A year ago, the Prime Minister told his party that the circumstances of the world had changed and that the Caribbean had to adjust to these changes if it were to survive. This was true of all Caribbean states, but more particularly so of the Eastern Caribbean States whose economies are closely linked to that of Trinidad and Tobago.

These states depended for their economic well being on tourism, the export of bananas, offshore banking and remittances, all of which were seriously threatened. Preferences were also largely a thing of the past. Given these developments, he announced his intention to work towards an economic and political unity with Grenada, St Vincent and St Lucia.

The Prime Minister noted that an economic union between Trinidad and Tobago and these states was not a matter of charity. The citizens of these states were consumers of Trinidad’s manufacturing industries and the latter would be seriously affected by any significant reduction of demand. Immigration to Trinidad would also increase as unemployment increased, and one could not rule out conflict taking place on the streets of Trinidad and Tobago.

Mr Manning went so far as to warn that ’blood might flow’ on the streets of Trinidad and Tobago though it was not obvious that less blood would flow if an economic union were instituted since the latter might increase emigration to Trinidad and Tobago. The Prime Minister may well believe that economic integration would lead to increased investment in the OECS, and that this would reduce migration to Trinidad and Tobago. He might also have been concerned about Venezuela’s economic and diplomatic activities in the region. Other states may have shared his concern.

There has been curiosity and in some cases anxiety as to what is taking place in pursuance of this goal of economic and political union. Imminent constitutional change in St Vincent and the challenged fiscal circumstances of the Trinidad and Tobago economy have dramatically increased anxiety even further as to where the money to fund the initiative will come from and what jobs will be lost to Trinidad and Tobago as a result.

So too have reports about the creation of an economic union of all OECS by the end of the year. The publication of Volume 1 of a Report of the Task Force chaired by Prof. Vaughn Lewis, which was contracted by the Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago to come up with suggestions as to how the desired union could be politically effected, has also aroused interest in certain circles.

The Lewis Report assumes that there will be no need for fundamental constitutional reform either in Trinidad & Tobago or in the OECS which would necessitate both referenda and qualitative parliamentary majorities. The plan is to proceed incrementally to establish structures that are deemed necessary and appropriate to the tasks at hand and to give those structures the constitutional authority and legitimacy required to enable them to function with ’stickability’.

The Report tells us that ’it is necessary to design a form of political governance that would satisfy the dual requirements of (i) degree of national autonomy matching the island-character of the existing states, and (ii) political-economic integration for ensuring efficient governance and management of a common economic and security space which these islands would constitute.’

The authors of the report argue that there is however need to ’cross the sovereignty/supra nationality hurdle’ and proposed the creation of a number of bodies which would constitute the new governance regime but which would nevertheless preserve the national identities of the states involved. At the top of the political pyramid, there would be a Council of State which would function as the Supreme Authority of the Union. This Council would consist of the Heads of Government of the four states who would select one of their number to be the Chairman of the Council and President of the Union.

The Council is to be responsible for the formulation and execution of the policy of the Union. Its members shall be assigned portfolios by the Council. In the exercise of its functions, the Council will be assisted by a Council of Ministers which will be drawn-one each-from the member states. The Council of Ministers, (aka the Commission) which will have a five-year shelf life will serve as the administrative, technical and implementing arm of the Council of States and will be chaired by a Commission- General who will serve for a fixed period.

The law-making function of the Union would be performed at two levels, the union level and the state or national level. The latter would remain much as it currently is. Union law would consist of the provisions of the Treaty, the legally binding decisions made either directly or indirectly through the delegated authority of the Council of States, and by the Union Assembly. The latter would be made up of existing parliamentary representatives of government and opposition parties as well as of the Council of State as body. The Union House of Assembly would, inter alia, approve the annual budget of the Union, deliberate and debate union public policy and discuss policies, programmes and matters relating to the Treaty of Union. The people are somehow absent from this equation, though there is some talk about ’Consultation’ with civil society.

The Judicial functions of the states in the Union would be performed by the existing national and regional courts which would not be dissolved, and by the CCJ in respect of matters over which that court has exclusive and compulsory jurisdiction. The CCJ would also have jurisdiction in disputes involving the interpretation and application of the Treaty of Union in all cases where ’national and regional Courts consider that the decision of the Court is necessary to enable to give a judgement.’

There is to be another installment which would ’reflect a more cohesive form of governance.’ In this model, the Council of Ministers would be replaced by a Union Cabinet whose members-one from each state-would be responsible for the day-to-day execution of the policies of the union.

These ministers would not hold ministerial office in their respective states nor be members of their parliaments. Also, the House of Assembly would have wider powers to legislate on union matters. Finally, Heads of Government would not be members of the Assembly but would have the right to address it and to report to it on matters pertaining to the affairs of the Union.

The question however arises as to whether these structures and processes can be constitutionalised and given the requisite authority without bumping up against the national constitutions and social groups. That is unlikely though the authors of the Task Force do not anticipate such conflict. One could not however provide that Union Law would ’automatically be received into the legal systems of member states through an enabling act passed prior to the commencement of the Union.’ That enabling act, it seems to me, would trespass on some of the key provisions of the existing constitutions of the participating states. My own view is that the proposed union should be submitted to the people for their resolution and that it should not be determined by heads of state who have no mandate whatever to make radical changes of the kind being considered. Let the people decide!