ROAD TOWN, Tortola, VI — The delegation went to London to discuss the constitutional future of the British Virgin Islands.

They have now returned.

And the people are being told, essentially, that some things have to come off the table.

But what things?

That is the question the people of this Territory deserve answered.

Because this is not a discussion about a road project, a government contract or a policy that can be changed by the next administration.

This is about the Constitution of the British Virgin Islands — the framework that governs the Territory, defines the relationship between the BVI and the United Kingdom and establishes the powers and responsibilities of the institutions that govern us.

So why are the people being given so little information about what was actually discussed?

What Was Put On The Table?

The public deserves to know what the BVI delegation went to London asking for.

What constitutional changes were proposed?

What did the BVI delegation seek?

What did the United Kingdom agree to?

What did the United Kingdom reject?

What remains under discussion?

And, most importantly, what has now been taken off the table?

If the Government believes it cannot disclose every detail because negotiations are ongoing, then say that.

If certain matters were discussed privately and cannot yet be released, explain why.

But simply telling the people that certain issues must be removed from consideration without explaining what they are leaves the public unable to judge whether the Territory’s interests were adequately represented.

That is not meaningful public participation.

A Constitution Is Not Government Property

There is a tendency in political life to treat negotiations involving government as though the public’s role begins and ends with electing representatives.

That cannot be enough when the subject is constitutional reform.

The Constitution does not belong to the Premier.

It does not belong to Cabinet.

It does not belong to the delegation that travelled to the United Kingdom.

And it certainly does not belong to the British Government.

The Constitution belongs to the people.

Those elected to represent the people are custodians of that process.

That means they have an obligation to bring the people along.

Not after everything has been agreed.

Not after the important decisions have already been made.

During the process.

Are We Really Participating?

This raises an even bigger concern.

We have heard about constitutional review and public participation, but what does participation actually mean if the public does not know what is being negotiated?

A person cannot meaningfully comment on a proposal they have never seen.

A community cannot debate an issue it has not been told about.

And voters cannot assess whether their representatives are fighting for the constitutional aspirations of the Territory if they do not know what those aspirations are.

Public consultation cannot simply mean:

Tell us what you think.

Then the Government goes away, negotiates privately and returns months later saying:

This is what we were able to get.

That is consultation in name, but not necessarily participation in substance.

What Are We Being Asked To Trust?

The public is essentially being asked to trust the delegation.

Trust that the right things were put forward.

Trust that the right arguments were made.

Trust that the right battles were fought.

Trust that what was removed from the table needed to be removed.

Trust that what remains is in the best interest of the Territory.

But democracy should not operate solely on trust.

Accountability requires information.

The people should not have to rely on leaks, political insiders, social media commentary or second-hand accounts to understand what is happening with something as consequential as constitutional reform.

There should be an official record.

There should be a report.

There should be an explanation.

And there should be an opportunity for the people to respond.

We Are Not Asking For The Negotiating Playbook

To be fair, there is a difference between transparency and exposing every negotiating position in real time.

No reasonable person expects the Government to publish a confidential negotiating strategy while discussions are underway.

But there is a significant difference between protecting sensitive negotiations and providing the public with virtually no substantive account of what was discussed.

The Government can tell the people:

These were the broad issues.

These were the positions we advanced.

These were the areas of agreement.

These were the areas where the UK disagreed.

These are the matters that remain unresolved.

And these are the matters we have been told cannot proceed.

That is transparency without compromising the integrity of negotiations.

The People Must Not Be Brought In At The End

There is a danger in allowing constitutional reform to become an exercise conducted primarily between governments.

The BVI is not merely negotiating an administrative arrangement with Britain.

It is discussing its constitutional development.

And that means the people must have a meaningful role.

If a draft is eventually produced and presented to the public, residents should not be hearing many of its provisions for the first time.

They should already understand the issues.

They should already have had opportunities to debate them.

They should already know what their representatives were seeking.

They should already know what compromises were made.

Otherwise, the public is being invited to participate after the most consequential part of the process has already occurred.

This Is About Our Children Too

The people who should concern us most in this conversation are those who are not yet old enough to vote.

The children growing up in the BVI today will inherit whatever constitutional settlement emerges from this review.

They will live with decisions made now long after today’s politicians have left office.

That is why this cannot be treated as another government initiative.

It is bigger than one Premier.

Bigger than one Cabinet.

Bigger than one political party.

Bigger than the next election.

It is about the political future of the Territory.

So We Ask Again: What Came Off The Table?

The people deserve a proper accounting of the London talks.

Not political spin.

Not vague assurances.

Not simply that progress was made.

And not simply that certain matters must be taken off the table.

Tell the people:

What was on the table?

What was taken off?

Who objected?

Why was it removed?

What remains?

What does the BVI want from the next stage of negotiations?

And perhaps the most important question:

When will the people themselves get a meaningful opportunity to have their say before the next set of decisions is made?

The Constitution is the foundation upon which our political system rests.

If we are serious about constitutional reform, then we must also be serious about constitutional democracy.

That means transparency.

That means accountability.

And it means recognising that the people of the Virgin Islands are not merely the audience for this process.

They are the owners of the future being negotiated.