Famous last words – except that they're not, are they?
The Times, 15 October 2010
Dr Gonzi reiterated his personal stand that the final decision should be taken by “the people”.
The Malta Independent, 17 March 2011
Dr Gonzi outlined that he has been consistent in his opinion on divorce ever since the private members bill was submitted. There will be a time, Dr Gonzi predicted, when Malta will have to introduce divorce – “but that time is not now”.
After Dr Gonzi concluded, Dr Muscat asked Dr Gonzi, through the Speaker of the House, whether the Prime Minister has a different question ready to give the electorate over the divorce referendum. Dr Gonzi said he has no question, but again highlighted that, whatever the referendum question, the electorate will be asked whether or not to introduce divorce in Malta.
The Malta Independent, 13 February 2011
Since the proposed Bill does not refer to a referendum, if it is voted through Parliament, divorce may be introduced before the public is even given the chance to express itself by way of a referendum.
“This would be an insult to the Maltese electorate,” (the prime minister) said, in view of the fact that no political party had included the issue of divorce in its electoral manifesto.
However, if a parliamentary majority votes against the bill, the issue would simply stop there, Dr Gonzi stated.
Yet, he strongly believes the final decision should not just be up to the 69 MPs but it should rather be subject to a popular vote through a referendum as soon as possible.
The PN parliamentary group members, even those who did not agree with the party’s stand, unanimously understood this, he said.
4 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
Yet, he strongly believes the final decision should not just be up to the 69 MPs but it should rather be subject to a popular vote through a referendum as soon as possible. – Bazinga!
It seems even the ones who did agree did not understand this!
LG “What would happen if the final version did not reflect the referendum question which the people had expressed themselves on?” From timesofmalta.com
This is the really worrying part.
[Daphne – What sort of changes is he envisaging? Besides, this is what I mean by casuistry. Changes to a bill are not ‘made’. They are voted for. Presumably, he can get his people to vote No and rope in Adrian Vassallo and Marie Louise Coleiro Preca.]
Quote “Yet, he strongly believes the final decision should not just be up to the 69 MPs but it should rather be subject to a popular vote through a referendum as soon as possible.
The PN parliamentary group members, even those who did not agree with the party’s stand, unanimously understood this, he said.”
_______________
Understood? Apparently not.
Daphne (hope you don’t mind me addressing you with familiarity, after all we’re old acquaintances), thanks for highlighting these prime ministerial statements.
Why, oh why, did they force themselves into this dilemma?
True, with the way the odds were stacked, and the combined weight of the Church/NO faction behind them, they probably thought that by now it would be a moot point. They gambled it all on that. Thus, painting themselves into this unsavoury corner, and are now snarling like desperate rats.
Did the Nationalist Party Executive have to take an official stand that implicitly forced us to go against it, irrelevant of whether we wanted to or not?
The answer is no, they didn’t have to. But they did it anyway.
So in effect they said to me: Screw you, this is what you should believe, it’s for your own good.
Well my reply, like that of thousands of others is: OK then, arseholes, you asked for it. Now do what you promised or get out of the way.
In Dr. Gonzi’s personal stand of October 15th 2010, he ONLY imagined the the people’s “final decision” would come at the end of the bill’s (potentially positive) passage through Parliament, when, if so, a referendum (he expected) would kill the divorce bill.
And on or around January 26th 2011, Austin Gatt threatened Gonzi and the PN with resignation from Parliament should the party decide on a pro-divorce stance. Eventually the party was not even neutral in its position (unlke Labour). Of course, Labour has its own political agenda too.
On Wednesday, February 2nd 2011, the PN General secretary Paul Borg Olivier said that the majority of the executive committee of the Nationalist Party appeared to be against divorce, and he also said “the party would not instruct its members how to vote at a referendum.”
What is critical is the idea of a referendum (but it was only envisaged as an abrogative referendum, if the divorce bill should be passed through Parliament).
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110203/local/pn-to-wrap-up-divorce-discussion-on-february-12.348481
The actual motion (Saturday, 12th February 2011) presented to the PN executive committee and MPs was “in favour of the family and against the introduction of divorce.”
Point 8 of the motion proposed that a referendum would take place only if the bill passed through parliament: “The committee also notes that no political party in Malta has the electoral mandate to propose legislation for the introduction of divorce and, therefore, the parliamentary approval of a Bill for the introduction of divorce should not be enough for the law to come into force and this should be confirmed through a referendum.”
Of course, the illogicality of that proposal is easily exposed. It would suggest that any private member’s bill (if the matter, obviously, was not and would not have been in an electoral manifesto) would always need the approval of a referendum. The logical inference is that no one ever could submit a private member’s bill without the double jeopardy of referendum approval, if the private member’s bill was passed through Parliament. This logic, effectively, would weaken the legitimate powers of Parliament.
Also under point 8 of the executive motion, the committee recommended three points to the government:
“a) Parliament should, as soon as possible, discuss the Bill for the introduction of divorce.
“b) Should the Bill be approved by a majority of the House, the coming into force of the law would be conditional to approval by referendum, held within two months of approval of the law by Parliament.
“c) The committee also recommends that the Prime Minister and leader of the party should allow a free vote to the Nationalist MPs so that they may vote according to their conscience in all stages of the passage of the bill.”
But the grand plan starts to unravel immediately as the motion of the PN executive was approved and announced, as reported on February 12th by Nestor Laiviera in Malta Today: The critical elements of that report were the PM’s statement that he “hopes that people will have opportunity to vote in referendum.”
Then he described the stages of the Bill at first reading, second reading, and committe stage, where Gonzi said the government intended to introduce a clause binding the new law’s coming-into-force to approval by a general referendum.
http://www.maltatoday.com.mt/news/national/PN-executive-divorce-motion-JPO
The original JPO bill had not envisioned a referendum, but a Bill piloted through Parliament. With the prospect of the people’s voice not being heard if the Bill should not pass through Parliament, JPO, earlier in the day, had expressed that he felt the PN executive needed to focus on a referendum that had been promised by PM Gonzi when JPO had first tabled the Bill: “I feel that denying this opportunity to the electorate would seriously damage our democratic credentials.”
And on that day, 12th February, former minister Jesmond Mugliett also had declared himself in favour of the introduction of divorce, and he seconded amendments presented by MP JPO to the executive.
On that same day, the PL said that the PM had gone back on his promise to let the people decide on divorce through a referendum. Joseph Muscat had been opposed to a referendum, but now he was defending the right of a referendum. As JPO acknowledged, his disappointment lay in that fact that thge people would be consulted only if MPs said ‘yes” to the Bill.
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110212/local/pullicino-orlando-disappointed-by-pn-decision.349907
Sometimes the machinery of Parliament is not a machine that can be controlled, but it is a process. On Monday, 14th February 2011, Dr. Muscat presented his divorce referendum motion in Parliament.
On 17th February, the PM was forced to write to the Opposition Leader proposing two amendments to the motion: the PM proposed a referendum date on May 28th, and he proposed a simple straightforward referendum question.
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110218/local/gonzi-wants-may-referendum-with-simple-question.350751
With sufficient Parliamentary support for a referendum controlled by the Opposition + JPO (minimum), the PM was destined to lose on the proposal for a revised referendum question. And, unpredictably, there now was an immediate referendum. [Perhaps, fortunately, there was also not a snap General election.]
The rest is history.
A referendum on the introduction of divorce was held before a tabled Bill was discussed in Parliament. The PN executive was entirely out-manoeuvred by an unanticipated democratic procedure: let the people decide by a referendum (bypassing a decision by Parliament, which was shaky on both sides of the political aisle); and the PN had insufficient numbers to over-rule simple majorities on these matters.
Moral: Malta is not Iran, if the people are allowed to exercise their legitimate power. Or, no political power (PN or PL or Church) can afford to ignore the will of the people in a democracy.