Superstar comments
These astute observations have just been posted on my comments board.
Erable
It seems that your parliamentarians, having from the outset abdicated from their duty to legislate on this important matter of a civil right, are now seeking to arrogate to themselves the role of an upper chamber, a concept that is alien to the modern Maltese parliamentary structure, granting themselves the extra-constitutional privilege of imposing “sober second thought” on a decision that was legitimately taken by the electorate in a referendum.
This will set in stone a shameful and dangerous precedent that was set by the anti-democratic actions of Alfred Sant’s team following the EU referendum.
From where I sit, this is emerging as a possible constitution crisis, only your MPs are too wrapped up in their personal dreams of eternal salvation to see it coming.
——–
Paul Portelli
Any MP who votes against or abstains is making a mockery of the very system they have sworn to uphold and protect. This is institutionalized anarchy and a very dangerous precedent because it is undermining a fundamental democratic process.
A citizen, for example, cannot decide not to accept the Nationalists as the governing party, simply because he didn’t vote for them, whatever his conscience tells him.
Once Parliament decided to abdicate its responsibility and go for a referendum it follows that each and every MP is now duty bound not only to endorse but to work towards the realization of that result.
This referendum has cost us a lot. The country has been dragged through the mud by the international press because of our incoherent and unorthodox mumbo-jumbo, truisms and platitudinous rhetoric. It is time to do the gentlemanly thing, accept the result and move on.
This is not the time for damage control either. It’s already bad enough that we were forced to make our choice by answering a question seemingly written by the Maltese equivalent of Donald Duck on acid.
38 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
What if the President has a crisis of conscience and decides not to sign off the divorce law? This is not possible I guess and he would have to resign. So parliamentarians should do likewise, approve what the referendum has decided or resign.
Of course not George, we couldn’t possibly entertain THAT idea. It would mean the end of a cushy money-for-jam job. That supersedes even a crisis of conscience. but seriously George you are absolutely right. One either goes with the will of the people or resign. Period.
If I remember well, Dr. Fenech Adami when he was president of Malta, had said that if a divorce bill is placed in front of him to sign into law, he would refrain from doing so.
If they have a crisis of ‘conscience’ why did they agree to the holding of a referendum or am I missing something here ?
Shame they did not have a crisis of conscience on Libya.
‘Divorce: the prime minister calls for prudence.’
That’s the whole point, Etil. The PN MPs did not agree to the holding of the referendum and the holding of the referendum question as proposed by Joe Muscat’s motion.
They voted AGAINST that motion. If we had a different question, divorce would not have passed, it’s THAT simple.
All polls showed that it would not pass by a clear majority had we had a question “Do you agree with divorce?” The scandal now is with Labour MPs Marie Louise Coleiro and Adrian Vassallo because the intorduction of divorce in Malta is on their own conscience and no-one else’s. To top it all, they will now not vote in favour of its introduction!
We just keep missing the point: it is nothing to do with whether one agrees with divorce or not or whether the Church agrees to / condones divorce or not. These are personal / religious issues.
The essential question is whether civil divorce legislation is to be enacted. The referendum result says yes therefore MPs say yes or resign.
Nothing else has or will change. Those who wish to avail themselves of the new legislation may do so; those that do not are not forced to.
It is now time to move on and get a life.
I do understand these feelings but I think that we forgot something there; there are two kinds of referenda. Consultative and Abrogative. Ours was the former, which I think makes some difference. Should there be no difference, the two types should never have seen the light of day.
[Daphne – Apples and pears again. An abrogative referendum is a vote on whether to remove or retain an existing law. A consultative referendum is a consultative referendum. It can be on anything. But in the 21st century, the idea of a consultative referendum is redundant. All referendums are now considered to be binding on parliament. Otherwise, just get Misco or whatever to carry out a survey.]
….and they’ll charge you less than 4 million Euro.
Nope, sorry – an abrogative one is essentially a binding referendum ,on any issue, whereby the person with authority (in this case, the elected representative in parliament) abrogates, or surrenders, his legislative rights to another body – in this case the people voting in the referendum. A consultative referendum is essentially a glorified poll. Technically, parliamentarians can ignore the result of a consultative referendum. In practise, however, it is very hard to override the will expressed in even a consultative referendum, striking, as it does, at the very essence of democracy.
And how come their conscience does not, in any way, stop them from voting against the will of the people?
Because what they think of as their conscience is really just memory of what they were taught in Catholic dogma classes. Their doctrine teachers obviously had no position on voting against the will of the people, so they don’t either.
Someone should make it easier for the poor fellows and tell them that the electorate made the decision for them so their consciences are clean and they’re all going to heaven.
A clean conscience is one that has not been used.
I do sincerely believe that many MPs have a clean conscience. They might as well keep it that way by not using it this time either.
The real issue now facing parliamentarians, indeed, the only issue, is not whether to enact divorce legislation, nor what kind of divorce legislation to enact (it must be a no-fault structure that one is ineligible for unless one has lived separate and apart for at least four years), but rather, how that legislation is to be worded.
Hence the first and second readings, etc. The wording of Pullicino Orlando’s bill is legitimately subject to amendments, because the referendum question did not refer to a particular bill, as published, say in the Government Gazette. However the essence of the bill, as described in that tortured referendum question, has unquestionably received majority approval.
The self-righteous MPs who are declaring up front that they will vote No or abstain, are just not all that smart.
A smart MP would reserve all opposition for tinkering with the wording of the new law. Think of how much fun one could have with the clauses of the bill that are supposed to “guarantee” payment of support.
Out of context I know.
Couldn’t resist posting this link.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/31/silvio-berlusconi-makeup_n_869389.html
Daphne,
Previously you convinced me that in a general election, the Labour Party has made it clear that they are not fit for purpose. Thus, the PN is the logical choice when electing our government.
However, given the present scenario, the PN’s behaviour is as abysmal as the LP’s making the PN unfit for purpose as much as the PL. Given this scenario where there’s a chance that even the Prime Minister himself might abstein in the vote for divorce legislation, what are your views? My general feel now is that AD is my one and only option.
[Daphne – I will only vote for a party that can form a government. I will vote for the PN again but will weed out all chest-beaters and village idiots, even if it means that I am left with a single candidate. And believe me, in Mosta that is a really serious problem because the choice is terrible. It’s where they dump all the chest-beaters and village idiots (and Jeffrey).]
Thanks for your answer. However, wouldn’t that re-elect by proxy the present Prime Minister as Prime Minister, a chest-beater himself?
[Daphne – Yes, but unlike with candidates, the choice is between only two potential prime ministers. If both of them survive to 2013, the choice is between Muscat and Gonzi. I choose Gonzi. There is no third alternative. If I am going to get lumped with one of them anyway, I’d like to have a say in the matter.]
I am from Mosta, Daphne, and you echo my feelings exactly.
The election is still relatively far away but if we are going to have the same candidates I am going to be in a real quandary regarding my vote. Like you, I will vote PN again as there is no alternative.
I used to have no problem when Eddie Fenech Adami was still around because you naturally go for the party leader but since he left I have chosen Tonio Borg and Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando… and what a disappointment they turned out to be!
Assuming the Labour-leaning districts voted against the EU accession referendum, does that mean Zejtun, Zabbar and Kottonera did not join the Union with the rest of the island?
If yes, I might need a new home.
What a great fuss for nothing. The divorce vote will surely be a positive one, it is immaterial the number of votes it gets in its favour.
[Daphne – So by your reasoning, we got to be members of the European Union so it is immaterial that Labour voted against and that its current leader Muscat required five years of hindsight, most of them spent in Brussels as an MEP, to work out that the Yes vote won.]
Let all MPs abstain except the PM who can do his duty and vote yes.
Sorted!
Please stop putting pressure on MPs to vote YES in parliament. Let them vote according to their so called conscience because only in this way will we know which ones of them have the political morality and democratic understanding of a twerp… and hence which ones not to consider in the next general elections.
If God forbid, (excuse the pun) divorce doesn’t make it through because too many of them abstain or vote No, then the people will make their voice heard once again and it surely won’t stop there.
In a way Malta needs these kind of unheard-of challenges to get some of us off our apathetic loins and to speak our minds.
So let the system out these non-democratic tyrants, and we will them oust them once and for all.
It looks like Mother Marie Louise of Calcutta Preca is seeking early beatification by abstaining from voting.
Dear Rev. Coleiro Preca,
You state that “The will of the electorate must be respected. However, there is a substantial minority that voted against the introduction of divorce. The minority who votes against divorce must also be respected”.
Your respectful attitude nets you 7/10 points on the way to eternal holiness. On the other hand, you can respect the minority vote and still vote yes in parliament at the same time.
“In fact I would like to thank Joseph Muscat for appointing me out of his own free will, on an internal committee of Labour MPs to analyse the bill and present amendments where necessary to ensure the best possible divorce law”
Divorce is unholy my child, there can be no best possible law to legislate such irreverence… your saintity would best be displayed by shouting, screaming and tearing your hair out in parliament and reciting the rozary out loud instead of tainting yourself with improving the work of the devil. 2/10 for misguided effort.
“Once I am fully satisfied and assured that the law passed through Parliament will reflect the will of the majority of the electorate, I will abstain from voting, also in respect of those Labour supporters who have voted against divorce”.
It is wonderful that you feel that this law needs to be perfectly attuned to the electorate’s will… I am proud to have you and the likes of Monsignior Tonio Fenech upholding these fine minutiae, however please both of you remember, this electorate is unholy, and come the next rapture, all such minutiae will be forgotten. 2/10 for autistically pandering to the unholy.
“Now that my position is clear, I feel that this is a case closed and that there is no need for further malignant, defamatory rumours and intimidation to my family members”
Every successful applicant to sainthood has been persecuted at some point in their life… you are making a very strong case of martyrdom… reminescent of a very congenial fellow who has recently been raptured in the most recent world end, a Mister Bin Laden, who was also unjustly tormented by infidels for 11 years for following his conscience. 10/10 for martyrdom.
“I have been in politics for 36 years, and who wants to be honest, knows that throughout my career I gave my all to the cause I believe in. I never deceived anyone and always made my intentions clear because I believe in honesty and integrity”.
This cause you speak of, please tell us more, what does it entail? And how do you define integrity? I am also suspicious, had the majority voted No in the referendom, would you still have abstained in respect of the Yes minority? How very devillish of you to do such a thing. 1/10 for ambiguity.
On the whole, 22/50, which to me looks like a bare fail, entitled to a resit. Please come back when you have proven your holiness further.
The ostriches (“No” MP’s) are starting to put their head in the sand again it seems.
Isn’t it sad to see our beloved party in this mess? Why has it come to this situation? We have an abudance of people with brains, we have years of experience in governing. So why?
It really breaks my heart and it is making it more difficult for us loyal followers to decide what to do and where to go. I feel betrayed.
To make things more difficult, it seems the Nationalist MPs have to go back to school to learn what democracy is all about, and this to the party who risked all, in the 1980s, to see that democracy survived.
Yes I used to feel proud to have been one who risked, even my life when my country called. And now this.
“Why has it come to this situation?”
It is because Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando hijacked the divorce issue and blackmailed the PN (and it is not because he is altruistic or personally needed divorce).
He can cry tears of blood this time and deny it till he’s blue in the face. He won’t convince me.
We are all conveniently forgetting that Jeffrey started all this. He had every right to do it but he shouldn’t have. So now the blame is falling on the prime minister and other MPs. Jeffrey is the first one to go when election time comes. For starters, he shouldn’t be accepted as a candidate.
He tricked his party and PN supporters always valued stability. Many are arguing that conservative MPs will not be elected again. I have my doubts. We hated Mintoff and all that is Labour precisely because they didn’t inspire security and stability. Constituents may grumble about anything and everything but in the end they won’t elect somebody who may play tricks on them and their party.
Maryanne, I agree on what you say about Pullicino Orlando, but you must admit that he is only a part of the total mixup in the party. What about arrogance, what about the smell of corruption always hanging over the heads of some of our M.Ps?
The fact that Pullicino Orlando can cause all this havoc in the party reflects weak leadership and nothing else.
Just by giving M.Ps hefty salary increases does not necessarly mean you are assuring yourself of their loyalty, far from it. What is required is a strong leader who is ready to decide when it is time to send packing those who do not toe the party line. It is high time for a reshuffle, and heads must roll. Otherwise the PN can say goodbye in 2013.
Let me see if I understand. Therefore, Pullicino Orlando tricked PM Gonzi into calling for a referendum on divorce, which U-turn Joseph Muscat then supported – and the morally convinced PM was convinced that the NO vote would prevail, putting an end to the whole divorce-thingy.
Nobody expected the YES vote to prevail (while I had hoped for a YES victory). The PL made no commitment to YES with their “free vote.” The PN committed themselves to the NO vote. And eventually the Church also chimed in with its public support for NO.
It seems that the political class never expected a democratic result to contradict their desired political imposition.
I wonder how long it will be before Parliament ever decides again to abrogate its constitutional responsibilities to legislate by demanding a referendum?
I also never foresaw the political disaster the PN are creating for themselves (and for the country) because PM Gonzi cannot lead according to the democratic result. Before this I had thought that the PN were more rational and less confessional than the situation now proves. I am astonished.
So, you say it was all a plot? It seems that the PN have lost the plot, their own “plot” against divorce (as well as the storyline, as the plot thickens).
“From where I sit, this is emerging as a possible constitution crisis, only your MPs are too wrapped up in their personal dreams of eternal salvation to see it coming.”
I cannot agree with this comment.
The crisis will be political, not constitutional.
Otherwise, Eddie Fenech Adami would not have called the 2003 elections one month after the referendum to “confirm” the opinion expressed by the electorate in the referendum.
[Daphne – Reporter, the general election was held precisely to avoid a constitutional crisis.]
This is one MP’s opinion about what parliamentary democracy means:
Nafu l-poplu x’irid, il-poplu jrid igawdi gostih, isegwi gostih, allura nghidu “hekk irid il-poplu? Ejja hekk ha ntuh”. U facilment nibdew nghidu “Ejja ha naghtu l-poplu dak li jrid u nispiccaw ahna hawnhekk accountants ghal jum il-budget fejn nippruvaw biss nibbilancjaw il-kontijiet taghna”
Jiena ma niddejjaqx b’responsabbilta’ fi xhin jasal il-hin u l-mument li nkun parti minn minoranza f’din il-kwistjoni ghax jiena rrid insostni t-twemmin tieghi…
From what I can make out, the wishes of the “poplu” should under no circumstances be taken in consideration by members of parliament. After all, the “poplu” should be saved from itself, from getting itself into some disaster of its own making. Or am I missing something?
With this bunch of bible bashers, voting PN is not an option anymore. Gonzi has really turned out to be a disappointment on so many fronts.
The extent of illogical thought is shocking among Nationalist MPs who have not yet taken a decision as to whether they should vote reflecting the will of the majority of the people or whether they should vote according to their personal views.
This is making the PN even more unpopular than the fact that its stand on divorce lost the referendum. Is this its idea of damage limitation?
The first is their kuxjenza obsession in which they claim that they accept the need to introduce divorce in Malta but they do not want to be part of that exercise – a sort of ‘not in my name’ attitude.
They have every right to not want to enact the will of the people, but with the huge caveat that to do so they have to resign from the House of Representatives.
They draw comfort in not voting in line with the will of the people from the fact that numerically the bill will be enacted by Parliament because of the numbers of affirmative votes. Such poor reasoning on the responsibility they have in voting according to the wishes of the majority of the population.
The end result may be the introduction of divorce if they vote no or abstain, but each MP who votes no or abstains will go down in history as having ignored the will of the majority. An abstention is a statement too.
They believe they ought to reflect the wishes of the No vote – if that is the case than the MLP electoral manifesto of the last election, repeater class and all, should be dusted off and the current government should start to introduce Labour’s policies in view of the 48.79% obtained by the MLP in the last election.
JPO should talk less and read more. Edwin reads much more than you Daphne and Jeffrey together. Even some people here should read much more and talk less. I expect that a member of parliament raeds much more than I do.
Charles De Gaulle ” the electorate is consulted only to decide what colour to give to the tram”.
MPs want direction and are not getting it:
http://www.maltatoday.com.mt/news/national/update-%E2%80%98gonzipn%E2%80%99-in-deep-political-crisis
Erable seems to be a foreigner, so he may not be aware that Sant had plenty of precedents – like the Integration and Independence Referendums where exactly the same arguments were out forward.
[Daphne – Foreign to what? Oh, you mean ‘not Maltese’. He is. He just doesn’t live here.]
Interesting analogies.
The legitimacy of the Integration referendum was questioned right from the outset, and was consistently challenged by one of the two major political parties. Yes, I agree that these “same arguments” (or similar arguments) were bandied about following that referendum. This precipitated a stand-off that was resolved only after direct rule was imposed on Malta by Great Britain.
In the Independence referendum, voters were asked a question about adopting a constitution that had already been ratified by the Legislative Assembly, and although these “same arguments” may have been trotted out at that time as well, the constitution was indeed adopted, and independence declared, in accordance with the outcome of that referendum.