Star comments *****
I think I should highlight these comments which were posted today on my comments board.
Anton Zammit
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.
———
Edgar Gatt
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.
———-
Richard Muscat
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 that 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.
22 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
Why is it that in the last two or three weeks the PN has become another PL, more than the PL itself? And this includes the PN media. Each time I tuned to Net News, I had to double check I didn’t tune to One News by mistake.
So we first have MPs passing the buck to Joe Public and calling a referendum to let the majority decide, and now that the majority have voted YES a number of MPs are stating that they either:
1. need to respect the minority and vote against;
2. will abstain (ie ignore the majority); or
3. vote against because of personal reasons.
Daphne: you were totally right in saying that this is not over and we have still a lot to hear about divorce……..
What a load of bull. PN has to guarantee that the law gets through that’s all. All Nationalist MPs would have been required to vote in favour had the Yes vote got a 100 % consensus. In this case the Yes lobby has a parliamentary majority thus there is no need for all MPs to vote in favour.
PS this was a consultative Referendum and thus in actual fact Parliament is not bound to approve, however PM has given his word that he will be respecting the electorate’s decision so that rests the case.
My 2 pence worth – PM should resign, call an election, take a well earned break and let the opposition face the messy parliamentary legislative process. Furthermore he will not be remembered as the Head of Govt during whose legislature divorce was introduced to Malta.
I hope that the Hon Giovanna Debono will not feel entitled and justified to vote No. Let’s see what her understanding of democracy is.
@Richard Muscat
Richard, the 130 years of history are important, but that’s history, and it does not mean much in today’s world. Lehman Brothers was a 158 years-old institution that survived the Great Depression, two World Wars, 9/11 and other crises.
But the bad management of a few key executives made sure that one of the best known brands was wiped off in 2008.
If ever there was any doubt that this country harbours two weights and two measures then now is the time to enshrine that doubt.
When the MLP lost the EU referendum and the people’s decision was unequivocal – no one, but no one expected the MLP to do anything but oppose EU entry. They fought a bitter campaign and Joseph Muscat was at the forefront of that campaign.
Now that the shoe is on the other foot – every one expects the PN to ‘do the honourable thing’ and vote in favour of divorce – not even having debated the bill in Parliament.
It makes not an iota’s difference whether the bill will go through with a majority or an overwhelming majority – but in the eyes of the PN critics there will be just one more thing to criticise about this country’s leadership.
It is sad because the end result is the inevitable Joseph Muscat and his motley crew running the country – and our expectation then will be so low we will applaud when they get it right and shrug our shoulders whenever they get it wrong – which, based on his performance, will be most of the time.
[Daphne – Yes, rigu, you’re right. It is precisely because we don’t expect the PN to behave like the Labour Party that we are so angry. If we wanted a party that behaves like Labour, then we would vote for Labour.]
Agreed with rigu. However we have to point out that in this scenario, both PN and LP are in the same sittuation and have MPs on their side that will NOT respect the result of the referendum.
Also both parties are giving a free vote to their MPs.
Basically, we have no choice.
While the PL has always acted like the PL, we now also have the PN acting like the PL. Thus our choice is between Labour and Labour. What a disgrace!
On Sunday I felt so proud to be Maltese and happy that the Maltese electorate is maturing.
After a couple of days, I’ve feel ashamed to be Maltese in a way I’ve never felt before.
Anton Zammit’s comment is very intelligent, and I must say I am partially swayed by its eloquence.
Yet, a nagging doubt keeps bothering me.
This was a consultative referendum, wasn’t it? Why then should it be taken as a mechanism of direct law-making?
If you manage coherently to fill this gap in the mosaic, then you’ve won hands down.
Min Weber, no answer will ever fill the gap in your mosaic.
But let us say the No vote won in last Saturday’s consultative referendum. Do you think the divorce law would have been brought in front of Parliament?
Edwin Vassallo stated that those who voted in favour of divorce have rejected the teachings of the Catholic Church. I’ve had enough of this lunatic. If he does not resign or is forced to resign, I shall vote Labour next time round.
I do not want to be part of this nonsense any more.
Edwin Vassallo is one of those incompetent buffoons promoted way beyond his abilities in the Maltese political system. I mean… a man who has a shop in Mosta selling women’s undergarments (or so I’m told) heading the social affairs committee in parliament?
How has it come to this?
[Daphne – I don’t know why you’re so amazed. The Labour Party has a woman who sells toys in a shop in Rabat as head of its Business Forum, and even made her chairman of Sea Malta. She’s extremely personable, that’s true, but come on.]
Honestly, Daphne… How can one really compare Edwin and Marlene? There is a major cultural and educational divide between the two! Of course, one can say that Marlene may be – ahem – misguided in her political beliefs but other than that, jahasra…
[Daphne – A major educational and cultural divide? Oh, please. They both come from EXACTLY the same kind of background, and stuffing on degrees and wearing good clothes does not make a blind bit of difference. I will admit that Marlene will not embarrass you at your lunch-table and Edwin will, but that’s because he has a low IQ and she doesn’t, full stop.]
…. but in 1981 Labour had the majority of seats. Those were the rules.
I agree with all three comments.
To my mind, it would be a sort of quasi-“parliamentary dictatorship” were Parliament to fail to enact divorce legislation in defiance of the people’s decision.
MPs are delegated to legislate on our behalf because ordinarily a modern democracy cannot function for practical purposes on the lines of its original prototype where the Assembly (Ekklesia) made up of all Athenian male citizens met in the agora and spoke their minds and voted on the government of the polis.
But extraordinarily, in the case of a referendum, the Assembly of all citizens has met (virtually, by means of the polling booth) and voted.
No delegation to decide exists in this case as the decision was made directly by the citizens.
In such a case, it is my view that ALL MPs should simply endorse what the people have decided. They have not been delegated to decide on divorce but to enact it.
This delegation is necessary because the voting citizenry is not empowered to go through the iter of enacting a law (first and second reading, committee stage, third reading etc and assent by the President) but only Parliament is.
MPs may alter and, hopefully, improve the bill but they cannot refuse it in essence. The matter of conscience is totally irrelevant for each is morally responsible only for one’s decisions and not morally responsible for decisions legally and lawfully made by others, in this case the electorate.
It is my opinion that MPs who do not wish to enact divorce should not abstain but resign — this would be the truly ethical course of action. One cannot sit in Parliament and go against the will of the people as democratically and lawfully expressed.
Who can tell that there would not be a similar case in future?
No MP can claim that s/he represents electors who wish her/him to vote “No” because after a decision has been taken in a referendum an MP votes for all citizens and not only for her/his constituents.
I believe this will be a test of whether MPs really understand how democracy functions and what it really means. I am confident that our MPs, after the initial shock of discovering that the people do not agree with them, will come to understand this concept and see reason.
Well said, Edgar. It is now not a matter of conscience. They passed the buck to the people to decide and the people have decided. Now all they have to do is to vote YES in parliament, otherwise they can forget our vote, and that goes to all MPs.
Do your comments mean that no one represent the 47% of the people who voted against?
[Daphne – Exactly. This was a NATIONAL REFERENDUM – winner takes all – and not an election to the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. Honestly, why is it so very difficult to understand? The vote in a referendum SUBSTITUTES a decision taken by YOUR REPRESENTATIVES in parliament. They held a referendum BECAUSE THEY DIDN’T WANT TO TAKE THE DECISION THEMSELVES. Now they can’t say they’ve changed their minds and will take the decision themselves anyway.]
I have already made it clear that my vote at the elections will go to the people who share my view and moral values. Of course, Parliament will in its majority, vote in favour but I expect that the minority will be represented and respected.
[Daphne – How do they do that, Charles, by drawing lots to see who will vote No and making sure that there are not so many of them that they will tip the balance? Your vote should go to those who respect democracy, and not to those who ignore it. Had I voted No in this referendum, I would certainly not vote for any MP who ignored the result and voted against the legislation. And that is because, to me, upholding democracy – and an understanding of what democracy means – is far, far more important than divorce or no divorce. You think it’s immoral to vote for divorce legislation. I think it’s immoral to ignore a referendum result. But I suppose it is entirely consistent that people who voted against divorce legislation see nothing wrong in ignoring a referendum result. Voting No to divorce stems from an authoritarian – not democratic – mindset.]
Well said, Daphne. And they (the No voters) complained for being called Dictators and Nazi.
I find Richard Muscat’s comment very appropriate. Borg Oliver stood alone in parliament when he voted against the internment of Nerik Mizzi, Herbert Ganado and the rest.
Fenech Adami ended up with his wife beaten up and his children terrorized. And now Gonzi is dithering over… divorce. In 2011.
I’m sorry to say it, but with the poor choice of people to serve in his Cabinet, the Libyan crisis and now divorce, Dr Gonzi is turning out to be a disappointment.
Bills presented in parliament by a government which were previously included in its electoral manifesto represent the will of the people.
Yet the opposition is free to vote against these bills becoming law. Isn’t the will of the majority constantly being rejected by half of the people’s representatives all the time in our parliament? So what’s all this fuss all about.
[Daphne – BECAUSE THIS IS THE RESULT OF A REFERENDUM AND NOT SOMETHING THAT WAS INCLUDED IN A PARTY PROGRAMME AND VOTED FOR IN A GENERAL ELECTION. THERE IS NO GOVERNMENT AND NO OPPOSITION WITH A REFERENDUM RESULT BECAUSE IT IS NOT A PARTY MATTER. THE REFERENDUM RESULT WAS ONE AND IT WAS YES. THE NATION’S ELECTORATE VOTED YES THEREFORE THE NATION’S LEGISLATORS MUST VOTE YES TOO OR GET OUT OF THERE IF THEY HAVE SUCH A DAMN PROBLEM WITH THEIR SHINY CONSCIENCES. I’m sorry I’m using capital letters but all this is really too much.]
What’s the use of having 60+ MPs if they don’t differ in opinion and contribute to debate and divergence? Might as well do away with the lot and have a Prime Minister and an opposition whatever and 16 or so executives to head the ministries. All the PM has to do is see that the promises in the manifesto are brought to fruition before the 5 years all over.
[Daphne – PAUSE TO DRAW BREATH. MPs debate and differ in their opinion and their vote when they represent their constituencies. In a referendum, they ‘abdicate’ their decision-making function because their constituents are taking the decision themselves by direct democracy. So the only function left to legislators is the ‘rubber-stamping’ of the electorate’s decision and the fine-tuning of the bill. But they cannot ‘retake’ a decision already taken by the electorate directly.]
With all due respect Daphne, you were so busy shouting your last comment that you missed the whole point. It is normal for an MP to vote against any bill, even if that bill was brought before and approved by the people.
[Daphne – No. It is not ‘normal’. For a start, we have not had a sufficient number of referendums to establish what is normal. We have had one within the living memory of most of us: in 2003. And Labour voted against, setting a precedent which now allows the prime minister and his men to believe they can do the same even after they have made an eight-year meal out of (justifiably) insulting the Labour Party about its anti-democratic behaviour. The behaviour of the government now would have to be considered as much worse than Sant’s Labour in 2003 because the government is in a different constitutional position to the opposition. When the prime minister ignores or votes against the will of the people he is obviously in a different position to the leader of the Opposition doing the same thing. But bear in mind that even the leader of the Opposition was slaughtered as a result of doing that. The other point on which we are clearly talking at cross purposes is this: doing what the law or procedure allows you to do does not necessarily mean doing what is right or wise. The law allows you to cheat on your wife, but if she finds out, there’s going to be hell to pay. And because the law allows you to do it, it doesn’t follow that you are within your rights to cheat on your wife. Yes, strictly speaking you are within your rights, but you can see what I’m getting at.]
Whether it is a single issue question such as in a referendum or a multiple issue plan such as a general election, it is still the will of the majority.
I voted YES but I still considered my vote as an opinion. It was just a very expensive opinion poll.
[Daphne – Joe, a vote IS an opinion. What else is it? When you vote in a general election, you are giving your opinion on who you want to represent you in parliament and who you think should run the country. Choices are opinions and opinions are choices. In this culture where people are uncertain what an opinion is, and feel obliged to qualify their every statement with ‘in my opinion’, I can understand where the confusion lies. But really, such lack of sophistication, such an inability to assert oneself, such gratitude that one is being listened to, is quite unbelievable. How do you distinguish between giving the politicians your opinion about divorce legislation and telling them what you want?]
Richard Muscat should look up the election of 1971 and learn how the PN “inħaleb u tbażawr” in a vain attempt to win the election with a majority of seats and a minority of votes
Just as the MLP did 10 years later – only they did it better.
I’ve said this before – both Fenech Adami and Mintoff insisted on hand-picking their successors and both made the worst choice possible. Though, at least, Mintoff did pick an honest man.
[Daphne – Madonna, unbelievable. Mintoff picked an honest man and Fenech Adami did not? Define honesty, because your definition certainly isn’t man. But perhaps that’s because I was forced to live through around four years of KMB’s honesty and you were not. People without perspective – now they really have a problem.]