discussion of the issues involved in Independence. The Green Paper was promoted as an objective discussion paper and turned out to be a promotion for Independence. That is a great shame because the Green Paper now has to be criticised for lack of objectivity and as an attempt by those in the Government who are in favour of Independence to use a public document to achieve their own ends. This Green Paper is biased, it is unfair and it is a sham which should never have happened. The perpetrators forgot that Bermudians are not stupid and will think that this Green Paper is nothing but a whitewash.

When Premier the Hon. Sir John Swan announced the list of people who were to prepare this Green Paper, there was alarm among those who do not favour Independence. They felt the Premier had stacked the deck against them and in favour of his own pro-Independence views. That alarm turns out to have been justified. Those who are anti-Independence took heart from the inclusion of Dr. Clarence Terceira in the committee but it is clear now that all five members of the committee and their adviser have served Bermuda poorly because they were not objective.

They all traveled to London and New York, very nice too, to ascertain "facts'' which could have been obtained from Bermuda by a simple fax or, at worst, by one person traveling. They only achieved a strongly biased report which otherwise tells us little that is new or enlightening. When you have a situation in which even the proponents of Independence are happy to go public and state the Green Paper is biased in their favour, then there is a real problem.

As an example, in the section on costs of Independence, the costs have been minimised to the point where any serious reader will see them as laughable.

The section makes no mention and takes no account of the human factor which will speedily inflate the costs in the same way that it caused all five committee members and the adviser to travel to London for "talks'' about things they already knew.

In dealing with "the Hong Kong factor'' the Green Paper does point out that there was some indication in London that the situation might change after Hong Kong reverts to China. However, the Paper fails to mention that Hong Kong's departure is only two years away. So why are we hurrying to become the smallest fish in a shark-filled pond when we may be the beneficiaries of the best of all worlds? The Green Paper fails to say that the Committee chairman, the Hon. Irving Pearman, had previously told Bermudians that there was no indication in London that there would be any post-Hong Kong changes. None of that is very straightforward.

This Green Paper was announced as presenting the facts and the alternatives in order to promote objective discussion. The Premier has said: "The Committee's job was to deal with the facts and show no bias.'' Yet the committee produced a light-weight and incomplete paper full of pro-Independence bias. That is no help in reaching the most important decision Bermudians will ever make.

If Bermudians are ever to be content with any decision which is made on Independence, then the decision must be made calmly and rationally on good information. If Government continues its attempt to hoodwink the public then the decision will only lead to discontent. There is too much of that around already.

The only sensible solution now is to ignore this blunder, delay the referendum for a year, and appoint a committee free of tainted politicians to consider the issues openly and honestly.