If one MP is allowed to vote No or abstain, then so are they all
Somebody posted this comment on my comments board:
I understand that this is (probably) an unrepeatable occasion for the liberal faction within the PN to put their agenda forward and secure control from the long-standing conservative group – something that will happen anyhow – but I really cannot understand the laboured logic here of insisting that everyone should vote Yes.
I, who voted No for the proposed type of divorce, would only be unacceptably annoyed if the PN in anyway tried to prevent this legislation or water it down, other than that all is superfluous.
This was my response:
The logic is not laboured, Joe. You test logic by taking it to its (logical) extreme. So you say MPs have the right or duty to vote according to what their conscience dictates and not in accordance to the result of the referendum. But you premise that on the assumption that only some MPs will do so.
What if a majority of MPs decide that their conscience says No and they should vote against? Do they draw lots to see which MPs get to use their conscience and which MPs do not?
If one MP is allowed to vote No or abstain, then all MPs are allowed to vote No or abstain. You can’t justify your faulty logic by saying ‘U ejja, mhux ovvja they won’t all vote No’.
——
Now please excuse me while I go off to watch Eastenders and then Mad Men.
67 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
Jien Mad Men jaqbilli immur nara ghax nahseb mohhi bhal taghhom qed jahdem bhalissa.
Nixtieq ma nikkummentax imma ma jtiniex. Qatt ma ghaddejt iz-zmien b`hadd u inhossni urtata hafna li xi hadd jghaddi iz-zmien bijja.
Veru mhux sew. Bliema dritt u poter tghidli immur nivvota KIF IRRID, u imbaghad wara ir-rizultat, ittini x`nifhem li xorta ha taghmel li trid u thoss int, u li ha tigi taqa` u tqum mir-rizultat? Mela il-poplu tal-mghodijja taz-zmien jew?
I agree with your logic.
But I repeat the question I asked the preceding blog: wasn’t this a consultative referendum?
Consultation is not binding, but indicative, or is it?
These questions should have been replied by the only expert in Constitutional law we have in this God-forsaken island, Prof Ian The-Point-I-Want-To-Make Refalo.
[Daphne – Society has moved way beyond the point where a referendum can be deemed ‘only consultative and not binding’, Min. Politicians (and their parties) who try to ignore the result even of a consultative referendum are finished. The prime minister acknowledge this even before the official result was out when he said that the people have spoken and he will ensure that parliament legislates for divorce. You must have some idea by now of what it took him to say that, given his personal animosity towards divorce – but he said it. He didn’t say, “Oh, this was only a consultative referendum. I’ll have a think and then get back to you.”]
Yes, he said that he will legislate.
But he should not have said that some of his people will be allowed (as he implied) to vote no or abstain.
And with all due respect, he should shut his mouth and stop insinuating that over and over again.
It is making him look really, really, really, bad.
[Daphne – I agree 100%.]
…. and, he should also put his leadership foot down to stop his MP’s from yakking on about ‘kuxxenzji’ once and for all.
Their line should be ‘We didn’t want it. The people have spoken. So while not agreeing with that, we will respect it and vote Yes.’
For crying out loud, the majority of people have just told them, loud and clear, that they don’t give a flying fish what the Catholic Church says in this matter.
So much for separation of church and state.
If there was any evidence needed that the PN utters absolute tosh when it says that separation of church and state exists here in Malta, their continued attidude after the referendum results leaves no room for doubt.
[Alan – If there was any evidence needed that the PN utters absolute tosh when it says that separation of church and state exists here in Malta, their continued attidude after the referendum results leaves no room for doubt].
The way I see it is like this:
Take an ethical vegetarian employed in a greengrocer’s shop. Now, suppose the owner of the shop (his employer) decides to make the shop a butchers’ shop. The vegetarian will of course not be happy with the move, but he only has two options – work in the butcher’s shop (despite his conscientous objections), or resign and seek employment elsewhere.
Now take fervent Catholic MP after a referendum for divorce legislation results in a majority in favour. The Catholic MP will of course not like the result of the referendum, but like the vegetarian in the butcher’s, he has only two options – deal with it and go ahead and legislate for divorce, or resign and seek employment elsewhere.
Many politicians tend to forget that we are their employers. We decide.
Correction: The last line should read:
Many MPs tend to forget that we are their employers. We decide.
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110531/local/divorce-bill-before-parliament-tomorrow.368250
To put it plainly, why the f*ck did they bother holding a referendum if they think they still have the choice of voting as they please?
My only conclusion is that they were probably hoping the referendum result would have been an overwhelming “No” and were shocked when it wasn’t.
I always thought that the Nationalists respected the will of the people. I am sad to say that it looks like they are now on a par with the rest of the crummy lot.
If you think the Nationalists and the other sorry excuse of a party are “on a par” you must be blind and deaf and probably even an alien.
jien ma nafx kif, triduni nifhem kif jien ghandi opinjoni fuq dan is sugett u ivvutajt, (skond kif ried kullhad), skond il kuxjenza u issa kieku jien deputat fil parlament triduni nivvota skond il maggoranza u immur kontra il kuxjenza tieghi.
jien jekk nghid le jista jigi min jigi u jghidli iva ghax le kont u le nibqa mela ghax haddiehor ghamel skond ir rieda tieghu ghandi immur kontra ir rieda tieghi?
hawduni ha nifhem
[Daphne -M’hemmx ghalfejn ghax diga inti mhawwad immens.]
Imn’alla mintiex fil-parlament, pippo.
Insomma, come to think of it, you’d fit right in with those who think like you in there, but whose political days are numbered at this rate.
That is a fact, as is the fact that divorce is here whether or not the Madonna cries tears of blood.
[pippo – u issa kieku jien deputat fil parlament triduni nivvota skond il maggoranza u immur kontra il kuxjenza tieghi].
Semplici, pippo. Deputati fil-parlament ma humiex impjegati mill-poplu biex jimxu skond il-kuxjenza taghhom. Huma impjegati mill-poplu biex iwettqu r-rieda tieghu.
Jekk ma joghgobhomx, jirrizenjaw. Hadd m’hu jzommhom, u hadd m’hu indispensabbli (ghalkemm hafna jahsbu li huma).
I don’t agree.
Considering the fact that both parties did not declare their official position regarding the issue of divorce in the electoral manifest together with the fact that a referendum was held and the net result was a Yes vote:
1. no MP can abstain;
2. those MPs who had declared themselves against divorce have a right to vote No only if the referendum result of their district was No and if there is a guarantee that the bill passes anyway; if they had declared themselves against and their district result was a Yes, they should resign and not change their opinion if they’re worth their salt;
3. if an MP was elected on more than one district, he should respect the result of the district he kept and the MP elected by the inherited votes should respect the district result from which he was elected, both cases in accordance with 2. above;
4. those MPs who did not declare themselves either way should respect the referendum global result and vote Yes, otherwise resign;
5. now I don’t know how this blessed guarantee can be effected to make sure the result is respected, but that’s the parliament’s job and if parliament is not able to do just that, we should have early general elections.
[Daphne – You are completely wrong. An MP cannot vote or resign according to the result in his or her district, for the simple reason that in a national referendum THERE IS NO RESULT BY DISTRICT. What you have there are the numbers thrown up by the fact that the electoral bosses organise us to vote by district because they find it easier to handle. If this did not happen, and we all voted in a referendum where we pleased, you would not know the result by district. All this confused thinking is the result of the ‘district results’ being shown and people mistaking them for a verdict. Another thing: if one MP has the right to vote No then all MPs have the right to vote No – you cannot say that MPs have the right to vote No only if they’re sure that sufficient others will vote Yes to ensure that the bill gets through. That’s ridiculous.]
The problem with all this melodrama has been the parties’ reluctance to include this important issue in their electoral manifesto, for obvious damage-deterring reasons.
If Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando had the right during the Mistra saga to retain his parliamentary seat albeit the hassle he caused to his party and his constituents, why should another MP, who had prior to the referendum declared himself, give up his parliamentary seat when, in the absence of his party line in the electoral manifest, keeps in line with his constituents’ wishes reflected in the referendum district results when the party in government is guaranteeing full respect for the referendum net result?
[Daphne – You’re confusing apples with pears, and I’m not going to bother explaining why because it’s like arguing with children.]
Seems like Pullicino Orlando is making full but very selfish use of the feeble parliamentary majority of his party.
“because it’s like arguing with children.”
Don’t you realise that’s the best bit.
You tell ’em, girl.
Dr Fenech Adami’s views on the conscience vote by Members of Parliament http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojnEP0hjX6w
[Daphne – It says a lot about your politics, level of intelligence and understanding of propaganda and the media that you quote Super One as gospel. Thank you for letting me know where you come from, though I had long suspected it.]
Leave the Super One commentary out and listen to what Fenech Adami said. This applies precisely to today’s situation in parliament. You have it straight from the horse’s mouth.
[Daphne – The former prime minister thinks Malta should have no divorce legislation and fully expected people to vote against it.]
That’s not what Fenech Adami said.
MPs are not robots.
When they vote they either reap the benefits or suffer the consequences of their voting pattern.
This is like instructing a bus driver to take you to a destination; if he does not take you there, you won’t hire him again.
The problem starts when some of the commuters riding with you want a NO destination, others a YES and others don’t know if they are coming or going. Who shall he please (without loss of clients for his next trip)?
[Daphne – Well, that’s a very ‘Maltese’ way of looking at it. I agree with you that this is how certain MPs are currently thinking, especially the ones with a village mentality. But this referendum has put the writing on the wall: the time for village thinking and machinations is over. They’ve got to rise above the kazin tal-banda and do what’s democratically right.]
If the majority want to go to Mellieha, and the minority to Sliema, those for Sliema please get off the bus.
That is respecting the referendum, and as it should be applied in parliament by the party whips.
Ah, it’s also called having the b*lls to do the right thing.
[John Schembri – The problem starts when some of the commuters riding with you want a NO destination, others a YES and others don’t know if they are coming or going. Who shall he please (without loss of clients for his next trip)?]
Taking your bus analogy, all buses have specified routes. Someone has to decide the routes, and the ones who decide are the employer/s.
If there is more than one employer, and they disagree, the matter is resolved by a vote.
We are the MPs’ employers and the matter has been decided by vote.
The End.
Village or Maltese mentality, the moment of truth for these MPs comes when they ask us to vote for them in a general election.
If they felt that divorce is beneficial to our country they should vote Yes and if they felt that divorce is not good than they should stick to their principles.
I would prefer 65 Pullicino Orlandos who stood their ground than some Carmelo Abela who was all out against divorce and now he’s going to vote in favour. Has divorce (or for that matter any other subject) become good just because most of the people said so? Where’s your self respect Mr U-Turn MP? How can such an MP gain my respect and vote?
[Daphne – That is not a vote in favour of divorce, John. It is a vote to ‘ratify’ a decision already taken by the electorate. The trouble is that some of our MPs, and you seem to have succumbed to the same way of thinking, believe that they are in parliament in their personal capacity, you know, sort of like a prince.]
Daphne, I can in some way understand abstention (“I don’t want to be part of this law and cannot oppose the will of the people”) but I cannot understand a 180 degree turn.
I always took a consultative referendum at face value; consultative: “I want to know your opinion on this important issue”.
[Daphne – No, it wasn’t that at all. Cast your mind back and remember these words: “This is too significant an issue for parliament to decide. The people have to decide, in a referendum.” Who said them? The prime minister. Now the people have decided and much to his dismay they have failed to agree with him, and he isn’t man enough to uphold the will of the people directly with his vote or step down. Instead they’re hunting for a face-saving way out of the mess. Unfortunately, what we are seeing here is a cultural split again: between Mediterranean Malta and British Malta. Look at the sorts of people who think that the choice he faces is between voting Yes and resigning. And look at the sorts of people who think he has other options and u ejja it doesn’t matter what he does as long as the bill is carried. The divide is NOT political. It is socio-cultural.]
How can one “listen to the minority” and crack the party whip to vote an en masse yes.
[Daphne – He is not obliged to listen to the minority. With a referendum, you listen to the majority, not the minority. If the prime minister wished to respect the opinion of the minority (and he didn’t, because he thought the minority was Yes and didn’t realise it was No) he would have had MPs take the decision on the bill themselves, voting according to the party line or the wishes of their constituents. But the minute the said ‘referendum’, there went the minority. Those of us who supported the Yes campaign fully understood this: a referendum is a zero sum game.]
The bill will pass even if we have 62 abstentions and 3 ayes .
I’m no big fan of Austin but I admire him on the way he handles these issues: no pussy footing. People want to confirm that their MPs are not spineless cowards, and that they do stand up to be counted for the principles they always embraced.
[Daphne – Actually, most of the people I know would rather confirm that their MPs understand democracy. But then again, that’s the Mediterranean/British cultural split in this island: the Mediterranean club respects defiant ‘bullizmu’ more than it does gentlemanly behaviour and an understanding of what democracy is all about. A gentleman would not sit there and defy the will of the people. A gentleman would resign, and pay the price himself, rather than making others pay for the privilege of exercising his conscience. I feel dreadful having to point out these simple things that are taken for granted round my neck of the woods (and I don’t mean where I live) but they do have to be spelled out because we have reached the unfortunate point where the government and the Nationalist Party is culturally alien to many of its supporters, particularly those who only voted for it in the first place because they can relate much less to the other lot. I really, really hate seeing the politicians of the party I support behaving like a bunch of Sicilian peasants trying to work out how to straddle a barbed-wire fence. It pains me.]
If we as voters feel that they let us down ,than come next election in two years time and we will show them our ‘gratitude’.
The difference between your interpretation of democracy and mine, is that you expect your MP to rubber stamp your demands come what may, and I expect that my MP should hold the reigns if he thinks differently from the 50% plus majority.
[Daphne – John, this is getting tedious now. Referendums are not general elections. There are no minorities in referendums. It is ‘winner takes all’. That’s why Birgu joined the EU along with Sliema. That’s why we are going to have a divorce law even for those who voted No. In a general election, the minority gets to elect its representatives (the Opposition) while the majority elects its own representatives (the Government). In a referendum, nobody elects anybody and the minute we know how the majority voted, the minority effectively ceases to exist. It was MALTA that voted for divorce, just as MALTA voted for EU membership. Countries which are accustomed to referendums take this for granted. That’s why the headlines in the international press were: MALTA VOTES FOR EU MEMBERSHIP and MALTA SAYS ‘I DO’ TO DIVORCE.]
I want a leader you want a follower.
[Daphne – On the contrary, I think the prime minister should lead and that he isn’t leading. It’s just that your definition of leadership is different from mine.]
Putting it to the extreme, I want a dictator and you want a populist. We all know that that’s not the case with both of us. There are times when our representatives are dictators (VAT is a good example) and there are times when they have to succumb to the people’s wishes (Xaghra l-Hamra golf course).
Shouldn’t MPs be a beacon of an ideology be it communist, laissez-faire , socialist , liberal or nationalist? Should MP’s voting pattern move according to survey trends? What do we want, power hungry opportunist rubber stampers or the best brains in our country to lead us?
[Daphne – John, please: a referendum is NOT a survey. And yes, MPs do a choice not to vote according to the referendum decision. That choice is to resign and live in peace with their conscience. Don’t you think that both Sant and his Labour Party would have been better off had he resigned after the referendum on EU membership? The only person who has benefitted was the viper in his nest. And don’t you think Eddie Fenech Adami would have resigned had he lost the EU referendum, and not just because he wouldn’t have wanted to vote against membership or the will of the people? True, EU membership was a massive thing and divorce is not. But the prime minister clearly thinks it is a massive think and so he should act accordingly. As for me, where divorce is concerned I can’t imagine why he thinks it’s such a babaw.]
If just one MP votes ‘no’, they’re f**ked. I would guess that even Tonio’s ‘Mother of Sorrows’ would be pissed for being dragged into this charade. The people have spoken. Do your duty.
Aghhh Mad Men…they delayed season 5 until March 2012 dammit.
I’m afraid that the prime minister is not leading by example. He does not appear to be leading at all.
When the eagle is silent, the parrots begin to jabber.
(Apologies to Sir Winston Churchill)
Mad Men! If I didn’t love you before (I did) I certainly do now.
Il- kuxjenza ghax thobb il-Bambin, I think is passé populist rhetoric.
They will all get over it, soon these same MPs will be portraying themselves as liberals.
This referendum will serve the conservatives a lesson. After all this, the term “conservative” will be pejorative.
A referendum may be either binding or non-binding. A non-binding referendum is merely consultative or advisory. It is left to the government or legislature to interpret the results of a non-binding referendum and it may even choose to ignore it.
[Daphne – On paper, yes, but not in reality. This is 21st-century Europe we’re talking about. You do not ask people what they want and then ignore them when they tell you. It’s as simple as that. The fact is that referendums are no longer consultative.]
The plural is referenda, from the Latin.
[Daphne – Actually, it’s referendums because it is now an English word and so takes the English plural form, though referenda is acceptable. It’s the same with forum/s. Latin nouns are declined, so there is no such thing as a ‘Latin plural’. It all depends on the context of the sentence.]
bellum = war
bella = wars
[Daphne – Put the noun in a sentence….Latin nouns are declined, which means that they change according to the clause etc.]
Such rubbish. If all they wanted was a straw poll, they could have done that rather than spending so much money.
Abstaining is the coward’s way of shirking one’s responsibilities.
The P.N.members of parliament abdicated their right and duty to decide, and they passed on that right and duty to us. We have now decided, and it is too late for them to claim back their right to vote how they please or according to their particular constituents’ wishes.
They have to abide by our decision, and they can’t sit on the fence by abstaining. You either accept our decision and vote Yes or else do what any honorable person does and resign.
I have been told time and time again over the years, “Yes, but you are in Malta now”.
ANYTHING is possible.
I remember when Sant told them to go out and party because Partnership had won the EU referendum. This reminds me of that.
Common sense tells me that government MPs should all vote Yes and accept the result of the referendum instead of being bad losers.
It’s time you show Malta that you are truly gentlemen – and if you don’t, then I for one will abstain from voting, in the general election.
Mad Men is a great show, but Eastenders… really?
[Daphne – Yes, I love it. And I watch Mad Men because of the echoing similarities between 1960s Connecticut/NYC and 21st-century Malta.]
Daph, unless you can manage to fit 3 TV shows in your schedule, I suggest you drop Eastenders for a while and watch Martin Scorsese’s Boardwalk Empire, as in pronto.
And since you’re in a comparative mood, you may like how this show has also its fair share of striking similarities between today’s corrupt practices in Malta and those of Chicago in the 1920s. And that’s not mentioning the groundbreaking production values, the superb story and fantastic acting.
”The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in times of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.” — Dante Alighieri (Inferno)
Is it necessary to have a division with each MP declaring his or her vote? The majority of legislation is passed without the call for a division.
Daphne,
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think that the only MPs that can vote No are the ones from the three districts which had a No majority.
And secondly I assume that any MP who votes against the will of his constituents should put forward his resignation. It is unacceptable for an MP not to represent the will of his voters in parliament.
What do you think?
[Daphne – I have already written repeatedly what I know, as opposed to think, given that this is not a matter of opinion anymore (like whether we want divorce or not). The result of a referendum is national. It is not constituency-based. It is only ‘by chance’ and for organisational reasons that we have results by district. But districts are no more relevant in a national referendum than they are in an MEP election, in which we also vote by district purely for organisational reasons. General elections are held on a constituency/district basis because that is the VERY RAISON D’ETRE of a general election: not to elect a government, but to elect people’s representatives for every district. The elected member who can then gather most members behind him forms the government. The government is a by-product of a general election and not its primary reason.
MPs, after they have ceded their right to vote on behalf of their constituents by deciding to hold a referendum instead, cannot go back on their word – for this is what they are actually doing – and say that they will vote as they please regardless. District results in a referendum DO NOT COUNT AND ARE IRRELEVANT. A referendum result is single and national, and in this case it is a resounding Yes, and not “No for Mosta, Yes for Sliema, Yes for Cottonera, No for Gozo.”.
I know I shouldn’t be cross and irritated that so few people seem to understand these very basic things. After all, even our prime minister appears not to understand. But it’s worrying, really. No wonder so many bad things have been allowed to happen in Malta when understanding of basic democratic concepts and systems is so very poor.]
Constituents don’t factor in a national referendum. In referenda, the nation is one constituency.
You are so right in your last paragraph Daphne.
I started off by thinking “hmmm, now let’s see how it goes in Parliament, who will vote yes, no, abstain etc”.
Then I took a step back, aghast that I was thinking like Alfred Sant.
He’s a sly one our PM. He understands perfectly, believe me. He’s just clutching at straws.
If he continues, I suggest he gives up politics and becomes a farmer, in Gozo.
It’s getting repetitive now, is it not Daphne? Personally I’ve had more than my fill of this kerrappp.
By the same faulty reasoning we should allow divorce only in those districts that voted YES. “Tmur ghand tal kunsill u turihom l-ID card”.
How can an MP be asked to declare himself in favour or against a law which, as yet, does not exist and has not as yet been published?
The referendum was not about any law.
[Daphne – There’s a bill, Albert. A private member’s bill brought by Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando. Not a law. A bill becomes law after our legislators (parliament) have approved it. And still it has to be signed off by the president. Are any reporters ringing the famously anti-divorce-legislation president to ask what he plans to do, I wonder.]
It was about a set of parameters, based on which parliament will enact a divorce law. There were 4 parameters and no time-frame: (1) 4 years separation, (2) no possibility of reconciliation, (3) maintenance guarantee and (4) protection of children.
How can an MP be said to be abiding by the results of the referendum if he votes a law which he feels does not protect children enough? Yes, the electorate’s decision should be respected, but the electorate decided on a question which opens doubts, not solves them. Divorce can only be introduced, for example, “when there is no hope of reconciliation”.
What this means has yet to be legally defined. In order that the electorate’s choice is respected, no MP can commit himself to vote on a law which he feels does not define this concept well enough. And this is just one aspect which shows how problematic this question was. I know this might sound like “tfettiq legali”, but we are a country based on the rule of law.
Democracy is not equal to mob rule.
Dear Daphne, rest assured I am fully aware of the difference between a bill and a law. And that is exactly my point. The referendum was not about any law. There IS no law.
[Daphne – You can’t have a referendum about a law, Albert, unless it is an abrogative referendum (to remove that law).]
There is an, as yet, unpublished bill. And a bill, as you rightly say, is NOT a law because it can be amended all the way until it becomes law.
So, again, how can you expect that an MP declares his vote before he is sure that the people’s will in the referendum, that is, divorce within the parameters of the question, is respected?
THIS is the real problem here. And I am sure you know this. And the parameters are very important. So much, that JPO, had declared that had the question to be simply Yes not No to divorce, he would be on the No side.
[Daphne – Albert, I trust you understand that this is exactly why I (and I believe, the prime minister) said that the question should be the straightforward: do you agree that Malta should legislate for divorce? But your leader and Jeffrey insisted that it should be as complicated and ridiculous as possible. Never mind. Who cares. There it is.]
My leader? I might say more about “my leader” soon. In any case, the question was asked as is.
One cannot now say that the parameters were there just to be there, just to sugar the pill. If that were to be the case, that would have been a manipulation of the worst order. In fact I abstained precisely because I felt that the question was manipulative.
But the result still leaves us with the parameters. Oh, and, yes, you CAN have a referendum about a law if the law itself says that it is only valid if approved in a referendum. Which was Lawrence Gonzi’s original plan, and with which I agree, even though he is not “my leader”.
[Daphne -No, his plan was for a debate before a referendum, following by a vote after the referendum.]
We call such reasoning “clutching at straws”.
Well, no. This reasoning should be called respecting legality. We do not live in a mob rule society, at least I assume we don’t.
Democracy operates within a structure. The people approved a referendum question, as proposed by Joseph Muscat (NOT by JPO, who proposed the Bill), based on 4 parameters. MPs now have to debate HOW these parameters are to be carried out.
And each MP can only vote the bill into law if he or she is satisfied that the law reflects the question. For, if not, why did the question include the pararmeters? Or was it, maybe, a “sugared” question, drawn up in a way to reflect an opinion poll published on a Sunday newspaper early this year?
If this was the case this would have been manipulation of the worst order. And not by the Church.
An aside – not necessarily for publishing – I previously posted, or rather attempted to repeatedly and unsuccessfully until I sussed out what was going on –
You have the word “s-e- x ual” in your word censor and any post contaning censored words just vanishes in the ether.
That’s not a *bad* word is it now? Maybe the censor dissects words and you have the “s – e – x” bit that triggers it.
Still a perfectly harmless word methinks!
[Daphne – It must be automatic, then. I don’t have any word censor that I know of because the comments are moderated and not uploaded automatically. All sorts of thing go into Spam (they don’t vanish into ether; that’s what it looks like at your end, but here they’re in the spam folder) for reasons that I can’t make out. I’ve taken to checking the Spam folder because of that. Bit tedious, but there you go.]
[Daphne – All sorts of thing go into Spam…]
Probably that’s to give you the option of keeping evidence just in case something illegal is submitted to your blog. If you choose to report someone, you’d need the evidence.
The downside is that you end up with lots of trash you’ll have to check and delete.
Hi Daphne, as Admin you would certainly have access to the list of censored words, this because different cultures and even types of websites’ visitors find different words offensive and others not, so an option to add/remove there must be.
I say ‘vanished into the ether’ or so it appears – because when a censored word is used, one does not receive the usual “your comments are awaiting moderation…” message – just nothing at all. Of course I would not know whether this is correct but it sure looks like it.
Incidentally I read that someone was complaining that you did not publish their comments, and you asked “which comments” so maybe that’s what happened.
If that relatively harmless word is on the list there could be many more similar ones, and while I am in the habit of temporarily copying each long post prior to hitting submit just in case, (right click – select all – copy, or CTRL-A followed by CTRL-C for those who may benefit from the simple tip) many who do not do this will be rather frustrated to have to rewrite the lot.
Therefore any MP who does not vote in line with the referendum result should not retain his seat in parliament. As Alexander the Meerkat says, “Simples”.
That’s the problem with ‘referendu konsultattiv’ – it legally binds no one, so we’ll have to rely on political ethics spiced with morality.
Gonzi appears indecisive. It’s as if he had not worked out the different scenarios. The only way out now is for the morally perturbed to abstain.
I don’t think he was not prepared for the different scenarios. The problem is that he and the band of adults whose intellect has not progressed much beyond the muzew mentality.
I live in the hallowed land of referendums, Switzerland. Recently, we voted for or against a law prohibiting the construction of minarets on mosques. The No vote won and so the law passed.
I have never heard of the government going against the results of a referendum in the many years I have lived here. The people are sovereign – their decision is final.
That why the notion of Switzerland in the Mediterranean would have failed miserably here. Mur gibna glieda wara glieda wara kull referendum.
Our politicians aren’t even capable of managing the last two vital ones we had. Ahseb wara fuq xi referendum about the price of qarabaghli.
It has become extremely clear to me, even though it wasn’t initially, that every single MP is in duty bound to vote Yes to divorce. The very fact that not doing so, however remote the possibility, can technically endanger legislation in favour of divorce, is reason enough to vote in accordance to the electorate’s wishes.
Those who cannot bring themselves to perform this simple task should resign.
Nevertheless, l will not be threatening anyone with my vote and will not be judging this administration, which I believe to have performed quite well to date, on this single issue. Malta Today etc will be seeing to that.
I agree that MPs have no choice but to accept the result, but I also think we need to get rid of the idea of consultative referendums. It just doesn’t make sense.
I also think individual MPs can still be true to their conscience and vote Yes on the divorce bill.
They will no doubt be able to speak during the hearing, and at that point they should clearly state that their religious conscience (or whatever it happens to be) compels them to be against divorce, which is why they (I presume) voted No in the referendum.
However their political and democratic conscience obligates them to vote in favour of the bill. They are, by definition, representatives of the people, and not God’s or their own conscience’s representatives and must thus put aside everything apart from the will of those people they represent. The people have spoken.
Mad Men rules…
This should never gone to a referendum in the first place, as they are paid handsomely to decide for themselves what is best for the country. Now that they left it up to the people (which cost an arm and a leg) the majority have spoken and divorce must be implemented.
The only concern I have is as to how the bill will be amended.
ghidilhom Lino ghax dawn min ma jaqbilx maghhom huwa imhawwad. jien kieku kont deputat fil parliament nivvota skond il kuxxjenza tieghi u mhux nirrizenja ghax wara kollox din il bicca ta divorzju ma kontx ghedt lil kostitwnti tieghi meta kont qed nitlobhom il vot. imbghad la tghaddi il legislatura jien ma nohrog.
daphne tibzax allavolja ghedli hekk pero serrah rasek li jien mhiniex imhawwad fuq din il bicca xoghol u il principju u il kuxjenza tieghi hadd ma jinfluwenzhom.
politikament ma naqbilx ma marie louise coleiro imma jien nammirah talli ser tiehu dik id decizjoni li ser tastjieni flimkien ma tabib vassallo
[Daphne – Pippo, I find it really hard to take seriously comments by people who don’t bother to punctuate or use capital letters. It demonstrates a very slapdash attitude and sloppy thinking.]
X’ras iebsa. Kif ma tistghux tifhmu?
How can you not understand that when you are an MP you are not representing yourself or your conscience but representing the people? The people have said Yes and so be it.
All this conscience bull! Where was their conscience when they agreed to give social benefits to single mothers? Doesn’t their religion condemn sex before marriage?
Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone.
The issue of how MPs should vote has become a delicate matter, not because MPs should ever contemplate challenging the verdict of the people, but because the Church has intervened in the ‘divorce’ referendum.
The Church has a moral authority. Unfortunately, it has grossly abused its position in society by intervening in a scandalous manner in the referendum debate (to cause public scandal is a sin and local Church leaders should repent publicly if they believe in their own dogmas).
As a result, an MPs conscience (if they ever had one) may become an important factor in determining the passage of divorce legislation. We should not trivialise on one’s conscience as some of your commentators are doing. There were many cases in European history when a minority of the people’s representatives stood by their conscience and voted against the imposition of the majority’s views which they held as incompatible with their conscience.
In practical terms, how can a devout Maltese Catholic MP vote for the introduction of divorce? He simply cannot and should either resign from his office or be one of the nays and face the consequences of betraying his oath to the people of this country. Let’s see if we have real politicians and leaders or men of straw in parliament.
[Daphne – How can a devout Catholic vote for the introduction of divorce? In the same way that my devout Catholic mother did: by understanding the separation of church and state and that she has no right to impose her religious beliefs on others who do not share them.]
One’s conscience is above the notion of ‘state’. Although the church and state should be separate, conscience and state cannot. In fact, one’s conscience is the supreme authority after God (if one believes in such a Being). The State, for all I know, could be the Nazi regime (incidentally, Hitler and his party were voted into the Reichstag by the electorate, albeit he is implicated in the arson of the Reichstag).
I cannot expect an MP to vote against his conscience. If he or she does that, than he/she is an immoral creature that cannot be trusted, let alone run the affairs of state.
[Daphne – You need to separate the issues. An MP who has problems of conscience has to resign. His conscience does not override the will of the people. Your comparison of a democracy to a totalitarian state is false.]
I agree with that. So we agree that Dr Gonzi, Austin Gatt and some other MPs should resign rather then betray their conscience in the ensuing parliamentary vote on divorce legislation.
Farrugia, our MPs handed over the issue of “conscience” to the people, to make their choice. This has been done.
When the MPs vote YES it is not their conscience, but simply an “o.b.o.” the people’s.
Imagine if the postman failed to deliver your letters because he did not like the contents.
If I remember correctly, the result of the referendum for joining the European Union was not interpreted by districts. This has muddled a bit more the story as some MPs whose district voted against the introduction of a divorce bill (such as Giovanna Debono and Edwin Vassallo) could now feel justified to vote against the wish of the nationwide voters.
Personally I do not agree that the MPs have a right of voting how they want – not now, after they have abdicated their right to discuss the bill in Parliament. With MPs from both sides of the house declaring abstentions or even a negative vote, there is still a mathematical possibility of the Bill not passing, which would be chaos and nothing less than a defiance of the people’s declared opinion. The plot thickens indeed!