Thu | Sep 21, 2017

Election referendum on IMF

Published:Saturday | February 27, 2016 | 2:06 AMLloyd D'Aguilar

THE EDITOR, Sir:

Was the 2016 general election a referendum on the IMF? The PNP foolishly believed that faithfully complying with IMF demands to satisfy creditors FIRST regardless – local and foreign – is the basis for economic growth. Nothing could be further from the truth. Experientially, the people knew this to be false to the core, whether they voted for the JLP or the PNP.

The JLP’s promise to increase the income tax threshold from 592,800 to $1.5 million was implicitly a referendum on the IMF agreement. This was IMF boss Christine Lagarde’s biggest fear. The proposal put Finance Minister Peter Phillips on the back foot. He had to switch from attack on Holness’ castle to defence against a Holness proposal that implicitly was a rejection of the IMF agreement.

Is the JLP proposal a three-card trick? It most likely will be, UNLESS the people demand and hold Andrew Holness and the JLP to their referendum victory.

Away with the IMF! Repudiate the debt. It cannot be repaid. The debt is odious and illegitimate. We need a people’s audit of the national debt.

Andrew Holness and the JLP cannot be allowed, like the government of Greece, to repudiate this people's referendum that implicitly rejects the IMF agreement.

LLOYD D'AGUILAR
Campaign for Social and Economic Justice