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.]

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’.

That’s not what Fenech Adami said.

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!

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.

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.]

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.]

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.

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.

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.]