Coalition MPs: Mediation should be allowed to conclude, motion was inaccurate, unhelpful

GREAT BAY--Coalition Members of Parliament Dimar Labega, Ludmila DeWeever, Veronica Jansen-Webster, Sjamira Roseburg, Franklin Meyers, and Christopher Wever motivated their votes against the motion of disapproval brought against Prime Minister Luc Mercelina, stressing that mediation was underway and should be allowed to be completed, that the motion would not resolve the underlying issues facing firefighters and warning against turning an active dispute-resolution process into a political show.

Across their remarks, the MPs acknowledged the long history of unresolved labor issues, expressed respect for first responders, and emphasized that the country is currently in a mediation phase that should be allowed to work. Several MPs also pointed to contradictions in the opposition’s approach, noting that the motion was presented while simultaneously requesting additional information for informed deliberation.

MP Dimar Labega

In motivating his vote against the motion, Labega placed the strongest emphasis on timing and internal consistency. He reminded Parliament that mediation is ongoing and that there were no results yet to deliberate on, and he aligned himself with that point. In his view, once both parties agreed to mediation and that process is actively underway, it is unreasonable to frame the Prime Minister as inactive simply because Parliament does not yet have the outcome of mediation. Labega argued that presenting a motion of disapproval in the middle of an agreed dispute-resolution track amounts to judging the Prime Minister for not producing results that the mediation process has not yet delivered, and he said that approach is irresponsible.

Labega also challenged the conduct and logic of those advancing the motion, describing contradictions in how the matter was handled. He pointed out that MPs demanded the Prime Minister be present in person, then those same MPs failed to show up for a continuation meeting, leaving Parliament without quorum. He further questioned why MPs would present a motion first, then later request information to deliberate responsibly “on the government’s position and intended course of action,” arguing that it does not add up. For Labega, the sequence suggested a political posture rather than a genuine effort to solve the issue. On that basis, and because mediation remained the agreed path, he said he could not support the motion.

MP Ludmila DeWeever

DeWeever said she has a “soft spot” for the Fire Department and defended the go-slow as a method for workers to be heard, but she still could not support the motion. She argued that the very fact Parliament was debating the issue reflected a broader failure of leadership on both sides over time, including communication shortcomings on multiple sides. DeWeever emphasized urgency, stating her understanding that April 2026 may be an important marker connected to the three-year review, and suggested that date should serve as a practical deadline to ensure matters are resolved. While calling for compassion and quicker resolution, she maintained the motion was not the right instrument at this moment.

MP Veronica Jansen-Webster

Jansen-Webster stated she would vote according to her conscience and emphasized that she could not support the motion because it would not help firefighters. She rejected claims of “no communication,” pointing out that Parliament has received numerous letters and correspondence throughout the process. She acknowledged that serious problems have existed for many years across multiple areas, including the Fire Department and other public services, but argued that a motion of disapproval would not improve conditions for the workers. Her position was that the motion would not produce a practical solution and would distract from the steps already being taken.

MP Sjamira Roseburg

MP Roseburg used her motivation to draw a firm line between supporting frontline workers and supporting a motion whose contents she said were not accurate. She stressed that she votes based on what she believes serves the people of St. Maarten, regardless of coalition or opposition positioning, and she framed her decision as a matter of principle. After reading the motion, she said she could not agree with what it stated, and she cautioned against using motions to pursue what she characterized as hidden agendas.

Roseburg also disputed the idea that nothing has been done, emphasizing that Parliament has received documentation and correspondence on the issue. She recalled that when the matter first came before Parliament, mediation was repeatedly identified as necessary, including by her, and she explained the core purpose of mediation: parties come together, outline what they want to raise, clarify what the issues are, identify where agreement exists, and move forward from that base.

She said the country is now at that mediation stage, and she argued the Prime Minister should be given time to complete a process that began before him and is now moving toward a conclusion under the current administration. In her assessment, the motion would not make a meaningful difference at this point, and because she believed the text was not clear and not correct, she voted against it.

MP Franklin Meyers

In motivating his vote against the motion, Meyers said he listened carefully to the debate and followed the full course of the Fire Department matter, including the exchanges that led up to the motion. He made clear he does not support political rhetoric or finger-pointing, and he questioned how a vote of disapproval aimed at the Prime Minister would materially solve the firefighters’ problems. In his view, the country has reached a point where frustration is understandable, but Parliament still has a responsibility to choose actions that lead to solutions, not symbolism.

Meyers strongly rejected the idea that opposing the motion equates to opposing the Fire Department. He described that framing as an unreasonable stretch, arguing that the motion was being treated as a proxy test of support for first responders when the real question is whether it would deliver results. He emphasized that the issue spans roughly 15 years, and he recalled that even in his earlier presentations on the matter he acknowledged that all sides share responsibility for how the situation was allowed to deteriorate over time. For that reason, he said it is not accurate to reduce the situation to one Prime Minister’s performance, and he characterized it instead as an administrative and systemic problem that requires administrative and structural fixes.

Meyers concluded that if a motion like this could solve the dispute, the problem would have been resolved long ago, including under previous administrations. He argued that removing or blaming individual leaders through parliamentary motions has not been the missing ingredient, and that what is needed is sustained administrative reform and follow-through. Based on that reasoning, he said he could not support the motion, because he did not believe it would move the country closer to a real resolution for firefighters and ambulance personnel.

MP Christopher Wever

Wever said the issue is complex and not an easy fix, and he argued that achieving a sustainable outcome takes time. He emphasized respect for firefighters while noting there are multiple parties involved, including the union, and said responsibility must be considered across the full picture. He rejected claims that nothing is being done, pointing to correspondence and the fact that mediation was required to break an impasse. Wever stressed that mediation exists to ensure parties are properly represented and that a solution is reached that lasts, rather than a quick fix that returns as a problem later. Based on this, he said he voted against the motion because actions have been taken and the matter is in the mediation phase.

‍