Government is rejecting the referendum as a means of determining the will of the people when it comes to constitutional change, but is committed to engaging the public in open and frank discussion.

According to the Government's submission on future constitutional change, Government should play a lead role in initiating any changes to the Constitution, including the move to Independence, and has the right to determine how the public's will is gauged.

The submission also contains a warning to the UK Government not to obstruct the will of the people as expressed through General Elections.

And, it says, future change should be driven by a process 'very much similar" to that used to effect electoral reform in 2001.

"We consider that as the democratically elected Government, having received a mandate from the people, we have the legitimate authority to lead and initiate the process for any further constitutional change. This clearly does not obviate the necessity for there to be wide public discussion and consultation and dialogue with the Opposition and the wider community," the submission states.

"Broad and wide public discussion" should take place and then the proposed changes should be debated in the House of Assembly. This debate would be followed by a vote of Members of Parliament present and eligible to vote in the House of Assembly and should record a clear and decisive majority of support for the proposed constitutional changes."

It goes on to say that leaving the general public out would be indefensible, but as the "democratically elected government we would resist any attempts to thwart the will of the majority of the people of Bermuda, who through their elected representatives by a decisive majority have expressed their desire to change Bermuda's Constitution or Bermuda's constitutional status. This would be particularly disquieting if the UK Government, whether directly or through Government House, contrived mechanisms with the seeming intent to frustrate the will of the majority of Bermuda's people. Once the process as outlined above has been followed, then in our view the pre-conditions have been met for the Bermuda Constitution Order 1968 to be amended by an Order in Council."

The document criticises the Governor Sir John Vereker for asking the public for its proposals on how the Constitution should be changed, saying that Government House was usurping the role of the elected government.

"We disapprove of the attempt to dilute our role in this significant process and to usurp the legitimate functions of the democratically-elected Government."

Sir John called for submissions following the controversial two-year process which led to electoral reform. The procedures were challenged by the Opposition United Bermuda Party and lobby group The Association for Due Process and the Constitution, as unconstitutional and a violation of established precedent.

"As a Government, we believe in open and frank discussions on the substantive issues affecting Bermuda. It is in the public and national interest for our citizens to be properly informed on the far-reaching ramifications of any future constitutional changes and we endorse and embrace efforts that seek to do this," the Government position states.

"However, notwithstanding this, it must be noted that a cardinal feature of democracy is that the character of Government depends essentially on the results of the most recent General Election."

It noted that the PLP's election platform in 1976 when it was believed Bermuda was moving toward Independence, had advocated the setting up of a bipartisan committee to "ensure a national consensus on fundamental issues such as citizenship and the vote".

"This reflects clearly our commitment to seek the mandate of the people and not to unilaterally or capriciously seek a change in our constitutional status without obtaining the people's support. Evidently, based on our prior commitments and public utterances, this underscores our consistency to the fundamental principle of seeking the people's will. Accordingly, the fact that we advocate a collaborative and partnership type approach in the present climate is not at variance with our customary stance."

This week, Premier Alex Scott told The Royal Gazette that the next constitutional change would be one to Independence.

"That's from Great Britain's point of view - they have historically taken that position. We can tinker with it but that doesn't really advance us constitutionally."