A free vote should be out of the question just as a referendum should not even be contemplated. Civil rights are not the subject of plebiscites because they are self-evident.

Let’s be clear about Joseph first.

We call him Joseph, and the Prime Minister would have been correct had he chosen to call him so, because upon being elected leader, Dr. Muscat told everyone that he should be called by his first name ‘Joseph’. Hence some still refer to him as ‘Call me’ Joseph.

If he chose to be called Joseph, that was his prerogative but it does not give him the licence to call someone else by his first name. The correct address should have been Prime Minister or at the very least, Dr. Gonzi since the latter never instructed anyone to call him Lawrence.

With regard to McCain / Obama reference somewhere in the above comments with Obama calling McCain John, I see no comparison here since both are Senators – same rank and in the States formality is almost a choice, although juniors are still very much in the habit of calling their seniors Sir or Madam.

The debate between the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister clearly illustrated the ocean which divides Dr. Muscat and Dr. Gonzi when it comes to class and experience. Joseph was so irritable that two Maltese expressions immediately came to mind- tad-daqqiet ta harta, or – sicc (two dots on the Cs.

Those who think otherwise better check their television set or computer monitor, they may have severe distortion problems.

Valerie Borg and others like her will never understand that one who is naturally superior doesn’t feel the need to be but simply is.
Perhaps she is peeved that unlike Daphne she’s not listed in wikipedia

And I say this not because she is my sister.

“All in all, the contest – if it can be called such – ended up with no winners and no losers. It was a healthy debate that should pave the way for a more constructive way of doing politics, as both politicians wished for”.

Why do I have a feeling that I read this comment somewhere else?

Plagiarism is a no-no. Be a bit more original, will you?

[Daphne – Joseph Muscat doesn’t want to introduce divorce. He wants to look cool and progressive. The two are different. No party leader determined to introduce divorce would give his MPs, most of whom are antediluvian, a free vote.]

I think that your fears of the bill being defeated are greatly exaggerated. I believe that a majority of Labour MPs and a small minority of PN MPs would vote for a conservative divorce bill (eg. 5 year waiting period) if given a free vote on the issue.

[Daphne – A vote on divorce is not a matter of conscience. If you are prepared to let Marlene Pullicino, Anglu Farrugia et al decide how you should live your life, then I am not. British parliamentary convention is what it is because it deals with British parliamentarians, not Maltese.]

@ Daphne: I noticed something in Joseph which resembles the cock which behaves as if it is the one responsible for the sun to rise when it crows at dawn.
Somewhere I heard him praising Obama. Now everyone knows that Senator Obama stands a very good chance to be elected president.
If the MCESD is worried about water and electricity bills he tries to ride the wave and state that now a new social pact is forming (under his protection).
Now that the oil prices are coming down he is “demanding” that the water and electricity bills go down. As if Dr. Gonzi wants the cost of these services to go up.
In other words he wants to give the impression that he’s got what it takes to be PM .
Dr Gonzi jumped on Dr Joseph’s comment about public transport.I think the opposition leader wasn’t aware of what hit him , with his comment, he gave the ‘go ahead’ on public transport reform to Gonzi on a silver platter.

Have your say Read comments

In the 18 years since the passage of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act, there have been such significant medical advances that the need to update the legislation is unanswerable. That, at least, all parties in the current controversy are agreed upon.

What has turned this issue into such a thundering row is the inexplicable clumsiness with which the Government is handling it.

By resisting a free vote, Downing Street has succeeded in picking a wholly unnecessary fight with the Catholic establishment (including a number of Labour MPs and ministers). It has also prompted renewed concerns about the Government’s basic competence at a time when it is already struggling in the polls.

When the 1990 legislation was introduced by the last Conservative government, Tory MPs were allowed a free vote, an unusual concession on a government measure. ***Yet there is a sound parliamentary convention that the big social and ethical issues of the day cannot be crammed into party political boxes.***

***Abortion, divorce, homosexuality – all were reformed on free votes in the Commons, though all started out as private members bills, not government legislation***

With the 1990 measure, these two principles were elided. Such was the complexity and urgency of the issues that the government of the day felt impelled to bring forward legislation itself, ***but took the wise decision to treat it as a conscience issue and not to whip it. It was rightly seen as a matter best left to Parliament, not party.****

Gordon Brown has chosen not to follow this sensible precedent. The new bill has already been whipped through the Lords and, at the last two Prime Minister’s Questions, Mr Brown sidestepped calls to allow a free vote in the Commons. It is a decision he can duck no longer.

advertisementYesterday, Cardinal Keith O’Brien, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of St Andrews and Edinburgh, preached an Easter sermon describing the measure as “monstrous”, while a more measured Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor urged a free vote.

With Catholic Labour MPs promising rebellion and some Catholic ministers pondering resignation, Mr Brown is in some difficulty.

The suggestion from Downing Street yesterday that a free vote would be offered to those MPs who feel strongly about the issue, but only on condition that it does not jeopardise the legislation, will appear to many to be both panicky and cynical.

The danger here extends far beyond the embryo bill – as is shown by the way Stephen Byers (who describes himself as a “non-practising Methodist”) has jumped on the bandwagon to demand a free vote.

Mr Byers is a Blairite outrider and his unexpected foray into medical ethics is aimed not at the rights or wrongs of hybrid embryos in medical experimentation but at the rights and wrongs of Mr Brown being in Downing Street. The Prime Minister needs to get a grip on this row quickly before it causes more lasting damage.

[Daphne – The embryo bill is not divorce. You can’t compare the two. Britain already has abortion. What this is about is fine-tuning. You may wish to have your rights subjected to the free vote of a bunch of people who wish you to live according to their moral rules – Marlene Pullicino, anyone? – but I don’t. How would you feel if MPs were given a free vote on gay marriage, for instance, and the bill was defeated because the majority of MPs feel that gays shouldn’t marry, even if they are not gay themselves and it’s none of their blinking business? I will think LESS of the prime minister, and not more, if he removes the whip from the vote on a divorce bill. If he thinks that divorce should be introduced, then his MPs should be instructed to ensure that this happens. A free vote, indeed…whatever next?]

[Daphne – No. I don’t think MPs should be given a free vote on matters of civil rights. They are free to act according to their conscience in matters which concern them. They are not free to impose the workings of their conscience on the rest of us. An MP who disagrees with divorce is free not to divorce. He or she is not free to use the power of his or her parliamentary vote to ensure that the rest of us conform to his or her conscience and don’t divorce either. Did you miss what the prime minister said? “I don’t agree with divorce, but that doesn’t mean I am going to impose my opinion on everyone else.” Exactly. Just imagine if MPs had a free vote when adultery and sodomy were decriminalised, or when civil marriage was introduced. We would still be arresting people for buggering each other or having affairs, and if you wanted to marry you’d have to do it in church whether you were religious or not. A free vote on civil rights? You must be joking. If other legislatures allowed a free vote, then you can rest assured it was because they knew the majority would vote in favour. We have no such assurance here, but rather the opposite. A free vote on divorce will mean the failure of the divorce bill. Worse than that, MPs will not be able to shelter behind the excuse of the party whip, and will feel they have to vote against to win kudos from the church and their more conservative constituents.]