Daphne, my understanding exempts no one from a basic tenet of democracy, that is, the rule of the people. I take it as a given that divorce, as voted, must be legislated.

When I suggested that ““public accountability” would also benefit those who voted for divorce” I also had in mind what you worded as “…representative is capable of ignoring the result of a referendum, then he or she is capable of much worse”.

I believe that one has the right to know how representatives go about reconciling conflicts. When you cast your vote in the next general election you may want to refer to how a particular representative handled this issue and make your informed decision accordingly. I’d rather have it this way then someone “jilghab ghall-gallerija” biex la jfuh u lanqas jinten

I think Alfred Sant’s “reasoning” follows a completely different pattern. Suffice to say that his point of departure was reversing the outcome of the referendum result, which is even worse then not accepting it. In no instance have I suggested that “…(my) representative in parliament has the ‘right’ to do the same and that you (I) want him to do so.

That would be so if I was ready to accept that divorce is not legislated. As I see it the one thing that the referendum has determined, is the outcome of any debate or voting pattern.

My reasoning is based on two inalienable (for me) premises. The first determined by the outcome of the referendum, that however it is achieved, parliament must legislate for divorce as requested by the majority.

The second is that as an elector I want to know what my chosen representative stands for. I believe that the latter “public accountability” would also benefit those who voted for divorce.

[Daphne – Joe, you should be concerned about where your representative stands on democracy and not where he stands on divorce. Divorce is now a given, but if your representative is capable of ignoring the result of a referendum, then he or she is capable of much worse. Vide Alfred Sant. Were you one of those who criticised him for ignoring the result of the EU referendum? If so, how can you now claim that your representative in parliament has the ‘right’ to do the same and that you want him to do so?]

How can this be achieved? I understand that it is difficult to reconcile and that it necessarily has to be “engineered”, maybe adopting practices from other areas such as that of a minority report!

Ehmmm I acknowledge that I may need to retract the “laboured” comment in my initial post or at least qualify mine as such too!

If the PN thinks otherwise, then they should start writing their goodbye cards for the next general election.

Only a fascist politician would even suggest such a referendum.

THIS is the comment of the day…

It will never happen, ruhi qalbi – they are conservative by nature. Kollhom qdusija u duqija. Ma smajtux lil Emeritus jitkellem, filli Ewropa Ewropa u issa qatta bla habel kontra id-divorzju- minn xarbu kielu l-bakkaljaw.

I genuinely fail to understand your insistence that all MPs should vote in favour of the law. The Yes camp itself is not making an issue over it.

[Daphne – If you genuinely fail to understand, then that is probably because we start off from a different understanding of democracy and of the underpinnings of our electoral system. I have just uploaded – as a post – a beautifully succinct explanation – Today’s Star Comment So Far – to which I need add nothing further. If you can’t understand it, then what can I say. I suspect that like the prime minister you take the typically ‘Maltese village’ pragmatic and functional view that the means justifies the end. As long as it passes, who cares how it passes. Over the last 24 hours, an article on the subject has been ticking over in my head: I realised that this pretty much sums up the difference between the two parts of the ‘coalition’ that makes up support for the PN, and one part simply cannot understand the other.]

You justify your stand on the basis of democratic principles. Like most concepts this is subjective. What is democratic to one may be less so to another.

[Daphne – It is not in the least bit subjective. There are standards which Europe has reached after centuries of bloodshed and angst. Malta does not exist in a wheel-reinventing bubble, and people here do not want it to exist in such a bubble. The Yes vote was an open declaration of that.]

Where does it say, in black and white, that an individual MP is bound to vote in favour, in accordance to the referendum result? Political parties and Parliament as a whole are bound by the result but why translate that on each individual MP? If individual MPs are bound in this manner, then why is it referred to it as ‘consultative’ referendum?

[Daphne – I give up. Truly, I give up. There are two Maltas, honestly. I’ve long realised this, but now it’s screamingly obvious. There’s Sicilian Malta and there’s British Malta and the two just don’t meet, except every five years when the time comes to keep Labour out of power. There are just two cultures and it’s pointless battling it. We just have to accept it.]

For the lack of anything better, I thought of referring to Wikipedia and I found this with reference to referenda in the UK: “There are two types of referenda that have been held in the UK, pre-legislative (held before proposed legislation is passed) and post-legislative (held after legislation is passed). Referenda are not legally binding, so legally the government can ignore the results; for example, even if the result of a pre-legislative referendum were a majority of ‘No’ for a proposed law, Parliament could pass it anyway, because parliament is sovereign.”

[Daphne – Oh yes, my dear. Just try ignoring a referendum result in Britain and saying that you’re not technically bound to stick with the result, and then see what happens. Honestly. My God.]

I am not saying that we should follow the UK model , but it does show that there are different manners how democratic principles can be interpreted.

[Daphne – We do have the UK model. Our entire system of democracy, parliament, the works, is the UK model. We got our parliamentary system when we were a British colony, remember? And thank God for that, because imagine if we were left to reinvent the wheel and design something for ourselves. The only thing that’s different is how our MPs get into our ‘British’ parliament: proportional representation instead of first past the post.]

I also looked up democracy and found this: “Democracy is a form of government in which all citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives. Ideally, this includes equal (and more or less direct) participation in the proposal, development and passage of legislation into law.”

[Daphne – If you have to look up democracy on Wikipedia (or anywhere else) then this discussion is a non-starter. It really makes me desperate to see how bad things are, and that our MPs are really the people’s representatives.]

With a majority vote in Parliament for the divorce law, equal participation of all citizens will have taken place, irrespective of the size of that majority.

Oh, for the memories! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doky8I7mJSI (Alfred Sant u l-Partnerrrxipp)