Gonzi's indecent proposal

We know that most people do not support divorce unconditionally. The current bill presented by MPs Evarist Bartolo and Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando has already cleared the air by excluding a Las Vegas style divorce.

Now that the Labour opposition has gone down the dangerous path of accepting the principle that a civil right should be submitted to a referendum, the PM has replicated with an even more devious strategy: 'let us ask the people a generic question so that we can conjure all the fears of a Las Vegas style divorce.'

Instead of our MPs doing what they are paid for - discussing a divorce bill -we ended up assisting to a contest between government and opposition on who is most in favour of a referendum.

A Xarabank survey published in October showed that only 39.7% would vote for divorce in a hypothetical referendum, asking them whether ‘divorce should be introduced in Malta’. 47% would oppose it. On the other hand 56.3% of respondents would vote yes for divorce in a hypothetical referendum, based on Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando’s private member’s bill. This confirmed the results of an earlier survey by MaltaToday. This alone exposes Gonzi’s deceptive strategy.

Writing on the same topic six months ago I wrote that if people are presented with a referendum simply asking them whether they agree with divorce or not I would be the first to abstain and call it a farce. I remain of the same opinion.

If we should go down the dangerous road of a referendum on a civil right simply because our MPs and political parties want to dump this burden on the people, let us at least have a fair question.

A referendum was only held in Ireland to overturn a constitutional ban on divorce (something which we do not have in Malta). But even in that case Irish voters were presented with an alternative which stated:

"A Court designated by law may grant a dissolution of marriage where, but only where, it is satisfied that - i. at the date of the institution of the proceedings, the spouses have lived apart from one another for a period of, or periods amounting to, at least four years during the previous five years, ii. there is no reasonable prospect of a reconciliation between the spouses, iii. such provision as the Court considers proper having regard to the circumstances exists or will be made for the spouses, any children of either or both of them and any other person prescribed by law, and iv . any further conditions prescribed by law are complied with."

If we really have to do this referendum, let's at least have a fair Irish referendum. The only alternative is to have no referendum at all which could be ultimately the best outcome possible of the current quandary.