EUR4 million on a referendum, and they're going to vote with their conscience anyway
This is not Tonio Fenech's mug
Conscience is a very big thing with our MPs, isn’t it? My God. You’d think we were talking about the death penalty here.
Exactly why did they spend four million euros on getting us to do their job for them and take a decision on divorce, if they are going to plough right on and do what they want to do anyway?
Shameless.
Some of them, like Edwin Vassallo, don’t even seem to understand how or why they are in parliament. They think they represent themselves, and haven’t worked out even after all this time that they are the ‘portavuci’ of the electorate.
Who gives a damn about Edwin Vassallo’s conscience? He can keep it and polish it and bring it in and out of the box. But he can’t use it to defy the will of the people.
It was the PN whip who gave the best response to reporters who asked him about his conscience: “My conscience tells me to respect the will of the people as expressed in that most democratic exercise, a referendum.”
86 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
Long hot mad summer coming our way .
Pity no comment, yet about Adrian Vassallo.
Is it that undemocratic that the Gozo minister votes against, keeping in mind that her district opposed strongly divorce in the referendum?
[Daphne – Yes. It is very undemocratic for the minister of Gozo to vote against. A referendum assesses the decision of the people as a whole, and not on a constituency basis. The fact that we know how constituencies voted is just an administrative ‘accident’. ]
Those who voted ‘no’ are not neccessarily Giovanna Debono’s constituents.
Daphne, what happened after the EU referendum? Was there a vote in parliament and if so did ALL MPs from both sides of the house vote in favour?
[Daphne – What happened after the EU referendum: 1. Alfred Sant said that Partnership won and brought out his people to celebrate. He refused to acknowledge the result. His assistant, Joseph Muscat, said five years later that with hindsight he realised that indeed people had voted Yes. 2. Because Labour refused to acknowledge the referendum result, the prime minister called a general election. Those who voted Yes were asked to vote PN to ensure that Malta joined Europe (because Labour was against it). They did so – including people who usually voted Labour. Labour lost, and then voted against the accession treaty despite the people’s vote in favour of it, both in a referendum and a general election.]
Wonder how many politicians are quoting Dick Tuck:
“The people have spoken, the bastards.”
Yes the people have spoken, no excuses please or resign.
Resign? That would make your day, wouldn’t it?
All MPs from both sides have two options on divorce bill vote: vote Yes or abstain. They abdicated their responsibility and foisted it on the electorate which has given them a clear reply.
Anyone who votes No in parliament now does so at his own risk and peril and will be judged by the electorate in the 2013 election. Do you expect more than usual new faces in next election?
Can an MP take a sickie (eg. URTI – upper respiratory throat infection – is most popular on docs’ certificates) on voting day or go abroad?
It’s tract, not throat.
Thanks for the exact medical term but the drift of my post remains unchanged.
Actually, Pecksniff, some MPs may be doing just what you say, i.e. thinking of the general elections. Don’t forget that 47% of the electorate voted No and will be more likely to vote for a candidate who opposes divorce, even after the referendum result.
All this talk of “conscience” by some MPs may indeed be genuine or, perhaps, just a ploy to pander to the core vote in their constituencies. In this case it would refer to inter-party rivalry rather than PN-PL competition.
If these biscuit-eating fundamentalists attempt tp screw the people’s will, add Malta to Tunisia/Egypt/Lybia/Yemen and Syria. Hot blood in Malta makes for a long, hot summer, indeed.
Slightly out of point here but it could still be related to conscience. Following the result did the Curia issue a press release besides the Sunday night ”apology”?
[Daphne – No. Perhaps it’s embargoed until next week.]
“No. Perhaps it’s embargoed until next week.”
And they did not send it to Saviour Balzan this time.
If the will of the majority is overwhelmingly in favour of divorce , but the will of the minority should also be respected (in the same way MPs in opposition represent the political party which lost in the last general election), then how exactly should the MPs representing the electoral districts which voted overwhelmingly against divorce, vote?
[Daphne – Who said that the will of the minority should be respected? Where did this idea come from? The minority who have to be respected are not the minority who voted against divorce and lost, but the minority WHO NEED DIVORCE. Votes are taken to decide whose will prevails completely, and not as a means of apportioning respect. By that sort of reasoning, we would never have an Opposition, but only a sort of permanent coalition government.]
Should they vote YES, in spite of the will of their constituents or should they vote NO in order to represent their wishes?
Eg, if the vast majority of Gozitans voted against divorce, how should the Gozitan MPs of both political parties vote in order to respect the will of the people they represent?
[Daphne – They should vote Yes. This was not a district referendum, but a national one. Please understand this. There was one result: Yes. There were no results by district. That was market analysis, and not an official or legal result.]
Gee. We now know that Edwin Vassallo’s conscience is worth more than 4 million Euros.
The €4 million were spent because “according to statistics,” quoting Dr. Gonzi, “a very small percentage of the population is in need of divorce,” while the rest is a nation of religious zealots – this thought must have crossed his mind.
According to this reasoning, the referendum would have been the perfect means to keep divorce legislation at bay for quite a while. Who would have guessed that sanity and reason would prevail?
Ma ghandhomx ghalfejn, ciccio, ghax il-hdura li hierga kontra il-knisja hi bizzejjed.
Pippo, naqbel mieghek mija fil-mija. Kif ghidt f’post ohra, kif appena daqqu l-10.00pm tas-Sibt, fuq One fethulha kontra l-Knisja. Anke Joseph Muscat jitghajjar bil-konfessjonalizmu, u l-istess fuq Bondi+ illejla.
Sadanittant, jidher li nhar is-Sibt, hafna Laburisti baqghu id-dar. Ghalija, dawk effettivament ivvutaw Divorzju IVA, Joseph Muscat LE.
X’tistenna, wara kampanja shiha ta’ gideb mill-knisja.
Hdura u bir-ragun!
Il-hdura kontra l-knisja ilha gejja u mhux marbuta mar-rizultat tar-referendum. Veru li l-knisja u xi qassisin jew individwi partikolari marbutin mal-knisja ghamlu xi zbalji jew affarijiet diskutibbli hafna fil-kampanja, imma ma rridux ninsew l-antiklerikalizmu kultant sottili u kultant sfaccat minn maltatoday u specjalment l-ahbarijiet tas-super one. Li gurnali bhat-times jew independent jiehdu pozizzjoni favur id-divorzju ma ddejjaqni xejn, anzi hija haga pozittiva sakemm ir-rappurtagg ma jkunx ‘biased’, imma dawk li semmejt qabel u li nqdew bid-divorzju biex imbottaw agenda anti klerikali huma skifuzi u kundannabbli!
Unless the PN want to lose the next general election by a 50,000 majority, divorce will be approved by parliament.
Should divorce not be approved, the PL would promise it in its electoral manifesto and the electorate, feeling betrayed by the government, would flock to vote for the PL.
But this is not going to happen, judging by what the Prime Minister has said to the media today and yesterday.
If you were an MP and the people you represent in your district have voted LE by a large majority, how will you vote in parliament?
[Daphne – There is only one way to vote: in accordance with the referendum decision. The MP of whom you speak voluntarily ceded his right to vote on a constituency basis when he agreed to the matter being decided by referendum. This is not so hard to understand. Please try. If MPs fully intended to proceed regardless, they shouldn’t have agreed to a referendum, let alone insisted on one. They should just have surveyed opinion within their constituency and voted accordingly.]
Here is a good example, Dee.
In 1996 the MLP won the general election. However, in Gozo, the majoity voted for the PN. Was the MLP obliged to implement the PN electoral manifest for Gozo? Of course not. It would have been ridiculous to do so.
Elections/referendums are a type of ‘all for one, and one for All’ affairs.
or the majority of the 28% who didnt vote in the referendum will give their vote to PN to keep divorce out, and hand a surprise victory to the PN
Lino, if the majority of those who abstained did so because they didn’t want to vote ‘against’ Labour, there is no chance that they will ever vote PN, divorce or no divorce.
I’m angrier about the aftermath of the referendum that I am about the way it was bungled up before and during the campaign.
Honestly, what are these MP’s 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.
Please add a “share button” to your blog. This will facilitate the sharing of your opinion pieces on social networking sites.
“Exactly why did they spend four million euros on getting us to do their job for them and take a decision on divorce, if they are going to plough right on and do what they want to do anyway?”
I know that that was a rhetorical question, but I would like to think that they probably expected the end result of the referendum to be a clear-cut “NO”.
You are actually forgetting something Daphne. It was a Labour (not a PN) motion that proposed a referendum and which eventually passed through parliament. The vast majority of the PN MPs voted AGAINST that motion. Therefore, they now have all the right to abstain from voting in line with the result of something they didn’t want in the first place!! On the other hand, I would simply say that if any MP who voted in favour of that motion and now votes against or abstains from voting in favour of divorce (and I suspect that there might be a couple of MLP MPs who might want to do that), then THAT would be an issue.
[Daphne – They did not vote against the referendum. They voted against Jeffrey’s bill. It was the prime minister who proposed the referendum, as you should recall. Then a battle developed because the prime minister thought the referendum should have the simple question of ‘Do you agree that Malta should have divorce legislation’ and Jeffrey and the Labour Party wanted the question to be more detailed, specific and directly related to the bill. The rest of your reasoning is appalling, and not only because it is based on a false premise and the wrong information. A decision by parliament is a decision by parliament and must be respected by all members. An MP cannot carry on regardless or proceed as he wishes because he voted against.]
You’re wrong Daphne. Despite Gonzi wanting a referendum (albeit AFTER discussing the divorce bill in parliament), technically it was the PL motion which set the ball rolling for the referendum question and for the referendum itself. The PN MPs (with the exception of JPO) voted against that motion and, as a result, against the referendum (and the referendum question).
[Daphne – I can see what’s coming next, using the magnificent logic currently on display: if they voted against the referendum they have the right to ignore the result.]
Did you all not see on tonight’s Bondi Plus that the result of the telephonic poll indicates that over 70% of us think that politicians can vote as they choose. The options are either YES or abstain. NO is out of the question.
[Daphne – Yes. There is a shocking lack of understanding of democracy in this country. It’s when I find myself struggling to explain very simple democratic concepts to otherwise highly educated people that I am forced to remember how, only 30 years ago, crowds of Hugo-Chavez-supporter types were singing and chanting ‘Ma taghmlu xejn mal-Perit Mintoff’ and ‘Mintoff jerga jkun fil-gvern, hallelujah!’. What our European neighbours (some of them at least) learned over centuries of democratic evolution we have had compressed into a couple of decades and it hasn’t been enough.]
Kenneth, I don’t consider the Bondiplus poll to be at all indicative. Most diehard Labourites would have been faithfully watching “their own” station so the bulk of those who voted on the poll would have been PN supporters wanting to agree with their party.
I believe that people who did not vote in the referendum have abdicated their right to have any say on what follows from the referendum result. The 70% means nothing if it includes these people, and there is no way of knowing that.
As long as the divorce legislation is approved, it will be undemocratic if the No voters are left unrepresented in the official result of the vote that will be taken in parliament.
Otherwise it will not be just the dictatorship of the majority this time, but the annihilation of the minority opinion. Abstaining will not be enough, that will only be represent the voters who did not turn up to vote. Now that altruistic spirit so much vaunted these last five weeks is to materialise.
[Daphne – This is becoming really tiresome. MPs evaluate what their constituents want in the course of a normal parliamentary vote. They would have been within their rights – obliged, actually – to make just such an evaluation if they were voting on divorce law without first handing the decision over to the electorate in a referendum. But once they have told us ‘we’re not deciding, you decide’, then the situation changes. Voting with their conscience or according to what their own particular constituents want is no longer what they have to do, because they passed the buck to us and can’t take it back. Now they have to vote according to the result. I’ll just spell it out: THEY ABDICATED THEIR DUTY TO THEIR PARTICULAR CONSTITUENTS WHEN THEY SAID THEY WOULDN’T VOTE ON DIVORCE LAW AND WOULD LET PEOPLE DECIDE IN A REFERENDUM INSTEAD.]
“They would have been within their rights – obliged, actually – to make just such an evaluation if they were voting on divorce law without first handing the decision over to the electorate in a referendum. ”
I disagree with you on this, and in this case. This would give their constituents a say in other people’s private affairs.
Let’s say Gozo was an independent country, and we now know it’s population is mostly against divorce legislation, shouldn’t said legislation have been introduced anyway (in a normal democracy)?
[Mario – As long as the divorce legislation is approved, it will be undemocratic if the No voters are left unrepresented in the official result of the vote that will be taken in parliament].
Tell you what. How about legislating for a 54% of a divorce? Let’s make an estimate of the life expectancy of separated persons, calculate 54% of the resulting years, and give a divorce valid only for the amount of years that result from the calculation.
Please forgive my silly answer, but the arguments of those who cannot take defeat are getting sillier by the minute. Might as well indulge myself.
It’s appalling that many Maltese citizens don’t even known the basics of democracy. The will of the majority must be respected. If a politician is having trouble with conscience, he/she should resign.
Perfectly said, The problem lies in the fact that knowing our MPs most of them will be looking only at their interest and nothing else.
Can you imagine Giovanna Debono abstaining or voting in favour and risking her seat by going against the wishes of Bishop Grech?
Can you see Tonio Fenech abstaining or voting in favour, after his experience with the Madonna?
We all know how arrogant Austin Gatt is, he is sure to vote No, even if it kills him.
They can vote Yes or they can resign. Abstaining is having your cake and eating it too – trying to represent the population without respecting their wishes.
They know by now that voting No will essentially end their political career as voters will (hopefully) remember how individual MPs voted come election time.
Don’t think of it as 4 million wasted on a referendum. It’s 4 million very well-spent on Malta’s coming of age and on giving both politicians and clergy a nice, smart kick in the behind.
The changes that will result from this weekend’s result will be much more far-reaching than divorce.
Worth every cent, I say!
It will be over only when the fat lady sings.
She hasn’t even gargled yet.
Unbelievable.
All this strengthens my suspicion that the prime minister (and the PN) opted to put the decision to a referendum because in their mind they were sure that the No vote would win and that then they could have washed their hands of the problem, saying that the people had decided.
[Daphne – Yes, that’s what I and many others thought would happen too. It really was a zero sum game.]
Now that the vote has gone contrary to what they expected they are in a fix and don’t know what to do.
We should be heaven on earth in this country with all those MPs worrying about their conscience. Let us take note of those MPs who respect the outcome of the referendum, and those who don’t.
They do have a funny conscience, it never bothered them when they were given an increase in the honorarium
My thoughts exactly
Much ado about nothing
A short message to our confused MPs.
The philosophical definition of conscience is the sense of right and wrong that governs a person’s thoughts and actions.
It would be wrong both morally and ethically to deprive or obstruct the legislation of divorce when it is so clear that the majority has voted for its introduction.
It is right and perhaps comforting for MPs cought in a dilema to qualify their yes decision in a seperate statement to explain their anomaly.
The time is ripe for a liberal party, the numbers are there.
[Daphne – No, they aren’t. The time is ripe for the PN to understand at last that what I have been trying to knock into its head for the last 10 years or so has now been borne out by the numbers in this referendum: it survives only with the consent of a large and ever-increasing group of thousands who are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT to the typical PN voter that makes up the core vote, and has to get to grips with this.]
“it survives only with the consent of a large and ever-increasing group of thousands who are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT to the typical PN voter that makes up the core vote, and has to get to grips with this.]”
Don’t trust what we call the core vote anymore. Things are changing. When it is a question of ethical beliefs (not necessarily religious) the core vote can and will withdraw its allegiance. At least that is the impression I am getting. Where would that leave the ‘liberals’? Utlimately, it is a question of striking a balance.
I think we have to thank Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando for making his point through the refendum result that the PN is NOT GonziPN but an agglomeration of people with different ideas and opniions that the PN administration has to respect. Doing the opposite will be to its own peril.
Thank you JPO!
MPs did not worry about their ‘conscience’ when giving themselves hefty pension, salary, etc. increases. Admittedlly some should have had salary increases, but this was not the right time for them.
Also as a gesture of goodwill they could all have relinquished voluntarily their perks with regards to free travel on Air Malta for them and their families.
Factually incorrect. Salary restructure is one thing …a cost of living increase is another.
A comparison is puerile and betrays a proletariat sense of crass collectivism.
Parliament representatives should definitely be very well paid for obvious reasons.
Rahal, are you sure those reasons are so “obvious”?
I agree that parliament representatives should definitely be very well paid for obvious reasons, one being I suppose that they attend ALL sessions of parliament. You deliberately misunderstood my point, that voting ‘NO’ is a matter of ‘conscience’.
“Who gives a damn about Edwin Vassallo’s conscience? He can keep it and polish it and bring it in and out of the box. ”
Hahahaha lovely Daphne!
Back to business – My conscience will prevent me from ever voting “YES” for any MP who defies the will of the people.
My conscience goes even further. It forbids me from voting for any party that does not manage to secure a majority vote for divorce legislation in parliament.
This is no longer about divorce. It is about democracy, and losing what was hard-won in 1987.
So true, Kenneth!
Joe (Victory is ours…its already guaranteed) Zammit is back, still insisting that victory is guaranteed.
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110531/local/mgr-anton-gouder-soul-searching-by-the-church-after-the-referendum.368102
Shame on ALL involved in the NO campaign for their deceitful and fearful campaign. Yes that is exactly what it was and no amount of excuses and apologies will change it.
Issa qed ihossuha il-kuxjenza u jitolbu appologija, though now some are saying it was not an apology after all but a gesture towards reconciliation!
The pain inflicted on a lot of people is unimaginable.
An old lady told me that Saturday was the most traumatic day in her life. She was convinced that she should not impose her religious beliefs on others and was going to abstain from voting. She delayed going to vote till the very last minute but eventually did vote YES.
“THEY ABDICATED THEIR DUTY TO THEIR PARTICULAR CONSTITUENTS WHEN THEY SAID THEY WOULDN’T VOTE ON DIVORCE LAW AND WOULD LET PEOPLE DECIDE IN A REFERENDUM INSTEAD”
Daphne, the above statement gives the right to MPs to vote in parliament according to the referendum results of their electoral districts albeit not according to their conscience. So it follows that Giovanna e.g. can freely vote “no” without being irresponsible once there is a guarantee that the bill will pass irrespective of the net vote of parliament.
[Daphne – No, no, no, no, no, my God. A referendum is NOT constituency based. We have the results on a district level (not constituency) because for administrative purposes ONLY that is how we are organised to vote. Think of the EP elections: we are organised to vote by district. But the MEPs represent Malta, not a ‘constituency’. The result is single and national. General elections are different: they actually ARE constituency based. The actual aim of a general election is not to elect a government, but to elect people’s representatives on a constituency basis. The government is formed as a by-product of this exercise, when the MP who gathers most MPs behind him forms the government. It is not actually the primary aim of the exercise. I think I should start pressing for civic education campaigns and for civic information classes in schools.]
Yes please do!
@ lino:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendum
Most definitely.
How about introductory and refresher courses for MPs too?
Then I think your statement should read ‘they abdicated their duty towards the electorate’.
[Daphne – No, they abdicated their duty towards their constituents. They told them ‘sorry, I don’t want to represent your views on this; we’re going for a referendum and then it’s pot luck’]
Sorry, ‘to’ and not ‘towards”‘
Thiis dead horse has a lot of flogging left in it. Politicians of both sides: wake up and legislate according to the decision taken by the people. If not, then do the decent thing and resign the party whip and start your own Taliban party.
I rather suspect that those MPs who think they can be cavalier with the electorate’s wishes do so because they think ‘It was a close thing’ and ‘”only” one third of the population is in favour of divorce legislation’, so they are mistakenly putting themselves in some kind of comfort zone where they fail to understand the enormity of the result of the referendum.
I haven’t worked out the full ramifications but it is quite clear that this is a hugely significant result. The PN came out against divorce legislation, knowing full well that the Church would be obliged to do so too. The PN was hoodwinked by Church figures which seem to indicate that a large majority of the inhabitants of Malta are Catholic. The PN and the Church combined – and a weak, wishy-washy, non-committal stand from the PL. How could they lose? Ultimately this was the PN’s conclusion.
Neither of us expected the ‘Yes’ lot to win. Did anybody? It was a ‘miracle’. Maybe there is a God but it’s not the Catholic one, it would seem.
The ‘Yes’ win, to me, clearly shows that the PN has really lost touch with its supporters. It doesn’t know who they are or what they want any more.
I think it also shows that a higher proportion of people than we expected can actually reason things out and this is a very good thing. There is hope yet.
Joe Muscat clearly failed to inspire his supporters to vote ‘Yes’ in any significant quantities. We have to assume that people prepared to vote for the PL in 2013 number at least 50% of the electorate, so – at a rough but conservative estimate – about half of them failed to follow Joe’s example and vote ‘Yes’. This is also significant. It shows that there are signs of PL supporters being able to think independently and not simply obey blindly as they have always done in the past.
As things stand, I don’t expect the PN to win the next general election, not by a long chalk.
But there are lessons to be learned from this referendum and, if they ARE learned, the learners will definitely improve their chances of being elected very significantly.
And the first, and glaringly obvious, thing to learn is that it will be suicidal to an MP’s chances of re-election if s/he is to vote ‘No’ to the divorce bill.
On the down-side, it is apparent from the comments on this blog and elsewhere that only a minority of people really understand how a modern democracy functions.
Still, the result of this referendum has proved to be something of a tonic to those of us who genuinely would like to see an electorate thinking logically.
Were is my comment I posted it here purposely to make sure that you show it. I have posted it on a previous article but I made it sure that it will be posted. I voted against divorce also beacuse I personally have seen in my regards alot of immaturity. You are an immature persona Daphne and also intollerant. I remidn you that you are not part of the nationalist party all you do is only in your personal position.
[Daphne – Intollerant, eh? You are clearly an elve.]
The singular of elves is elf, Daphne. Elves were created by Iluvatar and are thus akin to the Ainur. Need I go on?
[Daphne – Tim. I. Know. That. ‘Elve’ is a long-running joke because that is how the Intollerants spell it.]
Sorry, missed the ‘elve’ goings on, though I was aware of ‘intollerant’.
Say sorry to Edwin Vassallo and the others who were offened by your comments. Bozza ta l-elf u dak x’argument hu x’argument hu. Bicca gurnalista.Prusuntuza u arrgonati.
Daphne, you wrote: “they abdicated their duty towards their constituents. They told them ‘sorry, I don’t want to represent your views on this; we’re going for a referendum and then it’s pot luck”.
How could they have known what the constituents’ views were before the referendum results?
[Daphne – Please don’t tell me you’re serious. How do MPs know what their constituents want? By holding regular surgeries, going out and about and talking to them. That’s how EVEN I know what people want, and I’m not an MP and rarely bother leaving the house. But when I do, I speak to literally everyone I can and that’s how I knew that there was a dramatic sea-change in attitudes to divorce in the constituencies of which I am a typical voter. I am not a typical voter in the constituency where I live, but I could have told you about that, too.]
I agree that the priority obligation of the party in government is to make sure that the divorce bill is passed according to the referendum net result. But an MP who had prior to the referendum declared himself against divorce, may have the right to vote for the bill according to the results of his constituency once this tallies with his previously declared opinion, and once, there is a guarantee that the bill will pass anyway.
Whether this serves to clear one’s conscience is irrelevant, but surely it serves to show that one’s loyalty to his constituency is consistent, unless that constituency has voted against his position where he has then to bow his head or resign. The important thing is that parliament as a whole will pass the bill according to the referendum result. This state of affairs may arise with any bill the principle on which is not included in the party’s electoral manifest.
In my opinion it was not right for PN to declare itself against (or in favour of, for that matter) in the middle of an administrative tenure. The fact is that divorce, being such a sensitive issue in Malta has made both the major parties drag their feet to declare their official position but alas those are the kind of politicians we have in Malta if they cannot differentiate between secular and religious matters. Sorry for being late in replying; I had to go out.
I honestly don`t understand why you even bother replying, Daphne. I just give up. Veru iddejjaqt, qabel ir referendum, mod, u issa mod iehor.
U wara li rajt Bondiplus, IKTAR!
Dak il-programm jarawh in-Nazzjonalisti fil-maggoranza, u johorg ir-rizultat li l-MPs ghandhom dritt jivvutav kif jridu fil parlament? Wara referendum li ura bic-car li il- poplu jrid id-divorzju fil-pajjiz?
Le, nibqa naqra ghax nammira hafna il-mod u il-kapacita` li ghandek biex tikteb. Dejjem sostnejt li pinna tad-deheb. Imma m`iniex se nghaddi iktar kummenti, ghax iz-ziemel tista tkaxkru lejn ix-xmara ha jaqta` l-ghattx, imma ma tistax igghelu jixrob.
I just wanted you to know that your articles will be always much appreciated but I truly cannot stand any of this stupid mentality and the useless questions asked.
U tahsibx li jien nippretendiha ta’ xi brava ta, ghax m`iniex assolutament. Imma ma tridtx tkun xi Einstein hux biex tifhem li referendum ma jsirx ghalxejn. Ghalfejn ma qalulniex “Ha naghmlu referendum, u morru kollha ivvutaw Le jew tivvutaw xejn”.
Mela JPO said that when divorce is introduced those who co-habite will divorce and re-marry. That is what he is going to do. That doesn’t mean that everyone will do like him. Rsearch has shown that cohabitation has incresaed nor decreased. He is saying that cohabitation will decrease. He is not an expert. Thye told him other times when there was the issue of the cathedral that he is not an expert. I will not vote him in the next election. Your jounalism is more akin to that of labour l-orrizont than to the nazzjon style. You are an extremist.
daphne
gioavanna per ezempju titla fil parlament min dawk li jivvutawla mit 13 id distrett, allura hi trid timxi skond ir rieda tal maggoranza ta kostitwenti taghha u mhux skond ir rieda tan nies min distretti ohra, allura mhiex qed tghamel xi haga hazina jekk tivvota skond il kuxjenza taghha u skont min tellghahha fil parlament
[Daphne – Giovanna Debono ghandha timxi mar-rieda tal-poplu. Jekk mihiex lesta taghmel hekk, tersaq min-nofs u taghmel il-wisgha ghal-haddiehor.]
daphne
fuq george ta dawnuta ma ghedt xejn ghax ivvota kif riedt int, mur ara kieku kont kontra kif ivvota hu kemm kont taqlalu?
[Daphne – I’m sorry, you’re talking in riddles.]
Araw kif jahsbuha sezzjoni tal-poplu fl-interactive poll ta’ DI-VE.
Unfortunately the distinction between government and party is not being made.
An MP who is a member of the government (a frontbencher, cabinet minister, prime minister, parliamentary secretary) is now obliged to vote FOR the divorce bill or resign his government post.
The people whose will is supreme have spoken clearly, and in a democratic state any member of government who challenges the will of the people will be undermining the very essence of the democratic state.
As regards ordinary MPs I feel that it is dangerous that they be seen to forgo their parliamentary independence and be coerced to vote in a particular way. It is then up to the electorate to decide in the next general election whether they are still worthy of their trust and should continue to represent them.
I therefore expect the PM to make this clear to members of his government. Perhaps some government resignations will create space for the appointment of more liberal MPS and create a more representative PN government.
Daphne
le zgur mhiniex qed nitkellem bit tahwid (riddles)
li forsi jista jkun li saqsejtek mistoqsija daqxejn antipatika biex tirrispondi imma ma gara xejn.
[Daphne – Fi-fatt ma fihmtx id-domanda. Min hu George?]
george id dawnuts dak li ha ir ritratt tal vot tieghu qabel ma poggieh fil kaxxa fejn gab li ivvota iva
[Daphne – I don’t know him, sorry. I move in different circles.]
JPO should talk less and read more. Edwin reads much more than you Daphne and Jeffrey together. Even some people here should read much more and talk less. I expect that a member of parliament raeds much more than I do.
Charles De Gaulle ” the electorate is consulted only to decide what colour to give to the tram”.
Il-membri parlamentari ghandhom jivvutaw skond il-kuxjenza taghhom. Ir-referendum ta` nhar is-Sibt kien wiehed konsultattiv u mhux wiehed li jorbot. Aktar minn hekk dawk illi vvutaw kontra d-divorzju minhabba t-twemmin taghhom ma jistghux ibiddlu l-posizzjoni taghhom. Il-Knisja kontra d-divorzju. Biex inkun aktar car, Kristu kontra d-divorzju. Ir-rizultat tar-referendum mhux ser ibiddel dan. Dawk illi vvutaw kontra minhabba li ghallimna Kristu, ma jistghux ghajr jivvutaw kontra fil-parlament. Hekk biss jistghu jkunu konsistenti mat-twemmin taghhom u ghalhekk mal-kuxjenza taghhom. Jekk il-vot ighaddi, kif jidher li ser jaghmel, wiehed ghandu jibda jahdem biex jingabru bizzejjed firem biex isir referendum abrogattiv ghax ma giex spjegat sew il-konsegwenzi tad-divorzju u kemm Kristu kien kontra d-divorzju.