Jeffrey and Joseph should both think before they speak
Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando has certainly made a mess of the advantage he gained by bringing before parliament a private member’s bill on divorce. He went from zero to hero but has now put a rocket under all that with some very loose talk and what’s more, to the anti-government Malta Today.
He would have retained his advantage had he just kept his mouth shut after being called in by the prime minister for a meeting which nobody else knew about – or so it was thought. And if somebody did find out and ask him about it, he would have improved his image still further with a tight-lipped: “I am not in the habit of discussing what has been said at private meetings. Yes, we discussed divorce, but that is about all I am prepared to say.”
Now it turns out that Pullicino Orlando not only told Malta Today about the meeting before it was held, but that when he emerged from that meeting, the first thing he did was ring the newspaper to say what was discussed and to embroider the subject matter with a few conclusions to which he had jumped.
When challenged about this, his response was that the prime minister had given him permission, should he be approached by the press, to say that the divorce bill would be debated in parliament next year and that there would be a referendum afterwards.
Yet permission to say such-and-such if confronted by a reporter is not the same thing at all as permission to ring the press yourself to divulge what was said. It especially cannot be construed as permission to ring just the one newspaper that happens to be the prime minister’s sworn enemy because its owners have never forgiven him for beating their own horse, John Dalli, in the party leadership battle.
If Pullicino Orlando understands that Malta Today invariably has an ulterior and negative motive where the prime minister is concerned, and still continues to collaborate and exchange information with its editor, owners and reporters, then it is fair to conclude that he shares in their objectives of undermining the prime minister. And if he doesn’t understand what Malta Today’s motives are, then he is daft and should know a great deal better.
When Pullicino Orlando discussed with the prime minister what he might tell reporters who found out about the meeting, he did so in full knowledge that Malta Today knew about that meeting already – because he had told them. That really wasn’t very nice at all. The story here is not the one that Pullicino Orlando ‘leaked’ to the newspapers. The story is the fact that he did so at all, to whom, and why.
We got a day’s worth of headlines about a referendum next year, and the prime minister’s office released a statement saying that no such thing was discussed. Pullicino Orlando then qualified his earlier words by saying that he had reached his own conclusions about the referendum, having assumed that one would be held after the debate in parliament.
I put my head into my hands on reading that, and groaned in despair. Pullicino Orlando has been a member of parliament for many years now. He knows that a parliamentary debate on a proposed piece of legislation can end in one way only: with a vote. A bill is debated, then the house votes Yes or No – or Yes/No/Yes/No/Liar/I Heard You, followed by a fight and insults flung across the floor.
Parliament does not debate a bill and then suspend the debate, saying ‘Right, let’s put that on hold for a while and check out what the people think by holding a very expensive and time-consuming referendum and derailing the country for a year or so.’ This is not the way it goes: parliamentary debate – referendum – parliamentary vote according to result of referendum.
Nor can a referendum be held after the parliamentary vote. As Eddie Fenech Adami pointed out the day before yesterday, that could actually be unconstitutional. If parliament votes, then that’s that: a Yes vote means we get the legislation, and a No vote means that we don’t.
The only scenario in which a referendum can take place after parliament legislates is an abrogative referendum, to repeal that legislation. That is, if parliament votes in favour of divorce, and divorce legislation is enacted, then it would be possible to hold a referendum to repeal the divorce law. Italy did that, and the No vote won, which is why Italy still has divorce.
I am glad that Fenech Adami spoke out once more against holding a referendum on divorce, which he describes as a matter of principle. He has a lot of clout and his views carry plenty of weight, so perhaps he might knock some sense into the referendum maniacs.
I am curious to see what the prime minister has to say about it, on Bondi+ tomorrow night. So far, he has been quite cryptic, talking about the decision having to be taken by the people. This has led most – including rush-to-Malta-Today Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando – to conclude that he means a referendum.
I thought that, too, at first, until I realised that we are but two years away from a general election and that this is what the prime minister probably means. There is no point in holding a referendum, even if you agree with having one for divorce in the first place, and then having a general election soon afterwards. Divorce is not EU membership. ‘Let the people decide’, at this point in the proceedings, must mean a general election.
Perhaps I should point out here, because many of you will have missed it in the hullabaloo, that the only big political party which can include divorce in its 2013 electoral programme is now the Nationalist Party. The Labour Party cannot do so because its leader has committed it to a free vote on divorce.
For those who are unfamiliar with these arcane matters, anything which a political party includes in its electoral manifesto is a pledge, which means that all MPs standing on the party ticket are committed to that pledge, must support it, and have to vote with the whip when it comes time to legislate. So if a party pledges divorce, in its electoral programme, all MPs who are elected on that party’s ticket must vote Yes when the divorce bill is brought before parliament.
Joseph Muscat has gone on record several times over as saying that Labour MPs will be allowed to vote as they please for or against a divorce bill, and this means he cannot commit the Labour Party to divorce legislation in its 2013 electoral programme. This is a tragic for the Labour Party, as the divorce field has now been left wide open for the Nationalist Party to grab for itself.
Lawrence Gonzi, a lawyer, experienced politician and above all, former Speaker of the House, hasn’t committed himself and his party to a free vote for precisely this reason: he wants the Nationalist Party to be able to include divorce legislation in its 2013 electoral programme should it be thought best to do so.
The Nationalist Party can’t pledge divorce if Gonzi does the stupid thing Muscat has done and promise a free vote. I wonder whether Muscat has understood by now just how he has painted himself into the tightest of corners on the single issue he has touted to brand himself as a liberal.
This article was published in The Malta Independent on Sunday yesterday.
25 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
So it appears that pressure is being put on the PN by its liberal faction so that divorce is placed on its electoral manifesto. Just imagine, the erstwhile Religo et Patria party, who still counts among its voters a few who voted PN under instructions from the church in 1962 and 1966 will now be the party campagining FOR divorce in 2013! But to do this the PN will first have to wage battle internally. It needs to convice thousands of members of its electorate who are traditional Roman Catholics. Can the PN afford to lose this solid column? Can the PN dream of ever winning the next election if this important part of its electorate stays at home come election time?
“Sometimes it is better to lose and do the right thing than to win and do the wrong thing.”
Tony Blair
A wonderful quote, Mr Forster. The only problem is that the PN is a machine designed to win elections. And it has been very effective in this, no doubt. The only thing the PN strategy machine will consider is “Will divorce be an election winner, or an election loser?”
Wishful thinking for Labour. Next election, PN should filter its candidates a lot better. Divorce is not an issue. It will be introduced sooner or later. It’s being turned into an issue by the so-called progressives on both sides to attract some attention and be seen on TV. What a bore.
We have a liberal faction within the PN and a not insignificant conservative faction within the PL. Actually I think that even after you factor in the PN-leaning clergy, there are more “traditional Roman Catholics” who support the PL. So where does that leave us?
…there are more “traditional Roman Catholics” who support the PL.
Wrong.
Surely you cannot mean this. Remember the 60’s and the 80’s when the LP was at war with the church? No, traditionally, the PN was the party leaning closer to the church.
[Daphne – Confused thinking: the only reason Labour supporters were so upset in the 1960s was because they WERE traditionalist Roman Catholics. If they weren’t, they wouldn’t have given a stuff.]
U fl-80s?
Insejt meta kissru l-kurja?
Meta kissru d-dar tal-PM Dr Fenech Adami u werwru l-familja tieghu? Dawn kattolci? U hallina
Il-PN biss m ghandux mibgheda lejn il-proxxmu tieghu, ghax jimxi fuq it-taghlim ta’ Kristu. Tal-LP hodor u klieb.
You yourself have first hand experience of the LP.
Albert, the PN will be discussing whether today’s reality (cohabiting unmarried couples, separated persons living with other partners, unmarried mothers, home violence) necessitates the introduction of divorce to bring some form of order in Maltese society.
This is like accepting that your seventeen-year-old boy who drinks. Drinking is bad but it would be worse if he stays out till late binge drinking with his friends and driven home.
Or like accepting our unmarried mothers rather than encouraging abortion.
These are matters of conscience , having to make difficult choices which are bad or worse.
I stand to be corrected but our US Ambassador Professor Kmiec is a fervent Catholic and he still publicly supported pro-abortion Obama, because when he weighed Obama’s social reform together with abortion, and put these against Bush’s proposals, Obama’s program outweighed Bush’s.
The religion problem is also in the Labour Party’s lap. On One radio at 0530 in the morning the Holy Rosary is recited everyday, and at noon there’s the Angelus, to keep its listeners happy. Perhaps that’s what Joseph meant by liberal and moderate!
John, a great segment of PN voters are fervent, church-going Roman Catholics. Not to mention the clergy, tal-Muzew, teachers…all part of the traditional backbone of the PN. These will not take easily to their party campagining, in an election, FOR divorce. I cannot see the PN winning an election without them, if the PN had to become a liberal party.
The problem in Malta is that divorce still has to be introduced, with no party eager to take the chestnuts out of the fire, as it will burn its fingers. Obama wasnt campagining for abortion as that is already possible in the US. Though, it must be said, there were millions of Catholics who preferred the Republicans because they are anti-abortion.
It is Dr. Fenech Adami’s argument (endorsed and embellished in today’s blog entry here) that once Parliament votes to approve a divorce bill it cannot then be put to a referendum before becoming law. True enough.
However, the Referenda Act clearly specifies a quite different path in very simple language: Voters are to be asked “whether they approve of proposals set out in a resolution passed for that purpose by the House.” Such a resolution may well refer to the text of a proposed divorce bill; but a vote on a resolution is not a vote to enact a law. I would have expected a lawyer to have spotted this right away.
Of course, it is an entirely different question whether holding a referendum is a wise or appropriate decision.
It has been stated that the Referenda Act presents some limitations as to how a referendum can be used to enact a law. Without going into the merits of whether or not a referendum will be held on divorce, cannot the Referenda Act be amended at any time to accomodate new requirements of the legislator?
The Referenda Act spells out the *only* way a referendum question can be placed before the electorate and that is *before* a law is enacted.
I have no idea what any “new requirements of the legislator” might be.
What I had in mind is whether Parliament (the legislator) may amend the Referenda Act to address any limitations as to how a referendum can be used to enact a law. Of course assuming such limitations can be addressed.
Daphne, I can see another scenario. What if Gonzi did a Muscat and allowed his MPs a free vote? I would consider it a dereliction of duty and, above all, relinquishing the advantage handed to him on a plate by Muscat. But can you see anything like that happening?
[Daphne – Not really, no.]
Why so convinced, Daphne?
I think Gonzi is going to find himself in a tough spot. First of all, he has made it clear already that he does not agree with divorce. If divorce ends up being one of the main electoral issues, Gonzi cannot be the head of the party that introduces it whilst not agreeing with it himself.
Secondly, PN voters are of two broad types. You have those who actually believe in Christian Democrat values. These people will not agree with divorce. Then you have those who are too smart to vote Labour and are probably progressive and liberal. These are the ones who want divorce.
Whichever direction he commits himself to…he is going to lose votes.
This morning I taped an edition of Bondiplus with the prime minister to be aired tonight. For the first time, he was categorical about the referendum on divorce issue.
Categorically for, or categorically against?
You’re doing a JPO Lou ;)
There you have it! I said this in a post a few days ago. Gonzi will commit himself to a referendum tonight. There is no other way for the PN. Wake up everyone.
[Daphne – There IS another way, a more sensible and just way. But apparently, there is no other way for the prime minister.]
This comment should increase your viewership. Blatant advertising. Pay up.
There is a little arrow near Lou Bondi’s comments – what does it mean?
[Daphne – You’ll notice similar arrows on other comments. It means he’s replying to the comment/post above – I can’t tell from here.]
I actually think the arrow refers to external links.
People that put links in the “website” bar get the arrows. I’m answering Marika here, but I’ll get none.
First of all I’m no whizz kid, but contributors who have that arrow have a website. I also noted that the colour of the font is ‘light green’.
I clicked on Lou’s name and got his website, clicked on marika mifsud and got a ‘possibility of a Phishing site warning’. Now I know where to go to fish or get phished.
Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando has chutzpah, but lacks the experience which comes with the passage of time. Even though – truth be told – he is no longer so young.
[Daphne – He is not even remotely young, but well into middle age. He and I are same age – more than old enough to be grandparents.]
Quote: Lawrence Gonzi, a lawyer, experienced politician and above all, former Speaker of the House, hasn’t committed himself and his party to a free vote for precisely this reason: he wants the Nationalist Party to be able to include divorce legislation in its 2013 electoral programme should it be thought best to do so.
The Nationalist Party can’t pledge divorce if Gonzi does the stupid thing Muscat has done and promise a free vote. I wonder whether Muscat has understood by now just how he has painted himself into the tightest of corners on the single issue he has touted to brand himself as a liberal.Unquote.
Let’s take another scenario.
What happens if the PM doesn’t give a free vote to the PN’s MPs and they would have to vote against it? What will JPO do? He can’t possibly vote against a bill he himself presented.