Comments of the day: from people I know
Mike ZM
I’m angrier about the aftermath of the referendum than I am about the way it was bungled up before and during the campaign.
Honestly, what are these MPs thinking? That anyone actually gives a toss about their conscience?
Are they so caught up their own arses that they actually believe their conscience is more important, more worthy, more sovereign than the will of the people?
That we will respect them more for discarding the mandate that we, the people, gave them in favour of their own weakly, yellow consciences? It defies belief.
Pro-divorce PN voters in the 8th district, like myself, find themselves in a horrific predicament.
The only MP elected from this district who’s taken a pro-divorce stand is the Hon. Alfred Sant. I most definitely did NOT vote for him in the last general election – and yet, he’s the only MP on this district who seems prepared to honour and respect the sovereign will of the people and vote in favour of the Act without any shilly-shallying and raising of pathetic conscientious objections.
I despair. I genuinely despair.
———–
John R
On Sunday I was livid that One News was implying that the Yes in PN strongholds signifies a swing of Nationalist voters (towards Labour).
I switched to Net and there was some idiot being interviewed about studies of attendance figures at Sunday mass. They must have had complaints, because there was some attempt to patch things up with interviews with Michael Falzon and Cyrus Engerer.
Yesterday was worse. I realised that most PN front-benchers are looking completely detached. Respecting the electorate’s will has to take precedence over their bias against divorce. It’s not a ‘kuxjenza’ issue. They are representatives of the people and must implement the people’s will, not their own personal beliefs.
We’re handing it over to Muscat on a silver platter.
Labour had voted in favour of the EU accession treaty once the people had decided that way.
We need that level of maturity and humility, which is completely lacking as we could see from the responses MPs and ministers gave to journalists.
Instead we have Tonio Borg with that stupid laugh and Paul Borg Oliver looking anxious as a backdrop to Gonzi who tells us that MPs can abstain or vote according to their consciences.
———-
MY NOTE: Labour did not vote in favour of the EU accession treaty. Labour under Alfred Sant (and with the approval of his assistant Joseph Muscat) voted against the will of the people on EU membership, as expressed in the referendum. The Nationalist Party now has to bear this in mind when taking decisions on whether to abstain or vote against the divorce bill. If they wish to be included in the same democratic category as Sant, Muscat and Labour, they should go right ahead and vote No or abstain.
———-
PG
After spending 4 bloody million on consulting us…If the Nationalists don’t give a clear message that they are out to respect the result, and vote en masse for the legislation, then they will be badly punished for it in the next election.
They probably will be anyway, of course, but the margin is important too.
It’s going to be a very painful process for them. Very strong leadership by Gonzi is called for; not sure he’s got it in him, but we’ll see.
42 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
I think this has gone too far anyway. Whatever the Nationalist MPs do now is not going to change my view of them, which is at an all time low.
I know the alternative, a Labour government, is probably worse, but sometimes you’ve got to take two steps back to be able to make one forward. I for one have lost all confidence in my representatives.
That’s exactly how I feel. And at this stage I’m not even sorry about it.
I still believe in the Nationalist Party and Gonzi. If anyone thinks they are being clever voting for Joseph Muscat in the next election then they are crazy and God help us all.
It is only day 2 after the referendum – calm down, the people’s will will be done. mMust we always criticize everything. I can’t do better than has been done, can you?
Malta being a welfare state it may remotelybe the case that the ‘guaranteed maintenance’ clause will further be extended to mean that if the payer declines, or is unable, to pay maintenance and jailed for this offence, the State (read TAXPAYER) will grant relief to BOTH families.
I hope ALL MPs will vote NO for this new tax.
Mentioning ‘conscience’ and the people’s decision, am I right to say that after yes vote to the EU referendum, 24 MPs voted NO in Parliament? How did we describe these people?
@JohnR: Labour voted AGAINST the EU Accession Treaty when this came up for the vote in Parliament after TWO popular votes in favour (referendum and general election). I do as well believe that the PN MPs should at least abstain, but facts are facts.
It is a truth universally acknowledged that a PN wishing to retain an electoral majority must be in want of a liberal wing (not Jane Austen).
The ‘horrible predicament’ in which Mike ZM finds himself is indeed horrible but is, as I suspect he’ll admit, also entirely predictable.
The referendum has had the side-effect of exposing the huge ideological gulf that exists between the, say, Gozo Nationalists and the “Sliema Plus” Nationalists.
The latter could perhaps be described as Liberal Democrats i.e. they have a fairly liberal agenda but believe in free market economics. Crucially, and irrespective of their personal religious beliefs, they tend to separate Church from State.
Mike ZM, John R and others are now discovering that a fair number of PN MPs live on a different ideological planet.
This can have two effects. (a) It will crack the PN coalition wide open and irreparably so and (b) John R’s silver platter will be inlaid with gems and accompanied by a good luck card as it is handed over to a grateful Joseph Muscat.
Daphne’s confidence that PN ‘Yes’ voters will remain part of the fold in 2013 should be put on hold until the Parliamentary debate is over and the vote held. I don’t think divorce will be blocked in Parliament but if it is, AD might yet make some kind of a comeback.
[Daphne – I expressed no such confidence. I spoke only about myself. I know for a fact that others will vote Labour or not vote. Voting for AD? No. People like to vote for potential governments.]
If there is a clear majority in parliament for divorce, what is the big deal if the MPs do not vote on party lines?
[Daphne – It is a huge deal, Silverbug. This is not about ‘getting the bill through’. It is about respecting democracy and the will of the people. By their vote shall we know them. If the prime minister votes No or abstains, he commits political suicide. He might as well resign now before he is dragged through the dirt at the polls in 2013. Respecting the will of the people as expressed in a referendum is, for a member of parliament, an overriding priority. It overrides personal views, dissenting constituents, and religious conscience. Those who have a problem with their conscience can and should resign their seat and clear the way for somebody with a better understanding of democracy.]
Agreed, but what, then, is the point of a non-binding referendum? Why bother with it – isn’t it a contradiction in terms? Surely the expectation that MPs should vote according to the result makes it (morally) binding?
The way I see it, this whole thing is an excellent exercise in separating the wheat from the political chaff. At the end of it, the voters will know exactly who’s got their back and who believes an MPs role is to tell voters what to do.
It’s about individuals – we can vote the party in, but keep these clowns out.
All this hogwash about kuxxenzji is infuriating.
The more they open those sorry excuses for mouths, the more they push me away from even considering to vote for them next time round.
I could have been anti-divorce, but I would respected the will of the majority hands-down, as the Labour Party did when push came to shove in black and white with regards to entry into the EU.
To do otherwise is the non plus ultra of sheer arrogance and megalomania.
Madonna, not even the Labour Party stooped that low in the face of the will of the majority.
Unbelievable.
Labour voted AGAINST the EU Accession Treaty in Parliament.
I mean after the election, they said “Heq, ghux, issa la qedin hawn …”
I think that’s what the PN needs – to lose an election.
Or better still, have all those with a ‘kuxxenja” emigrate to the Philippines and crucify themselves at Easter time.
Oh, hang on, maybe not. There is a chance that the Philippines will legislate divorce before we do, and they won’t even be 4 million Euro out of pocket.
And then see how badly the electorate has punished them. I can already see where the PN is going. As Daphne says, Gonzi will be dragged through the dirt, imbaghad we will hear about “naghmlu analizi tat-telfa… ecc. ecc.” u balla bulls**t.
Douze points, Daphne – the MPs must vote on the basis of the outcome of this referendum. They were elected to serve the people not the other way round. I can’t figure out why they are so obtuse.
For the record, Labour voted against the Accession Treaty BEFORE the referendum and BEFORE the 2003 General Election. Labour accepted Malta’s entry in the EU after a clear vote in the general election. Why do even these simple fact gets twisted and turned beyond recognition?
Bil-mod, rahal – Labour flew in the face of an absolute majority at the polls for five and a half years, or have you forgotten?
Push came to shove in December 1981 and Labour – already a disaster but a legitimate one – simply went from atrociously bad to, incredibly, worse.
They are not representatives and as such they will be treated when the time comes.
The MP’s who do not respect the will of the people should be remembered and punished in the next general election.
The problem with your argument is that most MPs know their voters a bit better than we do. Take Edwin Vassallo. In his district, 10,400 people voted No. Let’s say 8,000 of those were Nationalists. He’s positioning himself for their vote come election time.
They certainly cannot be represented by Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando who happens to contest the same district.
The argument with these MPs should be one of principle: MPs must certainly not hinder the implementation of the electorate’s decision on divorce. Furthermore, they need to consider voting Yes in Parliament.
They would never go against their party’s manifesto in Parliament even if their ‘conscience’ dictated otherwise. In this case, they won’t go against the will of the majority. That’s what they need to say before voting against their ‘conscience’.
It’s not as straightforward as you all think.
In Gozo 80% of the people voted NO. By your reasoning shouldn’t the representatives from Gozo be voting against the bill because they are there to represent their constituents?
[Daphne – 70%, but this is not a referendum by district. It is a national referendum. There is ONE RESULT ONLY – A NATIONAL RESULT. The fact that you have the numbers per district is a result of the administrative and organisational system.]
It is very clear to me that the Bill MUST be passed……..because that is what the majority decided …… but does it really have to be a unanimous decision?
I can live with MP’s abstaining, because this will make no difference at all to the bill being passed. (And in a sense it will reflect the fact that the referendum “yes” result was not a unanimous one).
However, I don’t believe MP’s should vote against the bill because that would be in direct opposition to the will of the majority.
If an MP felt so strongly about an issue that he felt he should vote against ……then the logical thing for him to do would be to resign rather than go against the referendum result. ………… however I won’t be holding my breath!
It seems like PN was caught on the wrong foot with the referendum result and they hadn’t thought through what the reaction of the party should be before the referendum.
Why is it that I am getting a feeling that in Parliament, it is the Labour Party that is controlling the situation?
Why am I getting the impression that the government is confused whilst the Opposition is coming up with initiatives?
It’s truly getting like government by Opposition.
Unless the PN remains a party of democratic principles, not convenience, it will face a major defeat at the next elections, and I will be there to celebrate at its funeral.
I honestly have a feeling that the party and the key policymaking is in the hands of amateurs.
[errrm, Daphne, did the Bishop embargo my comments?
I know they hurt, but the PN needs to be brought back to its senses.]
[Daphne – What comments?]
And I am so angry I want to add something else please.
We are in this situation because someone did not have the clarity of mind to make the divorce issue simple. Why was it politicised?
Why were the strategists brought into this?
[Daphne – Were the strategists brought into this? Believe me, I hadn’t noticed. A strategist would have had one piece of advice for the prime minister: put divorce in your electoral programme for 2013 or die.]
Did those responsible for leadership (I am stopping short of pointing my finger more precisely) not realise that this was a matter of a civil right and just had to be brought into our legislation asap, without too many manouvres?
What did it have to do with the strategists?
Once legislated, Joseph Muscat would not have been in a position to make any further political mileage out of the matter, but see, he is not only benefitting from it politically, but also physically – I mean look at him during Sunday’s press conference.
Now, this is what we have: the PN sinking under its own strategies.
They should speak to Marlene Pullicino’s spiritual advisers. Hadn’t they told her that her conscience is clear even if she votes for divorce, because that is her democratic responsibility as an MP?
Well said. U Marlene ahjar taghlaqlu naqa, ghax issa dalwaqt se jinbidlilha l-istatus minn separated to single u naraw tiehux vantagg minnha is-sitwazzjoni. Qaddisa miexja fl-art hej.
Marlene Pullicino is an interesting case study. She said that she models her life on that of the Virgin Mary, aka the Madonna. And Marlene will be voting for divorce thanks to a conversion experience she had last year.
Therefore, I am hoping that the Hon. Minister Tonio Fenech, who saw the Madonna crying, is still to experience a similar conversion.
ROFLMFAO
Just a thought – would the Gozo MPs (or those of the other two districts where the NO vote won) be justified in voting against divorce?
[Daphne – No. No. No. No. NO. Please read my explanations in response to other comments, because I am wiped out with repeating the same thing. A decision taken by referendum is not a constituency matter. ]
As I said it was just a thought, not my opinion. I totally agree that it is not a constituency issue. The point is that others may have the same thought and agree with it.
The matter of conscience regarding the choice of divorce pertains at the individual level of the individual(s)’s choice of divorce (or not to divorce) for themselves, when they may or may not avail themselves of the civil option.
The matter of democracy also is a matter of conscience at the Parliamentary level, where, when the will of the people has been expressed–one is obliged to follow the will of the people.
Now, if Parliament should wish to confuse personal conscience with their moral responsibilities to democracy, they would be placing their purely personal view above the majority view of the democratic process.
It is ironic how the choice of divorce (as a matter of individual choice as a civil right) has been confirmed now as a civil right by the democratic outcome of a referendum [accepted as such by many, when some of those same persons originally had wanted (or hoped) to deny individuals the right to choose, which is not very democratic].
So, it would seem that many now are willing to accept civil rights for individuals only when a democratic majority define the issue as a civil right, as has happened by the referendum. Others may disagree, and may hold to their own view that their personal views must be forced upon others.
For those in Parliament (or among the confused electorate) who feel that some parliamentarians need to vote “No” against the will of the people expressed by the referendum, perhaps civil and moral lessons in “freedom in democracies” would be in order.
It’s the ultimate form of control: ask what they want and then ignore what they say, leaving them well and truly subjugated.
Spot on Steve. I for one have been disenchanted with the PN for quite some time now but still gave them my vote and never dreamt of voting PL.
But now? I am not so sure.
Voting against the divorce bill could well be the last straw for me. Not that I would get myself to vote for the PL but burning my voting document could be an alternative.
The will of a clear majority of the Maltese electorate is strongly asking Parliament to legislate on divorce. Independently of the MP’s personal expression during vote-casting, he/she is now to make sure the people’s wish is respected and implemented.
This is the PN’s democratic ‘religion’.
Besides the EU referendum already cited, we remember very vividly the 1981 expressed will of the people that went under the carpet, and how the PN and its leaders and voters “inhlibna” and “tbazwarna” to defend that sacred result.
Let us not cast any doubt on the PN’s historic credentials on such a foundation-stone of democracy; 130 years of history bear a consistent testimony.
A warning to all PN parliamentary members of parliament on the 10th district. If any of you abstain or even worse vote against, you’d better not knock on my door just before the next general elections.
Edgar, I agree with you 100% but we are in the 9th district now.
I frequently read your posts though I have never previously commented.
I will say upfront that I was and still am against the introduction of divorce in Malta and have in fact voted against same during Saturday’s referendum.
The electorate’s verdict however was a definite one, and all MPs are now in duty bound to vote for divorce legislation. Though it hurts me to say this, no MP is now morally correct in voting against or abstaining, since first and foremost he or she has sworn to respect and represent the will of the people.
The important thing is that the referendum bill is approved by Parliament. Who votes for or against is not important. After all the will of the the 46% who voted against should be considered too.
54% of the votes went for the Yes campaign . 46% for the No campaign and over 20 thousand votes abstained.
So why should we expect all our MPs to vote Yes when there so many Nos.
[Daphne – I almost give up. And then I wonder why Alfred Sant, with a Harvard doctorate in marketing, counted the abstentions with the No vote in the EU referendum and claimed that Partnership won. Ahjar immur nara daqxejn Eastenders u Mad Men, forsi ninsa ghal ftit l-injoranza grassa tal-fellow countrymen.]
Expecting a No result, many of the Yes campaigners often stressed that the will of the minority should be respected. Now that the result turned up in their favour these same no campaigners have no respect for the will of the minority.
Something expected..
[Daphne – How do you respect the will of the minority? By creating a ‘Pakistan/India’ situation and sending the No voters to live in the new republic of Gozo?]
Yes please.
Just out of curiosity – why is it “the will of the people” when referring to EU membership but “the will of the peepil” when it refers to opposition to the Piano project?
Just asking …..
[Daphne – Was there a national referendum on whether to have Renzo Piano design a new gateway to the city and a parliament building? I hadn’t noticed. Please post the relevant links. What you SHOULD be talking about is the irony of having a Renzo Piano 21st-century parliament building to house 19th-century Sicilian mountain village MPs on both sides of the house. Joseph Muscat couldn’t even express himself on the BBC the other day: he couldn’t formulate answers to the questions either in thought or language, and his diction was beyond terrible. Thank heavens he was introduced as ‘campaigning Maltese politician’ and not as ‘the leader of the Opposition’ because that would have really killed me. It was enough listening to the commentators subtle mockery about Muscat’s declaration that Malta is now a ‘new country.’ Is the Maltese parliament the only one in Europe in which whole social groups are NOT represented?]
On Sunday in Malta Muscat said this was a vote for the Europeanisation of Malta. (I thought that was on the 8 March 2003, but then Muscat told us Partnership won.
On Monday on BBC World Service, he said it was NOT about the Europeanisation of Malta (obviously expecting a question about abortion if he said it was). Shows in what contempt Muscat holds his Maltese televiewers.
Daphne, I give up. I despair with you too! There is so much ignorance and illogical thinking in this small isle of ours.
If Gonzi doesn’t stand up to be counted then I believe he’s not fit to win the general election. Act now and be firm and strong. Show them all who’s boss.