'The referendum result says Yes, therefore MPs say Yes or resign'

Published: June 2, 2011 at 10:09am

This has been posted on my comments board.

Mark Micallef Eynaud

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.




39 Comments Comment

  1. red nose says:

    I cannot understand why this argument should be dragged on and on and on. Is it possible that there is no understanding of the workings of a democratic parliament?

    The people – like when they shouted “Salbu Salbu” two thousand years ago – are sovereign and everybody knows the consequences of those “Salbu Salbu” –

  2. Mark-Anthony Falzon says:

    It’s actually a bit like pharmacists refusing to stock and sell condoms because their ‘conscience’ is at odds with contraception.

    • Kenneth Cassar says:

      Precisely. if your beliefs are in insurmountable conflict with the duties of your employment, the only honourable thing to do is to resign.

      • David says:

        No, Catholic pharmacists have the right, and I would say also say also the duty, not to stock and sell contraceptives.

        http://www.zenit.org/article-31763?l=english
        http://bioethicsandmore.blogspot.com/2010/08/re-what-can-catholic-pharmacist-sell-or.html

      • Kenneth Cassar says:

        [David – No, Catholic pharmacists have the right, and I would say also say also the duty, not to stock and sell contraceptives…].

        Thanks for wasting my time. I expected your links to be references to employment laws, and not to religious opinion.

        If you own a pharmacy, you of course have the right (although I’m not certain on this) to refuse to sell condoms. However, if you are employed in a pharmacy, the owner has the right to sack you if you refuse to sell them. You, as an employee, would have no say.

        MPs do not own parliament. They are employed in parliament. We are their employers. We decide. If they are unhappy with what we decide, they either leave immediately, or we “sack” them in the coming general elections.

        Is that clear enough?

      • La Redoute says:

        @ David

        It’s quite simple really – in professional life, professional duties come first. If you’re troubled by moral issues, consider this one: what is the moral justification of undermining the institutions you are meant to serve?

      • luciano says:

        well i am one who employs them too and i voted no….so should i sack them if they vote yes? a 34 -31 majority for the bill would still reflect the referndum results….or are we so arrogant as to ignore the will of the 46%? let it pass but a unanimous vote does not reflect the referendum no matter what

        [Daphne – I think I should go and do some potting (not pottering) in the garden at this point. But for the last time, Luciano, a referendum is not in the same class of democratic exercises as a general election. The result of a referendum, unlike the manifold results of a general election (government, opposition, constituency representatives) is single: and in this case it is Yes. There is no minority to be respected, and the prime minister must be regretting (or being made to regret) saying that. It follows, therefore, that the only vote an MP can give which reflects the referendum result is YES.]

      • Stefan Vella says:

        @Luciano

        Reverse the situation. If the NO vote won, how would you have respected the will of the minority that wanted divorce?

        @David

        A pharmacy in my area is owned by a born-again Christian (or whatever these Catholic groups call themselves). Condoms are on the counter – usually the place reserved for impulse buying. Business is business, even for a Catholic.

      • Kenneth Cassar says:

        [luciano – well i am one who employs them too and i voted no….so should i sack them if they vote yes?].

        No. If there is more than one employer (in this case, the electorate); they have an equal say; and they disagree on policy; a vote is taken. The majority wins. The minority has no say then. The employee who does not perform according to the policy of the majority is sacked.

    • Pat says:

      Not really.

      Pharmacists are perfectly free to choose what to sell and what not to sell in their shops.

      • Patrik says:

        Does a policeman have the right not to intervene during a crime, if his own conscience determines he doesn’t have to?

        Pharmacies are regulated for good reasons. They fill a service to distribute medicine to the populace and they can’t simply pick and choose what medicine to supply on a whim. I’m not one to advocate state control in many areas, but there are some basic services, such as police, healthcare and emergency services, where it’s a necessity.

        You don’t want to sell contraceptives? Fine. Don’t open a pharmacy.

    • Min Weber says:

      I think the comparison is limp.

      There is no “psychological contract” or “social contract” between a pharmacist and the public at large except that a pharmacist is bound to sell medicines. A packet of condoms is obviously not a medicine, so much so that on campus condoms are sold by a shop which is not a pharmacy… and they can be bought from vending machines placed in toilets in places of entertainment…

      On the other hand, in a democracy there is a social, or psychological contract between the electorate and their elected representatives.

      So, I repeat I think the comparison is not right.

      The problem in the current situation is that there are two types of referenda: those that give an opinion and those that give a decision.

      The one conducted in Malta gave an opinion.

      I am still not convinced that the logic of winner takes all applies in a consultative referendum.

      We need to elaborate further this line of reasoning, even though my gut feeling is that a referendum which gives the electorate’s opinion can not be morally (or legally) equated to a referendum which gives the electorate’s decision.

      There seems to me to be, hidden beneath the democratic veneer of the consultative referendum logic, the argument put forward by Adrian Vassallo: MPs are merely bound to take note of what the electorate thinks.

      This is indeed a very important point. Is it democratic for MPs to ignore the OPINION (not decision) of the majority of the people.

      And then again: is it the majority of the ELECTORATE or of those who cast a (valid) vote?

      The whole situation is tricky, and we need to discuss at further length, to elucidate the obscure issues.

      • Patrik says:

        “Contraceptives” covers more than just condoms.

      • Kenneth Cassar says:

        @ Min Weber:

        The comparison is very apt. An employee is bound to do his employer’s bidding, except in cases where what the employer orders his employee to do goes against the law.

        MPs do not own parliament. We are their employers. We decide.

        You must also keep in mind that “our” MPs abdicated their right to decide for us when they imposed a referendum. In essence, they told us that the issue is too hot for them to decide themselves (unlike a raise on their salary). So they left the decision to us. We have decided.

        And yes, in a referendum, the winner takes all. We don’t get 53% of a divorce just like we didn’t get 53% of an EU membership.

        Finally, you make a distinction between the electorate and those who cast a valid vote, asking whether those who did not cast a valid vote (or did not vote) should be factored in. The answer is simple, and I shall never tire of repeating it. Those who did not vote, or invalidated their vote, out of personal choice, abdicated their right to any say in the matter. They chose to have no opinion. Now they can’t pretend to have their (no) opinion respected.

  3. David says:

    Tha absolute majority of voters either voted no or abstained in the referendum. Whatever the referendum result, as the former president and prime mister has stated clearly, MPs must have the courage to uphold their convictions.

    [Daphne – Your reasoning is very, very flawed. It is the exact same reasoning Alfred Sant and Joseph Muscat used when they claimed that Partnership had won the EU membership referendum. By that same reasoning, Lawrence Gonzi shouldn’t be prime minister and Britain can never form a goverment because less than 50% of the electorate turns up at the polling stations.]

    We have seen heads of state adopt this courageous attitude, for example the King of Belgium and the Grand Duke of Luxembourg, who both refused to sign laws approved by Parliament. In this respect the position to be taken by Catholics is that they should not follow the majority view.

    [Daphne – You are speaking about individuals who hold positions of privilege (royalty) and not the elected representatives of the people. Again, your thinking is confused. The King of Belgium abdicated for a day so as not to interrupt the proper progress of legislation. If MPs wish to follow his example, then they too should resign. Their problem is that, unlike the King of Belgium, they can’t vacate their seat for the day but must resign it for good, or at least until they are elected again.]

    ” … ethical relativism, in which some people even see one of the principal conditions for democracy because, they feel, relativism guarantees tolerance and mutual respect. … But if this were true, the majority at any given moment would become the ultimate source for law, and history shows with great clarity that majorities can make mistakes. …

    When the fundamental essentials are at stake: human dignity, human life, the institution of the family and the equity of the social order (in other words the fundamental rights of man), no law made by men and women can subvert the norm written by the Creator in man’s heart without society itself being dramatically struck … at its very core. …

    If, by reason of a tragic clouding of the collective conscience, skepticism and ethical relativism managed to annul the fundamental principles of natural moral law, the very democratic order itself would be profoundly undermined at its foundations”
    http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/majorities_make_mistakes_natural_law_must_be_the_guide_of_civil_society_asserts_pope_benedict/

    The Church also teaches that divorce is a grave offence against the natural law.

    If MPs are forced to vote against, or hindered from, voting acoording to their convictions based on their beliefs and the common good of the family and society, the fundamental human right of freedom of conscience and democracy itself will be seriously undermined and breached.

    [Daphne – Do you know the meaning of a shariah state, David? Well, then, you’d better hit the internet again and find out. MPs are not there to vote according to their religious beliefs. They are there to legislate according to the will of the electorate. Nobody can force them to vote Yes. They have an alternative: resignation. But they want to hang on to all those MP perks, and that is why they are twisting and turning in their reasoning so as to both hold on to their seat and vote No or abstain.]

    • Kenneth Cassar says:

      [David – The absolute majority of voters either voted no or abstained in the referendum].

      U l-partnership rebah.

    • David says:

      In the EU referendum the Labour party gave its supporters three options, if I remember correcly, voting no, abstaining or giving an invalid vote. In the divorce referendum nearly one third of voters did not vote, slightly more than one third of voters voted yes and the rest voted no.

      [Daphne – David, parties can’t give their supporters ‘options on how to vote’. The law does that: Yes or No. It is very difficult to take you seriously if you honestly believe that an abstention was a vote for Partnership just because Alfred Sant said so, that ‘giving an invalid vote’ was a vote for Partnership, and that people who voted No were all Labour supporters. Democracy was hard won but truly, some people do not deserve it. I honestly believe that people like you (and some members of the Nationalist Party, from what I can see) would be happier living in a benign dictatorship, being told what to do and how to do it, possibly by cranks.]

      On more than one occasion, Presidents of Italy have refused to sign laws approved by Parliament and they did not resign from office. http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2003/dec/16/silvioberlusconi.pressandpublishing

      [Daphne – Italy is one of the least democratic places in Europe. Please don’t quote Italian democracy – which gives them porn stars as MPs and a pervert facing criminal prosecution as PM – at me.]

      The argument of Sharia law is misleading as, to my knowledge, there is no Catholic Sharia law.

      [Daphne – Yes. There. Is. Ideally, the Catholic Church would have ‘Catholic nations’ run according to Catholic law. We saw this just now with the fight against divorce. For the greater part of the last 2000 years in Catholic Europe, the laws of the church were the laws of the land. There was no distinction. But then Europe went through a period of Enlightenment which eventually led to the distinction between church and state. The state ‘fought off’ (if you wish) religious laws and made its own. Those religious laws, however, remain much the same and the Catholic Church continues to expect its followers to adhere to them, though now it cannot use the force of state law to do so. Malta’s lack of divorce legislation is one example of ‘shariah law’. Another example is the lack of civil marriage before 1975. More examples: adultery and sodomy were criminal offences, punishable at law. These all grow out of religion. The law against theft, on the other hand (and as one example) does not grow out of religion but out of property rights.]

      So, according to your premise, is Malta now a Sharia state as (till today at least) there is no divorce law? If this is the case, how did Malta be a Member State of the EU?

      [Daphne – One ‘shariah’ aspect does not make a shariah state, David. And Malta’s stance on divorce has been looked at askance by our neighbours for years. Just look at the coverage it’s getting right now in the international press: as though we’re a bunch of weird freaks and the lack of divorce legislation was our decision and not something that was imposed on us by people who wouldn’t listen and still think they know best.]

      • A.Attard says:

        Even before the enlightenment there were the Guelphs and Ghibellines.

      • David says:

        It is good to know that one of the largest countries of Europe, a founder member of the European Community and our closest European neighbour is one of the least democratic countries in Europe. And we thought that the democracy is essential to join the EU! I hope the Italian ambassador in Malta doesn’t read this.

        [Daphne – Why not?]

        It is equally good to know that the religion of Malta, as stated in our fundamental law, is inherently undemocratic. It is a pity that many think that the Catholic Church suffered under and fought anti-democratic regimes in many countries!

        By the way it is true that in the divorce refendum il-partnership (ie il-partners) rebah!

      • Kenneth Cassar says:

        [David – It is equally good to know that the religion of Malta, as stated in our fundamental law, is inherently undemocratic].

        Now that you mention it, a lecturer who happens to be “tal-Muzew” stressed that point to his class (during a lecture on Project Management). He stressed that the Church is not democratic, and shouldn’t be expected to be so. Of course, he was right.

      • dudu says:

        It is not true that Italian presidents refuse to sign laws – they send them back to the two chambers for reconsideration when those laws result to be uncostitutional. Given that Italian governments often include some shady characters, this happens quite regularly.

      • Patrik says:

        “It is a pity that many think that the Catholic Church suffered under and fought anti-democratic regimes in many countries!”

        It’s more of a pity to realise that it has supported quite a few too.

      • Chris says:

        There are two things which worry me about David’s view.

        1. He hasn’t yet realised that Italy is one of the most undemocratic countries in Europe and that Berlusconi is on a par with the Polish President when it comes to being an embarrassment to his country.

        2. Why is he getting so hot under the collar? I can fully understand that the concept of divorce goes against his moral principles. I cannot accept that he is so upset that this option is offered to others.

        I got equally offended with the No poster showing a child asking voters to vote No on his behalf. I can think of nothing more patronising then a parent self-righteously voting on the child’s future and deciding what options that child should be allowed to have as an adult.

        As some other correspondents have pointed out we truly need to begin to understand the concept of democracy.

      • Jean Azzopardi says:

        Check out the Democracy Index : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index

        Italy is only 29 on the list, below a number of European countries, and is listed as a Flawed Democracy.

        (Although, looking at how the MPs are planning to vote now, I wonder about the accuracy of placing Malta 15th on the list)

      • Neil Dent says:

        No, Sant and Muscat had no right or power to give those options, let alone then assume 100% ownership of the abstentions and invalid votes when the results were out.

        What an embarrassing and cringe-worthy day that was.

        They even tried to add a load of residents of the Addolorata cemetery for good measure.

        And if it hadn’t been for hindsight…….

    • Kenneth Cassar says:

      [David – ethical relativism, in which some people even see one of the principal conditions for democracy because, they feel, relativism guarantees tolerance and mutual respect. …]

      This has nothing to do with ethical relativism. It has all to do with who decides. In a democratic referendum, the majority decides. Of course, you will insist that it is religion that should decide.

      [David – But if this were true, the majority at any given moment would become the ultimate source for law, and history shows with great clarity that majorities can make mistakes. …]

      So what do you propose? A dictatorship?

      [David – When the fundamental essentials are at stake: human dignity, human life, the institution of the family and the equity of the social order (in other words the fundamental rights of man)]

      Very subjective. I (along with the majority – those who did not vote abdicated their right to an opinion) happen to believe that divorce, at the very least, does not harm human dignity, human life, the family and equality. In many cases it might actually improve them.

      So since we have very divergent opinions on morality, who decides? In a democratic referendum, its the popular vote. In a religious dictatorship, it would be the archbishop or the pope.

      [David – no law made by men and women can subvert the norm written by the Creator in man’s heart without society itself being dramatically struck … at its very core. …]

      I won’t stop you from believing in norms written by a “creator”. All I expect in return is that you don’t impose on the rest of us beliefs that lack any evidence.

      [David – If, by reason of a tragic clouding of the collective conscience, skepticism and ethical relativism].

      Stop right there. I’m an atheist, but certainly not an ethical relativist. I believe I am right and you’re wrong, and that it is your reasoning that is clouded. So once again, who decides? In a referendum, its the popular vote.

      [David – …managed to annul the fundamental principles of natural moral law, the very democratic order itself would be profoundly undermined at its foundations]

      And I suppose you believe that its the Church that decides the “fundamental principles of natural moral law”.

      That’s the problem with people like you. You are people of one book, and can’t even conceive of the idea that you might actually be mistaken. But if the pope conveniently says he’s infallible, who am I to say otherwise? Right?

      [David – The Church also teaches that divorce is a grave offence against the natural law].

      I would like an explanation of that. What do you mean by “natural law”? I ask because I suspect you define it differently. In my definition, marriage does not even feature, let alone divorce.

      [David – If MPs are forced to vote against, or hindered from, voting acoording to their convictions based on their beliefs and the common good of the family and society, the fundamental human right of freedom of conscience and democracy itself will be seriously undermined and breached].

      The fundamental right to freedom of conscience gives them the right to resign. The fundamental rights of democracy are undermined if the will of the electorate, as expressed in the referendum, is ignored.

    • Patrik says:

      “Tha absolute majority of voters either voted no or abstained in the referendum.”

      Funniest comment in a long time. That you can say something so dumb and still use a keyboard is beyond me.

      Oh if only stupidity was painful.

    • Antoine Vella says:

      David, you say that “MPs must have the courage of their convictions”. I would accept this and respect them for their strength of character if they resigned from Parliament rather than vote in favour of divorce legislation.

      Their admirable sacrifice would send a message far more powerful than any billboard or thundering parish-priest.

      [Daphne – I agree. And that is exactly what I mean. Faced with a choice between overriding the will of the people and transgressing against their religious beliefs, a decent and honourable person would resign, and not choose the lesser of what he considers to be two evils. However, I am concerned that many of those MPs do not even consider overriding the will of the people to be an evil, so they see themselves as choosing between something quite acceptable and the Great Evil Of Divorce.]

      What we seem to have, however, are some MPs wanting to oppose divorce legislation without giving up anything, without paying any price. That’s hardly ‘courageous”, is it?

  4. M. says:

    I would hate to call her a woman of principle, because I do not deem her to be so, especially given what looks like a hypocritical stance on the divorce issue, but … http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110602/local/marie-louise-coleiro-preca-says-she-will-not-be-election-candidate.368526

  5. jb says:

    As pitiful as it may be, not surprised that you get the odd Edwin Vassallo or Adrian Vassallo, with this sort of argument. You will find these sort of oddballs in every parliament. But when it’s coming from the PM and his Finance Minister, then the situation is untenable.

    If the Nationalist Party wants to at least stand a fighting chance next election, Gonzi should stick to his moral ground and resign, and a new fresh leader should take over. Otherwise it’s going to be a Sant/EU saga rerun.

    • el bandido guapo says:

      I’m quite liking Mario De Marco actually. I hope he has a bright future ahead of him.

      I sensed that Gonzi has a “knows what’s best for us” attitude when the speed cameras issue came up again relatively recently – in the form of a suggestion that the speeds may be adjusted upwards – and he, as PM of a country let us not forget, came out all in defence of the current pathetic speed restrictions (calling them limits is not appropriate).

      We don’t need such condescension, thank you very much.

      And now, this. If we wanted a bishop as PM I suppose we could have voted for one.

  6. Stephen Forster says:

    Thank you once again for making it plain and clear, however exasperating to some people. Members of the house have no choice but to enact the result of the referendum or resign their position and make way for real politicians.

    What part of ‘the YES vote carried the day’ do they not understand?

  7. Joe Micallef says:

    I am nothing more than a DIY political analyst, but having watched Muscat yesterday on TX and the following the news about party members today (which confirms some colourful PL insider info I heard through the grapevine following last Sunday), I might have got this one right.

    Muscat is between a rock and a hard place, and is probably regretting his stupid decision to tell everybody that within 5/6 years time he would put forward a private member’s bill.

    One passage I really liked in his performance of yesterday was when he thought of mentioning that Gonzi is a confessional leader but, given the voting patterns of last Saturday, must have realised that he could not give the full explanation of what confessional means. So he settled to say that Gonzi is a confessional politician because he said NO.

  8. Herbie says:

    A very valid point.

    I honestly cannot understand how in today’s day and age we still have people, and members of Parliament at that, who cannot make a distinction between state matters and religious matters.

    I am a practising Catholic and intend to remain so but with a clear conscience I voted Yes.

    In voting Yes, no matter what, in adherence with my faith, I will not divorce even if I have to grin and bear the turbulance there might be in my married life. But that is my and only my choice which I as a true Christian should not impose on others.

    My 15 year old daughter taking her Matsec in Religion next year remarked that in her religion studies she has learnt that the Catholic faith respects freedom of choice of one’s religion. Is this just lip service?

    Members of Parliament are there to legislate for the good of all the community, practising Catholics or not, and the interests of the minority must be safeguarded.

    Those members of Parliament who abstain will be shrinking from their duty whilst those voting No will be going against the wish of the majority. Should they do so neither of them deserves to occupy the position that they occupy.

  9. Stephen says:

    As I see it, MPs are no longer being asked whether they agree with the introduction of divorce or not. They delegated this decision to us, the electorate, and we told them what we wanted.

    Now they are voting on whether they agree with implementing the will of the majority or not. I honestly can’t understand why so many mature, intelligent and experienced men and women – yes, I’m being nice about all our MPs here – cannot understand this. Will we know who voted yes, no or abstained?

    Anyone who does not vote Yes in parliament, irrespective of whether the “will of the majority is respected” or not, is not worthy of a place in the House of Representatives. He / She will certainly not get my vote in the next election.

  10. Kenneth Cassar says:

    History repeating itself?

    “Supporters of the Nationalist party celebrated the result of the (EU) referendum but the Labour leader Alfred Sant did not concede defeat and said the issue would be settled at the upcoming general election.

    He argued that only 48% of registered voters had voted yes and that therefore a majority had opposed membership by voting no, abstaining or spoiling their ballot. The day after the referendum the Prime Minister called the election for the 12 April as expected, though it was not required until January 2004.

    The main issue in the 2003 election was EU membership and the Nationalist party’s victory enabled Malta to join on the 1 May 2004.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maltese_European_Union_membership_referendum,_2003

  11. lino says:

    I agree with Weber’s opinion above.

Leave a Comment