There is apparently a story about a student at an ancient university who discovered a long-forgotten university statute allowing that students were each to be provided with a flagon of ale with their evening meal. The public spirited chap waved that rule in the faces of the university authorities who agreed that it had never been formally revoked so yes, students might technically be entitled to such beer. Perhaps. Flagons of ale were duly served to the delighted students that evening, but when our hero entered the dining hall he was fined a gold sovereign for failing to wear his sword.

This cautionary tale is almost certainly fiction, but it shows the dangers of brandishing long-ignored Treaty clauses in ways that were never intended by those who drafted or signed the Treaty and in isolation of the rest of that Treaty, without consideration of other clauses in that Treaty that might come back and bite one.

Of course any resemblance of the circumstances in this tale to any real Treaty or to any person living or dead is purely coincidental.

What must happen in order to revitalise Freeport's economy and restore powerful growth? This is what some of the city's most prominent businesspeople think/say: [REEF Action Plan][1].

The REEF Action Plan calls simply for parties to honour provisions of the Hawksbill Creek Agreement that have been negated, frustrated or sidestepped over many years, which has made Freeport far less attractive to investors than rivals like Cayman, Panama, Dominican Republic - to say nothing of Dubai. So the city has languished. Which is not to say that change is not needed. It clearly is. But some changes must happen before others can.

If link doesn't work, Google "REEF Action Plan Freeport"

[1]: https://reef.gbpa.com/wp-content/upload…

From your lips/pen to God's ear, Rupert!

Through the REEF process two years ago, prominent Freeport businesspeople and other community leaders accurately diagnosed the problems stopping Freeport from being a thriving, 21st Century Bahamian city. What has been lacking to address those are respectable, properly capitalised business partners with the credentials and experience required, and whose own business goals align well with Freeport’s needs. That lack is definitively addressed in the Hayward partnership proposal.

What the Haywards have achieved in the short period since the family was “re-included as beneficial owners of of the GBPA in 2020” is just remarkable - more so because that coincided with the Covid pandemic. What of the future? In my opinion, Rupert Hayward is spot-on.

Through the REEF process two years ago, prominent Freeport businesspeople and other community leaders accurately diagnosed the problems to be solved in order for Freeport to be a thriving, 21st Century Bahamian city. What has been lacking are respectable, properly capitalised business partners with the deep credentials and relevant experience required, and whose own business goals align well with Freeport’s needs. That lack is definitively addressed in the Hayward partnership proposal.

What the Haywards have achieved in the short period since the family was “*re-included as beneficial owners of of the GBPA in 2020*” is just remarkable - more so because that included the Covid pandemic. What of the future? In the article, Rupert Hayward is quoted as follows: “*A new vision for the island can only come about through collaboration with, and investment from, top international partners that have deep experience in cutting-edge sustainable development projects, and which can bring global strategic relationships, a balance sheet and master plan necessary to create an equitable, sustainable and prosperous future for the island and the country that will exceed all expectations.*"

That is exactly right. Wallace Groves could not have put it better himself! It is well time now for people to stop squabbling over getting bigger slices of the present, languishing Freeport pie … and to focus instead on how that pie is to be not only added to but multiplied in size - to the benefit of all with an interest in the city and the island.

Wow - that's quite an indictment .... and very sad if it is the case!

My comment is personal, not on behalf of any organization, dumb or otherwise. (Nor am I being paid to make it, more's the pity :)

I do think though that arguments are better advanced by facts when people are not stupid. I also think the Transparency International assessment is most likely accurate. Every country has its exceptions of course but the Bahamians that I know are not generally corrupt. They are decent folk trying to make a good living in a tough, rapidly changing world. It is difficult for corruption to thrive in societies where the press is free and the rule of law respected. Let's see how this matter plays out.

The Bahamas has been performing quite well in terms of anti-corruption, actually, if one looks at the annual rankings published by Transparency International. In 2014, the Bahamas was ranked 24th out of 175 countries, in roughly the same bandwidth as Austria (23rd,) the United Arab Emirates (25th) and France (26th.) See http://www.transparency.org/cpi2014/. In the Caribbean region, only Barbados (17th - same as the USA) ranked higher. This incident could damage the country's ranking if not properly dealt with, though.

The Bahamas has been performing quite well in terms of anti-corruption, actually, if one looks at the annual rankings published by Transparency International. In 2014, the Bahamas was ranked 24th out of 175 countries, in roughly the same bandwidth as Austria (23rd,) the United Arab Emirates (25th) and France (26th.) See http://www.transparency.org/cpi2014/. In the Caribbean region, only Barbados (17th - same as the USA) ranked higher. This incident could damage the country's ranking if not properly dealt with, though.

Precedents that The Bahamas might consider may be found in the approaches to foreign law firms that have been adopted in (a) Singapore, which grants a very limited number of "Qualifying Foreign Law Practice" (QFLP) licenses to selected international law firms, to practice Singaporean law (it is very easy to establish an office in Singapore to practice non-Singaporean law only) and in (b) South Korea, which is liberalising its legal profession gradually in response to Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) concluded with the European Union and with the USA. International law firms were first given the green light to move into Seoul in July 2011, but only to open representative offices and to advise on non-Korean law. From July 2013, foreign law firms could enter into cooperative agreements with Korean law firms to advise on legal issues that involve a mixture of domestic and foreign law, effectively allowing the firms to co-bill, but only on a project-by-project basis. From July 2016 for EU-based firms, and 2017 for US firms, liberalisation of the Korean legal profession will enter its third and final stage, permitting foreign law firms to invest in local law firms and recruit Korean lawyers.