@ John Schembri:

I’m not even mildly iterested in the envy of illiterate gardeners.

Like I said, I would only hope that the majority of Maltese voters are not illiterate. Allow me to add envious to illiterate.

@ Kenneth: There are illiterate people with whom one can build an argument and with whom one can reason with logic.

The problem lies when many of us want things which we can never have. Then we become envious of people (politicians in our case) who are perceived to have it all. We want them to ‘suffer’ like we’re doing.

That’s why this chap was angry and agitated against Gonzi. The green-eyed monster was stronger than logic and reason, irrespective whether the guy was literate.

I have just read the comments on timesofmalta.com about Air Malta. Most of them refer to how much the new chairman is getting. See how many commentators wrote that the removal of freebie travel to politicians and ex-chairmen was a good move in the right direction ( for the green eyed monster).

@ John Schembri:

I would hope that the majority of Maltese voters are not illiterate. I wouldn’t make any assumptions on the opinions of the illiterate.

Daphne, call it what you like, but the perception of the people with a ‘Maltese’ mindset (or call it pigheadedness if you like) will remain the same.

Only yesterday an agitated gardener told me that he is illiterate, he is against divorce, he expected Gonzi not to have his wage rise of 500 euros because he got 1.32 euros, and that he was a Nationalist supporter and now he will vote for Joseph.

He doesn’t give a hoot what is happening beyond our shores. “All excuses they are”.

Eddie remains the KING for him!

He has a valid vote like yours and mine.

Hawwadni ha nifhemek!

Kenneth Cassar:”After a referendum result, MPs have a moral duty to vote according to the democratic choice of the people – and the only way to do that is to vote YES.”

I say”After a referendum result, MPs have a moral duty to vote according to the democratic choice of the people – and the only way to do that in our circumstances is to see that the divorce law is enacted and approved in parliament.” The parliamentary majority by which a law is enacted does not make it stronger or weaker!

In two years time you will see to whom the people will vote, they will differentiate between those who stood their ground on the subject Beppe, Karl Gouder, Evarist Bartolo, Adrian Vassallo, Austin Gatt and Mary Louise Coleiro Preca, and those who had a Damascene conversion like Carmelo Abela and Mario Demarco.

People like candidates with a backbone (I don’t mean backstabbers), because you know what to expect of them.

[Daphne – I think you are confusing backbone with blockheadedness and predictability. You know what to expect of people like that, but it has nothing to do with backbone.]

With an overwhelming Yes vote in parliament, half of the country would feel betrayed. The law will pass, and the vote in parliament would not be a walkover but a narrow defeat.

If the law passes with a 49 /16 vote, people in the next election will find solace in the candidate who voted in favour of their opinion in the referendum.

No amount of high brow talk and hypothetical scenarios will change this ‘Maltese’ mindset.

“Sorry, but you really sound like Alfred Sant and Joseph Muscat in 2003.”

I wish I had the academic qualities of Dr Alfred Sant. He’s a mathematician par excellence.

I’m stating a fact like he did in 2003. I accept the referendum result, but he did not because he wanted to change the (mathematical) rules for his political ends.

I wish I was as academically ‘bravo’ as him but not a “brikkun”.

Boils down to head over heart. Could have odd results otherwise, even in a man vs. dog situation.

I voted ‘yes’ and I don’t need or want divorce for myself.

I think that by his last question, John Schembri means this hypothetical scenario:

1. MPs vote on a divorce bill, on condition that a referendum is held and the referendum result is binding.

2. Some MPs vote “yes”, some “no”.

3. The referendum gets a “yes” majority and divorce legislation made.

4. Considering the above, would we call for the resignation of the MPs who had voted No prior to the referendum?

The answer to the question is a clear and unequivocal NO.

Prior to a referendum, and in the actual referendum, every MP has a democratic right to vote as he/she wants.

BUT

After a referendum result, MPs have a moral duty to vote according to the democratic choice of the people – and the only way to do that is to vote YES.

The rules of the game for a consultative referendum: 53% of 74% of the polled votes voted yes and we’re saying that the ‘majority’ won.

[Daphne – Sorry, but you really sound like Alfred Sant and Joseph Muscat in 2003.]

Parliamentarians are also free to vote according to their interpretation of the result of the consultative referendum on very specific provisos.

After all they represent their districts. People who voted for Abela in Zejtun would consider him a traitor of his values now that he will be voting “Yes”.

Same applies to the Gozitan MP’s from both sides of the house.

If the vote in parliament is not representative of the people’s opinion delivered in the referendum, the nation will not be at peace with itself. Think about it.

People will accept a defeat but not a humiliating defeat ,for the latter you will have a suicide attack (metaphorically speaking) after the re-union of the remaining forces.