Today's star comment (so far)
This beautifully succinct explanation as to why no MP may vote No to the divorce bill or abstain from voting on it has been posted on my comments board.
——–
COGITO
To my mind, it would be a sort of quasi-”parliamentary dictatorship” were Parliament to fail to enact divorce legislation in defiance of the people’s decision.
MPs are delegated to legislate on our behalf because ordinarily a modern democracy cannot function for practical purposes on the lines of its original prototype where the Assembly (Ekklesia) made up of all Athenian male citizens met in the agora and spoke their minds and voted on the government of the polis.
But extraordinarily, in the case of a referendum, the Assembly of all citizens has met (virtually, by means of the polling booth) and voted.
No delegation to decide exists in this case as the decision was made directly by the citizens.
In such a case, it is my view that ALL MPs should simply endorse what the people have decided. They have not been delegated to decide on divorce but to enact it.
This delegation is necessary because the voting citizenry is not empowered to go through the iter of enacting a law (first and second reading, committee stage, third reading etc and assent by the President) but only Parliament is.
MPs may alter and, hopefully, improve the bill but they cannot refuse it in essence. The matter of conscience is totally irrelevant for each is morally responsible only for one’s decisions and not morally responsible for decisions legally and lawfully made by others, in this case the electorate.
It is my opinion that MPs who do not wish to enact divorce should not abstain but resign — this would be the truly ethical course of action. One cannot sit in Parliament and go against the will of the people as democratically and lawfully expressed.
Who can tell that there would not be a similar case in future?
No MP can claim that s/he represents electors who wish her/him to vote “No” because after a decision has been taken in a referendum an MP votes for all citizens and not only for her/his constituents.
I believe this will be a test of whether MPs really understand how democracy functions and what it really means. I am confident that our MPs, after the initial shock of discovering that the people do not agree with them, will come to understand this concept and see reason.
55 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
It seems that everybody is extremely worried that divorce legislation will not be enacted.
We will the last in the world to have it in place but I have no doubt that it will be in place.
What I am extremely worried and terrified about is how much more tax will taxpayers incur for divorcees to frolic around in these islands where poverty is rampant, as many confirm.
[Daphne – Are you paying for the separated women, VR? So then why do you assume that you will have to pay for the divorced ones, unless you shack up with them and they refuse to work?]
VR – poverty is ‘rampant’ – oh yes, and how. I am not disputing the fact that there may be people who are having a difficult time right now because bills are getting more expensive, but one has to accept the fact that the cost of living can only get higher.
What one can do is try and work out how one can cope.
As far as I know the state helps the really needy. If it means having to do without certain extras that is what we have to do, unless we are in a position to get a better-paid job.
Dear Daphne, it might seem that we are not paying for seperated women but we are definitely paying for those who cohabit, have a child, declare that the father is unknown and that they live separately and, at the same time, enjoy social security benefits.
To make matters worse the unknown father obtains unemployment benefits as well. No wonder the increase in government expenses.
If a divorced man dies and leaves one widow and a couple of older ex wives, who gets the widows’ pension? The last one or all three? Who will be paying if not the tax payer?
[Daphne – I find your comment deeply offensive to women. We live in a world where women earn their own living and have their own pensions. If you’re expecting a flood of divorces among that generation in which women never worked and are now too old to get a job, don’t hold your breath.]
Some young, self-styled single mums living on social security handouts are now trying to calculate on what the best bargain will be., staying single and getting the present existing handouts or getting married and then divorced with the taxpayer providing the guaranteed maintenance that comes with divorce. The mentality of the people in the south is such that they consider divorce as yet another social service to milk.
Not that I want to get my news from Malta Star, but could the numbers be true?
http://www.maltastar.com/pages/r1/ms10dart.asp?a=15670
Out of 35 PN MPs, only 5 are expected to vote in favour?
[Daphne – From what I hear, the situation is still developing. But if that turns out to be the case, then the Nationalist Party is finished from the moment its MPs vote. The Prime Minister immediately loses his authority and the two-year struggle to a heavy beating at the polls will seem endless. His position is weak enough, his government disliked enough, as it is. This one will finish him off. What John Dalli couldn’t do to him, he is about to do to himself. Amazing.]
If that is so, then the only honourable way is an election in six weeks’ time.
That would be a repetition of 2003 with different actors. Lawrence Gonzi in the place of Alfred Sant.
100% correct.
I can see Joseph as we speak, praying that only 5 PN MP’s vote to legislate.
It would be his one and only valid howl from here to 2013 :
“Gvern li ma jirrispettax ir-rieda tal-poplu !!”
… and I’ll give him my vote blindfolded in those circumstances.
I do not want to be led by a bunch of ayatollahs with no respect for democracy.
Funny thing is, they have already been told that with the results of the referendum.
Still, they seem to be oblivious to this fact.
Same conclusion: unfit to govern.
Any hint from Adrian Vassallo MP – PL ?
So come 2013 we choose between clueless thugs and pious prudes. It’s getting so frustrating.
Is there anyone within the PN fit to take over from Gonzi, do you think? This can’t be the best they can muster.
This is why I don’t like two-party systems: you’re bloody forced to vote for people you don’t want to be governed by for the simple fact that the alternative would be worse.
I’m about to embark on my Maltese citizenship application, although it feels more and more like a blessing not being able to vote.
Yes, I agree. If Labour while in government held a referendum on the EU and they chose to ignore the answer, we wouldn’t be in the EU. So if PN does that they’re just as dead to me as the Labour Party.
I hate to repeat: tthe time is ripe for a liberal party.
There’s never been a better time for another party but who? Surely not the AD? They come across more braindead than the two main parties.
@me
There are two liberal parties in Malta already.
http://www.freewebs.com/liberalalliance/
http://www.freewebs.com/alphaliberalparty/eldrpartyandotherlinks.htm
I hope you are right, Cogito.
I am more than willing to allow some initial leeway for the dust to settle down so to speak.
I am not that inhuman as not to understand the initial confusion of discovering that one’s personal fundamental beliefs are not accepted by the majority of the polulation who have elected you.
If all this “kuxxenzji” nonsense does not stop soon, I for one am never going to forget this.
There is a time-limit for feet to be stamped and wounds to be licked.
May I remind COGITO that in the previous referendum which concerned the issue of accession to the EU, was won by the yes vote, but even so, the then Labour Party voted against it in parliament.
[Daphne – Ma, marelli santa. Marelli, marelli santa. Yes, and the Labour Party is still paying the price today for its anti-democratic actions back then. It is still not trusted and its democratic credentials have long been sorely in question. The worst thing the Nationalist Party, or anyone else, can do now is justify the decision of some of its MPs to vote No or abstain on the grounds that ‘Alfred Sant did it too’. Fantastic!]
Don’t you think that the pressure being exerted on parliament to vote unanimously is a no go!!
Parliamentarians coming from districts which opposed the introduction of divorce, namely those from 11th and 13th, if I am not mistaken, should be allowed to vote as per district results.
This would still allow for the will of the people to be heard, that is, divorce is introduced.
[Daphne – Tal-ghageb.]
OK. So if we had to apply your logic the current government should have half a seat (because 1 seat usually translates into around 3,000 votes).
Additionally, whenever an Opposition MP is absent from Parliament, the PN whip would have to ask one of the PN MPs not to vote in order to reflect the vote in the last general elections.
Please excuse me for trivialising your argument, but I just want to illustrate that the application of your logic is in fact……trivial.
… u t-twerwir!
I wasn’t aware we became a federation last weekend.
With this reasoning, divorce legislation should not apply to the districts which had a “no” majority.
Correct if I am wrong but Labour voted in favour of accession to the EU, even if it did so after having refused to accept the result of the referendum.
[Daphne – No, Labour voted against.]
I can’t believe they’re still going on with this district and constituents nonsense. Daphne, you’ve explained it a million times and still people keeping writing the same crap.
Austin Gatt, Tonio Fenech, Adrian Vassallo e bella compagnia last Saturday in the referendum voted according to their conscience. In parliament they will not vote on their own behalf but as elected representatives of the people who, last Saturday, have opted to have divorce legislation. Is it so difficult to understand?
We elect MPs by choosing those whom for some reason or another we agree with his/her way of thinking …. so that they decide on our behalf … not necessarily always according to our opinion.
We elect MPs for a term and if we like their decision making we re-elect them.
No MP should feel as if he or she should vote YES because the majority said so… otherwise what’s the scope of having an Opposition.
If the majority of people elect a goverment basing itself on an electoral manifesto then all MPs, including those coming from the other party (therefore in “opposition”) should be compelled to vote in favour of the government’s policies, which I am aware is not the case!
[Daphne – Mr Gauci, your arguments apply ONLY in the normal course of parliamentary business. A vote after a decision has been taken in a national referendum is NOT normal parliamentary business. It is extraordinary, and the context is entirely different. When parliament decides that the representatives of the people should not take a decision themselves but that the people should do so directly, that’s it: the people have taken the decision directly. So that’s it. If our MPs wished to vote as they please or according to what their bleeding conscience tells them, they should not have held a referendum.]
The reason why most issues are decided by our representatives in parliament is because it would be too costly and time-consuming to have a referendum each time an issue crops up.
But when our representatives willingly decide to resort to the costly and time-consuming option (for whatever reason), they are morally obliged to stick to whatever decision the electorate takes.
If one were to accept your argument, maybe then those who voted against the holding of a referendum have the right to vote according to their conscience (bleeding or otherwise).
[Daphne – No. It is by YOUR reasoning, not mine, that the MPs who voted against a referendum can now vote according to the diktat of their conscience. I, on the other hand, understand that a decision by parliament is single and holistic and binds the whole of parliament and not just those members who voted for it. The same applies in a referendum: the decision is single and holistic and cannot be broken down on a district by district basis (this district voted No and the other voted Yes). Nor does it give special rights to those who voted No or entitle them to special consideration or representation of their views. ]
Whether on extraordinary or simply ordinary issues or situations, the MP may vote as it pleases him according to his conscience, opinion or simply convenience. He is there to agree or even disagree with the majority’s opinion.
[Daphne – I don’t know why I bother, but somehow I feel I have to. So here goes: an MP is the representative of his constituents. He votes in parliament not according to what he thinks, but according to what he believes his constituents think. He either votes with the party whip or not, depending on the situation. BUT when parliament decides that it does not wish to take a decision itself, and that the decision should be taken by the people directly and not by their representatives on delegation, a referendum is held. The decision-making role of the people’s representatives is thus superceded by the fact that the people have taken the decision themselves, so the MPs’ role becomes one of simple ‘ratification’ of a decision taken already by the people they represent. I hope you understand now, because I have really spelled it out.]
If they cannot express a NO or Abstain vote then why vote at all?
[Daphne – Oh my, I really need to take a couple of Syndol and go and lie down. WHY VOTE AT ALL? Because that’s the only way bills get made into law. The electorate can take a decision on a bill by direct vote in a referendum – hence eliminating the need of their delegated representatives to do so – but it cannot legislate. Let me just put it in an even simpler way: a referendum removes parliament’s decision-making function, but retains its legislative function.]
I think the PN has found itself between a rock and hard place with its attitude.
The democratic credentials of the party have already been dented when it tried to halt the referendum from even taking place, and now that it so vehemently opposed both referendum (with the exception of two MPs) and has taken an anti-divorce stand, it has put itself in a position where whatever vote it “collectively” takes will backfire.
A “yes” vote would make it look inconsistent. A “no” vote would make it look undemocratic. An abstention would make it look like a fence-sitter, attitude typically attributed to ‘New Labour’.
I also think it would be undemocratic to use the party whip to make Pullicino Orlando and Mugliett vote against the result of a referendum they approved of earlier.
I have a different point of view.
The PN can take whatever position it likes. It has its own statute, its own structure, its own leadership and its own membership.
But the Nationalist MPs – the Parliamentary group – form a different entity and they account for the majority of the legislative body. They have different rules of procedure and code of conduct. They even get a separate honorarium, and the cabinet members get a salary, out of public funds.
They are led by a separate leadership – the PM (who incidentally is the leader of the PN, that’s okay). In my view, that group is free to have a different position, based, in this case, on the result of the referendum in which the people has asked the MPs to legislate FOR divorce.
This is the traditional separation of party and government.
Isn’t it amazing? For all this talk of ‘conscience’ there’s precious little concern for the immorality of deceit and the gross irresponsibility of undermining the institutions and roles in which they are meant to serve.
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110601/local/marie-louise-coleiro-to-abstain-on-divorce-in-parliament.368377
In agreement with similar positions taken in this blog, I believe that an MP is free to express his personal views/convictions by means of casting his/her vote in the referendum. Once the result is announced, though, his personal judgement-call ceases to exist.
It becomes his paramount duty to follow the oath taken at the swearing-in ceremony on becoming a people’s representative, and act accordingly.
I don’t see that there is a question of U-turns or whatever. Every MP is expected to discern on this issue and come to the conclusion to approve a best possible bill that the free vote has asked for.
Spot on .
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110601/local/archbishop-urges-both-sides-of-divorce-debate-to-propose-concrete-measures-to-strengthen-families.368355
“Mgr Cremona said the Church, too, needed to reflect on its actions in view of a changing society.”
“Now that the people have taken their decision in the referendum, the Church respected the choice but society needed to move on from here.”
With the news of only 5 PN MP’s expected to vote Yes, am I to take these quotes and this news, as meaning that the PN MP’s think they are holier than Mr. Fire and Brimstone” himself by STILL insisting not to get it over with and move on ?
Un-bl-ood-y-believable.
Because I still believe that we have a healthier society without divorce I voted ‘no’ in the referendum. However, I believe that after Gonzi PN ‘washed their hands’ and let the people decide, if I were them, I would be ashamed of myself trying to wash my hands once more by abstaining or voting ‘no’, even after the Yes result.
And why all this fuss about their conscience? I believe the Nationalist Party has no competition, hence winning consecutively, but I also believe that there are other things which should have given their conscience a spot of bother.
It was reported on Malta Today that Mons Gouder, when talking on R.T.K.radio, said these exact words:
“…..abstaining in the referendum was IRRESPONSIBLE”.
” I feel that they (those who abstained) don’t care about the society they live in.”
[Daphne – I agree with him. As all my readers know by now, I think those who don’t vote are irresponsible. That’s why, in the next general election, if I find myself able to vote for only one candidate I will do so.]
I hope that this monsignor will now have the decency to say that he meant this not for only us but even for the members of parliament who represent us.
[….if I find myself able to vote for only one candidate I will do so.]
The coming days and the way ‘our representatives’ will be voting in parliament should be the litmus test of their democratic credentials.
As I have stated in an earlier post, all those who vote against or abstain should be voted out and new blood voted in their stead. Even if it means voting only the first preference.
J Scerri: the views I expressed are equally applicable to the situation as it was with the EU referendum. I did not and do not intend to express any partisan views here.
My views are purely based on theory of democracy, at least as I understand it. Had the majority voted “no” and some MP’s wanted to vote “yes”, I would have expressed the same opinions. I only intend to give my humble, two-cent contribution to the debate in the utmost good faith.
Regarding the claim that MPs of districts which returned a “no” majority may vote “no” to reflect their constituents’ wishes, may I point out that it is possible, in terms of the constitution and electoral laws which may be amended, that Malta (including Gozo) would become a single electoral district rather than being divided into 13 as at present.
In such a situation, the aforesaid claim would be impossible.
The division into districts is a matter of practical convenience and not intended to support a concept, which would be totally erroneous, that one can have a set of majorities and minorities in a single country.
The majority or minority is only one and indivisible.
It is well to remember that, in terms of the 1987 constitutional amendments, for the purposes of counting first preference votes to determine which party will govern irrespective of the number of candidates initially elected for each political party, Malta is considered as one single constituency.
I suggest that this should be the notion that prevails in the present case for in the referendum there were no candidates to be elected but it concerned only a simple decision on the referendum question and the division into districts did not come into operation.
As a matter of fact, all the ballots were identical and not differentiated as in the case of a general election.
And by the way. I did admit, whether right or wrong, that I was in favour of divorce before.
I really cannot see what the fuss is all about. The PM has already expressly said that the will of the majority will be respected. If some MPs feel they have to abstain because of their conscience, it is their right to do so.
Equally those voters who originally elected them to Parliament may wish to remember this when they come to vote for them again. I believe it is better to be honest with yourself and your electorate and stick to your principles then simply do what is politically expedient.
Of course, it would be totally unacceptable if the Divorce Law is not enacted – but clearly this will not be allowed to happen. So, I ask again, what is all the fuss about?
[Daphne – Can’t you see the flaw in your reasoning? You say that it is the right of all MPs to vote No or abstain, and then you say that it would be totally unacceptable if the divorce bill does not become law. You cannot reconcile the two. If all MPs have the ‘right’ to vote No or abstain, then you can’t base your arguments on hope that they will not exercise that right.]
[Alex Grech – I believe it is better to be honest with yourself and your electorate and stick to your principles then simply do what is politically expedient].
They are not paid to stick to their principles. They are paid to stick to ours. They are not kings. They are representatives.
Your argument is fine as long as there are a majority of MPs in the House who will vote ‘Yes’, which, in truth, seems to be the case.
I honestly cannot fathom why some MPs are throwing their toys out of the pram.
Their arguments about conscience are utter hogwash. They have already cast their No vote, and that should keep their conscience happy. Their vote in Parliament now is purely procedural – not an expression of an opinion.
By agreeing to let the people decide on this issue by means of a referendum, they have reduced their role to a mere “rubber stamp” on this issue.
Now they have no option but to act accordingly.
My conscience tells me that, come next elections, I cannot possibly vote for those MPs who will have voted in Parliament against the clear will of the people in the divorce law referendum.
You want your consience respected, fine, but then you’ll have to deal with mine and that of many others who think as I do.
… and that’s exactly why the Labour Party was voted out last time: sane people will not vote for anyone who goes against the clear will of the people.
I use the word sane very deliberately now, as the results of this referendum have clearly shown a HUGE shift in sanity aka maturity to sift through rubbish and do what is right.
I would say there has been even more sanity showing up than during and after the EU referendum.
Nationalist Party, beware. Keep on insisting on “kuxxenzji”, and I predict a very, very rapid and hard fall, even before 2013.
Daphne, I have been a harsh critic of yours since 2008, as many times I get the impression you are an apologist for this PN government, further exacerbating its incompetence.
However, I must admit that your democratic beliefs, your unequivocal position on immigrants and your sharp wit are what makes me participate actively is this blog.
I do hope you now begin to realise that well-meant criticism of this incompetent GonziPn lot does not stem from self-interest.
Just read what our ‘illuminati’ finance minsiter had to say about the way he’ll vote in parliament.
http://www.maltatoday.com.mt/news/national/finance-minister-%E2%80%98reserves-the-right%E2%80%99-to-abstain-or-vote-%E2%80%98no%E2%80%99-in-parliament
My word MaltaToday surely have a personal agenda against GonziPn but they have been right. I mean, honestly, can you really trust this guy?
[Daphne – Yes, I can trust him. But I can’t respect him. That’s the difference. Then again, I can neither trust nor respect the prime movers at Malta Today.]
I am a strong believer that Malta was spared the effects of the economic turmoil more out of our inherent conservatism than out of any government-induced policy prowess.
[Daphne – That’s not so. Please let’s not confuse issues. An inability to see why Malta should have divorce legislation and the belief that the Madonna cries depending on what you do or do not do does not make a person financially incompetent.]
Trust, you say? A person who jets off with prominent businessmen and when quizzed about says ‘I got permission from the prime minister’! A person (amongst others) who gives himself a raise! A person who will not shoulder the responsibility for the VAT debacle! A person who has no qualms about the issues just mentioned yet seems to hear Our Lady speak to him and his conscience only when it suits him!
I say that together with Austin Gatt, Tonio Borg, Edwin Vassallo and Dolores Christina, are the biggest liability to the PN.
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.
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
Wisely Dr Mario De Marco seems to have identified an excellent opportunity to bring himself forward in this current leadership vacuum we find ourselves in thanks to the incompetent team of the Gonzi-Galea Curmi-Tonio Fenech/Borg quango.
And by the way, what a priceless asset the party (most likely to be the Labour Party; as the PN burnt all the bridges) that will manage to convince Dr Debbie Schembri to appear on their party-ticket will gain.
[Daphne – She sure looks like Helena Dalli, my goodness. They could be sisters. That would create a lot of confusion.]
True, though my word what a difference in what lies between the ears!
I saw bits of Mario DeMarco on Bondi +.
I liked what I saw and he did give the impression that he would be voting if favour, having understood and accepted the concept.
[Daphne – Mario de Marco is the only MP, in the whole of parliament (both sides), who represents the thinking of the tens of thousands of people who make up the ‘coalition minority’ of support for the PN, but which makes the difference between whether it is elected or not. One MP out of 60+.]
And one MEP (Simon Busuttil) plus one high official (RCC).
Let me make myself clear, I voted ‘yes’ in the divorce referendum and was resolute about it.
BUT, it is very dangerous for people to expect that MPs should vote against their conscience on this matter, for divorce has moral implications.
[Daphne – Here we go again. The time for MPs to decide according to their conscience, dressing this up as what their constituents want, was BEFORE (or rather instead of) a referendum. Once a decision is taken in a referendum, that’s it. No more consciences and personal votes. No more deciding according to what your constituency wants. Divorce legislation is now a given and not a choice so MPs whose conscience is troubling them should resign, not abstain.]
A heavy responsibility now lies on MPs, especially those that have publicly declared in the past that they are against the introduction of divorce (this includes the PM and Austin Gatt).
What is the message given to society if these MPs (including the PM) join in the ‘ayes’ in division of parliament? They will show that they either do not have a consience (a level of existence comparable to any creature in the animal kingdom) or that they are voting against their own conscience. The burden of their sin in the eyes of the Catholic Church is greater then that of the majority of voters for they have betrayed their own conscience.
If they vote ‘nay’ they will challenge the will of the majority and are not fit for parliament. Dr Gonzi has hanged himself by a referendum which he himself willed.
@Jean
Helena Dalli is one of the few smart and intelligent Labour MPs, actually what surprises me is that she’s on the MLP side.
I have suggested in an earlier post that the honorable way out for the PM would have been to first enact the law and then allow for abrogation by referendum.
What would have been the position of the ‘nay’ sayers if the result would have been a ‘yes’ for abrogation with the same percentages ?
Dear Daphne, you are neither a moral authority, nor are you prophetic. I recall that you had predicted that the ‘No’ faction will win the referendum. It did not.
[Daphne – I predicted nothing of the sort. I made my observations based on surveys which repeatedly put the No and Yes votes as running neck and neck or with a slight lead, within the margin of error, for the Yes vote. Nor am I a moral authority, but I know ‘my electorate’ very, very well indeed. The Nationalist Party, for whom this part of the electorate votes, does not know it at all, not anymore.]
I believe in my Prime minister not because people have voted for him but because he has shown to be conscientious in the business of running the state. The moment he betrays his own conscience and votes ‘aye’ he becomes just another scoundral and rogue that abound in this country.
[Daphne – Better to betray one’s conscience than to betray one’s electorate. It’s a funny sort of conscience that tells you to vote against divorce legislation while at the same time telling you that it’s all right to ignore the result of a referendum, and then tells you again that it’s fine to criticise Sant for doing the same thing.]
I will always affirm that one’s conscience lies above the exigencies of the state and democracy. If you believe otherwise, I suggest you resurect Mr Hitler to solve our economic problems (admittedly, he was quite good at that when he was Chancellor).
[Daphne – Shame then, that it was supporters of the Nationalist Party who had sympathy with Hitler and Mussolini when they were in power. Had the Nationalist Party not changed dramatically since then, I would not have supported it. And had I been around in the 1930s, I would not have supported it either. Nobody in my family did. Your comparison is most unfortunate.]
Well, the way the PM and the rest of the Conservative faction of the PN MPs will vote in parliament on divorce legislation will show whether the PN has really changed dramatically in its admiration for Hitler and Mussolini.
[Daphne – The problems that the PN has been encountering recently with thousands of its supporters are the result of an edging-back to right-wing Italianate fascist thinking. The immediate and most obvious result of this is the near-total alienation of thousands.]
If the PN conservative faction joins the ‘ayes’ it will show that it does not have a conscience to speak of and may well be buried in history along with il Duce and die Fuhrer.
If thay vote ‘nay’ then they do not know the electorate as you have said, in which case, they should hand the leadership to Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando’s faction.
Dear Daphne,
If Dr Gonzi said they are going respect the people’s Yes vote I believe him and the divorce legislation will pass one way or another and that’s what it is most important.
[Daphne – No, it is not what is most important. Equally important is the survival of the Nationalist Party in a fit state to fight the next election and keep Joseph Muscat from becoming prime minister. The Nationalist Party does not capriciously sign its own death warrant in a vacuum.]
Now whether PN MPs vote all Yes or some vote No or abstain I see nothing wrong with that. After all that clown Muscat has been promising the Bloody Free Vote all along since he became the Great Leader. So where is the bloody free vote that he’s been talking for 3 years?
Not even a free vote for the motion of the referendum because the PL parliamentary group signed hush-hush a piece of paper and that was it. And our beloved Jeffrey and Mugliett voted with PL – how’s that ?
Did we vote for Pullicino Orlando and Mugliett on the Labour ticket? I know you’re going to stick to your guns, but this is honest opinion to this whole saga.