U l-Partnerxipp rebah
When Partnership won the referendum....
It is really, really sad to see some of those who voted No in this referendum clinging to the sort of mad reasoning used by Sant and Muscat (and George Vella) in the EU referendum to claim that ‘partnership’ won the day.
The argument among these people who won’t accept defeat, or the fact that if you don’t bother to vote you don’t count, is that if you take the population as a whole, then less than 50% voted Yes.
Look at this comment from timesofmalta.com’s comments board.
Mr David Smith
Today, 10:28
38% of persons entitled to vote, voted in favour of divorce. 62% either voted against or did not vote. Let’s consider a few other facts. A sizeable percentage of the Yes vote, did so in support of their leader. An even larger percentage voted to spite the Church. The 38% figure in favour is therefore even smaller. What majority are we talking about here? What mandate given to Parliament by the people? All MPs would do well to consider these facts during the committee stage! This whole saga is turning into a farce. Why is Dr. Muscat calling on the Prime Minister to change direction – is he perhaps afraid that Catholics will secretely blame the Labour Party for the introduction of divorce in Malta, and show their disapproval, come next general elections?
Then there are the ones – increasing numbers of them it seems from radio phone-ins – who have drawn comfort from the chaos surrounding the parliamentary vote, actually praying (no doubt to a crying Madonna) that a sufficient number of MPs will vote No to overturn the referendum decision.
I don’t even want to think about what’s going on at Borg In-Nadur.
15 Comments Comment
Machiavellian is the word.
A real Macchiavellian plot would be much more subtle and sophisticated than this. As in conjuring, the difficult part in politics is not performing a trick but not letting people see how it’s done.
I was referring to David Smith’s comment, not any MP.
The “Machiavelian” bit is this:
“38% of persons entitled to vote, voted in favour of divorce”.
While this is factually correct, many people (judging from online comments) would not even notice that its an irrelevant fact.
By David Smith’s reasoning, most governments in Europe are illegitimate.
Mr Smith, to quote Capt Edmund Blackadder “Have you ever visited planet earth?”
With this logic, and extending it slightly: if after a general election my preferred party does not make it to government, then I can safely claim that I do not “recognise” the government and any legislation it pushes through parliament…hence I will not pay taxes etc.
There is only one democratic option in this mess: the parties enforce the whip and parliament rubberstamps the proposed legislation (with all the necessary technical amendments). Once they waived their representation rights they cannot claim them back.
As the coarse Maltese expression hasit, “Iriduha hobbla u tredda”.
Here’s another gem from David Smith:
“Mr David Smith
Today, 11:40
There’s a very simple difference between the EU referendum and the divorce referendum.
The first was abrogative (i.e. the result was binding on Parliament), the latter was consultative, which means that Parliament sought the views of voters. The result shows that only 38% of eligible voters want divorce. If one were to analyse the figures, the true percentage would be closer to 30%. Should Parliament legislate blindly in favour of divorce because 30% of all eligible voters say it should? Or should Parliamentarians act maturely and continue with the discussion on the issue, consider its effects on family unity, its effects on children, the impact on society in general, and the demands on the national economy, If divorce were to be introduced, should it be no-fault and available to anyone, or should it be limited to a select number of cases, as in marital violence, family abondonment, adultery? The referendum should not be treated as the end of the discussion, but the start of a national debate”.
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110603/local/special-procedure-for-divorce-bill-in-parliament-under-consideration.368691
Incredible! The idiot thinks the EU referendum was ABROGATIVE! Someone please tell him that prior to the EU referendum, Malta was not an EU member.
So, is this David Smith chap “intelligenti” and “wajs” in a southern-Mediterrenaean value kind of way?
[Daphne – Do you honestly believe that just because he used the name ‘David Smith’ then he’s British? If he is, then he must lead a very sad life to be so overly preoccupied with the outcome of a divorce referendum in Malta.]
Well, I assumed that he was British and that with a name like David Smith he wasn’t German.
[Daphne – I get people on this site calling themselves all sorts of things, including Moshe Dayan. An umaginative person who wants an English-sounding nick will go for David Smith. It’s one step up from John.]
A better British name would be Vikram Patel.
[Daphne – Or Dennis Sammut, apparently.]
@Interested Bystander: That made me chuckle, I’ll admit.
Either way, I’m not too sure why Maltese people would opt for a British surname. All it means is that you’re probably the son of a sailor from yesteryear, when they fought the good war by having a hefty amount of children.
This coming from someone who carries one of these surnames. While not self loathing or really bothered by it, it’s not something that makes me hold my head up high.
Or worse, vote no in the divorce referendum.
May the Almighty God, in his infinite mercy, grant David Smith the benefit of HINDSIGHT. From previous experience, this miracle may take some time to manifest itself, and cases of up to 5 years have been documented.
Joseph Muscat – he worked in the news like Captain Hindsight.
http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/360430/captain-hindsight
The people were asked their opinion on divorce. They voted ‘yes’.
Our MPs who could not settle it in parliament now should have a clean conscience when voting “Yes ” as we are a democracy and they should bow to the majority.
I wish they give as much pririority to their conscience in other more important matters……such as about corruption.
This is great reasoning, so one can also safely say that only 36% voted against divorce, the greater majority of 64% voted either in favor or not at all. Statistics statistics.