May 23, 2011Dear Sir,I write in response to the one-sided argument that has been put forth by contributors to your column concerning the formation of the OBA. There are some clarifying points that need to be made.1. Upon formation of the BDA, three MPs resigned from the UBP and moved to the new entity2. Two other MPs, elected to resign from the UBP and sit as independent members of the House3. One of the latter two mentioned decided to “cross the floor” and join the PLP, citing Sir Winston Churchill's similar actions.These were all voluntary actions on behalf of those MPs. Many of the remaining UBP MPs criticised their former colleagues and called for their resignation from the House of Assembly and demanded that they offer themselves under their new status for confirmation by the electorate.The very important difference between those events and the formation of the One Bermuda Alliance lies in the fact that on April 4, 2011, the Central Council of the United Bermuda Party, after considerable debate and consultation by the Party, voted overwhelmingly to wind up the organisation. That action released the remaining MPs from any commitment to continue to serve as UBP MPs. The intent was to have an orderly run-off of the affairs of the UBP, and members would then merge into the OBA.Following the vote, an injunction was taken to prevent the merger of the UBP. The injunction was obtained by a handful of UBP members who felt that the voting process should have allowed the 47 percent of the electorate who voted for the UBP in the last general election to have a say in whether to wind up the UBP.There are a few fundamentally flawed principles in this stand:1. The UBP does not have the power to put this matter to the 47 percent who voted in the last election. It is the Government alone who can call a general election. It is a known fact that many people who voted UBP in the last election were in fact PLP supporters who were disenchanted with their party's performance, and quietly elected to support the UBP candidate in their area. People's votes are very private and it is unrealistic to ask them to participate in a further process that might identify who they are and the manner in which they voted. Many would not participate for that very reason and this in turn would have distorted the vote.2. The Central Council is the representative body of the constituencies, and the delegates to that Council are empowered to vote on party matters in accordance with the UBP constitution.3. Members of Parliament have a duty to inform their constituents of matters pertaining to their party, bearing in mind that political strategy demands a certain amount of discretion with who gets information4. The negotiations leading up to the delegates' final decision was communicated in numerous special meetings from the beginning to the end of the process, and while 100 percent of the information was not shared, members were always apprised of the major points of contention and what had been agreed.5. If there was a feeling that the wind up of the UBP was somehow not in the best interest of Bermuda, those handful of members ought to have made their voices heard well in advance of the vote rather than embroil people in litigation after being dissatisfied with the outcome of the vote. The matter is now in the hands of the Court and ultimately the Court will have to decide what happens to the remains of the UBP. I suspect that few people will care.The few remaining members of the UBP may try to breathe life into the party but for most of us who abided by the decision of the Central Council, and for most of Bermuda it is time to move on collectively and to do those things required for the better good of Bermuda and her people.PATRICIA J. GORDON-PAMPLIN, JP, MPPaget West