"No confidence not a done deal" as pnc/afc looks to usurp power.
Former Member63 replies
Former Member
Looks like the AFC/PNC have mobilized their legal minds as govt seeks to find a way to hold on to power and avoid 2019 elections by declaring the no confidence vote as "not sufficient".
President David Granger meeting with members of his cabinet at Ministry of the Presidency
…gov’t sought legal opinions on no-confidence vote …Cabinet sub-committee to advise on way forward
FOLLOWING the passage of Friday night’s no-confidence motion in the National Assembly, Cabinet has examined all of the legal and constitutional aspects of the vote and established a sub-committee to advise on this matter.
According to a statement attributed to Minister of State, Joseph Harmon, President David Granger on Monday convened special meetings of the Cabinet and the National Security Committee (NSC). During the meetings the President iterated the important role the Cabinet and the NSC play in the security, stability and good governance of Guyana. It was noted that Cabinet examined all of the legal and constitutional aspects of the vote in the National Assembly on Friday, December 21st.
The Guyana government on Monday announced that it has sought legal opinions on the implications of the defeat its suffered in the National Assembly in the opposition-sponsored no-confidence motion.
In a statement issued by the Minister of State, Joseph Harmon, he said a special Cabinet meeting “examined all of the legal and constitutional aspects of the vote in the National Assembly on Friday, December 21st and established a Sub-Committee to advise on this matter.”
“The Sub-Committee will examine all the legal opinions available and report to Cabinet on Thursday, December 27th with recommendations on the way forward,” he said.
The constitution clearly states that after a confidence motion is passed by a majority of members, the President and Cabinet must resign and elections must be held in 90 days unless otherwise decided by a two-thirds majority of the National Assembly.
Earlier Monday, Attorney General Basil Williams said Guyanese Senior Counsel, Rex Mc Kay has been hired to examine implications. “We have been looking at a variety of options. Mr Mc Kay is part of the process and we are not leave any stone unturned but also we have to be geared for an election and so we have to address our minds to that,” Williams told Demerara Waves Online News.
Barbadian lawyers, Ralph Thorne and Hal Gallop are also said to be part of the legal team that is examining the implications of the motion that was passed by a 33-32 majority after backbencher, Charrandass Persaud voted with the opposition People’s Progressive Party (PPP).
Of course, what yuh expect? Dem man will look at all legal means. When de legal means run out, den GT goh bun and de military go step in. It is a fight foh economic resource...coolie vs blackman. Yuh tink dem would a tek it without wan challenge? Jagan bun cane and do what he had to do. Every strategy gat different response. Ayoo didnt write dem down pon de blackboard in Freedom House? Hey hey hey...
THE position that the number of votes which carried the no-confidence motion against the Coalition Government is inadequate has begun to gain momentum with more attorneys-at-law coming forward to support the theory.
Deliberations on the issue emerged on Sunday when prominent local attorney-at-law, Nigel Hughes put forward his position on social media stating: “For a no-confidence motion to pass and be valid, the motion has to enjoy more votes than one- half of the full House.” At the time the no-confidence motion was debated and passed, there were 65 sitting members of the National Assembly present, 33 of whom were represented by the A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) + Alliance For Change (AFC). The remaining 32 belonged to the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C).
Former AFC member, Charrandas Persaud had voted in favour of the motion, resulting in its passage. However, Hughes is now saying that, mathematically, one-half of the House equals 32.5 members, which is highly impossible.
“There is no such thing as a half member, so half of the House is 33 members. This is because you have to round up to identify half of the House,” he said, by which he meant taking the figure to the nearest whole number.
At a media briefing on Monday, Hughes said: “To be defeated, whoever it is that brings the motion has to acquire 34 votes.” Ralph Ramkarran, another prominent local attorney, had back in November put forward similar arguments in a Stabroek News article.
Nonsense. Then their "Majority" was also not a "Majority!"
If it requires one more, then you are saying they needed an advantage of 3 as 2 is not a viable number with 65!
Thanks to Ralph Ramkarran, Hughs got wild ideas!
Bai...dem bais mekkin a case foh de court foh postpone de eleckshun. That is de bess strategy dem gat now foh get dem teeth pon de aile. If dat fail den is time foh de non court strategy. Hey hey hey...
Nonsense. Then their "Majority" was also not a "Majority!"
If it requires one more, then you are saying they needed an advantage of 3 as 2 is not a viable number with 65!
Thanks to Ralph Ramkarran, Hughs got wild ideas!
Bai...dem bais mekkin a case foh de court foh postpone de eleckshun. That is de bess strategy dem gat now foh get dem teeth pon de aile. If dat fail den is time foh de non court strategy. Hey hey hey...
They are caught off-guard and in disarray and playing for time! The LGE proves the PPP is ready and mobilized!
Who are they kidding? Granger is so happy to get out of that Presidency, he would hand over the govt to Mutt and Jeff if he had a chance.
If you notice, Granger ain't doing nuttin'. Is dem odda people fitin' fuh powah! It ain't about Granger!
Yea...Granger fightin foh he life. Is blackman vs coolie. Nobady aint yet see that is better to get half de aile money than none aile money. Hey hey hey...
32.5 is half of 65. Coalition got .5 vote less than that and PPP got .5 vote more than that. PPP advantage over the Coalition is exactly 1 point. Case closed. Next move. PNC begins their mo fiah slo fiah campaign.
Nonsense. Then their "Majority" was also not a "Majority!"
If it requires one more, then you are saying they needed an advantage of 3 as 2 is not a viable number with 65!
Thanks to Ralph Ramkarran, Hughs got wild ideas!
Bai...dem bais mekkin a case foh de court foh postpone de eleckshun. That is de bess strategy dem gat now foh get dem teeth pon de aile. If dat fail den is time foh de non court strategy. Hey hey hey...
They are caught off-guard and in disarray and playing for time! The LGE proves the PPP is ready and mobilized!
Nat really. PPP miscalculate now too. Blackman who was going to stay home in 2020 comin out now. Yuh going to get de highest blackman turn out. And dem army bais in de GECOM goh pad am up bout 1 percent point. Dem need high turn out and 1 percent point rig. Dem cyant rig big and crude like lang time...hey hey hey. Bharrat mobilize de blackman foh de PNC...hey hey hey. Every strategy gat multiple response. Hey hey hey...dem hustle business round BJ won't get dis. Hey hey hey...
32.5 is half of 65. Coalition got .5 vote less than that and PPP got .5 vote more than that. PPP advantage over the Coalition is exactly 1 point. Case closed. Next move. PNC begins their mo fiah slo fiah campaign.
32.5 is half of 65. Coalition got .5 vote less than that and PPP got .5 vote more than that. PPP advantage over the Coalition is exactly 1 point. Case closed. Next move. PNC begins their mo fiah slo fiah campaign.
So if the PPP would get 32.5, then the PNC would get 32.5. A tie? Which half of Charandas does the PNC take and which half do they want to give the PPP? Is the top half more powerful than the bottom half or they split in the middle? PNC mentality. As the perennial bullies in Guyana, they will resort to violence to retain power. The military might be called in. Wonder why Granger is quiet? His time is all occupied with members of the military on seizing power.
Nonsense. Then their "Majority" was also not a "Majority!"
If it requires one more, then you are saying they needed an advantage of 3 as 2 is not a viable number with 65!
Thanks to Ralph Ramkarran, Hughs got wild ideas!
Bai...dem bais mekkin a case foh de court foh postpone de eleckshun. That is de bess strategy dem gat now foh get dem teeth pon de aile. If dat fail den is time foh de non court strategy. Hey hey hey...
They are caught off-guard and in disarray and playing for time! The LGE proves the PPP is ready and mobilized!
Nat really. PPP miscalculate now too. Blackman who was going to stay home in 2020 comin out now. Yuh going to get de highest blackman turn out. And dem army bais in de GECOM goh pad am up bout 1 percent point. Dem need high turn out and 1 percent point rig. Dem cyant rig big and crude like lang time...hey hey hey. Bharrat mobilize de blackman foh de PNC...hey hey hey. Every strategy gat multiple response. Hey hey hey...dem hustle business round BJ won't get dis. Hey hey hey...
I actually agree with you. They may feel disappointed with the PNC, but they will be mobilized to turn out as they view it as a back stab, a coolie man bring down a Black Govt. It may have divided Guyana even further!
BJ may be no genius but so far, he has been a gazillion steps ahead of this hapless Coalition government. Compare Hughes comments and Nandlall's pointed rebuttal. They are night and day. So concise was Nandlall's rebuttal that Ramkarran was forced to correct his erroneous statement.
Nonsense. Then their "Majority" was also not a "Majority!"
If it requires one more, then you are saying they needed an advantage of 3 as 2 is not a viable number with 65!
Thanks to Ralph Ramkarran, Hughs got wild ideas!
Bai...dem bais mekkin a case foh de court foh postpone de eleckshun. That is de bess strategy dem gat now foh get dem teeth pon de aile. If dat fail den is time foh de non court strategy. Hey hey hey...
They are caught off-guard and in disarray and playing for time! The LGE proves the PPP is ready and mobilized!
Nat really. PPP miscalculate now too. Blackman who was going to stay home in 2020 comin out now. Yuh going to get de highest blackman turn out. And dem army bais in de GECOM goh pad am up bout 1 percent point. Dem need high turn out and 1 percent point rig. Dem cyant rig big and crude like lang time...hey hey hey. Bharrat mobilize de blackman foh de PNC...hey hey hey. Every strategy gat multiple response. Hey hey hey...dem hustle business round BJ won't get dis. Hey hey hey...
I actually agree with you. They may feel disappointed with the PNC, but they will be mobilized to turn out as they view it as a back stab, a coolie man bring down a Black Govt. It may have divided Guyana even further!
Yeah. De people seh how coolie tryin foh tek away we aile money. Hey hey hey...
32.5 is half of 65. Coalition got .5 vote less than that and PPP got .5 vote more than that. PPP advantage over the Coalition is exactly 1 point. Case closed. Next move. PNC begins their mo fiah slo fiah campaign.
So if the PPP would get 32.5, then the PNC would get 32.5. A tie? Which half of Charandas does the PNC take and which half do they want to give the PPP? .
That's not what they are saying. They are saying the number to beat was 32.5 and PPP got 33 which is not a 1 advantage. It doesn't hold water. It's a technical argument! The one advantage is over the other, not over an imaginary "other."
Nonsense. Then their "Majority" was also not a "Majority!"
If it requires one more, then you are saying they needed an advantage of 3 as 2 is not a viable number with 65!
Thanks to Ralph Ramkarran, Hughs got wild ideas!
Bai...dem bais mekkin a case foh de court foh postpone de eleckshun. That is de bess strategy dem gat now foh get dem teeth pon de aile. If dat fail den is time foh de non court strategy. Hey hey hey...
They are caught off-guard and in disarray and playing for time! The LGE proves the PPP is ready and mobilized!
Nat really. PPP miscalculate now too. Blackman who was going to stay home in 2020 comin out now. Yuh going to get de highest blackman turn out. And dem army bais in de GECOM goh pad am up bout 1 percent point. Dem need high turn out and 1 percent point rig. Dem cyant rig big and crude like lang time...hey hey hey. Bharrat mobilize de blackman foh de PNC...hey hey hey. Every strategy gat multiple response. Hey hey hey...dem hustle business round BJ won't get dis. Hey hey hey...
I actually agree with you. They may feel disappointed with the PNC, but they will be mobilized to turn out as they view it as a back stab, a coolie man bring down a Black Govt. It may have divided Guyana even further!
Bai, I see dem black man hugging Bharat. But come election time, I know they going for the broom. Hope they vote their stomachs and not their eyes.
Nonsense. Then their "Majority" was also not a "Majority!"
If it requires one more, then you are saying they needed an advantage of 3 as 2 is not a viable number with 65!
Thanks to Ralph Ramkarran, Hughs got wild ideas!
Majority of the entire membership
A majority of the entire membership is a voting basis that requires that more than half of all the members of a body (including those absent and those present but not voting) vote in favor of a proposition in order for it to be passed.In practical terms, it means an absence or an abstention from voting is equivalent to a "no" vote.It may be contrasted with a majority vote which only requires more than half of those actually voting to approve a proposition for it to be enacted. An absolute majority may also be the same as a majority of the entire membership, although this usage is not consistent.
In addition, a supermajority could be specified in this voting basis, such as a vote of "two-thirds of the entire membership".
By way of illustration, in February 2007 the Italian Government fell after it won a vote in the Italian Senate by 158 votes to 136 (with 24 abstentions). The government needed an absolute majority in the 318 member house but fell two votes short of the required 160 when two of its own supporters abstained.
Take a look at the above, the question is what is half of 65 , and what number is majority.
Nonsense. Then their "Majority" was also not a "Majority!"
If it requires one more, then you are saying they needed an advantage of 3 as 2 is not a viable number with 65!
Thanks to Ralph Ramkarran, Hughs got wild ideas!
Bai...dem bais mekkin a case foh de court foh postpone de eleckshun. That is de bess strategy dem gat now foh get dem teeth pon de aile. If dat fail den is time foh de non court strategy. Hey hey hey...
They are caught off-guard and in disarray and playing for time! The LGE proves the PPP is ready and mobilized!
Nat really. PPP miscalculate now too. Blackman who was going to stay home in 2020 comin out now. Yuh going to get de highest blackman turn out. And dem army bais in de GECOM goh pad am up bout 1 percent point. Dem need high turn out and 1 percent point rig. Dem cyant rig big and crude like lang time...hey hey hey. Bharrat mobilize de blackman foh de PNC...hey hey hey. Every strategy gat multiple response. Hey hey hey...dem hustle business round BJ won't get dis. Hey hey hey...
I actually agree with you. They may feel disappointed with the PNC, but they will be mobilized to turn out as they view it as a back stab, a coolie man bring down a Black Govt.
Then they will deserve the hapless government that they get.
32.5 is half of 65. Coalition got .5 vote less than that and PPP got .5 vote more than that. PPP advantage over the Coalition is exactly 1 point. Case closed. Next move. PNC begins their mo fiah slo fiah campaign.
So if the PPP would get 32.5, then the PNC would get 32.5. A tie? Which half of Charandas does the PNC take and which half do they want to give the PPP? .
That's not what they are saying. They are saying the number to beat was 32.5 and PPP got 33 which is not a 1 advantage. It doesn't hold water. It's a technical argument! The one advantage is over the other, not over an imaginary "other."
So we clutching at straws now Django bhai? Actually, I don't think that the Coalition government will fight this in court. I think they prefer the slo fiah mo fiah strategy.
This dude is seeking to advise the Coalition government.
Nonsense. Then their "Majority" was also not a "Majority!"
If it requires one more, then you are saying they needed an advantage of 3 as 2 is not a viable number with 65!
Thanks to Ralph Ramkarran, Hughs got wild ideas!
Majority of the entire membership
A majority of the entire membership is a voting basis that requires that more than half of all the members of a body (including those absent and those present but not voting) vote in favor of a proposition in order for it to be passed.In practical terms, it means an absence or an abstention from voting is equivalent to a "no" vote.It may be contrasted with a majority vote which only requires more than half of those actually voting to approve a proposition for it to be enacted. An absolute majority may also be the same as a majority of the entire membership, although this usage is not consistent.
In addition, a supermajority could be specified in this voting basis, such as a vote of "two-thirds of the entire membership".
By way of illustration, in February 2007 the Italian Government fell after it won a vote in the Italian Senate by 158 votes to 136 (with 24 abstentions). The government needed an absolute majority in the 318 member house but fell two votes short of the required 160 when two of its own supporters abstained.
Take a look at the above, the question is what is half of 65 , and what number is majority.
Boy, that so stupid. Then why even have an odd number if .5 will become a factor. Alyuh deh pon sheer stupidness! They needed 160 because 159 was exactly 50% and not a majority! Same with Vanuatu, they are 56. Any even number will, by default, means 2 for a majority.
Alyuh prapa stretching it to justify Slo Faiya Mo Faiya campaign!
Nonsense. Then their "Majority" was also not a "Majority!"
If it requires one more, then you are saying they needed an advantage of 3 as 2 is not a viable number with 65!
Thanks to Ralph Ramkarran, Hughs got wild ideas!
Majority of the entire membership
A majority of the entire membership is a voting basis that requires that more than half of all the members of a body (including those absent and those present but not voting) vote in favor of a proposition in order for it to be passed.In practical terms, it means an absence or an abstention from voting is equivalent to a "no" vote.It may be contrasted with a majority vote which only requires more than half of those actually voting to approve a proposition for it to be enacted. An absolute majority may also be the same as a majority of the entire membership, although this usage is not consistent.
In addition, a supermajority could be specified in this voting basis, such as a vote of "two-thirds of the entire membership".
By way of illustration, in February 2007 the Italian Government fell after it won a vote in the Italian Senate by 158 votes to 136 (with 24 abstentions). The government needed an absolute majority in the 318 member house but fell two votes short of the required 160 when two of its own supporters abstained.
Take a look at the above, the question is what is half of 65 , and what number is majority.
Boy, that so stupid. Then why even have an odd number if .5 will become a factor. Alyuh deh pon sheer stupidness! They needed 160 because 159 was exactly 50% and not a majority! Same with Vanuatu, they are 56. Any even number will, by default, means 2 for a majority.
Alyuh prapa stretching it to justify Slo Faiya Mo Faiya campaign!
The bai wants a super majority...2/3 as a majority.
Boy, that so stupid. Then why even have an odd number if .5 will become a factor. Alyuh deh pon sheer stupidness! They needed 160 because 159 was exactly 50% and not a majority! Same with Vanuatu, they are 56. Any even number will, by default, means 2 for a majority.
Alyuh prapa stretching it to justify Slo Faiya Mo Faiya campaign!
The bai wants a super majority...2/3 as a majority.
It was amusing that they were expecting folks from the PPP side to vote with them. Actually I am surprised that they expected the AFC dudes to vote with them. Not only did they undermine the PPP since 2011 (maybe since 1992) but they have also undermined the AFC since 2015.
Boy, that so stupid. Then why even have an odd number if .5 will become a factor. Alyuh deh pon sheer stupidness! They needed 160 because 159 was exactly 50% and not a majority! Same with Vanuatu, they are 56. Any even number will, by default, means 2 for a majority.
Alyuh prapa stretching it to justify Slo Faiya Mo Faiya campaign!
The bai wants a super majority...2/3 as a majority.
It was amusing that they were expecting folks from the PPP side to vote with them. Actually I am surprised that they expected the AFC dudes to vote with them. Not only did they undermine the PPP since 2011 (maybe since 1992) but they have also undermined the AFC since 2015.
Undermining is a trademark Burnham left with the PNC. Just ask the UF and now the AFC. Any mushroom party that thinks it will have power or influence on the PNC has an idiot and moron for its leader.
Boy, that so stupid. Then why even have an odd number if .5 will become a factor. Alyuh deh pon sheer stupidness! They needed 160 because 159 was exactly 50% and not a majority! Same with Vanuatu, they are 56. Any even number will, by default, means 2 for a majority.
Alyuh prapa stretching it to justify Slo Faiya Mo Faiya campaign!
The bai wants a super majority...2/3 as a majority.
It was amusing that they were expecting folks from the PPP side to vote with them. Actually I am surprised that they expected the AFC dudes to vote with them. Not only did they undermine the PPP since 2011 (maybe since 1992) but they have also undermined the AFC since 2015.
Imagine, Caribj boasted that Trotman worked with Granger to undermine Nagamootoo in the AFC and they have the gall to call Charandas a traitor!!
If Charandas got a million and ran, good for him. Tief tief from tief mek gawd laff! AFC had become a pawn for the PNC and Charandas checkmated them!
Nonsense. Then their "Majority" was also not a "Majority!"
If it requires one more, then you are saying they needed an advantage of 3 as 2 is not a viable number with 65!
Thanks to Ralph Ramkarran, Hughs got wild ideas!
Majority of the entire membership
A majority of the entire membership is a voting basis that requires that more than half of all the members of a body (including those absent and those present but not voting) vote in favor of a proposition in order for it to be passed.In practical terms, it means an absence or an abstention from voting is equivalent to a "no" vote.It may be contrasted with a majority vote which only requires more than half of those actually voting to approve a proposition for it to be enacted. An absolute majority may also be the same as a majority of the entire membership, although this usage is not consistent.
In addition, a supermajority could be specified in this voting basis, such as a vote of "two-thirds of the entire membership".
By way of illustration, in February 2007 the Italian Government fell after it won a vote in the Italian Senate by 158 votes to 136 (with 24 abstentions). The government needed an absolute majority in the 318 member house but fell two votes short of the required 160 when two of its own supporters abstained.
Take a look at the above, the question is what is half of 65 , and what number is majority.
Boy, that so stupid. Then why even have an odd number if .5 will become a factor. Alyuh deh pon sheer stupidness! They needed 160 because 159 was exactly 50% and not a majority! Same with Vanuatu, they are 56. Any even number will, by default, means 2 for a majority.
Alyuh prapa stretching it to justify Slo Faiya Mo Faiya campaign!
Banna, i am not disputing, just present to see what posters think.
When you block a person, they can no longer invite you to a private message or post to your profile wall. Replies and comments they make will be collapsed/hidden by default. Finally, you'll never receive email notifications about content they create or likes they designate for your content.
Note: if you proceed, you will no longer be following .
Welcome to the Original Guyanese Discussion Forums, first established in 1996. Here you can discuss, ask questions or generally debate anything related to politics, movies, music, health or just gyaff away your day/night here. A note of warning, the Political forum is not for the faint of heart. We do have some rules, so please adhere to them .
Welcome to the Original Guyanese Discussion Forums, first established in 1996. Here you can discuss, ask questions or generally debate anything related to politics, movies, music, health or just gyaff away your day/night here.
Please note while you do have free access to our Forums, the Political Forum will now be a Paid Membership Forum. What does this mean? To write in the Political Forum you must be a paying member. The fee is $25.00 US per year and is non refundable. Payment can be done through PayPal. Membership is not automatically renewed and you can cancel anytime We do have some rules, so please adhere to them.
