No nonsense
Neither Beppe Fenech Adami nor Austin Gatt appears to understand what a referendum is for. The fact that they might have disagreed with holding one does not mean they are not obliged to abide by the result.
And that doesn’t mean making sure that others vote Yes so that they are left free to vote No.
But given what Austin Gatt said to The Sunday Times (June 5), I’m beginning to think that he wouldn’t be bothered – he might even be pleased – if no coins are tossed to make sure enough people vote Yes, with the result that the bill fails to be carried.
His words imply that it is perfectly all right for parliament to ignore the outcome of a referendum. I don’t remember him saying anything like that in 2003.
He told The Sunday Times that he will vote No in parliament “to be consistent with what he has been saying about divorce from the outset of the debate”.
Imagine if all MPs took the same line. Why hold a referendum at all?
Meanwhile, Dr Fenech Adami told the newspaper that he thinks the prime minister should do the same and vote No “to be consistent with what he has been saying for the past three months and earlier”, but added considerately that he “would not decide for Dr Gonzi”.
Dr Fenech Adami was a little bit more measured in that he sees (and we shouldn’t take this for granted) that the bill must be carried and the people’s verdict respected.
He originally said that he would absent himself, but now that he has been reassured of enough Yes votes to carry the bill, he will instead vote No. If even absenting himself would endanger the bill, he said that he would consider resigning his seat.
He told The Sunday Times: “I think it is very dangerous for the Nationalist Party to change what it believes in on the basis of popular or temporary popular support…that is a very dangerously slippery slope.” He then added, rather disingenuously, I thought, given that governing by religious belief necessarily means lack of respect to the minority, that “democracy entails respecting the rights of the minority.”
Yes, and that is exactly what this referendum was all about.
The trouble is that Beppe Fenech Adami’s definition of the minority here is not the minority who need divorce, but the minority who voted No in the referendum, and who appear to believe that other people’s divorces somehow concern them.
44 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
Didn’t Beppe Fenech Adami also say that Lawrence Gonzi should vote ‘no’ in parliament to be consistent? Consistent with his ‘conscience’, that is, not consistent with the principles that had him voted into power and which he was voted in to uphold.
If I am correct they have a swearing-in ceremony where they take an oath to uphold the constitution. Are they in future going to add that matters of conscience are granted an exemption? They might as well dump the whole ceremony then.
“The trouble is that Beppe Fenech Adami’s definition of the minority here is not the minority who need divorce, but the minority who voted No in the referendum, and who appear to believe that other people’s divorces somehow concern them.”
So all of a sudden the minority has become a majority and vice-versa.
This reminds me of the Robin Hood sketch in the 1980s Italian comedy “Super Fantozzi”, in which Robin Hood hands a bag of coins to the pauper played by Fantozzi.
Robin Hood: Sono Robin Hood. Rubo ai ricchi per dare ai poveri!
[Cut to Fantozzi running home to his wife]
Fantozzi: PINA! Siamo ricchi! Siamo ricchi!
[Out comes Robin Hood again, snatching the bag off a slack-jawed Fantozzi]
Robin Hood: Sono Robin Hood. Rubo ai ricchi per dare ai poveri!
The divorce debate has done irreparable harm to the Nationalist Party. A few years from now people will be laughing at today’s politicians for wasting so much time over a religious issue that is not relevant to many peoples’ daily lives who do not care either way.
The PN hard-heads must remember that although premarital sex is against the Catholic teaching, it is legal in Malta. Are these hard-heads in the PN going to start a campaigning against premarital sex now?
The young generation absolutely do not care, and if they care they are more liberal than their parents. And if they care about divorce they would chose not to seek it and remarry.
That’s why young people voted for Malta to be a member of the EU.
They want to be free.
Labour frightens them as they will take them back to Mintoff/ KMB dark ages- where freedom of choice was nonexistent and freedom of press and opinion was muzzled. Joseph Muscat looks up to these former prime ministers. He wants to emulate them.
The people must not allow Joseph Muscat to hold the presidency of the EU in a few years time after all the vicious lies he spread during the EU campaign.
Young voters have to be reminded that it was Joseph Muscat and all the MLP who worked very hard to keep Malta out of the EU.
Labour was against our independence and against our membership in the EU. Labour are bad for Malta. They have no vision.
The divorce debate must be neutralized today before tomorrow.
You’re pretty naive if you think that whoever is against EU membership is, de facto, a non-liberal or some sort of a human-eating monster. Ask the the Norwegians for further insight into the matter.
Yeah, or we could ask the Icelanders.
The arrogance of the likes of Austin is what is destroying the party. How dare he impose HIS religious beliefs on the rest of us, and actually trample on the public’s very clear decision?
How dare he limit his views on morality to marriage and divorce when corruption is the evil he should be looking at?
I think these pompous fools should be personally held responsible for the loss of the next elections. They will be lumbering us with an idiot who will make Alfred Sant seem like the best PM the Labour Party has ever produced.
But then of course dear Austin has decided not to contest again….or will he ?
Does early retirement not appeal to Austin?
I can’t wait to see his back.
Austin Gatt is an efficient, energetic minister who gets things done so let’s not get carried away here.
Apart from his opinion on divorce, little can be said against him as legislator and administrator. The public transport reform – something no one dared tackle in 50 years – and the spread of e-government services are but two of his achievements.
In spite of his brusqueness and uncompromising attitude, Gatt is an asset to the government and it will be Malta’s loss when he retires.
I very much doubt that Austin is acting on his religious beliefs only. There is more to it than meets the eye. I think Austin will stick to his decision of not contesting the next general election.
Maybe he has somebody in mind to take his place.
Unlike most of the people who participate in this blog, Dr Gonzi and his entourage never impressed me. They are non-inclusive, insecure and way to obssessed about protecting this GonziPN image that has somehow taken a life of its own. I could mention at least half a dozen incidents were it was obvious the PM was too shellshocked to appear let alone to lead. Dr Gonzi has made vanishing acts his strong point.
This divorce debacle has further proven my point. The only honourable thing left is for our PM to humbly accept that his indecision has left his leadership in tatters.
How could he have allowed Tonio Fenech to remain in office after jetting around with prominent businessmen?
How could he have allowed Austin Gatt to do as he pleases, especially within his ministry?
Daphne, you always dismissed the backbenchers’ revolt as one based on self-interest. How wrong you were. The revolt is, was and will continue to be based on poor leadership.
Matt,
In 2003 I voted Yes in the EU referendum, then I voted PN to ensure that the majority’s choice is respected – remember how the Labour leader then was saying ‘partnership rebah’ and we all laughed at that?
In 2008 I didn’t have much choice and voted PN again. I couldn’t vote Labour with Sant at the helm. In the divorce referendum I voted Yes and now I’m really disappointed that the same party who ridiculed Alfred Sant way back in 2003 is now doing the same and worst than that they took an official position against divorce which disenchanted a lot of liberals like myself.
I’m not afraid of Labour, and I know a lot of ex-Nationalist voters that will be voting Labour next time round. The PN is not the party it used to be; it is being led by a bunch of ultra-conservatives like Tonio Borg and the Prime Minister himself.
David.
The slippery slope is the dictatorship of the “consciences” of some or any (or several or even most) in Parliament over the “consciences” of the ordinary plebian citizenry, who may have dared to provide a democratic referendum majority “against” the padroni. They seem to believe that they know best for everybody–even if that everybody (or just anybody, even if only a minority, let alone a majority) should disagree with their Lordships.
They gave power back to the people, and now they want it back, to carry on as they always had done before. But the autocracy has been fractured throughout the politico-sphere, yet they also still hold the constitutional authority that they are required to exercise, or resign.
However, now they also want to be arbitors of democracy, as long as it conforms to the image of their personal opinions or convictions. I thought democracies were devised as a foil for such problems.
Since when have the “gods” in Parliament thrown away the principle of each person one vote? In this case, the Parliamentarians lost to the will of the people when they chose to have a referendum.
Is the will of the people to be lost as a relevant factor in the operation of Parliament? Talk about slippery slopes.
Very good observations. May I also add that given this state of affairs, even political parties’ electoral manifestos are useless. After all, their “consciences” might tell them not to follow them through.
If the bill fails to be carried, it simply means that the PN will have to call it a day. Lawrence Gonzi has been hanging by the skin of his teeth for three years now.
Lawrence who??
1. The 325103 voters’ verdict on divorce was 37.7% yes, 33.2% no and 29.1% abstained. So if we want our parliamentarian’s vote to reflect the people’s will the outcome must be 26 in favour, 23 against and 20 abstentions.
2. I always believed that the divorce issue is really a matter of conscience and has nothing to do with politics, so I don’t understand all this pressure on our MPs.
3. It seems that everybody has rights except those MPs who want to vote against the divorce bill.
Does this Paul Pace understand democracy at all?
I assume that the 23 against and 20 absenters already assuaged their concscience by either voting NO or abstaining in the referendum.
Now it is time to legislate the nation’s will, which co-incidentally they asked us to pronounce in a useless referendum.
Ironically, if they were not such a band of wussies, they would have voted in parliament without the referendum. I have no doubt that the bill would have been stopped in its tracks consigning Malta to the trash heap of minority rights for the next decade.
What a warped way to think. Cretins still walk among us.
[Paul Pace – 1. The 325103 voters’ verdict on divorce was 37.7% yes, 33.2% no and 29.1% abstained. So if we want our parliamentarian’s vote to reflect the people’s will the outcome must be 26 in favour, 23 against and 20 abstentions].
I hope you’re joking.
[Paul Pace – 2. I always believed that the divorce issue is really a matter of conscience and has nothing to do with politics, so I don’t understand all this pressure on our MPs].
Let me think. Could it be because MPs are paid to represent the electorate and not themselves? Could it be because they are there to legislate on our behalf and not on their own “conscience”? If one does not like their job, one quits.
[Paul Pace – 3. It seems that everybody has rights except those MPs who want to vote against the divorce bill].
Those MPs who wish to vote against the will of the people have the right to resign.
Mr Pace seems unable to think things through to their proper conclusion, or he’s just a troll.
1. Parliament must reflect the result of the referendum. Any MP voting against is voting against legislation of divorce is in contempt of a democratic instrument (the referendum).
2. Divorce is a matter of conscience for some, but it should apply to their own conscience and only to their own life. Their conscience must not impact on the lives of others.
3. MPs have rights but in this case they passed on their rights to decide to the referendum, thus abrogating their right in this matter.
Just imagine a situation whereby the NO vote prevailed at the referendum and some MPs still decided to vote Yes in parliament. These two MPs would have probably been the first and most outspoken in their verbal attacks and that the will of the majority must be respected.
Some of our MPs seem to think that as soon as they are elected to Parliament they become super beings fully qualified to tell the rest of us what to do and how to do it – this because they are MPs democratically elected to be our leaders.
They stop believing that we elect them to represent us and instead go on ‘fiefdom mode’, trying to make surfs of the very same people who had put them there in the first place.
Some of the fault in this warped way of thinking lies with some of the electorate who make demigods of their particular favorite MP, but the main fault lies in the way we have been doing things over the past century or so. It is ingrained in our culture.
This culminated during the Mintoff years when a new idea was introduced, albeit in a subtle manner. Let us make a Papa of the state who will in turn take care of all his children’s wants and needs because Papa knows what’s best.
In those days obscenities were committed every single day and like a flock of sheep some of us thought that this was because of socialism, shrugged and kept on existing. One such example is when Papa decided to keep the serfs in ignorance by denying them access to computers – and the kakka anecdote made a lot of people laugh, cry or whatever.
Post 1987 we surely must have said never, ever again. The PN with all that it has accomplished will never stoop to this kind of warped thinking…….enter Edwin Vassallo et al.
Why all this insistence on MPs telling us TODAY whether they will be voting YES or NO?
The bill still needs to be discussed in detail, and we all know the devil is in the detail.
How can they tell us today how they plan to vote when they don’t know how the final draft will read?
I for one realise that the law must be passed, but I sure hope the MPs discuss the various clauses very carefully and refine it to the best of their ability. THIS is where their conscience must come into play.
I certainly don’t want to see them rubber-stamp a draft that might incorporate major defects.
That much I can agree with.
But we are asking about the principle here, and that is where we object that MPs are declaring that they will vote no or abstain.
We don’t object about MPs voting against any stupid amendments. That is the normal legislative process.
It is not necessary for them to tell us today. But we should be told.
As for the possibility of an imperfect law, politics is an art of compromise. Even if the draft law is imperfect, a compromise should be sought, after which all MPs are duty bound to vote according to the clear mandate of the electorate.
Isn’t it perverse that those voting ‘no’ are doing so because of their conscience at the same time that their conscience is not bothering them by shifting their responsibilities onto others?
If it is against their religious beliefs (sinful) to vote ‘yes’, it remains ‘sinful’ knowing that what you feared is going to get through by relying on others.
I still maintain that MPs should vote according to their conscience as they would have done had the bill been presented to parliament for approval before the referendum.
I wouldn’t have thought so, Mr Vassallo. The MPs gave the electorate the privilege to decide its own future. That is what the electorate has decided and they (and you) have to suck it up.
It’s immoral to vote against the will of the electorate as it effectively rubbishes what Joe Public has said despite Joe Public being employed in a consultancy role at €4 million a day.
So what was the point of the referendum, then?
Easy. It was a gamble. Gonzi hoped that the referendum would get a “no” majority. In that case, he would simply say “the people have spoken”.
Little did he know…
Cheap holidays for the Maltese diaspora.
Really, Joseph Vassallo? Then what was the bloody point of calling a referendum and then ignoring the result?
The people have now spoken. If anybody’s ”conscience” goes against that, then he/she should resign and he’ll gain my respect. Otherwise it’s nothing but a sham.
But that’s the point you seem not to understand Mr Vassallo. The MPs were free to vote according to their conscience prior to the referendum. As soon as they agreed to a referendum, they left the matter to the people to decide.
Yes to Divorce.
So now the MPs should vote according to their conscience which NOW should be saying: ‘Do as the people want!”
What a sorry state we’re in when people don’t even grasp the basics of a representative democracy.
Beppe Fenech Adami says: “democracy entails respecting the rights of the minority.”
Ironically, that is what the majority did when they voted for the rights of a minority – unlike Beppe’s ‘minority’.
So according to some parliamenterians Roman Catholic ecclesiatical law applies to civil marriages as well. Is this right?
Yes it is! What God has united let no man destroy. Civil marraiges are nothing but a sort of sleep-in licence granted by the State.
Not exactly. According to some parliamentarians, what they believe God wants (when it suits them…I assume their God doesn’t want cohabitation) should be law. In other words, a Catholic version of Sharia.
According to the 1995 Amendments to the Marriage Act, yes. When an ecclesiastical marriage tribunal annuls a Roman Catholic Church marriage, then the civil effects of the marriage also are annulled. However, for a RC Church marriage there is no reciprocity for the annullment of the civil effects of marriage by the state.
There seems to be a lot of confusion in people’s minds regarding the civil effects of marriage, which apply for both church marriages and civil marriages. All such legitimate marriages have civil effects.
As for parliamentarians, the provision of divorce allows for the dissolution of the civil effects of any marriage, civil or religious. For those who may have been married in church, if they obtain a divorce, they will still have to battle out the religious status of their marriage, if they care to have the RC Church also recognize a marriage as invalid.
God give me strength, I had this argument once again yesterday. The people who do not want to divorce DO NOT have to, and now the people who do, will or can. It’s that simple
The MAJORITY voted Yes. The No voters can still live in the “never never land” of their dreams and stay “till death do us part”
What part of this, do some people not get? I cannot wait until 2013 and the house visits (which I always detested, but now look forward to).
And it just keeps getting better:
http://www.maltatoday.com.mt/news/fenech-adami-referendum-consultative-mps-vote-conscience
Daphne, I am starting to nearly agree with those who had said that joining the E.U. was too early for Malta. Do you honestly believe that these MPs are European in thought? To even question the people’s verdict! They belong in the Pakistani parliament or in Afghanistan.
[Daphne – How would staying out of the EU have improved matters, exactly?]