@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.

Joseph Muscat – he worked in the news like Captain Hindsight.

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/360430/captain-hindsight

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.

A better British name would be Vikram Patel.

[Daphne – Or Dennis Sammut, apparently.]

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.

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.]

[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.]

“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.