To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behaviour or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
Why I did not participate in part two of the debate
Share this:
From Deputy Sean Power.
MAY I be allowed to clarify my position with regard to the fact that I did not participate in Part 2 of the Waterfront debate and my decision to not vote?
There are reasons for this and these are:
*I did not speak on the financial part of the proposition because I had warned the Chief Minister that I was aware of the American and Irish litigation. The Irish litigation is probably more serious than the American litigation, because it involves a dispute over the ownership of some of the Jersey Waterfront sites. I felt that by speaking, I might have risked speaking against Harcourt, being seen as being negative about Harcourt and that might have been misconstrued.
*I am also conscious of the fact that the principals that have taken action against Harcourt in Dublin must be heard, and I did not want to vote against the proposition and be seen as supporting the principals who are taking this action against Harcourt.
*Those colleagues that did vote against Part 2 did so for various reasons. I did not wish to be associated with those differing views and vote against Part 2 of the proposition.
My options then were limited. So I decided to not use my vote and not speak. In that way, I cannot be accused of supporting Part 2 of the proposition, cannot be accused of being negative about Part 2, and I cannot be accused of taking sides. Had I abstained or voted against, I might have been associated with colleagues that were against all or some of the proposition for a number of different reasons.
I therefore endured a self imposed silence, sat in the Chamber and listened and did not vote on those votes associated with the debate on Part 2 of the Masterplan. That was very difficult and the only time I have ever done this. I hope I never have to do it again.
La Ferme du Sud,
Rue de la Corbière,
St Brelade.
Related