Some notes about the vote
Yes yes yes yes yes No Yes Yes No
I hope this clears things up about the way votes are taken in parliament, and the confusion caused by the inexact use of the word ‘abstain’, which I have been guilty of using myself.
To be precise, no MP can actually abstain from voting. Once an MP is there in the House when the vote is taken, he or she has to vote, or is taken to have voted with his or her side of the house (more about that follows).
An MP, however, can absent himself, or herself, from the House when the vote is taken. The MP is then marked down as absent, rather than as an abstention.
Those MPs who have said they will abstain from voting have only one way of doing this: by being absent from the House when the vote is taken.
It does not follow, however, that being absent means an abstention from the vote. MPs may be absent for all manner of reasons, and only one gets registered: Absent.
An MP does not have to be absent from the House immediately before and after the vote. He or she can walk out and have a drink in the bar while the voting takes place, and then go back.
Even with a free vote, MPs are expected to inform the party whip of their intentions and whether they will be absent or present for the vote.
Now here’s an important bit.
The Maltese parliament follows the Westminster model, in which most laws are carried without a formal ‘head count’ vote. The Speaker of the House calls for the Ayes and the Noes (Iva and Le), and then declares the vote ‘carried’ – presumably on the basis of how much shouting he has heard, and always if it’s government business, the assumption being that if it’s government business then it is carried through because nobody on the majority benches has voted against.
At that point, any MP who has voted with the minority – whether that minority is Iva or Le – can challenge the Speaker by asking for a formal count, which is called ‘a division’.
The vote on the divorce bill is not government business and there are Ayes and Noes on both sides of the House, so the normal practice of shouting out all at once when the Speaker asks for the vote is not a practicable option or even an ethical one, though it is being mooted already as a way to ‘conceal’ how individual MPs vote while still ensuring the result is Yes.
Yet to do this without a formal count (division), the Speaker will have to take it as read even before the vote that the vote has been Yes, and both government and Opposition will have to communicate to the Speaker their intention not to challenge his declaration that the divorce bill is carried.
Even if a way can be found for it to work, the electorate will be unable to accept a situation where MPs and the prime minister hide behind the shouting so that nobody knows exactly who voted Yes and who voted No and who kept his mouth shut while pretending not to do so.
And quite frankly, it’s hard to see how it can work anyway. There are too many ifs and buts and too many variables. The government cannot relax into the assumption that no MP from the minority No camp will ask for a division, just because the minority No camp is made up mainly of government MPs who might wish to conceal the fact that they voted No.
If they get away with hiding their vote amid the hubbub in parliament, MPs cannot hide their vote outside. When confronted with a specific question by a journalist – or any member of the electorate, who they represent – they will have to give a specific answer.
This scenario cannot be countenanced:
“So, Mr Prime Minister/Honourable Member, did you vote No or Yes?”
“I’d rather not say. All you need to know is I wasn’t absent, and the bill was carried.”
I see it as a dead certainty that Adrian Vassallo of the Labour Party, the only MP so far to say outright that he will vote No, will ask for a division.
And well he might.
This is not a routine vote. We need to know who voted and how – and please, no more casuistry and game-playing.
27 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
Could there be a legal remedy for ordinary citizens? Constitutional court perhaps or even ECJ?
No. Just the GE, eventually.
u mela … wara l-ECJ jonqos li jinhbew issa.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YOh-rpvjYg&feature=player_embedded
As usual, Family guy (& South Park) explain politician’s tricks…
Very enlightening – well done. As I said elsewhere, the plot thickens indeed. I wonder what’s going on in the Prime Minister’s head, but I suggest that he takes some serious advice before committing his biggest political ‘faux pas’.
Daphne, this scenario cannot be countenanced either:
News correspondent: “So, Mr. Deputy PM, as Leader of the House, are you suggesting that your government will not be ignoring the will of the people legitimately expressed in last Saturday’s referendum by having elements within it absenting themselves from Parliament?”
Deputy PM: “I wouldn’t say so.”
No such news correspondents in Malta!
But we do have such deputy PMs in Malta!
One point I need to clarify. Once a member has to be absent, from the house, to be considered as ‘absent’ it would be simple to conclude which members actually abstained by seeing who was absent from the house, when the vote was taken.
[Daphne – Parliament does not acknowledge abstentions, but only absentees. You can be absent for a variety of reasons that would not make yours an abstention. You can be taken ill, for instance.]
The problem lies in knowing who voted Yes or No, if a division is not called, by one of the members voting for the minority and who was in the house during the vote (those who left the house, thus considered Absent,c annot call for a division, and it is not in their interest to do so.
All we need is Vicar of Dibley’s Jim Trott in our parliament.
What if someone from the YES camp decides to call for a ‘division’?
[Daphne – S/he can’t. It is only an MP who votes with the minority who can call for a division. When they have finished tossing coins, throwing dice and drawing straws to see who will vote Yes and who will be allowed to use his conscience, we have been reassured that the bill will be carried. That means the minority would be the Noes. Marie Louise has decided to absent herself, so she can’t call for a division. That leaves Adrian Vassallo so far on the Labour side. One assumes that the Noes on the PN benches will all be sticking together and won’t call for a division.]
I know this might sound contradictory. It is not in the YES camp’s interest to have a formal count. But the PM gave a guarantee that the bill will be approved – so there is no ‘risk’ in asking for ‘division’ in that case.
I can think of a couple of opposition MPs who would.
I can see Austin (alabiebu) Gatt calling for a division.
“It is not in the YES camp’s interest to have a formal count”.
If this was only about divorce, that would be correct. But it’s more than that. It’s all about democracy.
Ivan, the only opposition member (if things remain as they are) who can ask for a division will be Dr. Vassallo, because he is the only opposition member who said he will be voting NO.
From the way things look, it will be the No votes who will be in the minority, and I can’t see any government members asking for a division.
[Daphne – Yes, but they still have to deal with the journalists waiting outside parliament after the vote. What are they going to say in response to a question about how they voted? No comment?]
Wouldn’t be surprised.They surely don’t lack the cheek.
“Wouldn’t be surprised.They surely don’t lack the cheek”.
Make that arrogance.
I acknowledge that this is not the Erskine May …
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_of_the_assembly
… but according to that link any member can call the division.
[Daphne – Not in Malta.]
Ok – managed to find the standing orders of our parliament :
http://www.parlament.mt/standing-orders?l=1
Clause 83 specifies also:
The Speaker can refuse the demand for a division if it is unnecessarily claimed.
A division could be unnecessary if the Speaker hears only one NO (assuming that all members would be present)
Section 83 of the standing orders is very clear: only members who are in the minority can ask for a division.
You forgot the best part: Mr Speaker Michael Frendo started some better procedure by asking each and every MP to stand up and speak directly into a microphone.
This was after the confusion of Justyne Caruana’s “NO” vote.
If too many MPs are not present than there wouldn’t be enough quorum.
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20100511/local/fendo.306688
Dibley politics..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InTAt2hI_kg
Oh Gosh, don’t tell me it’s those North Korean dancers again with their “Ma taghmlu xejn mal-Perit Mintoff…”
“The only guide to a man is his conscience; the only shield to his memory is the rectitude and sincerity of his actions. It is very imprudent to walk through life without this shield, because we are so often mocked by the failure of our hopes and the upsetting of our calculations, but with this shield, however the fates may play, we march always in the ranks of honour.”
Winston Churchill – House of Commons, Nov 1940
I’ll never understand the citizens of this country.
I know most logical people think that all the MPs should vote Yes.
But there are lots of people out there who still believe that they should vote according to their conscience.
In fact some are still praying that enough will vote No so that the bill will not pass.
Folk on this blog are mostly liberal minded, up to date, free will thinking, not religously blinded etc etc. But believe me I think we’re in the minority in this country.
This is what I expect to be the prime minister’s answer to the press, on coming out of the palace on the day they vote:
“How I and other members of the government voted is now irrelevant. Our aim was to see that the wishes of the majority upheld. As you well know I have always been consistent and this is what I have been saying since the result of the referendum. The will of the people is now assured. My party has always believed that once the people have spoken, it is our democratic duty to bow our heads to their wishes.”
‘Did you vote Yes or No?’
“Come on, what’s in a word.”
“Come on, what’s in a word.”
I hope he does not say “Why say something with three letters when you can say it with two.”
Daphne, it seems you were right about their plans:
http://maltatoday.com.mt/news/parties-in-talks-to-camouflage-divorce-vote