Entry Instance

HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept

{
    "id": 1010266,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1010266/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 228,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Rarieda, ODM",
    "speaker_title": "Hon. (Dr.) Otiende Amollo",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 13465,
        "legal_name": "Paul Otiende Amollo",
        "slug": "paul-otiende-amollo"
    },
    "content": " Thank you, Hon. Speaker. I fully concur that from the issues arising from what has been said by the Leader of the Majority Party and his immediate predecessor, it appears this matter has a lot more weight to it than was given by the Mover and the Seconder. Many of the Members do not have the benefit of either the Report or the Agreement as to comment in details. However, it appears to me the support or lack of support to this Motion must turn on two things and that ought to be very clear. First, what would be the effect of rejecting this Motion? The Leader of the Majority Party says the effect would be to revert to the 1995 Agreement. I am not sure by operation of what that would be, because if a new agreement would be signed, even though it has not been ratified, it appears to me that the old agreement automatically lapses and cannot be re-invented by a mere rejection of a Motion in Parliament. That, therefore, needs to be made very clear. I do not know by what operation, either of law or treaty, would revive the 1995 Agreement. Having said that, I also caution myself that it is for good reason that even Article 2(6) of the Constitution gives Parliament the authority to ratify treaties and conventions signed by this country. As a Parliament, we may not always equip ourselves with the details of why it has been proposed or agreed to sign a certain treaty or convention. So, I would be very cautious of readily rejecting such an agreement without good reason. From what I have heard form Hon. Duale’s lips, it does appear that a lot of the concerns raised by the 10th and11th Parliament appeared to have been tackled in this Agreement. It appears it is in a much better form now than it was previously. I am cautioning and asking myself one question: If we reject such an opportunity, is it necessarily so that the Italian Government will be so desperate as to want to renegotiate or is it possible that we could also lose the opportunity including the small gains that come with that renegotiated agreement? Hon. Speaker, we are in a country that has lost many opportunities. We could have done much better. Ready rejection of such an improved Agreement may make us think that we are going to get a better one and then lose even the little that we may gain from it. So, on a balance of probability, I would go with adopting that Agreement, agreeing and ensuring that we always work to improving it much more. Hon. Speaker, I support the Motion."
}