Does anyone out there know which the correct version is?
The internet editions of The Times and Malta Today are both carrying reports of a radio interview earlier today with Eddie Fenech Adami.
They differ on what is perhaps the most crucial point, and timesofmalta.com is actually running a headline saying that ‘EFA’ (ghastly – as if anyone calls him that, like DSK or JPO) hopes that MPs will block the bill. If you heard the interview and picked up on this, please would you post a comment?
timesofmalta.com, this afternoon:
President Emeritus Eddie Fenech Adami hopes that, in spite of the referendum result in favour of the introduction of divorce, MPs would still vote against in Parliament blocking its introduction.
maltatoday.com.mt, this afternoon:
Fenech Adami says he is not suggesting that the result of the referendum – in which 53% voted in favour of a divorce bill tabled in parliament – should be ignored. “But the referendum is consultative and doesn’t oblige MPs.”
86 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
I always had a great admiration for our “hero” Dr. Eddie Fenech Adami. However, in my opinion, this is a very dangerous statement.
My admiration for him stopped when he was made President.
From then on, it was downhill all the way. When are these people going to learn to let go?
Both make me shiver…
Hi Daphne, excuse me for posting the following statement again but I feel that, if reported correctly, this statement is as shocking as the other quoted above:
‘[Eddie Fenech Adami] said he believed the church had succumbed to the people’s attitude that they could decide for themselves.’
It is difficult to reconcile this statement with what Eddie Fenech Adami had come to represent for those who believe in freedom and self-determination.
So what was it all about in the 80s if not the will of the majority?
He has done us a lot of good, but the buck stops here; otherwise we will lose all principles.
Good question. Many believed, then, that it was a quest for power at all costs.
Looks like they were right all along.
The most important statement of the greatest democrat of all times who gave us the choice between brands of chocolate (and many other freedoms…) is that he hopes MPs will vote AGAINST the introduction of divorce despite of the referendum result…. because John Paul II said that we are moving towards the dictatorship of relativism etc. etc. etc.
http://www.alisonbezzina.com/divorce-votes-conscience-11/
I’m pretty sure he would’ve issued a statement if that’s a misquote, no? Seems like he must be losing it a little bit lately.. spewing these kinds of comments. Not like him at all.
Hear it for yourself here.
http://www.alisonbezzina.com/divorce-votes-conscience-11/
My ears bled, and am pretty sure yours will too!
As a teenager I put all my hopes in Eddie to free Malta from Mintoff’s tyranny. I shouted his name invoking the freedom we so desperately deserved and lauded him endlessy when he delivered.
@Eddie – You could have been the greatest and most respected politician to ever serve this island – a beacon of democracy in a sea of mediocre, self-righteous and greedy politicians. Sadly, it transpires, you are no better than the rest.
Your reputation will be forever tarnished in my memories.
Does it really matter? The gist is essentially the same.
11 June 2011
17.45h
di-ve.com does not even mention the particular aspect/opinion attributed to Prime Minister Emeritus and President Emeritus Edward Fenech Adami.
http://www.di-ve.com/Default.aspx?ID=72&Action=1&NewsId=83934&newscategory=33
There is a 53 second recording on http://www.alisonbezzina.com/
“Listen to the part where Dr. Fenech Adami says that he hopes that Parliament block divorce, despite the referendum result.”
Whichever is the correct version it boils down to the fact that he is trying to influence the vote of the MPs.
Dear Eddie, please keep out of it. We admired,and even loved you, and we still do. Wasn’t it you who taught us that the will of the people is supreme? And rightly so.
You have done more than what duty required, and for this we are eternally grateful. Why don’t you enjoy your well deserved retirment and bow out, gracefully, from the public scene? There are others to continue from where you left off. Let us remember you for the good you have done for our country, which is more than enough.
I believe both are correct.
Maybe BFA can ask EFA and enlighten us further……
I just heard the recording. He specifically states that he hopes that Parliament blocks divorce.
http://www.alisonbezzina.com/divorce-votes-conscience-11/
It seems that the timesofmalta.com version is more accurate:
http://www.alisonbezzina.com/divorce-votes-conscience-11/
In il-Gens illum, Fr. Joe Avellino has a different opinion
<>
http://www.il-gensillum.com/news.asp?issue=89&newscat=15&news=8663
Maltese politics have seen some strange happenings over the years but Fenech Adami doing a Sant takes the cake.
Very sad indeed.
Andrew Azzopardi: “Jekk il-membri parlamentari jiddeciedu b’maggoranza illi il-ligi tad-divorzju ma tidholx… ipotetikament qed nghidu sewwa…”
Eddie Fenech Adami: “Nispera li hekk hu”
I am starting to suspect that for this man the ends justifies the means and that it has always been so. I heard the broadcast and it is frightening. Only an ayoutallah would have spoken in such a manner.
Get it in context, it’s an old bloke getting closer to the end of his life and he wants to go to heaven.
Chill out folks.
Maybe because we look to Britain for everything we do, but it seems the Fenech Adami-Gonzi tandem is increasingly becoming similar to the Thatcher-Major one.
Both Fenech Adami and Thatcher ended up disillusioned with the result of the change they themselves brought about.
Both Major and Gonzi were good administrators but poor political leaders, and in both cases the former ended up as a liability to latter.
“Emeritus”…I thought we had gone over that before on this blog?
This is a clear case of Roman Catholic dogma clouding what should be reasoned opinion. Sadly Eddie is clearly in a bubble, believing with religious conviction that his stance is right, at least in the eyes of his God. That is all that matters to him.
May he and others like him realise that the children have come of age and can carry our decisions squarely on our own shoulders.
And we laugh at KMB and his anti-EU fixation.
Spoken like a true fundamentalist.
I believe Eddie should have bowed out gracefully a long time ago, when he resigned as PM. Now people will remember him for this more than they will remember him for his achievements. Me and my friends chanting ‘Eddie’ on the Fosos now seems like a century ago not eight years ago.
Those bemoaning PN’s Eddie days should think twice. Eddie as PM would have been even more anachronistic with his ideas than Gonzi in 2011.
I’m actually surprised Maltatoday’s reportage is ‘milder’ than Timesofmalta. Maltatoday is normally the eager one to paint anything related to PN in a bad picture. I strongly disagree with both, but the latter’s statement is certainly stronger!
” He also said that the party’s soul could be imperiled by some “loose language” from liberals who could drag the party away with a current of moral relativism.”
If there’s any dragging to be done, it’s the PN away from winning the next elections.
“I always said that the electorate will size you up come election time. Every MP will be gauged by the electorate, which will ask if they can trust MPs or not,” Fenech Adami.
Quite right.
They’ll be judged on how much they can be trusted to uphold democracy.
It seems clear to me that, all along the years, his determination was that Malta should be a confessional state governed according to Catholic doctrine, a strategy which was never, to my knowledge, declared explicitly.
Make no mistake, if divorce becomes law, the anti-divorcists will still not give up. Plans are probably being hatched to collect enough signatures to force an abrogative referendum after the next elections.
X’inhi d-differenza bejn Alfred Sant u Eddie Fenech Adami? Sant ried li ma naghtux kas ir-referendum tal-Ewropa. Fenech Adami jrid li ma naghtux kas ir-referendum tad-divorzju.
Allura mhux x’inhi d-differenza kellek isaqsi, izda x’ghandhom l-istess Fenech Adami u Sant … imma nsomma. tfettiq nghidulu dan.
Has Dr Fenech Adami completely lost the plot or did he always believe the things he is now saying? I am horrified that he of all people should be saying these things.
It is the sort of drivel I expect to hear from the likes of KMB or Ahmedinejad.
Unfortunately his successor is not talking very differently and I’m quite sure he also hopes the divorce bill will not make it, even if he pretends otherwise.
It looks like in the next election we will be forced to choose between socialist/communist despots and religious nutjobs. I honestly don’t know which is the worst.
One of the few remaining reasons to vote for PN is that the PL is far more technically incompetent when it comes to the nuts and bolts of running the country.
Daphne or anyone else on the blog, can you please enlighten us who in Eddie’s family has benefited from a church annulment ? I guess as Coleiro Preca’s stand against divorce made her colorful past love life of public interest so does Eddie’s comments make it in the public interest that we know about the annulments. Thanks.
[Daphne – Wrong comparison. It would be relevant if Eddie Fenech Adami had had his marriage annulled, or if had had broken up somebody else’s marriage, or married somebody who had had her marriage annulled. But what his children do is neither within his control nor relevant, nor is it fair on them to drag them into the equation because of their father. If his son Beppe’s life is open to scrutiny, then that is because he is a politician in his own right, and not because of his father. And he hasn’t had a marriage annulled anyway, nor has his wife. I will say this and only this – and then only because he played an active part in the counting-hall: that it was ridiculous and embarrassing to have Michael Fenech Adami, another son, rooting at the counting-hall on referendum day for the No vote, when he has had one marriage annulled and is looking to have his second annulled too. It is the way the form and function of religion blinds some people to reality that I find upsetting: annulments are fine because the Church said so. Divorce is wrong because Jesus said so. But the end result is the same.]
He is not suggesting that the result of the referendum be ignored, but hopes that Parliament votes out the bill no matter what the people said. Which is it to be? To have lived through all the turmoil in the ’80s and now ended up here … What an anti-climax. I just cannot believe this.
I agree with what the former PM said this morning. I already explained last week that a distinction has to be made between moral issues and political issues.
An MP has the right to vote according to his conscience on such matters. I referred to it as a conscience vote because that is how they refer to it in other countries. Political parties allow their MPs to vote freely on such matters. If I were an MP, I would vote according to my conscience and then the people will give their verdict on how I voted at a general election as they will assess JPO’s performance over the past three years and the next two.
This is really dangerous , I think there is something fishy about it …Trying to push his Son to lead the PN? Ghax trid tkun mignun biex tghid dawn l-affarijiet !
There comes a time in every leader’s political life in which he/she needs to call it a day. In this manner they bow out with honour.
This type of absurd comment can risk tarnishing the great and unforgettable good this man has brought upon to this country.
If someone can give him some advice please ask him to refrain from these ‘silly’ outings.
Notwithstanding this, he was, is and will probably remain the best politician this country has ever seen but unfortunately we all have an expiry date.
Sometimes politicians and leaders need to learn when it’s time to leave and to do so gracefully.
Whichever version, senility (with a little touch of Jesus) eventually overtakes us all.
Good Day Mr.Purdie,
At which juvenile age does senility possibly take over?
How old are you, Mr Said?
No Harry. It’s neither senility nor a “little” touch of Jesus. Daphne mentioned it in a recent comment and it hit me like a diamond bullet. Right from the start, the driving force behind Fenech Adami’s political objectives was his deep faith in the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.
Let him keep his ‘faith’, El Topo. Bin Laden also had ‘faith’. The present conundrum has, now, nothing to do with ‘faith’. The people have spoken. He should ‘butt out’. Please read Daphne’s piece in The Malta Independent today.
I am just offering an explanation, Harry. I’m totally in synch with what Daphne wrote in The Malta Independent.
Pity Eddie Fenech Admi has to sully his good name for his love of theocracy.
To hell with which version is correct. That is irrelevant.
What is of the essence is that Eddie Fenech Adami has been consistent in his words and actions for the past sixty years.
That is what makes him a statesman rather than a mere politician.
Moreover he is the worthy father of democratic and European Malta which is no trivial accolade. His unwavering Christian faith helped him retrieve our country from the brink of the abyss.
He is imbued with the virtue of gravitas, an extremely rare commodity nowadays.
The problem with Malta is that Eddie has proved to be irreplaceable. This is why the country is in such a sorry mess with parliament and its members reduced to the status of a South American soap opera.
No, he has not lost it . He has it all there.
He made one fatal mistake. He should never have opted for San Anton. He, like Winston Churchill, belonged to the Commons.
Malta desperately needed him to stay there.
I agree with Anthony.
On second thoughts, Eddie Fenech Adami is consistent with himself. In 2003, he felt the referendum was consultative and wanted a confirmation with a general election. Now, he is employing the same reasoning. So why all this fuss?!
[Daphne – In 2003, he called a general election NOT because the referendum was consultative, but because ALFRED SANT HAD DECLARED THAT HE WOULD NOT RECOGNISE THE RESULT.]
Daphne, I agree with Min Weber. You said that Dr. Eddie Fenech Adami called a general election NOT because the referendum was consultative, but because Dr. Alfred Sant had declared that he would not recognise the result.
However, he could only do this because the referendum was consultative. This proves the distinction between a consultative referendum and a mandatory one.
[Daphne – NO. It proves one thing only: that when men develop a fixation about something, they are prepared to ride roughshod over everyone and everything to achieve it, causing untold damage to those around them in the process. Alfred Sant refused to acknowledge the EU referendum result because he has had a lifelong fixation against the European Union and its antecedent. Eddie Fenech Adami wishes to over-rule this referendum result because he has had a lifelong fixation against divorce. That’s all. Both fixations are irrational and have been extremely damaging to the respective political parties.]
I will keep on asking the same question, “Why did they call a referendum then?” They were all so sure that the outcome would be against divorce, and that`s where they went wrong. It is now too late to go back, and they just don’t have the slightest idea what to do next.
Pat, Lawrence Gonzi came out with the idea of a referendum. However, he wanted the divorce law to pass through Parliament first. Muscat wanted the referendum to be approved before Parliament approves legislation on divorce.
The result is the mess the PN is in…. and why? Because Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando and Jesmond Mugliett voted with the opposition.
“However, he wanted the divorce law to pass through Parliament first”.
Already rewriting history?
Why are people surpised by this? Eddie Fenech Adami signed the infamous treaty with the Vatican giving the Church unprecedented power pver marriage. He said clearly that as President he would not sign any law which was against his conscience (i.e. against Catholic doctrine). His last act as Presdient was to take the family to the Vatican to be patted on the head and be told “good boy”.
He should realise however that the legacy of the man who liberalised Malta is being sullied by his attempt to save our souls so he can sleep soundly in his bed.
Ma nafx biex qed tistaghgbu. Dr Fenech Adami hu nisrani l-ewwel u qabel kollox. Id-demokrazija u l-affarijiet l-ohra li vvvinta l-bniedem jiehdu t-tieni post f’hajtu. L-insara ta’ veru se jibqghu jghidu LE ghad-divorzju. U jien u mijiet ta’ mijiet ohra Kattolici f’Malta naqblu mija fil-mija mal-Emeritus President u naqblu mieghu wkoll li jekk jidhol id-divorzju f’Mlata wara jkun imiss il-gay marriages u l-kampanji biex jidhol l-abort responsabbli. In-nghag tieghi jaghrfu lehni, jghid il-Mulej. U dan huwa a case in point.
Yawn.
Dear Mr Scicluna, Every politician has a right to consider what is morally right and wrong when voting for or against a legislation. (Although to be frank it has been a very rare quality when considering most other laws). However the same politicians surrender that right once they go for a referendum.
You cannot have it both ways, it si not only illogical but undemocratic.
On the subject of gay marriage, I am always amused to see how people like you , who are constantly harping on about the importance of marriage and stale relationships are unwilling to allow that same benefit to be enjoyed by homosexual couples.
I wonder why that is? Are you afraid that your marriage will be less ‘holy’ , less important if experienced by non-hetero couples? Did your ‘God’ not create homosexuals in his/her image also?
Or could he /she have made a mistake? Forgive me for being cynical but i really cannot take seriously people who take all their unquestionable authority from books written by propagandists two thousand years ago and who had the same brutal mentality of two thousand years ago.
‘Stale’ should read ‘stable’.
Carmel Scicluna – when are you going to get in into your thick head that no one has the right to decide for others regarding their private life? You do not agree with divorce, etc. – OK you have the right – but you have no right to foist your religious beliefs on others who are not practising Catholics.
Sorry a different subject.
Unbelievable.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AP22Ys8__ro
You do realise it’s from ‘The Onion’ I hope.
Joe S, you have just been ‘punked’. ‘The Onion’ bills itself as ‘America’s Finest News Source’. They also headlined ‘ Black Gets America’s Worst Job’, referring to Obama’s election.
Is this true or is it a windup?
It’s fake
Well the PN’s motto was Religio e Patria. Most of the PN parliamenterians and supporters are still living in the 1940s and for them religio is first.
They still cannot fathom that there should be a separation of the two. Be a fervent Catholic as much as you like but let others live their – perhaps not very religious – life as they please. This is democracy after all. We do not want to be an ayaytollah country.
It seems we urgently need a replacement for both the PN and the PL. What a sorry state we have become!
@ JoeS
No JoeS, this is unbelievable. Facebook comment of a newspaper editor:
Julia Farrugia
Ghaziza mhadda, din hi l-ahhar darba li se norqod wahdi mieghek. Minn ghada din id-dar timtela b’dak l-element nieqes …… :)
Mela diehel wedge bejnha u l-imhadda? Dan il-ménage à trois xejn ma jibbowdja well. Kieku kelli l-pinna ta’ Elio Lombardi kont nohrog rumanz: Nirien ta’ mhadda [sic]
or this:
Julia Farrugia
officially husband and wife :)
via Blackberry.
Here’s what I don’t get: why is everyone so surprised. On the point of the Marriage Act the PN has ALWAYS kow-towed to the Catholic Church. As a reminder here are the relevant quotes from an agreement signed by President De Marco and the Holy See:
Article 4
1. For the purposes of the recognition of the civil effects mentioned in
article 3, the Holy See takes note that:
a) from the moment in which notice is given to the Registrar of Courts of
the acceptance by the Chancery of the ecclesiastical tribunals of a petition
presented by at least one of the parties to obtain the declaration of the
nullity of a canonical marriage celebrated after the coming into force of
the present Agreement, competence to decide on the matter is recognized
solely to the ecclesiastical tribunals, provided that the civil tribunals have
not already given a judgement that has become “res judicata”, based on the
same grounds of nullity;
b) should it result that the ecclesiastical judge has admitted the renunciation
of a case opened before the ecclesiastical tribunals or that a case has
canonically fallen into abatement, the civil tribunals shall be able to again
take up the examination of the case that may have already been presented
before them and suspended by virtue of what is provided in letter a) above.
Furthermore, and to make things even more clear, a second protocol reads:
1. Judgements given by ecclesiastical tribunals in cases of nullity
upholding the validity of the marriage, which have not been appealed
or which have been confirmed on appeal, including mutatits mutandis
judgements in cases in terms of paragraph (b) subparagraph (i) of
Article 6 of the Agreement, are recognized for all purposes of law in
Malta and shall be considered as res judicata and not subject to reexamination on the same grounds by the civil courts, provided that the
Court of Appeal ascertains what is laid down in paragraph b) of Article
5 of the Agreement. It shall not, however, reexamine the merits of the
case, in terms of Article 8 of the Agreement.
I seem to remember a comment from the ‘No’ camp saying that if divorce legislation is enacted then one partner can start proceedings without the consent of the other party ( a flawed argument anyway).
But guess what? It looks like, the other party can perversely actually stop proceedings in the civil court by starting proceedings in the ecclesiastical tribunal and manage things to obtain a verdict that the marriage still holds! And the CIVIL courts would have to kow-tow. Now wouldn’t that be one for the books!
You can read the whole agreement here:
http://www.maltachurchtribunals.org/docs/agreement.pdf
As my friend put it, take note really how strong the unions are in the other ‘bastion’ of the marriage institution – The Philippines.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/9509519.stm
The caption under the main picture actually states: “The Vatican state and the Philippines are alone in still banning divorce.”
Has the majority of our MPs voted Yes already?
No. They know that Malta is a European country and therefore assume that once the referendum is won, divorce will be made law. Little do they know…..
No surprise here. Once a village lawyer, always a village lawyer.
Yes, Kev, a village lawyer, and an ex prime minister and an ex president.
And what about you, Kev? An ex policeman and a ‘lawyer’?
I was one of those who voted for Eddie Fenech Adami to become party leader in 1977. Since then I have always respected him and looked up to him as the man who saved Malta from dictatorship.
With his statement yesterday, I am sorry to say that he really disappointed me. I have to admit that I never thought that I would hear him make such statements.
Enough of this “emeritus” bullcrap, already! There is no such role provided for in Malta’s Constitution, and it seems to cloak everything a former PM or a former President says with a certain air of gravitas that may or may may not be deserved or even desirable.
As the former leader of a political party, Eddie Fenech Adami would be well advised not to comment publicly on critical issues that his successor is facing.
He should do no more than offer advice in confidence and behind closed doors, while in public he should restrict himself to expressions of confidence in the ability of his successor and the party to get it together and to get it right.
When he does anything beyond that, he runs the risk of undercutting the credibility and image of his successor, intentionally or not.
What’s worse is that the latest comments by this President Emeritus are premised on a series of hurtful, divisive assumptions, which he clearly accepts as “norms”. He holds forth on morals and values (drawing a distinction between those who have them and those who don’t), gays and straights (the family relationships of the former not being a “natural process”), the religious aspects of Maltese culture and the island’s special Biblical calling (as though non-believers can never be full participants in Maltese culture).
In Malta’s political structure – especially in light of the sharp red-blue divide that basically cleaves the country in half – a president worth his salt would strive to be president of the people as a whole, to say less rather than more, and in all public statements to stress the ties that bind.
Eddie’s comments are unhelpful to the PM as he wriggles his way through the mess he has created regarding divorce legislation, just as his earlier musings on whether he would or would not agree to sign into law a bill regarding divorce or abortion if he were still president are equally unhelpful to the current occupant of that exalted office. But his comments are especially damaging to the PN and to the office of the President.
Both those institutions would be well-advised to rein him in, if they can.
Chris in all honesty I ask, why does the referendum officially carry the terms ‘non-binding’ and ‘consultative’? Either these are to be understood just ‘cosmetic’ or they actually carry weight.
Don’t get me wrong though; even if MPs can, in tune with legal right, block the bill albeit the popular vote, their parties still have to declare themselves on divorce either way. Now the PN has already done that (something which I didn’t agree with because it jeopardized the position of PN MPs who are in favour of divorce and who stood on the PN ticket when it had no party policy on the issue) and the PL has yet to do that.
Moreover the recent comments showing fear or approval of homosexual marriages following divorce, makes it imperative for political parties to declare themselves on homosexual marriages, adoption of children by same, abortion, euthanasia, etc.
To me it is unacceptable for a party to legislate upon such sensitive issues after a referendum (consultative or decisive) is held without the people knowing exactly the details of legislation.
We all know how lawyers play about with legal loop holes and such issues are not merely money bills were even a big mistake (e.g.CET policy) may be disastrous but reversible: wrong legislation in commission or omission on such social issues may be disastrous but alas irreversible without chaotic consequences.
To sum up, parties may only (ethically) legislate on such issues if they have a party policy on same, thus no private members bills should be legally allowed if it goes against the party policy.
In this case, this would have meant a collapse of government given the lean majority but that is what was dishonest about JPO’s motion; not his personal opinion but his opportunistic death-bed stance.
I have already said that I voted ‘yes’ half-heartedly; seeing all this I wish I voted ‘no’ half-heartedly. It was a big hasty mess-up and I’m sure it’s not only me who is now thinking like that.
So many differing opinions! For what it’s worth, here’s a very simple one from someone who is still a proud Maltese citizen despite being away from the island for most of his life.
Why waste everybody’s time by holding this referendum if Parliament can dismiss the wishes of the majority out of hand? It simply beggars belief!
If, and I really hope that it’s a huge IF, the wishes of the people are trampled upon, there can only be one eventual outcome – the utter destruction of the church in Malta as it has been known for centuries. What then?
I’ll confess that I am not particularly concerned about the fate of the Church in Malta. What does concern me greatly is that both main political parties appear to be determined to gut those very important democratic principles underlying the Constitution and the Referenda Act.
The only valid reason Dr. Gonzi went for a referendum was the fact that neither party had the divorce issue on their electoral programme in 2008.
People wrongly point at Dr. Gonzi as having created a mess. Actually it was JPO’s underhanded maneuvers in collaboration with his new found Labour Party ‘friends’. Everyone knows how the LP operates, they use you and once they get what they were after, they chuck you out and toss you in the trash can.
Dr. Gonzi did not pull a Sant because upon confirmation of the referendum result he immediately recognized the outcome and declared that he will make sure of a ‘yes’ majority in Parliament to enable the bill to go through. Sant insists to this day that the ‘no’ had won the EU referendum. Joseph, his successor, took five years to finally admit that the ‘yes’ had won!
Fenech Adami is a private citizen and one of the 44% who believe that divorce is alien to the Catholic faith and expressed himself as thousands have in the referendum. The fact that he is a former prime minister and president has nothing to do with what his conscience dictates. A true free vote in Parliament when MPs can let their conscience guide their vote and keeping in mind the will of the people should decide the issue.
I cannot believe some comments like ‘he is trying to influence’ the MPs. I wish to think that MPs of both sides are more mature than four year olds who do as daddy says, or else!
If by a fluke the divorce bill is rejected, EFA will be happy. If it goes through, EFA will not be the least affected and will continue to be faithful to his marriage.
This whole referendum debacle AND the response from the NO advocates reminds me of something Henry Kissinger said in the 1970s:
“I don’t see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its own people. The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves.”
HEMM BAHAR JAQSAM BEJN X’JIXTIEQ BNIEDEM U X’JIDDETTA,ISSA DR.FENECH ADAMI META TQIS LI QATT MA BIDDEL IL-PRINCIPJI TIEGHU JIXTIEQ LI MALTA MA JIDHOLX ID-DIVORZJU,IMMA MA IDDETTA FUQ HADD BIEX IWAQQAF ID-DHUL TAD-DIVORZJU F’MALTA,MELA HAWN MALTA HADD GHADU MA JISTA JURI L-OPPINJONI U DAK LI VERU JEMMEN FIH,JIEN UKOLL PERSONALMENT MA NAQBILX MAD-DIVORZJU IMMA GHAL GID TAL-FAMILJI LI QED IBATU IVVUTAJT IVA