Gonzi's indecent proposal

After the failure of the double insurance - a referendum only if MPs pass the bill - Gonzi is now banking on the unacceptable referendum question that conjures fears of a Las Vegas divorce, to turn the referendum argument around on the opposition.

James Debono 18 February 2011, 12:00am

2 min read

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.

James Debono is MaltaToday's chief reporter on environment, planning and land use issues, ...

More from James Debono

•

Those who are in favour of giving a second chance to those families that have broken up, are not exactly in favour of a Frank Sinatra divorce style. We will vote for compassion but not for a free for all divorce galore; this is where Dr Gonzi is being deceptive and elusive; he knows what the majority wants so he wants us to vote according to our faith, and not to our reason, logic, and above all human compassion!

•

Its very simple,all depends how you ask a question. You can ask someone if he or she is in favour of divorce and that person says no but if you put the question in a different way like, are you in favour of allowing other people who want a divorce because they are very unhappy, that same person might answer yes. You don't have to be a politician to work that one out.

•

@ James Borg You are incorrect. The Irish Constitution banned divorce not the Italian Constitution. In Italy the referendum was held in order to repeal a conservative divorce law. Secondly how does the fact that no political party has a political mandate to legislate on divorce prevent the PL from taking a stand? This is a total non sequiter. Thirdly When Muscat was asked about that he said nothing of the sort. Lastly I can't see how the PL could possibly legislate in favour of divorce with Marie Louise Coleiro, Adrian Vassallo, Carmelo Abela and others.

•

You couldn't have put it better, James Borg. GonziPN are out to befuddle the people, but thanks be, we have an Opposition leader that is not to be messed about with. We are all expecting his reaction. We're sure he'll put the goalposts in their place again. But ... don't be surprised if the Gonz were to try to move them again behind our backs. He can be that slimy as we have experienced over the past years and on account of a string of U-turns and voltes-face that could give Machiavelli the shivers.

•

@jamrie, No it's not that easy and i'll try to explain myself. A. The govt cannot legislate as it has no mandate to do so. B. The Party in govt is against Divorce by default. C. The GONZIPN strategy intends to confuse matters. The need for a referendum is just to get a popular mandate in order to legislate in parliament. There is no other way about it. If the referendum result is won by the YES vote, then the govt may legislate in parliament an let them vote in favour or against. If on the other hand the referendum result is won by the NO vote, then that's it. There is nothing to legislate for. Hope you got a clearer picture now. regards

Jessica Chetcuti •

Aren’t we all getting a bit sick and tired of this divorce debate? After all, all that we are hearing about is talks about passing a bill to hold a referendum. Or are we now at the stage where we will hold a referendum to hold a referendum? I knows that it sounds ridiculous but that’s the way I’m beginning to see it. Don’t you think that this is all becoming rather confusing if not darn right complicated? In my opinion I would like to keep everything simple.... Let our parliamentarians vote in a secret ballot, but let everyone know what they are actually voting for.......i.e. Should Malta adopt a similar divorce system as the Irish? The main criteria being that those seeking divorce must have lived apart for 4 of the 5 previous years. Personally on the subject of divorce I go by the old proverb which states .......That it is better to have it and not need it ....than to need it and not have it.

•

@Mark S Our Constitution does not ban divorce. So this is very different from the European countries you mention earlier. Ireland and Italy had it banned, so it’s a very different scenario. Also in our case the referendum is only intended to have a popular judgement about the divorce. No political party has a mandate to legislate for divorce. One other thing what makes you think that the PL wouldn't have the divorce issue in the coming Electoral Manifesto. Isn’t that what Mr. Muscat had been saying, when asked about the matter? The result of the Referendum will only bind to the present legislation. A new Labour government will simply legislate in parliament. regards

•

You have just managed to give an accurate portrayal of the hypocrisy indulged in by our Prime Minister. We are now looking forward to reading the reply the Leader of the Opposition will give the PM. If I am not mistaken the latter is dead set against a Las Vegas style of divorce and will want the question to be put before the electorate to clarify this crucial aspect of the controversy. The sovereign people of Malta should be informed as clearly as possible what they will be expected to vote on. All attempts to mystify them should be removed, otherwise it would be just a big farce meant to hoodwink the electorate into voting "no" on something nobody (at least seems) to be against while being deprived of the chance of voting on something else, i.e. divorce after at least four separation and no possibility of reconciliation. On the latter there seems to be much more support out there. Will the Gonz act fairly with the electorate? If he won't he'll have to face the chagrin of his own backbencher JPO and the wider chagrin of the electorate. Well, we'll have to wait and see.

•

Brilliant article James !.

•

@Nestor Cerpa Yes but my point is that divorce was introduced by Parliament, which is as it should be and NOT by referendum. Huge difference to the ridiculous situation being proposed here.

•

Prosit, short and sweet. And, to the point.

duncan abela •

The letter by government to the leader of the opposition is so transparently loaded against the very form in which divorce might be eventually introduced that it verges on an attempt to subvert the moderate stance to divorce which the pro-divorce camp has adopted. Government must perhaps think that citizens are idiots not to see through this ploy. An absolute Yes or No answer would open the way for the holier than thou brigade to conjure and argue about all sorts of extreme and undesirable family situations and quickie solutions where divorce would devilishly sow mayhem in the midst of our so called sacred family units. Unfortunately for government JPO has stuck to his guns and they therefore find themselves in an unexpected parliamentary minority on this issue. I had my doubts on whether JPO would ultimately follow down the normal dissent route as his vociferous backbencher colleagues whose smoking guns suddenly fell silent as soon as sugar coated pacifiers were thrust into their mouth. It is traditional within our political system for MPs to eventually sheepishly comply with HQ diktats after some useless proforma barking. In fact this is what seems to have happened on the PL side where even the most trenchant voice against divorce fell into the party line. I am sure the PM thought and expected that JPO would do the same. But one must grant it to this JPO guy that besides gall and cheek he does have chutzpah kind of personality so rare in us Maltese. Perhaps by procrastinating and putting all sorts of pressure government is hoping it might succeed in getting JPO to sing the traditional party tune . We have to wait and see how events evolve in this latest end game of move and countermove.

•

James excellent work

•

@Maurice.Vella That's why I said "Abrogative" referendum check your dictionary please

•

by the way excellant analysis James ....

•

@ all PL apologists and pseudo "progressives" ... The issue at stake is far bigger than the divorce issue. This referendum will essentially pit two contending views of the state against each other. On one side we will have those who think that they have the right to impose their views on marriage on everybody else agaist those holding individual freedoms as absolutely untouchable even by the State, Can the Labour Party afford to sit on the fence, when the principle of individual freedom is at stake? In addition: referenda on the issue were held in at least two other European Union Member States, Italy in 1974 and Ireland in 1986 and in 1995. In 1974 the Christian Democrats and the Church managed to force a referendum on the cancellation of a restrictive divorce law issued in 1970. All the Italian political parties took a stand on the issue. The Christian Democrats together with the post-fascist Movimento Sociale Italiano were in favour of the cancellation of this law, while all the other parties including Liberals, Republicans, Radicals, Socialists, and Communists were against. In the 1986 divorce referendum in Ireland, the Labour Party and Fine Gael and other political parties including the Greens were in favour of the removal of a constitutionally entrenched ban on the introduction of divorce while Fianna Fáil were against. In the 1995 referendum all the political parties were in favour of the removal of what was considered as an illiberal ban on divorce. I.e. a progressive party has NO OTHER OPTIon but be in favour of DIvorce. Muscat's position is nothing buta clear attempt at not compromising a 50% + 1 majority in the 2013 general election by alienating the ultra-conservative voters.

•

@Nestor Cerpa the big difference with Italy's referendum of 1974 is that divorce legislation was already in effect and the referendum was on whether to repeal it - big difference!

•

"The only alternative is to have no referendum at all which could be ultimately the best outcome possible of the current quandary." Agreed. So James, Muscat's original plan of granting a free vote to MPs on divorce doesn't look so bad now, eh?

•

James you forgot Italy's Abrogative referendum which was held in 1974. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_divorce_referendum,_1974

•

Political parties should not take a stand on the issue. The last thing we need is for voters to vote according to their political affiliation and not according to an informed opinion. There are those that need a divorce to move on in life and there are others who will never need to resort to it. It is the latter group that need to decide whether to allow those in need this required legislation. Both groups are made up of PN and PL supports who should not be guided by their master's voice but by common sense and empathy towards those in need. The question drawn up by the PL is a good question that would allow those who doubt to take a clear stand and the attitude of the PN is utterly unacceptable and pathetic.

•

well written as usual James......the situation grows more farcical by the hour with our politicians clinging at everything to please the electorate. A bunch of hypocrites.