Ismani Ronnie illum timxi mar-religjon regghet saret moda. Allura minn huwa progressiv il-labour jew in-nazzjonalisti. Il-fatt li ir-religjon regghet gejja moda tfisser li il-hsieb filosofiku ser jinbidel u ser jgib kuncetti religjuzi f’hafna seggetti. Il-fatt li ir-religjon regghet gejja moda tfisser li ha jkun hawn revival tal-kuncett tal-familja u hafna precetti religjuzi ohra.

Daphne, you and I might be voting YES because that is our conclusion based on reason. But do you really think that Labour supporters especially will let reason guide them in this referendum?

You are absolutely right about the apolitical sources of the YES and NO votes of course, but I still believe that there will be a huge influence from the three major players PN/PL/Curia.
Most people do not seem to understand or appreciate the freedom and responsibility that come with a democratic process such as a referendum and allow others to guide their hands in the polling booth.

[Daphne – I base myself on the survey results that have been published so far. The strength of the No vote indicates that it crosses the parties, and that there might actually be a stronger No contingent among Labour voters than there is among PN voters. Consider the fact that thousands of those who usually vote PN – people like me – will be voting Yes in the referendum. Then work out where that No vote must be coming from: Labour, in great part. The ‘youth vote’ – those famous thousands of new voters who Jason Micallef missed in 2008 and who voted to a man and woman for Gonzi and the PN will now be voting Yes. Work it out. The strongest support for divorce has always come from PN voters – socio-economic group AB and young upwardly mobile people. The only points where I can see support for No coinciding with the PN vote – again based on the surveys published so far – is among women in late middle-age and possibly among its hardcore religious supporters. The rest of the PN vote is clearly haemmorrhaging towards Yes, which indicates that Gonzi and the PN are actually addressing Labour voters on this one, and meeting agreement. It’s almost certainly the reason the Labour Party has gone silent on divorce: it’s been looking at the numbers. But then I knew this would happen, and wrote about it repeatedly even before the private member’s bill: saying that it must perforce be the Nationalist Party which introduces divorce because Labour can never do it, its supporters being extremely right-wing and conservative, and also innately suspicious of that kind of thing.]

We used to say “one man one vote”, I say “one mind one vote”. Listen, think, make up your mind, then vote. If you are unable to go through this process better stay at home on voting day. Never pervert democracy by letting anyone tell you how to vote. Maybe some day people will understand.

@Pat

If the referendum is “won” by the NO group, that means it is the larger group, no? So if those who vote NO then vote PN, PN wins. But maybe that is the case of a normal country, it’s Malta we’re talking about here.

[Daphne – Why should all those who vote No then vote PN? How does it follow? Many of those who plan to vote No are Labour supporters. And many of those who vote Yes are not.If that were not the case, then the Yes vote would have a straight, clear, victorious run all the way to the polls,what with the Labour vote plus the thousands of Yes votes from people like me. Why else do you think the No vote has a clear lead in the polls, if not because people are NOT voting according to party diktat?]

Allura peress li issa dahhalna id-divorzju ghal dawk li joqghodu barra la ghamilna zball issa inkomlu sejrin bl-izball u nghamluh ghal kullhadd.

[Daphne – Robert, you haven’t understood the situation. Malta did not ‘introduce divorce for those who live elsewhere’. Those who live elsewhere do not need a Maltese divorce because….they live elsewhere. Malta has no choice but to recognise and register divorces obtained elsewhere because those are its international obligations and its obligations towards individuals who are divorced. If two people are divorced, then they are divorced and Malta just has to accept it. It cannot treat them as though they are still married, and – for example – prosecute them for bigamy if they marry somebody else. Or refuse to allow them to marry. Or not recognise their pension rights, etc. This is what I mean when I say that Gonzi trying to invent a substitute for divorce is like Sant trying to invent a substitute for VAT. You can’t. The world is enmeshed. There are systems which are proven and obvious. Another thing: you don’t have to live outside Malta to get divorced. A Maltese person living in Malta can get divorced without ever leaving the island, if the other spouse is not Maltese or a Maltese who lives elsewhere. It’s easy to forget that only one person needs to apply for a divorce, not both. And that’s ironic, isn’t it. A Maltese person living in Malta can’t apply for a divorce, but can be divorced all the same.]

IVA ghalija tfisser nuqqas ta’ serjeta.

Le tfisser serjeta.

U ma irrispondejtx x’uhud mill-kummenti li ikkwotajt perezempju li hawn zwiegijiet li tkissur b’kapricci u setghu gew salvati u xorta isseparaw u iddivorzjaw. Ghal din ma irrispondejtx.

[Daphne – Robert, please try writing in English because not everyone on this website understands Maltese. The internet is INTERNATIONAL. A comment in Maltese here and there is OK, but consistently writing Maltese is not OK because it excludes others. Your comment here shows that you are uncomfortable with democracy and are more at home with autocracy, with control of the private lives of adults. Centuries of thought, philosophy, and political development in Europe and North America have arrived at the point where it is accepted as a given that the lives of individuals are theirs to control and not for the state to interfere with unless they break the law – and that law itself is circumscribed and underpinned by this very reasoning, so that a state cannot, for example, make cohabitation illegal and then arrest those who cohabit. Acknowledging and understanding that people are free to make their own decisions and live their own lives as they best deem fit does not mean agreeing with what they decide and do. I disapprove of the way many people live their lives but any attempt by the state to stop them from living their lives that way through force of law would fill me with horror. I am opposed to divorce because, just as it is not the state’s business, or yours, whether somebody marries or not, so it is not the state’s business, or yours, whether somebody divorces or not. The business of the state is to regulate for the results of those personal decisions, not to decide.]

I agree with your article in today’s The Malta Independent that this referendum will mean Labour are elected in 2013 and in all probability it will be a landslide victory. Hopefully there will be a change at the helm and we won’t have to worry ever again about having religious dogma influence state affairs.

“Am I missing something?”

You’re in Malta and things don’t work on your simple logic. It is highly likely that Joseph scared a lot of moderates from his party.

I could confirm this from John Bundy’s TV circus yesterday.

It is more likely that Gonzi will call an election after a landslide victory of the NO movement and get rid of the bad rubbish from his parliamentary group.

That’s the problem: public office + jobsworth – rational reasoning + lack of cojones = PN Inquisition circa 1540 Torquemada Govt

The Rock has the corner on stupid.