Let’s stop passing the buck
Photograph downloaded and reuploaded without Media Link's permission - NB Savour Balzan
I’m not going to join the divorce movement in its lamentations about the possibility that there won’t be a referendum on divorce. Right from the word go, I was against that referendum.
I think it’s reprehensible that the moral majority should get to decide on something that affects a minority of people, or that the religious right can get to veto the dissolution of a civil marriage which concerns neither them nor religion – nor even society, given that the marriage will have broken up already by that stage.
Those who were in favour of divorce and who now form the kernel of the divorce movement were as cross as angry beavers when the referendum idea was first put forward.
And I didn’t blame them because I felt exactly the same.
But they appear to have been talked round to it on the basis that the government does not have an electoral mandate to legislate for divorce and so must first consult the people.
I agree that the government does not have a mandate to legislate for divorce. It’s not a matter of opinion. It’s a cast-iron fact. Divorce was not in the Nationalist Party’s electoral programme nor was it ever mentioned.
But unlike the government and the divorce movement, I don’t see this as grounds for a referendum. I see it as grounds for both parties to stick divorce into their electoral programmes in 2013 and get with the world programme.
Let’s face it: the only way this country is going to get itself some divorce legislation is if both political parties adopt a position of bilateral armament. If they both have it in their electoral manifesto, then electors lose that leverage they’re so keen on: if you do/don’t, I will/won’t vote for you.
Those who don’t want to vote for a pro-divorce party will have no choice but to vote all the same or to stay home and be a prat, choosing not to have a say in electing a government, on the basis of what is, in the grand scheme of things, ultimately a marginal issue.
But that’s not going to happen, is it, because neither the Labour Party nor the Nationalist Party is able to put divorce legislation in its electoral programme. I spelled out the reasons why Labour can’t do this, when Joseph Muscat made a great meal of his free vote and his private member’s bill as head of government (what an idiot – the only thing for which I’m grateful to Pullicino Orlando is the way he tugged that particular rug out from beneath Muscat’s feet).
Now I have to apply that same set of reasons to the Nationalist Party, though thank heavens we are spared the spectacle of Lawrence Gonzi talking about presenting private member’s bill as prime minister.
So, for the benefit of those who have forgotten, and for the benefit of those who think that voting Labour or not voting at all will somehow get them divorce legislation, here are those reasons again.
When a political party puts something in its electoral programme, it commits to it and enters a form of contractual obligation with electors. If elected to government, it may find that it cannot do some of the things to which it has committed, because of a wide variety of economic or other variables, but it can only postpone the commitment. It cannot go back on its word.
If a pledge is made in the electoral programme – for example, divorce legislation – this means that the party’s MPs must vote with the whip. They cannot be given a free vote.
The reason for this is simple and obvious. Anyone who stands on the party ticket does so on the understanding that he or she agrees with everything in that party’s electoral programme. If he or she doesn’t agree with even one of the pledges made in the programme, then he or she can’t stand on the party ticket because this would be breaking faith with electors, who vote for a candidate in relation to a political party and the party’s electoral programme.
This means that neither Labour nor the Nationalists are going to have divorce in their electoral programme unless they rip out half or possibly more of their candidates, who are against divorce, and in the Nationalist Party’s case the leader and deputy leader as well.
People seem to think that MPs on both sides of the house are sitting on the fence and refusing to tell us what they think about divorce because they are waiting to see which way the wind blows. The real reason, I think you will find, is because most of them are against it.
Those who are in favour of divorce have come out already, so to speak, and there are precious few of them.
Now to the current state of affairs. The prime minister is correct when he says that a referendum cannot be held before a decision is taken by parliament. The EU membership referendum is not a comparable situation. We had decisions by parliament and the electorate (a few times over) on that one already. It had been in the Nationalist Party’s programme since – what, 1976?
I am glad that a decision is going to be taken by parliament before or instead of a referendum (depending on the result of the vote in parliament). This, too, is consistent with my position from day one. I was much aggrieved when a referendum was posited instead of a decision by parliament.
I saw it as an abdication of their responsibilities by our MPs. We put them there to take decisions on our behalf. We did not put them there to pass the buck back to us.
For the first time in longer than I care to remember, we shall see parliament functioning as it sometimes should for a healthy democracy: MPs forced to think, to assess their own position and that of their electors, and then to vote without the comfort and bland anonymity of the party whip.
In the absence of the party whip on either side of the house – which is what a free vote means – we shall watch parliament function not as Government and Opposition, but as parliament.
If the house votes against divorce, it will be the house voting against divorce, and not the government, or the opposition. If the house votes No, then you can’t blame the government for blocking divorce. You can only blame that mass of MPs, on both sides of the house, who voted against it.
Equally, in the unlikely scenario that the house votes Yes, you cannot thank the government or the opposition for divorce. You can only thank those MPs on both sides of the house who voted Yes.
I cannot emphasise this enough, but feel I must because there is so much that is misunderstood about the functions of parliament, that the way things stand divorce is no longer a matter of government or opposition. It is now a matter of ‘parliament’, with no whips and no block votes and no ‘sides’ or party factions.
You already have Marie Louise Coleiro making it clear that she will vote like Tonio Borg, and Labour’s Carmelo Abela saying that he will vote with the prime minister. Meanwhile, Joseph Muscat will vote with Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando and Jesmond Mugliett. Marlene Pullicino will wait for the latest dispatches from her consultant priests, and Jean Pierre Farrugia will let us know by means of a round-robin email with lots of exclamation marks.
This is when you should remember what your MP is for: there to be lobbied by you, the constituent. At this stage in the game, those who are lobbying the government, or the opposition, for a change in position on divorce are wasting their time.
It is no longer in the government’s hands or the opposition’s. It is in your MP’s hands, so lobby him or her. If you want divorce, let him/her know, and if you don’t want divorce, make that clear to him/her too.
I don’t need to make anything clear to my MP, because he’s the one who went and caused all this hassle by presenting that private member’s bill in the first place.
There’s another reason I won’t be lobbying any MPs: it wouldn’t be consistent with my position, which is that divorce legislation, unlike divorce, is not a matter of personal opinion.
The sooner we understand that we can’t run away from the bogeyman forever, the sooner we will grow up. It’s called biting the bullet and moving on.
This article was published in The Malta Independent on Sunday yesterday.
44 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
Just a gut feeling, but I think divorce will not be available in Malta in the near future as the numbers are just not there either through a parliamentary vote or a referendum.
It is really sad how this important debate ended up. It somehow has been shifted to whether to go for a referendum or not, when we all know what the result of a referendum will be. And how unfair to let the majority decide on such a sensitive issue.
At the moment I’m seriously in doubt about Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando’s position, because the way he rushed in placing that private member’s bill to gain publicity made sure that divorce would be rejected. Since Maltese were not prepared and have no idea what divorce legislation is all about. Most can’t even distinguish between state and church marriage.
Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando pushed forward the divorce debate for two reasons.
1) He wanted to embarrass his leader and maybe his party. He knows that divorce is the last thing Gonzi needs to have to deal with in these recession-battered times.He did something similar with the St John’s Cathedral Museum and he started writing against a wind farm in Bahrija. I wonder what might be next.
2) He needs divorce himself because he cannot register himself as a resident in another jurisdiction long enough to get one, as his family and his dentistry practice are located here in Malta.
I can’t find any consistency in what Muscat says about divorce.
1) He was all out against a referendum, and now he says that the people have a right to one on this matter. When he first talked about a private member’s bill on divorce when he becomes prime minister, he never said anything about a referendum either.
2) If his views on the EU referendum are anything to go by – that it was not legitimate, that a general election would settle the matter, and that it was only five years of hindsight that made him realise that the Yes vote won – Muscat is not a big believer in referendums as a democratic tool.
I cannot understand the hysteria of many onlinecommentators and newspaper writers on last Saturday’s PN stand re the referendum.
If the referendum was not included in Jeffrey’s and Evarist’s bill how could we have had a referendum?
We’re not in the Golden Years, when parliamentary procedure was like a piece of chewing-gum.
A consultative referendum question has to be approved by a simple majority in parliament first ; if it were not so, Malta’s political history would have been riddled with referenda.
If Joseph Muscat or someone else tries to ram down our throats anything which we outrightly object to, then there is the abrogative referendum which only needs 10% of eligible voters to sign a petition for such referendum to take place in a stipulated time.
Question:”Why do people continue contributing to this Blog?”
Answer:”At least there is someone who challenges the grey matter between our ears, with arguments which don’t change according to the man-on-the-street’s whims”
Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando just wanted some publicity for himself, to rekindle his fading political career. Instead the whole issue backfired and he has committed political suicide.
Oh he’s got his groupies. Just wait until we get to the endgame, and then they’ll come out in the media to suck his bell knob and tell us what a magnificent politician he is. This is Phoenix rising, not suicide.
Samson Syndrome:
“Now that I have lost hope, I will do my damn best to kill all those around me before I kill myself.”
Following this afternoon’s position taken by Joseph Muscat and his Partit Laburista, in which the party calls for a referendum on divorce before Pullicino Orlando’s bill is discussed in Parliament, I suggest political analysts should watch again, carefully, the Bondiplus programme of 11 October 2010, available on di-ve.
From the 25th minute, the programme dealt with divorce. In particular, between minutes 30 and 34, Joseph Muscat spoke about the referendum and reiterated his position, first stated in 2008, that a referendum is a waste of time – “Ghidtielek illum, u ghedtielek illum.”
He said, too, that he would first want to see the final bill as discussed in Parliament before committing himself or his party to a position about divorce.
Muscat said he does not want to lead a crusade on who agrees or otherwise with a referendum.
With his position taken today, Joseph Muscat is doing just that: leading a political crusade on whether there should, or should not be, a referendum on divorce. This position means that there will be no final bill discussed by Parliament on a responsible divorce and so Muscat will not have to commit his party to an official stance.
Watching Bondiplus tonight, I couldn’t but notice the stand taken by the Labour Party speakers who shared a view that their party has changed positions because of the changing circumstances.
I wondered: how does that bind Joseph Muscat and his party on anything that he has been saying in the past two years, and anything that he will say from here to 2013, if he wins the 2013 elections?
The big question is: why did the Prime Minister talk of a referendum, when he knows that divorce legislation, like any other legislation, can only be enacted by parliament?
[Daphne The prime minister didn’t talk about a referendum. I remember having a big discussion about this months ago, when people starting talking about a referendum and I stopped and said, “But nowhere has the PM mentioned the word – read what he said, again.” I always thought he was referring to a general election when he said that the people should decide. In fact, I believe I wrote a column to this effect. A few days ago, The Times ran a leading article claiming that the PM had said, in an interview with the newspaper, that the people should decide in a referendum. But then the excerpt they quoted did not include the word ‘referendum’. What I wrote back then, I seem to recall, is that the PM couldn’t possibly be talking about a referendum, and that it was more likely he was talking about a general election. It was Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando who mentioned a referendum when he emerged from a meeting with the PM, and his statement was contradicted immediately by the PM’s office.]
I would rather think that the PM’s advisors told him, after he declared his preference for a referendum, that a divorce campaign raging on for months would expose serious rifts between the conservative and the liberal factions of the party, both as regards its MPs as well as its members and its voters.
[Daphne – Come on, Albert. Remove your political blinkers on this one. In terms of divorce, there is no difference at all between the political parties and their supporters. The majority of MPs ON BOTH SIDES OF THE HOUSE are against it, and so are their supporters. The reason this one is so difficult to resolve is that the issue splits the population into For and Against with no reference to partisan loyalty.]
Especially given the fact that electoral events in Malta are always acrimonous, and that people decide according to their hearts, not their minds. For a divorce referendum will not really be about divorce, but about how Catholic this country still is, or is not.
The PN can ill afford such a rift between its factions now that we have passed the half-way mark of this legislature. So an effort was made to try to avoid going to the country on this question. Sorry, but it’s too late now.
A promise is a promise. Dr Gonzi declared that it’s the people who should decide, there being no electoral mandate. So now the LP has to step in to, as it were “help” the Prime Minister keep his promise. And the PM seems willing to accept this help: he has promised a free vote on the LP’s resolution, too. And let’s not be naive, please. In Malta, the only game is partisan party politics. Every political and social development needs to be seen and interpreted through this one singular fact.
I stopped watching Bondiplus after three or four minutes, because Evarist Bartolo subscribes to the idea that the more he interrupts and the louder he shouts, the better his chances of winning an argument.
As a matter of fact I will refuse to watch both Bondiplus and Xarabank due to the inability of both hosts to control the riff-raff they invite to speak.
Why they are unable to instruct their guests as to the rules or tell them that their mike will automatically be switched off by the control room if they shout and bicker is beyond me. Trying to understand what a discussion (free-for-all) is all about when two or three people are shouting at each other at the same time is totally impossible.
Varist, you are annoying, a pest and you come across as an ignorant snob. No wonder the Labour Party carries the stigma of being comprised of hamalli – and that is the kindest adjective I shall use on this blog where I am given the privilege of expressing my views.
I do not know how the programme developed after the first disgusting exchanges and if the other side used the same ill advised tactics, then I condemn them as well.
So, until I am told that things have changed and both Lou and Peppi have a better grip on their own shows, I shall tune to much more refined programmes available elsewhere.
One viewer switching off may not be such a big deal after all, but I am almost sure that there are hundreds, if not thousands, who feel exactly the same way. Both shows need viewers but viewers have a much larger menu to choose from.
Malta will vote against divorce. Your reasoning is that if both parties include it, either one will be elected and so introduce.
For the first time Daphne… this is such a Labour way of doing things!
[Daphne – Not at all, Bob. It’s the democratic way. I start off from the point that the rights of the minority have to be protected, and neither party should abuse of the situation so as to get elected or get the other voted out. The reason Muscat is refusing to commit his party to a position on divorce is because he’s caught between a rock and a hard place. His party cannot take a position against divorce without his resignation as leader (because he is in favour) and it cannot take a position for divorce because a flood of votes will migrate to the Nationalists. It’s ridiculous that we’re still talking about divorce. We need to introduce it and move on, rather than postponing the problem for somebody else to deal with 10 years down the line. Like I said, I do not consider divorce legislation to be a matter of opinion. As Arnold Cassola said on Bondiplus last night, who gives a damn about what politicians think of divorce at a personal level? That’s irrelevant. I would rather nobody got divorced at all and I cringe whenever I hear of another marriage biting the dust, but these things happen and you’ve got to be practical. I don’t make the mental leap from hating marital breakdown to refusing to countenance divorce legislation. It just doesn’t follow.]
Daphne, I am not being facetious or anything of the sort but seeing that you claim (and I have no reason to doubt you) that thousands visit this blog everyday, can’t you make money out of advertising from it? I mean If I were you I would do it.
[Daphne – With reference to your private note: no, I have no idea who you are.]
The idea that a referendum is the ultimate democratic tool is quite lame. Think of a referendum that posited the question: Should we pay income tax yes or no?
[Daphne – Referendums on matters of tax are not possible at law.]
Or think of a referendum that decriminalises sodomy. (It was a criminal act until the early 70s in Malta). It was decriminslised by Mintoff’s government. ( I told you that he was a good bulldozer).
[Daphne – I think you forget that the law against sodomy was a law against sodomy, and not a law against homosexuality. It was no more legally permissible for a man to sodomise a woman than for a man to sodomise another man, and this not just in Malta. Lord Byron got into rather a lot of trouble when his wife revealed that he used to sodomise her. There was a bit of a scandal and their marriage ended. But I get your point.]
The ideal political system as described by countless people from Plato to Machiavelli would be a benevolent dictator. But experience has shown that that does not seem to work too well in practice so I am stuck with Cetta tal-azzjoni kattolika and her brood of eight deciding for me.
“I think it’s reprehensible that the moral majority should get to decide on something that affects a minority of people”.
Or, to paraphrase “Shit is good because all those flies can’t be wrong”.
I have never really had a high opinion of your ethical and moral analyses, but this really takes the biscuit.
[Daphne – It is, in effect, one of the bases on which the true state of democracy is assessed: that the majority does not dictate to the vulnerable minority. Unfortunately, too many people confuse ‘majority rule’, which is the manner in which governments are elected and certain decisions are taken (like whether or not to join the European Union) with control of the minority by the majority. That sort of control would involve, for instance, deciding that the minority cannot get divorced unless they are prepared to do so overseas. The decision not to is permit divorce here in Malta while permitting the registration of divorces obtained overseas is at once contradictory and undemocratic, which is why I hold that it goes against the fundamental principles of the contemporary Nationalist Party, despite what is being said now. That is why the PN’s position against divorce is so jarring: it is not consistent with the rest of its behaviour or policies. ]
It is the reason why ‘democracy’ is often qualified as ‘constitutional democracy’ or ‘republican democracy’. Democracy alone is the unbridled rule of the majority over the minorities. That is why minorities are protected by constitutions.
The easiest way for divorce in Malta is for someone to initiate proceedings at the ECJ or ECHR – the ECJ, which has jurisdiction over the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which in turn forms part of the Lisbon treaty, is the best option since it decides ‘in the spirit of the union’ and aims for uniformity of laws across the EU.
Kev,
It seems Lilliput’s ahead of Brussels’ suburbs
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20100729/local/case-for-divorce-already-rejected-by-human-rights-court
The alternative to something that is “reprehensible that the moral majority should get to decide on something that affects a minority of people” could not be something that an immoral minority would like to impose on the whole of society.
Democracy is government by the majority with respect to any minorities – not the obverse.
Divorce legislation is not immoral.
Excellent article indeed! Perhaps we should lobby our boys in the big house the way they do on Capitol Hill, with carrot and stick.
I do not agree with a referendum. However, if one is going to be held, then it is ridiculous to hold it after a parliamentary vote.
Why is it being done this way? If there’s no good answer to this, then I think that Gonzi is actually making a bigger mess out of this than Muscat.
[Daphne – The reason had been repeated ad nauseam: that’s the law. A referendum can take place only after a decision in parliament.]
Daphne, sorry but I do not understand this. Joseph Muscat is proposing a “consultative” referendum before the bill.
Are you suggesting this is not legally possible?
I mean, I am asking only from a legal perspective.
[Daphne – There is no such thing as a ‘consultative’ referendum. The result of a referendum is binding on the government – otherwise why bother having it at all? An opinion poll is cheaper and quicker. Joseph Muscat thinks of a referendum as a mere opinion poll because of his rather sorry history with the only referendum we have had in our (or at least my generation and younger) lifetime.]
I suggest you read the Referenda Act. There are consultative or non binding referenda as are those held in the United Kingdom. In the UK there are no binding referenda as Parliament is sovereign.
Such referenda can be held before or after a law has been approved. In Malta such a referendum requires a resolution approved by Parliament.
The Partit Laburista is now proposing the politics of Dak li Jrid Joseph Muscat.
I can see that coming through in a number of episodes taking place in the last few days.
Take Muscat’s statement to the Labour Conference (shown on yesterday’s Bondiplus, minute 27) where he said that when he was elected, following his one-to-one meetings with the delegates, he expected the party to empower him to speak in favour of divorce. Had he consulted with the people about his position?
Take also the political games of Labour in the past few days, in particular yesterday’s motion for a referendum, trying to impose Joseph Muscat versus Lawrence Gonzi.
This was further confirmed yesterday when the Labour Party people replied to Lou Bondi’s questions about Labour’s position on divorce. They just referred to Joseph’s position.
The Labour Party itself has no positionI But this does not mean that the leader’s views should be taken to be the party’s view.
I can see Labour’s divorce referendum campaign consisting solely of billboards showing Joseph’s face with the statement “I am in favour of divorce.”
[Daphne – The Labour Party cannot have a pro-divorce campaign because the party has no position on divorce.]
Daphne, I note your comment, but I disagree.
Remember that Joseph Muscat’s vision is that he is leading a “movement beyond the party”. He can claim that he is leading a “Movement for Divorce,” and can therefore say that the position of the Labour Party is not that important.
As long as he can add to the Labour votes – assuming they will vote for whatever Joseph Muscat says – with the pro-divorce votes from the PN, he can impose his position on divorce. And he will then emerge as a very strong national “hero.”
[Daphne – The flaw in your argument is the assumption that despite the free vote, Labour MPs will vote with Muscat on divorce. They won’t, precisely because it is not Joseph Muscat who elects them to their seat. Those who wish to be returned to parliament in 2013 will vote No, though some will take a risk and vote Yes, especially those who stand on certain constituencies like Sliema/Swieqi.]
Daphne, I agree with you that if the matter is brought to a vote among MPs now, there is a strong likelihood that Joseph Muscat’s stance in favour of divorce will be defeated including by the “no” vote of some of his own MPs.
And I think this is precisely what Joseph will achieve by calling for a referendum first: he will not suffer the humiliation of seeing members from his side vote against divorce in Parliament before a referendum.
Remember that it was him who put the subject on the political agenda when he was elected leader, so a “no” result, whether in Parliament or in a referendum, could spell disaster for his political career.
But, in my contribution above, I was referring to the sum of the votes in a referendum. I feel pretty comfortable that if Joseph Muscat puts up those billboards, all Labour will vote for divorce, irrespective of what divorce may mean to the voters themselves.
[Daphne – No, I don’t think so. People who are against divorce legislation are not going to change that opinion under political direction, whatever party they vote for. They will change their opinion only when they are presented with a fait accompli as they are in other jurisdictions. That is the nature of human psychology. Once you accept that you can’t do something about something, then you accept that something.]
And if you add the non-Labour pro-divorce voters, there will be a sufficient movement for a Yes victory on divorce. Faced with such a result, it would be difficult for his MPs to vote “no” in Parliament.
[Daphne – There is a clear majority against divorce legislation. The Yes vote has no chance of success unless all the people who are in favour of legislation are driven out to vote while many of those who are against decide to stay home and abstain.]
At this point I think it is almost certain that the referendum will take place, most probably in April.
Polls of both parties are showing that the Yes vote has no chance. Although I don’t agree with this, as a minority issue should not be subject to a popular vote, we have to face reality.
What do you think will be the political implications on both parties if a No vote “wins”?
[Daphne – That the Labour Party will immediately lose the political advantage it has gained through allowing people to believe that a Labour government will legislate for divorce (which it cannot do without including any such plans in its electoral manifesto). And that the Nationalist Party will regain the support it lost from those who threatened to migrate to Labour on the basis of divorce. Oh, and here’s the bummer: that there will be no talk of divorce before this election and throughout the next government’s term of office, because the matter will be considered to have been settled for the next few years at least. So we will realise WITH HINDSIGHT that far from bringing us closer to divorce, what Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando actually did was nail down the coffin lid on all hope of having legislation any time soon.]
This whole charade on divorce is a good indicator of how far we have risen from the superstitious and emotionally laden past. We need reasoned debate to lift all of us out of the miasma.
The Greeks and Romans gave us such a fine moral compass through Epicurus, Diogenes and the Stoics, which the Roman Catholic Church misappropriated in parts and destroyed the rest.
Why did history have to snub us so and glorify a mystery cult to become the empire’s religion? Turning a fragile and promising Pax Romana before the Holy Roman Empire (for Catholics only) was a twinkle in some pope’s eye or the more liberal and secular EU.
I blame the church for the dark ages that swallowed Europe into superstition and state-sanctioned magic.
How sad…
In fact the opposite is true. The Roman Catholic Church brought Europe out of the Dark Ages and contributed to arts, to science, to learning, to medical services and to other aspects of culture.
Western civilzation has been largely built by the important contribution of the Catholic Church : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role_of_the_Catholic_Church_in_Western_civilization
If you read your link, it is heavily disputed. First it starts by saying how anti-women the Roman Empire was, then it goes on to say how Pope Gregory started moving in the right direction 500 years after the fall of the Roman Empire.
I would say that the change came because of cultural differences with northern Europeans who were more equal and egalitarian by nature. St Paul is not known to be pro-women by CAtholic feminists…
I feel that on this particular issue the prime minister has come across as a bit confused.
I’m not saying he was in actual fact because as he rightly said, in order to pass a law it has to go through parliament first.
[Daphne – Laws must necessarily be made by parlaiment. Parliament is the law-making body. That is why it is called the ‘legislature’, a word that refers to parliament but which is wrongly used in Maltese English to signify the government’s term of office. What the prime minister actually said is that, according to law, a referendum can be held only AFTER a decision in parliament.]
However, unfortunately, this was not made clear from the start, so it looked as if he was making a U-turn.
What he had said repeatedly was that 69 members of parliament should not have to bear the responsibility on an issue like this. Having said that, by clearing it through parliament first, that is exactly what will actually happen.
In politics one must not only do what is right but what appears to be right – that’s where things got a bit mixed up, in my opinion. Another statement that Dr Gonzi made last Sunday in St Paul’s Bay was also a bit strange. He maintained that Alfred Sant lost the 1998 election because of the divorce issue. That was news to me, I must say.
[Daphne – To me, too. Alfred Sant lost because people perceived him to be unstable and inept.]
That’s another big myth sacred to PN. That Alfred Sant lost the 1998 because of, variously: electricity bills, CET, cost of living, lack of “social conscience”, “ma tistax tafdah”, and now divorce. And no word about the real reason: the EU.
When you speak to the people on the streets, they are still confused about the position taken by the Labour Party.
I heard Toni Abela saying ‘irid ikollna l-kuragg niehdu decizjoni’ and he supported Louis Grech for saying the same thing.
But I ask what position are they talking about? Arnold Cassolla, who is surely not PN, asked 100 times during Bondi + about the position taken by the Labour Party. However, no one was able to answer him, including Golden Years politician Evarist Bartolo, let alone the Labour supporters discussing this issue on divorce on the street.
Labour has always been like this: leaving people in the dark to try and obtain votes. But that way of doing things is completely outdated for the life we live today.
Golden Years Evarist ‘Maria l-Maws’ Bartolo has taken at least three different views about the method to introduce divorce, up to yesterday.
First, he suggested that it should be a proposal in Labour’s 2013 electoral programme. Then, he joined Pullicino Orlando in sponsoring a private members bill, without a referendum clause.
Yesterday, he put his signature to a Labour Party motion to propose a consultative referendum before his own bill is read in parliament, thereby possibly killing his own bill.
I phrased Dr Gonzi’s statement incorrectly. What he did say is that Dr Sant’s fell because of the divorce issue. Never heard that before.
I wonder what the opposite of moral majority is. Maybe immoral minority? And the opposite of the religious right is the atheist left?
Regarding minority rights, are these to be allowed if they conflict with the basic values of the majority in society? As Amartya Sen stated, “a proliferation of rights may make everyone worse off”.
Presence or otherwise of civil rights for minorties in Malta are not, in the grand scheme of things, a marginal issue if they remain absent.
I feel that PN will be paying the price for depriving its own people of such rights. PL suffered a lot of political damage from trying to deprive Maltese of freedom of speech, peace of mind, a free market and the European Union amongst other things. The PN, instead of learning from its major opponent’s mistakes, is now doing exactly the same.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wm6czpeDBzo
I would like to say how much Vanessa Mc Donald disappointed me this morning on TVM’s Bongu.
She was arguing, like many of our so called ‘informed’ journalists, that she could not understand why there is no referendum before a parliamentary vote.
How can this possibly be Vanessa? Before opening their mouths on TV, all commentators should inform themselves on the subject they are to discuss.
I like Vanessa’s outgoing character and her sincere smile in the morning, but she seemed like “Karmena tal-haxix” on Monday regurgitating what Joseph said in his Sunday sermon.
When will our journalists start questioning what our politicians state as a matter of fact?
Isn’t it glaringly obvious that without a parliamentary vote there can never be a referendum?
[Daphne – No, it isn’t. It is not obvious at all. People don’t understand it and that’s why it should be explained. Too many take too much for granted.]
It is worth noting that Prime Minister Gonzi said that he will vote in favour of the PL’s referendum bill as long as the question is an acceptable question. It seems that our journalists overlooked this proviso.
David
‘The PN, instead of learning from its major opponent’s mistakes, is now doing exactly the same’.
The divorce issue has been with us for some time. Why did not Alfred Sant tackle it ? This was not included in the PN electoral programme. Because of the private member’s bill, the prime minister had no other option but to tackle the situation he was confronted with unexpectedly.
I ask what would have happened had a Labour MP presented that same bill under a Labour government?
I support the PN and I will vote YES for divorce. This is not because I need but I know that some people are in crisis.
This does not mean that I will vote PL in a general election.
But I think its not fair to say that PN is doing the same things as Labouir did when in government only because of this particular issue. The only thing that PL is doing is trying to take advantage of the divorce issue and make PN lose some votes. But this does not mean that PN is adopting policies that are wrong for it.
I really can’t understand why the reluctance to legislate for divorce and the difficulties people have coming to terms with it. It’s not as if Malta is still the holier-than-thou country people like to think it was some four or five decades ago (when it wasn’t).
Waiting outside the school gates today, I noticed that families in which mummy is married to daddy and with 2.4 children are now very much a minority, at least among the populations of independent schools.
There are all sorts of combinations – siblings, half-siblings from both parents of the original set of siblings, “step-“(well, not quite) siblings, … you get the picture. Legislating for divorce won’t make any difference from a morality point of view, will it?
I’m more than sure that Joseph Muscat will lose the next general election because of the divorce issue.
go and fxxx yourself dafni……..your days are counted.
The correct expression is “your days are numbered”.
It’s weird how people like you fail to see the irony of gleefully looking forward to a Labour government because it wreaks havoc with the freedoms you’ve enjoyed so far.
‘go and fxxx yourself dafni……..your days are counted’.
Typical Labour. These words are said by Labourites to anyone who reveals the truth. People like marcellu are a shame to society.
If a referendum is called before divorce is discussed in parlament, then what will the people be asked to vote for in a referendum?