The Free Democratic Movement has released its response to the Green Paper on full membership of Caricom today. Here, FDM chair Omar Dill discusses some of the main issues

Bermuda should approach full Caricom membership as a strategic question of national power, institutional standing and regional influence, rather than as a test of cultural feeling or party loyalty.

The question before Bermuda is not whether we are capable of reciting Caribbean history or whether the language of belonging can be made politically attractive.

The issue is whether Bermuda wishes to move from an associate relationship that is useful but limited to a fuller place within a regional structure where decisions are made and influence is exercised.

Bermuda must be honest about the fact that, as a British Overseas Territory, any form of “full” membership available to us will still be narrower than that of a sovereign member state and will remain subject to constitutional limits, reservations and United Kingdom oversight.

A serious public debate must therefore separate three questions that are too often blurred together.

First, does Bermuda want the additional standing, influence and institutional leverage that full membership may provide?

Second, on what terms can that be made workable within Bermuda’s constitutional position?

Third, does the Government possess the competence and credibility to negotiate carefully, disclose honestly and implement the required steps responsibly? A weak messenger can damage a good idea. However, distrust of the messenger should not be allowed to become a permanent substitute for strategic thinking.

It is also important to be clear about what Bermuda already has the power to do. Before the present Green Paper, Bermuda was given delegated authority to negotiate and conclude agreements in areas such as goods, services, tourism, labour arrangements and wider regional co-operation.

Much of what is now being presented as a future benefit of Caricom could already be pursued under the authority granted to Bermuda by the United Kingdom through the 2009 and 2016 Letters of Entrustment. The public is therefore entitled to ask what has been done, what has not, and whether the real deficiency has been one of constitutional power or one of political will and administrative competence.

Bermuda has not strengthened its position in the world by standing alone. It has done so through durable relationships and alignment with wider networks of trade, education, finance and movement.

Our ties to jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom, the United States and Canada have expanded opportunity well beyond what our size alone would have allowed. They have opened doors to markets, institutions, mobility and partnerships that have shaped Bermuda’s development and extended its reach.

The same principle applies to the Caribbean. Small jurisdictions do not gain leverage by pretending they can move through the world on their own. They gain leverage by being connected to the places where decisions, standards and relationships are formed.

It is right to say that Bermuda should not approach this question on the basis of nostalgia, slogans, or a simplified appeal to shared ancestry. But it would be equally mistaken to treat culture as a soft or disposable consideration. Culture is not merely a “friends and family” package, it is the framework of habits, values, language, trust, memory and affinity through which people choose to co-operate. Economics does not float above culture, more often than not, it flows through it.

Bermuda’s most consequential external relationships were built through inherited legal traditions, education pathways, citizenship links, migration routes, business norms and longstanding social familiarity. That is part of the reason Bermuda’s relationship with the United Kingdom has been so materially significant.

Under the British Overseas Territories Act 2002, Bermudians also became British citizens, and British citizens have the right to live and work in the United Kingdom. That legal and cultural relationship has created room for study, work, family life and economic advancement across generations of Bermudians.

The United Kingdom and Caricom are not the same but Bermuda already understands from lived experience that where there is shared culture, familiar laws and the ability for people to move and live between places, there is often also greater scope for educational exchange, business formation, investment and personal advancement. In that sense, culture is not ornamental to economic life, it is often the glue that makes economic life sustainable.

For many Bermudians, the cultural dimension of Caricom is bound up with a wider question of self-knowledge, dignity, belonging and the terms on which Bermuda relates to the African continent and wider African diaspora. That does not make the case for Caricom sufficient in itself but it does, however, mean that the cultural dimension should not be dismissed as naïve sentiment.

For some Bermudians, stronger Caribbean ties may represent not only a strategic opening but a fairer chance to participate more fully in relationships from which Bermuda, as a jurisdiction, has long derived value.

Others, understandably, will feel a deeper inherited affinity with Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand or the United States, sometimes across many generations.

A mature national discussion does not deny either history, it simply asks whether Bermuda is prepared to understand itself fully enough to build from all of them.

The Caricom single market and economy, however, must still be judged carefully and on its separate parts. It includes goods, services, capital, establishment and the movement of skilled nationals, and Bermuda should not treat all of those regimes as carrying the same promise or the same risk. Goods and services may offer some opportunities but any serious case for economic gain should show clearly where those gains are expected to come from.

Labour mobility must also be discussed honestly. Caribbean professionals already contribute materially to Bermudian life across healthcare, education, tourism, accounting and other fields. The real policy question is not whether Caribbean people can contribute, it is how Bermuda wishes to structure access, reciprocity, standards and domestic protection in a way that is disciplined and workable.

At the same time, not every part of the CSME stands on the same footing. Establishment and capital are more sensitive. The entrustment record suggests greater caution in those areas and they should not be approached casually. Any step that may increase pressure on housing, labour markets or infrastructure should be matched by clear evidence that Bermuda has the capacity to cope.

Much of the opposition to Caricom is not, in truth, opposition to regional engagement itself. It is opposition to uncertainty handled poorly, to ambition presented without the necessary instruments and to a Government that has not yet persuaded the public that it can carry a project of this scale with competence, transparency and discipline. The same is true of many calls for a referendum: at their core, they are often expressions of doubt about trust, credibility and performance.

Even so, if this matter is ultimately decided through Parliament, that does not make it any less democratic. It means the public has every right to expect its elected representatives to vote with seriousness and in the interests of the people they represent.

Bermuda should neither automatically embrace nor automatically reject Caricom. It should treat full Caricom membership as a credible strategic option but not as a substitute for competent government, disciplined negotiation or honest disclosure. Full membership and the CSME should be debated separately.

The delegated authority Bermuda already possesses through the Letters of Entrustment issued by the United Kingdom should be used more fully before deeper commitments are made. Any step that may increase pressure on housing, labour markets, public services or infrastructure should be tied to clear evidence that the country has the capacity to manage it.

In the end, the country should not be asked to choose between fear and sentiment. It should be asked whether this course is workable within Bermuda’s constitutional reality, sustainable within Bermuda’s economic and social capacity and genuinely capable of strengthening Bermuda’s position in the world.

· Omar Dill is the chairman of the Free Democratic Movement. For the full FDM response, click on Related Media

Download PDF File

FDM Response to Caricom Green Paper.pdf