedgetrimmer]

Another article warning about the dangers of the "free trade" blocs currently being implemented in the Western Hemisphere.

[JesseJane]

Thanks for the ping HT~!~

~fyi ping, justanobody~

I'll be MIA for a bit, but marking for reference..

[hedgetrimmer]

A couple of things jumped out at me,

1. the progressives like trade blocs, but they don't admit it publicly (I have a feeling the same thing is happening in the US)

2. A lot of the negotiating and agreements happen in the dead of night (or out of country so US newspapers and sunshine laws don't know or have no effect)

3. No elected government has the right to sell out the sovereignty of a nation (be it the Bahamas or the US)
"This is almost an act of political treachery of the highest order "

4. Again the article decries the provisions which call for the 'free movement of people'-- which we have seen in from migration working groups set up for NAFTA, and in the Summit of the America's directives.

5.The Bahamians are asking for a referendum which is opposed by their governemt "people to be dragged "kicking and screaming" into the CSME by a "wicked, unresponsive and unpatriotic"-- this seems to be the modus operandi to establish these "free trade blocs" around the world.

6. the Right of Establishment, of which I was unaware of until recently, says that any foreign national in the trade agreement area, can come to any country in the trade agreement area and set up a business. They don't need to follow immigration protocol or get business or professional licensing. If you interfere with the right of establishment you are interfering with a "trade agreement" and subject to any fines or penalties associated with that.

[Just A Nobody]

JJ - Thanks.

4....migration working groups set up for NAFTA
6. the Right of Establishment...If you interfere with the right of establishment you are interfering with a "trade agreement" and subject to any fines or penalties associated with that.

hedgetrimmer has uncovered the reasons why we see NO action regarding our illegal invader problem. They, per NAFTA, are not illegal. I guess this is why they are alway referred to as "migrants" instead of illegals. Sigh...

[hedgetrimmer]

You might be interested in post #5

[A. Pole]

hedgetrimmer has uncovered the reasons why we see NO action regarding our illegal invader problem. They, per NAFTA, are not illegal

WOW!

[SandRat]

AAAAAARRRRRRGGGGGGGGG!!!!!!!!!!!!

[GOP_1900AD]

No borders, no nationality, no Natural Rights of Englishmen (the basis for the US Bill of Rights ...)

[monkeywrench]

Bttt!

[hedgetrimmer]

Dangers of CSME (CAFTA precursor)

When you have a single market economy, which CAFTA would create with Central America and the United States, you will get unlimited immigration, out of country students demanding in-state tuition, and unlicensed individuals working in areas where national and local licensing controls existed.

Here are some definitions of phrases that come out of "free trade" agreements:

the right of establishment==any foreigner can open a business in your country

the right of capital mobility==any foreigner can take capital out of your country , like remittances

free movement of labor== unlimited illegal immigration

national treatment == illegals must be afforded the same rights as "nationals" i.e. citizens

[SandRat]

AAAAARRRRRGGGGGGG!!!!!!!!

[hedgetrimmer]

Starting with the WTO,and through NAFTA to CAFTA to the FTAA, rules have been established regarding "the right of establishment" and the "national treatment" of migrants.

The right of establishment means that any country within the "free trade" area designated in the treaty has the right to establish business in any country in the "free trade area". That is why the article mentions the right of establishment, it is one mechanism for establishing open borders and unlimited immigration.

What the right of establishment does is force country's with migrant or temporary worker labor to give "national treatment" to the foreign nationals working in that country. National treatment means you must treat them the same as citizen workers, and allow them mobility to go to any job they want(no guest worker program that ties them to a specific employer, because that harms their economic freedom). The mobility issue could also be behind the push for illegal immgrant drivers licenses.

CAFTA clearly creates a "national treatment" and provides the "right of establishment" for professional workers, which is the camel's nose under the tent for other migrant labor in the hemisphere as soon as the FTAA is signed.

NAFTA has clear "right of establishment" and "national treatment" rules for Mexico. It is one proof that "free trade" promotes illegal immigration.

If you want to educate yourself about the fuzzy phrases that don't sound harmful to American sovereignty, but really are, I suggest you read up on how the "right of establishment" has harmed sovereignty in the EU, the "right of establishment" in the NAFTA, CAFTA, the FTAA and what "national treatment" means in "free trade" agreements.

[monkeywrench]

Commission for Labor Cooperation http://www.naalc.org/english/review_part3.shtml

[JesseJane]

We have been so hung out to die. A beautiful country sold. It's price?.. Everything. Liberty, freedom, sovereignty, individual rights, rule of law, it's future...gone.

[hedgetrimmer]

At a continental level, the N.A.F.T.A. is ultimately aimed at allowing the free movement of labour and its products across national boundaries. Ongoing restriction of this movement is supposed to allow the public and private sectors to adjust to a continental market, before starting the free movement of workers across borders. While this seems like a logical process, it can equally be argued that these restrictions, once again, benefit only the largest corporate interests within all three nations, while dooming smaller companies and individual workers to a type of regional labour bondage, which in turn legislates an ever deepening pit of poverty for the vast majority, and a non-competitive profiteering environment for the elite minority. At times it seems the true objective of the N.A.F.T.A.'s implementation schedule, is to make sure huge corporations get all the cream out of the free trade environment, before smaller entrepreneurs can get a look-in.

Canadian Association of Labour Lawyers
Sheila Greckol, Jeffrey Sack, Claude Melançon


http://www.naalc.org/english/review_annex5_can.shtml

[hedgetrimmer]

the N.A.F.T.A. is ultimately aimed at allowing the free movement of labour and its products across national boundaries

[Toddsterpatriot]

the N.A.F.T.A. is ultimately aimed at allowing the free movement of labour and its products across national boundaries

Wow, some Canadian lawyers said this!!! That's almost as good as it being in the actual treaty.

Try again? And this time why don't you quote some AFL-CIO leaders, E.P.I., Harry Reid or, heaven forbid, the treaty itself.

Wait, here is a quote for you "Yesterday, Toddsterpatriot said that anyone who thinks a trade treaty grants citizenship rights to illegals is a freakin' idiot!!!" I like that quote best. Feel free to use it.

[JesseJane]

Hey todd, did you leave of the /s tag? There are several of us following this, and digging deeper into the relationship with NAFTA as well... I'll speak for myself, but others would probably agree, we are looking at a set of trade criteria which is completely out of sinc with what Americans believe America should be doing for her own citizens.. And it's being done behind our backs, but yet in plain sight if you go to our government websites to read it for yourself. Therein lies a problem, for me anyway.. there is absolutely no media focus on this 'evolution' of the Americas, nor the cost to Americans, and their sovereign voice. So, with that, I'll accept your arrows and insight.

[Toddsterpatriot]

I'll speak for myself, but others would probably agree, we are looking at a set of trade criteria which is completely out of sinc with what Americans believe America should be doing for her own citizens..

Be specific.

nor the cost to Americans, and their sovereign voice.

What cost? What loss of sovereign voice?