[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.

@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.

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…….

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.]

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)

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?

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.

“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.

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.

[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.