So no, the prime minister wasn't categoric about a referendum
He was categoric about wanting one, but not categoric about having one. There, the prime minister said, he is keeping his options open.
But he appeared to contradict himself by saying that he doesn’t want the divorce issue to be tied to a general election, either, because he doesn’t want it confused with the choice of government.
So that leaves a referendum as the only option for getting a popular mandate, and we’re back at square one. We still don’t know where we are, and neither does the prime minister.
He wasn’t clear on the subject of where Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando’s private member’s bill fits into the picture, either. Are they going to vote on it first in parliament and then get the country to vote on divorce in a referendum? And how are they going to dovetail the two without turning democracy on its head?
Ah, but here’s the million-dollar question I wish Lou Bondi had asked. If we do have a referendum, who is going to promote what? Please don’t tell me that both government and Opposition are going to stay neutral and say ‘Go ahead, folks. Vote according to your conscience. Yes, No, it’s all the same to us.’
It’s almost worth having a referendum just to watch the parties contort themselves out of that one.
66 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
I am not gay and do not like the thought of having gay sex and do not like the thought of anyone else having gay sex so let’s make gay sex illegal. Let’s have a referendum. And shooting birds. I don’t like it and I don’t want anyone else to do it. Let’s have a referendum. ……..Blue cars. I hate them. Let’s have a referendum to ban them as well. er …… that’s it for now.
I’m sorry, but on this issue (only on this issue mind, he pretty much convinced me on the rest) the PM has waffled as much as a Belgian making breakfast.
Ok, I think the PM will soon call a referendum to ask us if he should hold a referendum on divorce.
To be fair to him, I believe the matter is complex, and in his role as a politician, PM and leader of the PN, I can understand that he wants to protect all the interests he is representing.
I am rarely back home before ten. So I did not watch the PM on Bondi Plus.
I accept Daphne’s analysis because I trust her. I am sure she is perfectly right.
I have just finished watching the incomparable Sarah Montague interviewing Sebastian Pinera.
Master Class.
Gonzi is oozing it out in small doses of uncertainty, assessing reactions as he threads cautiously. But he seems to believe he can only pilot his way through Pilate’s way by means of a referendum.
Meanwhile, Joseph, slightly more assertive in rhetoric but equally uncertain on how to get there, hasn’t quite yet assessed the blowback if his bill is defeated by his ‘free vote’.
This makes JPO not just Gonzi’s kite-flying pawn, but also Joseph’s rescuer if Gonzi eventually decides that a JPO bill is defeatable after all.
[Daphne – If Gonzi threads cautiously, then he’ll make a good tailor.]
Good one, Daphne. Kept me in stitches. Kevvy seems to have forgotten how to re-read his inane meanderings before he posts.
Only fools rush in.
TREADS not THREADS.
One cannot LOOSE an election, it’s LOSE an election.
I’m ADVISING you not ADVICING you.
We do not look forward FOR the weekend, we look forward TO the weekend.
Etc, etc, etc……….
Bravu wisq. Dnub ma jismux Pepso.
Wow! Never, not once, ever have I heard such a witty and original comment in reference to my surname in all my 40yrs. Well done ‘kev’. Ever thought of a career on the stage? Sweeping it of course….
Wizzokk! Inzerta veru kunjonu Dent.
I didn’t mean to dent your reputation, Mr Dent. So are you Purdie’s friend, or do you just lurk around scouting for stage sweepers?
I don’t believe I’ve had the pleasure of meeting the gent in question…..oh look! You’ve thought up another ‘dent-related’ pun here! How clever. Feels like being back in the playground with the other 9yr olds. Hopefully they’re at least getting out more these days.
No relation to Arthur Dent, I suppose?
As for that, I hate blogs, but not blogging!
The idea of divorce as a right is incorrect.
As for freedom of sexuality, that is a right, as one cannot restrict another form being themself.
‘The idea of divorce as a right is incorrect.’
Are you able to support that statement? Or are you just shooting the breeze?
I will support it.
If you get married and have kids, you have no right to dissolve all responsibility and run away from them.
[Daphne – You don’t need divorce to run away from your spouse and children. Anzi, nowadays you can’t really run away from them and abdicate your responsibilities, not like a few decades back when Maltese men went to Australia, Canada, the USA or even nearby Britain, told their wives they would send for them and the children, and just disappeared, abandoning the lot of them to their fate and the charity of others. Why do you think there were so many children’s homes, and all of them teeming? This was one reason. Things are better now, not worse. How they could they be worse than a situation in which, at any given time, there were at least a thousand children looked after by nuns and volunteers because their parents had dumped them?]
Marriage is not like a business deal; you sign the document, you make merry for a few years and then you divide the profits or losses and move on.
This mentality is growing in Malta. We rush into business with any Tom, Dick and Harry and then realise that we had no idea of what we were up to. So register the company, then close it, open a VAT number then close that too and in a few days, open another one!
Marriage has consequences; the profits, cannot always be divided in half.
You have given your opinion to your statement. Fair enough. But seeing as you started out with an assumption.
‘If you get married and have kids’
Logically it follows that if kids are not present in marriage, than you would be in favour of divorce?
Seeing that your whole argument is based on kids, what about kids born out of marriage? What about the rights of children whose parents are married to others? How do you stand on that?
Another point. How will the non introduction of divorce help kids exactly? Marriage is not a life sentence. You may stop divorce, but you won’t bring a couple together. You are just sentencing them, and their kids, to unhappiness.
I would have liked it if Daphne commented on the other part of my post.
Vanni, the fruit of marriage is having children.
As stated, this is my opinion, there is loads more to say, but I do not feel like writing it down here! But the debate will go on, and grownups will vote and will not think about the children… how do you explain all the mental health issues and learning difficulties…?
I believe that divorces will bring about too much “hand washing” a la Pilatu!
And then when I hear those arguments… “only Malta does not have divorce…” they I believe we will soon be hearing “only Malta does not have abortion…”
Hawwadni ha nifhmek. I think this referendum question is showing us for what we are, a bunch of bungling, vacillating, disoriented little islanders who believe in the melitocentric theory of the universe.
How do we expect others to take us seriously?
I guess foreigners who live in Malta must be laughing behind our backs if not in our faces. Holy sh*t! I can’t think of a worse way in which this thing could have been tackled. No wonder people seem lost and have lost faith in politicians. Both political parties and the Church have only themselves to blame if nobody trusts them any more. What a circus!
Very well said Hypatia, and they all seem to overlook that the argument is really one of basic civil rights – the right to choose!
He is obviously waiting to see which way the wind blows – and so is his opponent. What a shame, and you can blame the Roman Catholic Church for this.
It proves it is the insitiution with most of the power. Malta is a poor excuse for a democracy. Statehood is certainly not deserved when it produces such poor quality politicians. And it’s over 40 years since independence.
Lawrence Gonzi is right on this one. What is the point of marriage if it can be then dissolved by divorce? Divorce will destroy the whole concept of marriage.
Might as well abolish marriage , then there will be no need to introduce divorce. Marriage is over-rated anyway, and is costing our economy millions in lost taxes and subsidy of unmarried mothers. A fourth of children are now born out of wedlock. Down with marriage.
[Daphne – Lino, it is actually one in three children who are born out of wedlock in Malta. And one reason why so many of them are born out of wedlock is because one or both of their parents can’t wed, precisely because there is no divorce. If there is anything which will eventually erode marriage and a society built on children being raised by parents married to each other, it is, oddly enough, the absence of divorce. No divorce doesn’t mean no marital breakdown or no subsequent relationships involving children. That is the mistake many people make: to think of divorce as the cause of marital breakdown, when it is just the symptom and the solution. Cough syrup is not the cause of coughs – only a fool would think that, because cough syrup is used by people who cough, then the syrup has caused the cough. But then we have plenty of fools around, sad to say.]
“….to think of divorce as the cause of marital breakdown, when it is just the symptom and the solution”
Daphne, though I am in favour of the introduction of divorce on our statute books, I disagree with the way you worded the statement I quoted above.
I’m sure you understand that Divorce cannot be the SYMPTOM of marital breakdown and neither can it be the SOLUTION. Symptoms of marital breakdown, would be the spouses sleeping in different rooms, filing for personal separation, not speaking to each other any more, etc. The solution to a marital breakdown would be saving the marriage!
That said, I believe it is A solution of sorts for those who may find solace in a fresh marriage after the first has irretrievably broken down.
Lastly, your cough syrup analogy was used incorrectly in reference to the anti-divorce lobby. It ought to have been that having cough syrup around would make people negligent about their health, relying on cough syrup if they were to catch a cold. This is what would encapsulate the anti-divocrce lobby’s notion of a society with a facile and lackadaisical attitude towards marriage. This is what they believe divorce will bring about.
Little do they realise, and this is where they are partially correct so to speak, that this is already happening – with or without divorce. it really is a fait acompli.
Can a couple who married civilly only, obtain a divorce in Malta or can they only get a separation?
[Daphne – What difference does it make how or where you married? You can get divorced because there is NO DIVORCE LEGISLATION. You can, however, get divorced elsewhere and have your divorce acknowledged – because it has no choice – by Malta. So yes, Maltese citizens can get divorced. They just have to do it elsewhere, come back and present the public registry with a fait accompli.]
Why doesn’t someone set up an offshore divorce clinic? How about a divorce cruise? Ridiculous I know, but perhaps it will show the naysayers how ridiculous they really are.
Or walk into an embassy.
Daphne, Daphne – you missed the all important ” ‘t ” in the second sentence!
[Daphne – ?]
I think Cussons means that the second sentence was intended to be “You can’t (or can not) get divorced because there is NO DIVORCE LEGISLATION….”
Dan gej bis-sapun!
In your reply to Jo the second sentence read “You can get divorced because there is NO DIVORCE LEGISLATION”. Should have read “You can’t (or cannot) get divorced….”
There are boatloads of million-dollar questions I wish Lou Bondi had asked. To mention just one: Why is it OK to be comparative to other countries when it comes to the economic crisis and it is wrong to do so on divorce issues?
Unfortunately, Lou took the day off and Winnie the Pooh ran the show in his stead. Needless to say, the result was one whole hour of uninterrupted Gonzi propaganda, fully financed by our taxes (of course).
[Daphne – Oh for crying out loud. What do your taxes have to do with it, and how is that show financed by your taxes? I say this because I’m amazed at the lack of sophisticated understanding of the media in Malta. ]
Lou was obviously feeling uncomfortable yesterday. We all heard him say “Iva hallini nsaqsi mistoqsija…” at least once. God forbid had Joseph Muscat acted in the same way as Dr Gonzi.
God knows how much talk of “Labour tries to shut journalists up” would have followed! But Gonzi is a Nationalist, so is beyond reproach.
And why did not Bondi ask Gonzi the question “Iva wegibni fuq din…se taghmel referendum, iva jew le?” So, dear Daphne, believe it or not, some viewers CAN discern these subtleties in how interviewees are treated on this “show”.
[Daphne – I actually think he’s soft with Muscat because in that situation, you can be very wary of being thought too aggressive.]
Because his “comparison” with other economies was meant to show how Malta has fared better and not how Malta should do “X” cos the rest of the countries in the world, bar one, are doing “X”.
Your lack of logic aside, the PM’s point is interesting. Should / Can we use the fact that all countries in the world, except the Philippines and Malta, have some form of divorce legislation as an argument in favour? I don’t think the pro divorce legislation argument should (need to) mention this. Typically, people who are against the introduction of divorce will believe that our lack of divorce legislation stems from some particular special status, which we should and should want to protect. So, in actual fact, I think this point should be avoided.
No, he clearly said that Malta had to do what many other countries did, that is, take certain measures to cushion the impact of recession. Now, the issue of divorce is more international then any possible recession so, yes, for consistency’s sake he should have drawn comparisons to other countries just as well.
Where’s Everybody’s generates revenues and makes profits through the use of a platform whose contributors and ultimate beneficiaries are the tax payers. It’s not so hard to figure that one out, is it? Now, having an openly die-hard Nationalist, with known connections to the PN, running prime time political shows on national television isn’t really what one would call a fair deal, especially if the results are as pathetic as yesterday’s.
[Daphne – Look, I’m not arguing their pitch here. I’m taking you up on this because I am SICK of people who 1. can’t understand how the print and broadcast media work, and 2. mistrust business and think that it is Evil. Good shows – that means shows which people actually want to watch – cost money. If they cost money, money must be made to produce them and, above all, money must be made from them as otherwise there would be no incentive to make them. PBS needs good shows. Where’s Everybody needs to get its shows to an audience. The two cooperate, keep things turning over, make money, and the audience get their shows. Sometimes, PBS strikes lucky and gets itself a really good show grown on the inside, like Dissett, and sometimes it doesn’t because most people just aren’t up to it and prefer to do as little as possible for their pay-cheque while complaining and bitching because others take risks, work hard and, what do you know, make more money, achieve more and even, hell, get more attention. If people like Lou were chosen for their politics, then fine, you’d have a right to complain. But they’re chosen for their ability. What’s the alternative – Peter Cossai from the PBS news team, performing one of those strip shows for hen parties that he used to do to make a little extra cash, complete with velcroed trousers? If PBS were to stick Toni Abela and his Robin Hood on after 2013, then yes, please do complain, because that Super One show, like most of its other shows, was crap.]
Amazed, Daph? Can’t you see the mentality of the 70s at work here? When MTV was run as pure MLP propoganda it was the only station we had and was funded by taxes so naturally lejborist cannot grasp a free-market economy where programmes pay for themselves.
I say this chiefly for the folks under 40, who have no clue as to the nadir broadcasting reached under Mintoff.
Those who believe that a referendum will certainly result in a ‘no’ to divorce, because over 50% of voters attend church on Sunday, are not factoring in the hypocrisy of so many who go through the public motions of Catholicism only to avoid gossip and in private, break its rules with total disregard
On the other hand, those expecting that a parliamentary vote should produce a ‘yes’ are also not factoring in the same type of hypocrisy by many of our MPs
Perhaps Dr Gonzi, by showing his personal feelings and intentions on the matter, is being more honest that most with the electorate
What makes you think that, er, the “поxyиcт” attitude translates into social liberalism? The Maltese have never been renowned for their consistency.
Gutless selfish cowardly politicians both the PM and the leader of the opposition, they are only interested in self promotion and not the good of the nation.
They don’t dare stick their heads out for principles. Why not have a referendum on many other issues, such as the salaries of MPs, whether we should pay taxes, to abolish wardens. I think everyone would predict the results!
I am disgusted with our politicians.
‘Why not have a referendum on many other issues, such as the salaries of MPs,’
I would actually increase the parliamentarians’ and ministers’ salaries as long as their income and economic interests are reliably monitored by an independent agency. This would (supposedly) ensure the independence of the parliament from any external influences.
@ Paul Bonnici:What wage would you settle for if you were elected as an MP? If you don’t want to pay taxes go and try to settle in Liberia. I am really disgusted with such stupid comments. Are you a voter?
[Daphne – John, members of parliament are not paid wages. They do not ‘have a wage’.]
Daphne, you ruined my argument – I thought they would deserve the living wage. Not more.
Yes OK Daphne , honoraria , but I am addressing stupidity here.
What missing “t” ?
In the second sentence of Daphne’s reply to Jo.
Totally ridiculous that the Maltese people have to vote for or against whether divorce in 2010 should be available in Malta. It is NOT for people to decide but from the government only. It should be the right of a person to decide whether they want to marry again not your neighbour.
I was a child of 10 when my parents divorced and it was one of the best days of my life.
My parents had argued, fought, punched and screamed for at least the last two years before they divorced and trust me, those two years still haunt me to this day.
However, 24 years later my Mum has been married to a wonderful Maltese man for the last 23 years and I have a wonderful brother from that marriage who is 22 now.
My father has been married to a wonderful woman for the last 15 years and my dad and step-mum when they come over to Malta actually go out for dinner with my mum and step dad.
Even though my parents were together for 18 years they found love again that they both wanted, the second time round. That is something all people should be able to have.
Thank you Stacy for proving that there is life after divorce as opposed to the hogwash that the doom and gloom merchants want us to believe.
Rover, there is life even after death.
I remember when the programme “Tista tkun int” was shown, I was really impressed that quite a good number of people were looking for their fathers through this programme who walked out on their families and left for Australia and other countries.
I am glad that Daphne gave a mention to these unfortunate situations.
This TV show exposed a hidden reality of sacred Malta.
Naħseb li hija ovvja l-Prim Ministru xi jrid: li jdaħħal ir-referendum fil-programm elettorali li jmiss u jużah bħala karrotta biex jiġbed il-voti fl-elezzjoni ġenerali tal-2013.
Dan għax jaf li hawn ħafna aktar nies li jridu referendum milli hawn nies li jridu d-divorzju. Tinsewx kemm hu astut: dan huwa l-istess bniedem li laħħaq lil George Abela President, lil John Dalli Kummissarju tal-EU u lil Louis Galea rappreżentant Malti fil-Qorti tal-Awdituri. Kollha ċapċpulu talli ħeles minnhom politikament.
What is the situation if a Maltese couple marry in Malta and subsequently live abroad and divorce whilst living abroad before returning to Malta? Is the overseas divorce recognised here and can they then re marry ( other people ) in Malta?
[Daphne – Yes, of course. That’s been the case for decades. Malta has its fair share of divorced people, some of whom have married again. You might even know some…]
Hah!
“Some of my best friends are divorced” is the new “Some of my best friends are black.”
Or “some of my friends are gay” – remember that one?
I see it now: The simpering Michelle hands out gingerbread, while supergenius Joseph talks high politics. Then the doorbell rings. Oh, it’s another Sorbonne professor (or was it the Collège d’Europe?), who has recently divorced, with his new wife (civil marriage!), a dashing couturière for YSL, herself divorced.
I’m fed up of watching our dear leaders messing about, so let’s take a break:
Watch The Incredibles when you can and look out for a character called Incrediboy. It’s a priceless caricature of Muscat.
John Sliema: actually the law is not that simple. For the decree on the status of the marriage to be applicable in Malta, one or both spouses must either be domiciled in the jurisdiction where the court gave the decree or one must be a citizen of that country.
[Daphne – Hypatia, isn’t that by the by? Why would Maltese law be concerned with somebody’s divorce unless that person IS a citizen of Malta or domiciled here? Tourists and people passing through aren’t exactly going to set about registering their divorces with the public registry here, are they?]
“Living” in that country, as you put it, is not enough. Under our law, there is a big difference between “residence” and “domicile” and the civil registry officials may refuse to register the divorce if one does not prove domicile (unless one is a citizen of the foreign jurisdiction).
[Daphne – You are confusing things. The domicile requirement is for people who want to GET a divorce, for which they have to be domiciled elsewhere. As for domicile in Malta and registering a divorce, you’ve got it the wrong way round: you don’t have to be domiciled to register your divorce. You need to register your divorce if you are domiciled.]
To acquire a new domicile, one must lose the previous one and must have gone to the country of the new domicile with the intention of never going back permanently to the old one. It’s a matter of intention.
If one emigrates with the intention of settlling for ever in a foreign country, then a new domicile is established and it has nothing to do with the length of time one lives there, it could be just a few days. If, on the other hand, one lives in a foreign country for many years but always intended to come back to Malta, then Maltese domicile subsists and no new domicile is acquired. This is the British concept of domicile which we have adopted in Malta and which I consider utterly foolish, being difficult to demonstrate. Reisdence is much easier to show than domicile.
First off, residence and domicile are two different concepts and are not incompatible with one another. So, your statement that you prefer residence over domicile, is quite frankly, an inanity. Indeed, one of the two criteria required in demonstrating the establishment of a domicile of choice, as distinct from a domicile of origin, is residence together with permanence.
Secondly, you refer to domicile of choice in reference to a court decree on divorce as a sine-qua-non. This is not the case. Frequently, foreign jurisdictions do not require that one or more of the parties to the marriage be domiciled, but merely resident in that country in order to qualify for divorce. Indeed, if this were not the case, then many Maltese ctiizens (domiciled in Malta!) who wanted to opt for a foreign divorce decree in one of the renowned registers of convenience, would not be able to do so!
Thirdly, if one has obtained a valid divorce decree from a foreign jurisdiction, and that is to say that that decree is in accordance with the laws of the granting State, then the local registry has NO AUTHORITY to refuse registration of that divorce, domicile or no domicile. This is a question of publc, not private – as in the case of domicile, international law. For if the Registry had to do so it would be inquiring into the legislative criteria of the foreign state to grant (or deny, for that matter) divorce decrees, when it simply has no jurisdiction to do so.
I think Stacy’s post sums up and SHOULD wrap up the divorce debate. There should be nothing more to add to the debate. Her experience should open the eyes of all the antis. The pro-divorce lobby should do nothing else but quote Stacy’s experience.
On Mastermind today, one of the participants commented that in Liechtenstein women were only allowed to vote for the first time in the mid eighties. This was after a referendum that was only narrowly won.
I guess that it’s only in small-village-like states that civil rights become the perogative of the majority who bother to turn up for a referendum.
Since women outnumber men could they, say pass a referendum denying the vote to men? Sounds like the same logic to me.
I spoke with an Irish priest some years ago on the subject of annulment. He told me that the Catholic Church will never give annulments to couples who have children because it makes the children illegitimate in the eyes of God. It was when I came to Malta and found there was no divorce here, I could see the problems having no divorce would cause.
Then it was pointed out that you get annulled in malta. I said what about the kids being made born out of wedlock. Oh no they said, we inserted a clause in the law that makes the kids not bastards, even though their parents were never married! I said but that isn’t what annulled means. It means it never happened, not that it never happened but it did in so far as the children being born was concerned. That isn’t annulment then. It’s something else. Am I the only one who finds this mind boggling?
You don’t know the half of it, I.B. An acquaintance of mine once told me he had to 12’000 quid for his annulment here – I don’t think he was lying.
I was also involved as a witness in 2 annulment cases – it’s a farce at best, a tragedy at worst.
sorry – he had to PAY . . .
. . . and, if that sounds far-fetched, let me remind you these guys thought nothing of selling indulgences, nor of taking 29 million – I stand to be corrected – of our taxes to run their schools, when all we got in return was a chance in a lottery!
No wonder the Roman Catholic Church is so much against divorce then.
When I look around me I don’t see this as a particularly Christian place. They seem to me to be Catholic in the same way they support foreign football teams.
There seems to be very little consensus too. I reckon any referendum will be a narrow margin either way. The No vote is my bet. You can’t underestimate the power of being told you get into heaven if you vote No. A priest once took my great-granny’s savings in her eighties on such a promise.
Out of curiosity, does anyone have any foresight (impossible perhaps) what would happen if (or when) the referendum ends up against divorce. Would that set the question back to the next general election (2018)?
@Chris Ripard and Interested Bystander
Both of you easily furnish the limitation contained in the right to freedom to expression enshrined in our Constitution and in the European Convention.
@Chris Ripard and Interested Bystander
Both of you easily furnish the limitation contained in the right to freedom of expression enshrined in our Constitution and in the European Convention