The Nationalist Party whip will vote Yes
David Agius was interviewed on Xarabank – the Nationalist Party, demonstrating the first glimmerings of public affairs skills in a long time, was clever to send him and Cyrus Engerer out – and said quite categorically that he will vote Yes to the divorce bill.
This is most significant, because David Agius is the party whip.
He said that he voted No in the referendum, but knows that he should vote Yes to the divorce bill because, when parliament passed that decision on to the electorate in a referendum (“the most democratic exercise possible”), that’s what the electorate decided.
And he is a representative of that electorate, delegated to vote Yes on its behalf.
It was such a relief to hear him say that, even though it is the prime minister who should have got over himself and shown enough leadership to say it before his whip did.
But I hope nobody underestimates what it took for David Agius to Do The Right Thing. He is not just any old backbencher. This is the party whip we’re talking about.
It’s bad enough that Austin Gatt, a cabinet minister, spoke his intentions before his prime minister did, and said that he will vote No regardless. Where does that leave the prime minister? Austin Gatt is not seeking re-election in 2013.
The only Labour MP to speak on Xarabank was Adrian Vassallo. His main gist was that his conscience is more important than the decision of the electorate. I wish all these people would stop talking about their conscience as though it is a separate being with a life of its own, that tells them what to do while they are helpless before it.
I don’t think I have ever used the word ‘conscience’ when speaking about my views and actions. I say ‘I think this’ or ‘I did/didn’t do that’ or ‘I have reached that conclusion’. But it’s always me, not my conscience. What is a conscience, for heaven’s sake? It’s you. That’s what it is: you. Not a separate being or entity, but you.
40 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
David Agius is clearly not the sharpest tool in the shed!
But this time he is the only one speaking some ‘frickin’ sense!
[Daphne – I disagree with you on both points, the second because he is not the only one talking sense. Both Mario de Marco and Cyrus Engerer have been wheeled out to talk sense already.]
Well I was being ‘generic’ perhaps:(
True De Marco and Engerer and another few are on my good books as well.
I hope Mario De Marco can be the PN leader after the 2013 elections. Clearly it will be a booming defeat for the Nationalist Party and they will need someone with an open mind!
somewhere i hear(d) you are being paid by the PN to write this blog and that you are a de marco’s anti. tghid ghadhom jahsbu/jigdbu l-istess?
[Daphne – Why would the PN pay me to write this blog, and more to the point, why would I accept? I suppose it is beyond some people’s ability to understand that I would want to do it in my own time, unpaid, because I enjoy it and because I mean what I say. Maybe it consoles them to think that I don’t really believe the Labour Party is cr*p, I’m just paid to say it.]
Vista la concorenza don’t be so sure!
@asp. People say a lot of rubbish.
In my opinion, Dr Mario Demarco is the leader in waiting of PN
It is on the leaders’ shoulders to speak sense, until the young guns come of age and take their place .
Mario naqbel mieghek, cyrus ftit inqas ghax l-importanti mhux li titkellem imma dak li tighd, tighdu bis-sens li Cyrus ma tantx qal affarijiet jaghmlu sens il-bierah.
ezempju car iz-zwieg bejn persunal-istess sess
It’s great to hear some people from the PN talking sense at last.
It’s really sad to see the PN lose the plot over something so trivial as the introduction of divorce, especially after all that the PN has stood for over the years.
I hope the PM gets over himself and shows some proper leadership.
With the news that Deborah Schembri is contesting with the PL, the PN really need to pull up their socks. Otherwise, they’re going to commit political suicide.
If PN is at all interested in having a chance at re-election, it’s time for Gonzi to follow Gatt’s lead and step aside. Out of touch doesn’t even begin to describe those two. Today’s reports suggest there may be one or two viable replacements.
“Conscience” is something that tells you “you are doing wrong”.
[Daphne – Oh, I thought that was my rational mind.]
That’s a common misconception. Most religions tell you that conscience is an immaterial substance usually associated with the soul (or guardian angel), when in actual fact, it is nothing more than the mind rationalizing facts and opinions that are gathered through experience and learning. You are your own conscience.
If you want evidence of this, look for examples of people who undergo personality changes after a severe brain injury. If “conscience” or “the soul” were immaterial, it wouldn’t be affected by material injury.
The ancient Greeks believed that the soul / conscience resided in the heart.
We are currently spending a few million on building a new temple at ‘bieb il-belt’ to house the irrational; one Greek tragedy after another .
Daphne, have you ever truly believed in religion? If not, then this is probably why you cannot understand.
To religious people a conscience is not a rational mind, but nearly a ‘split-personality’ one. Most religious people suffer from this disorder, they dissassociate the voice in their head from themselves and classify good or altrustic things to be the little angel talking to them, while evil, animalistic, liberal thoughts is the devil speaking to them, rather than their own thoughts.
This conscience they speak of is a sort of grown-up version of a child’s imaginary friend.
The mind is powerful, just think of every lucid dream you’ve had and you might understand how some might interpret dreams like those as ‘religious inspiration’ or a vision.
Hopefully, with David Agius declaring that he will be voting Yes, the rest of the party will follow. Forget Austin Gatt and his flipping conscience. He is a finished politician, and as we are soon going to see the end of his arrogant behaviour, there is still hope that the Nationalist Party will get out of the mess that they managed to get into because of the mishandling of the divorce issue.
Have you read this? Shockingly detached from reality. The imperious attitude of a king, rather than a member of parliament.
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110604/opinion/The-real-irony-of-it-all-.368802
“So now it is left to the PN to find a solution”, when it was the PN who caused the problem in the first place by refusing to acknowledge that people wanted divorce legislation.
Daddy knows best! The sooner he goes, the better. He shouldn’t wait until 2013 to do it. He might as well go now, and use the law as a resignation matter if he feels so strongly about it.
Is Austin Gatt correct in saying that a majority of all MPs is needed for the bill to go through, as opposed to the majority of all those present for the voting?
[Daphne – Oh my goodness, of course not! It’s the majority of those present.]
I had been quite sure until now that the latter was the case and not what the minister stated. There are of specific instances where a simple majority of those present is not sufficient (such as for instance changes to the constitution) but I don’t think the divorce bill is one of those.
Further to my previous post, I looked up the constitution and found article 71 which, if I understand it correctly confirms what I thought:
“71. (1) Save as otherwise provided in this Constitution, all Voting.
questions proposed for decision in the House of Representatives
shall be determined by a majority of the votes of the members
thereof present and voting.
(2) The Speaker shall not…. ”
Also relevant to this issue, the previous article is about the quorum, which is of just fifteen.
So it seems to me that even if there were to be 54 ‘abstentions’ (or rather absenteeisms), 7 No votes and just 8 yes votes the bill would still go through.
I don’t know much of the other intricacies though such as what happens if a division is called in such a situation and so on.
On another note, how does he ‘know’ that only two PN MPs were in favour, and that only two PL MPs were against? ( I mean in terms of whether they agreed with the introduction of the law and not what they intended to vote in parliament after the referendum).
It seems to me that even on the PN side a good number of MPs are in favour, even if perhaps not the majority of them. If that is not the case then we are in a very sorry situation.
The other striking thing in Austin Gatt’s article was his claim that a majority of all members of Parliament is required for a bill to pass. I would have thought that a seasoned parliamentarian (and a lawyer, to boot) would know that you need only a majority of those present at the time of the vote.
Four million euros seems to be the price we have paid for the winds of change. Now may they wreak havoc and rid us of ‘dinosaurs’ .
The PN didn’t get into a mess cos they mishandled the divorce issue – they mishandled the divorce issue because they are in a mess.
I think there are two basic causes – the inevitable fatigue of a party that has been in power too long coupled with one of the weakest (if not THE weakest) leaders in its history.
A deadly combination.
“And he is a representative of that electorate, delegated to vote Yes on its behalf”.
That should be printed, framed and placed in a prominent place in parliament. Many times MPs “forget” that they represent us, and not themselves.
Has Simon Busuttil ever expressed his views on divorce?
[Daphne – http://www.maltatoday.com.mt/news/national/busuttil-rules-out-%E2%80%98interest%E2%80%99-in-general-elections-shies-away-from-stand-on-divorce ]
I have great respect for that man and I really think he enjoys what he does. Coincidentally, is there a limit to the term an MEP may serve or can they continue running for MEP elections indefinitely?
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110604/opinion/The-real-irony-of-it-all-.368802
Austin Gatt: “Abstentions” do not exist in our Parliament so any “abstention” is actually counted with the nays. In our Parliament – as in practically all Parliaments – a Bill requires the majority of all the members of the House to be approved, in our case 35.
So now he’s lying, too.
All MPs should really stop talking about their conscience. It’s being used in the same mode and manner as “the interest of the state” in non-democratic countries.
I am curious as to how the delegates from both camps voted because it is they that choose the people we vote for and ultimately the shape of the party profile .
Daphne, have you read what Austin Gatt wrote in The Times today? Shocking and scary!
I have actually caught myself hoping that Deborah Schembri will campaign in the Balzan district. That is where my only number written would go. Cheers Austin, Tonio and Lawrence for scaring the s**t out of me.
And before any of your readers accuse me of always being a Labour voter, please, just consider the possibility that I’m not.
Check this out. It is a post on timesofmalta.com. It seems that Dr Deborah Schembri is ACID.
Joseph Borg
Today, 11:49
Li hu zgur li din Deborah ghandha d-don tal-perswazzjoni (kalma, convinta, edukata),hadita kontra l-PN u l-knisja fuq suggett jahraq bhad-divorzju, mara li ma kien jafha hadd u harget rebbieha b`qawwa tremenda li ftit hawn kapaci jghamlu, test ikbar minn dan ma nafx x`jista jkun,u bla dubju ACID kbir ghal PL, pero l-iktar ghal poplu Malti ghax politici bhal din ghandu bzonn il-pajjiz u mhux min jahlef li jrid jinzel Gesu Kristu quddiemu biex jipperswadieh bir-rispett kollu.
I find the concept of ‘kuxjenza’ vastly irritating because it is so ambiguous.
For some the ‘conscience’ is the ‘mind’ of the ‘soul’. This soul for believers is the most important possession in their lives and the ‘conscience’ is the way it communicates with ‘them’.
When someone actually believes their conscience is telling them to do something, they might feel that unless they do that they might go to hell – a bit like suicide bombers who believe that if they die a martyr, they will be sent to the best place. Vote No to divorce and receive eternal bliss? Bargain! Liberalism never promised virgin cherubs or floating with angels.
Others might see the conscience as ‘something *insert apropriate institution here* says I must do’. So if the church says divorce is BAD, or their parents are against divorce, or their party says vote No, or vote Yes, they will do so.
This process of internalisation is so foreign to their consciousness, and they are so unaware of unconscious/sub-conscious motivators, that they need to refer to the mystical – hence the ‘conscience’ here becomes a label for their own psycho-dynamics.
Unfortunately, the cynic in me says actually a lot of people don’t harbour longing for heaven or hell and eternal bliss. They probably also realise that they are only repeating what others have said.
What they really are doing is presenting themselves as someone who is above everyone else – someone with ‘intergrity’ or ‘with sound religious values’, or someone who ‘believes in the family’.
Some might call this taking a ‘holier than thou’ attitude; I’m undecided if it’s a futile exercise in spin, or simple crass hypocrisy. Or all of the above.
Us Jedi call it the Force.
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110604/local/prime-minister-s-brother-to-vote-in-favour-of-divorce.368882
In the consultative referendum on divorce, the people were asked about what is a matter of conscience and NOT a political one.
When it comes to voting in parliament, MPs must vote according to what their conscience tells them.
[Daphne – NO. NO. and NO again. Why do you think it’s called the House of REPRESENTATIVES? Go on, give a wild guess. Even when they are not voting after a referendum, MPs don’t vote according to their conscience, but according to their constituents’ best interests. And take note that this does not mean WHAT THEY THINK IS BEST FOR THEIR CONSTITUENTS, BUT WHAT THEIR CONSTITUENTS THINK IS BEST FOR THEM.]
MPs: If the majority of Maltese people voted in a referendum in favour of abortion, would you vote in favour of abortion legislation to respect the will of the majority? You see how you MUST distinguish between what is a matter of conscience and what is a political one!
[Daphne – If I were an MP who is against abortion and if the electorate decides in favour of abortion, then I will resign my seat and make way for somebody who is prepared to respect the will of the people. Or I would vote Yes. There is no third option called defying the will of the people while still taking their money.]
I take it that either you will resign your seat or vote in favour of abortion which means that you may consider that option too – in favour of abortion. Disgrace! Furthermore, you must understand the difference between a mandatory referendum and a consultative one. For now I will ask you to research the difference between the two meanings in a democratic parliament. Later, I will give you an explanation, which you do need, with examples. Goodnight.
I take it you’re a CHRISTIAN filled to the brim with holiness! Just like many I have seen you lack. You talk just like the bishops…DISGRACE !
We all know what mandatory and consultative mean – the issue is : an MP is a representative who according to the democratic system must obey the will of the people and as such if the majority says YES he must obey and vice-versa. His conscience can be expressed during the referendum – surely MPs can vote just like anyone else.
In Parliament, they are AT WORK (if you can call it that ) – and they MUST LISTEN AND OBEY TO WHAT THE PEOPLE WANT – albeit creating provisions for the minority if it is significant to cater for as many people as possible.
Failure to listen to the people will more often than not bring in … trouble, in different ways of varying degrees.
If I were you, I would start by looking up the meaning of democracy.
Kudos to David for declaring his intention to vote in favour of this (draft) bill. As the Party Whip he served as a catalyst to lead other PN MPs to vote Yes.
I am sure it was a tough decision, but it is the right one. The will of the people must be respected.
Another significant YES:
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110604/local/prime-minister-s-brother-to-vote-in-favour-of-divorce.368882
Another very significant NO:
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110604/local/beppe-fenech-adami-to-vote-no.368890
If this thing these MPs are labelling ‘conscience’ is so severely hindering in the execution of their duties they should leave it outside when they go into parliament.
If they cannot do that then they are not fit for their job and should make room for someone else who is.