Majority of Labour MPs to back surprise motion for divorce referendum

To all MPs Well, as has happened everywhere divorce like abortion are introduced, they are firstly legalized in so called restricted circumstances. They are packaged as being ‘responsible’ so we can all pat ourselves on the back and pretend that we are acting in a just manner. Gradually however, these laws are then expanded to include an ever increasing range of other ‘exceptions’ until they evolve into no fault divorce and abortion on demand. Once legalise you will be responsible, for the very Las Vegas attitude you all pretend to detest. Sadly, you are playing a very dishonest game with people’s lives. This will all end up in a huge mess.

I find lots of comments on this portal utterly incoherent, no doubt due to the fact that alot of bloggers are utterly confused. One thing stands out. these bloggers are talking about everything under the sun, they don't know where they want to go.They just keep pointing fingers at Gonzi, Bidnija witch, etc If they find DCG getting under their skin they should go on her blog and deny what's written there which tallies with the contenst of the archives of Malta Today in bygone years. Why do they don't do that? Is it because they can't deny the truth, so they prefer to vent their spleen on this blog? Those who have some sense know the answer.. It isn't clear whether they are in favour of divorce or against. If Labour really wants the introduction of divorce, there is only one option. It's useless to keep playing hide and seek. All Labour has to do is not to press for a referendum which would in all like likliihood result in a No. So the only way is for Labour (1) to make sure all its MPs vote in favour of JPO/Bartolo motion - 36 in favour and 33 against; and (2) when the PN's motion calling for a referendum is presented, they follow the same voting pattern; this would mean that the introduction of divorce would be approved by the House without the need of a referndum. But there are some questions here,; is Labour capable of convincing all its MPs to do this? If the answer is no, then there is very little likliihood that the divorce bill would be passed in the House. It seems that Labour has some 4 MPs who will vote against the bill along with the 32 or 33 Nationalist MPs, meaning a No vote of 36 or 37. So no referendum. Rather than risking this scenario and be blamed for the killing of the divorce bill, they are all out for a referendum albeit they know pretty well that the liklihood would again be a No. But then Labour would be able to say that they are with the people because the last say was the people's not of any of their own MPs. Unfortunately the whole thing has become politicised and therefore the game of both parties is to go through the motions of being wholly democratic and at the same time protect their flanks from the fallout

Statistically speaking the PN is condemning us to the 5 % extreme fundamentalist few of what constitutes the bell shaped normality. This is alarming, in the sense that its a clear pointer that the PN is resembling day in day out, the tribe that has lost its head ( pun intended)! Wither our future, (with a compass) pointing in the medieval past. Yep,the PN is the Liberal Medieval and Obscurantist Party of Malta!. Pull an other one Bidnija gal!

pago perfecto :) Don't say We? as you cannot speak of me:) as not all believe in any GOD/S like for example you do. Yes I belive that there is no GOD?S Or Any ENTITY :) when we die all will be finished, to me those are just promises to think that there is an after life- to me they are all LIES! stories invented :) so don't say WE :) thanks :)

@ briffy min ma jismax mil poplu jkun anti-demokratiku. u l-poplu hu irrid jghazel xi jrid la gonzi u laqas hadd. andom lopinjoni tahom i respect it. pero ma jistawx jghidulna le ma tivutawx al dritt takom fil hajja personali takom! anti demokrazzija flaqwa tahha!

@briffy. Int min qallek li hawn Malta hawn id-demokrazija? It-tkissir rad-demokrazija bdejtuh wara 1977. Kwazi kissirtu lill-Partit Laburista li spicca fl-oppozizzjoni, u qeghdin tippruvaw tkissruh issa billi tghawwgu l-istorja (jew ghallinqas parti minnha fejn jaqbel lilkom). Qeghdin tippruvaw tnessu l-poplu Malti mill-gid li ra taht gvern laburista 1971-1981. Imma kollu ghalxejn. Bhalma rajt, semmejt biss is-70's, ghax wara l-81 il-Gvern Laburista gie government in crisis bhal ma huwa l-PN fil-Gvern illum. Ghawwigtu l-istorja kif ridtu u minghajr ebda xkiel tort ta' Dr. Alfred Sant u l-pika li kellu ghal Mintoff. Imma llum nafu min ghandu ragun. Bit-tajjeb u l-hazin tieghu Alfred Sant sahhah il-Partit u gibdilkom it-tapit minn taht saqajkom fl-1996. Pattejtuhielu billi ghentu li Dom Mintoff iwaqqa l-Gvern ta' Alfred Sant. Illum qeghdin inbatu l-konsegwenzi ta' dawk is-snin. Grazzi dejjem ghal PN li farrak lill-pajjizna u kwazi gabu gharkubbtejh.

@ Proud Maltese....the fact that anybody can call the government of the day 'anti-demokratiku' without fear of reprisals is an irrefutable proof that the statement is a contradiction in terms. QED

@ Pago Perfecto Remember in this country there are people who dont have same belives as you do. and those people have to be respected. we are not like iran. they are islamic state of iran. we are not christian state of malta. religious and politics should be put apart. i as a catholic learned to tollerate even those who dont have my same values. and i dont impose my belives on others. thats why this country remain always backwards. cause of people thinking same way as you do! we never learn! if you belive it is a sin. than dont use it even if you need it!

@ Briffy Jekk dak li qed tassumi int isehh u refferendum ma jintrebahx. xorta tkun saret rebha kbira fdan il pajjiz. li flahhar fpajjizna ghawn min irrid jisma mil poplu u dak li jghid il poplu. jintrebah u ma jintrebahx ma tamilix differenza. izda li jkollok partit li jrid jisma il poplu u partit li jigi jaqa u jqum mil poplu dik taffetwani. issa jider bi car kemm ghana gvern anti demokratiku.

Pago Perfecto. Your comment takes us back some months now. We were then discussing the issue from a religious point of view or almost. But now we are discussing not the issue itself but how to empower the Maltese people to vote on it: accept it or reject it according to their civil rights not their religious outlook. You consider divorce a sin. The Greek Orthodox Church does not, the Anglicans do not, all the other Protestant denominations do not. Does that make all those Christians, repeat Christians, sinful people? Hold it. Before you reach for your Crusading weapons, please, consider that we are not talking religion here. If you hold such religious views you may keep them, you are entitled to them. But out there, are people who are either Catholics who do not share yours views or citizens who no longer consider themselves as Catholic, do you want to deprive them of their civil rights simply because they do not agree with you? Mind you, one of them is your beloved Bidnija Witch. Are you condemning her to hellfire without giving her a fair hearing. In HER case I would say I see your point. But, for Crikey's sakes, there are so many others, completely innocent of malevolence, domestic violence (at least as aggressors) and of myriad other black sins the Bidnija Witch admits to, like hating the Crucifix since her early childhood and so forth, do you want to punish them along with that despicable creature residing at Bidnija? Oh, for shame, mate, have a heart!

Divorce is just selfish people wanting the law to change a vow that they made to their spouses. If one is catholic, they cannot be in favour of divorce. If they are politicians, they can as this is what politics does. i am Catholic, I remian consistent with my belief. Divorce is a sin. It is a sin against man and God. Those who think it is not, fine. We will all find out in the end won't we. No need to attack each other personally.

@ Briffy Ir-referendun dwar id-divorzju ma ghandhux isir biex jirbah jew jitlef xi partit. Il politika partigjana u il knisja ma ghandhomx posthom f'din il kwistjoni.

A possible scenario.....the motion presented by Muscat is carried in the House with the help of 2 or more votes from the Nationalist side. A referendum is held with the likely outcome that the majority of the electorate voting against the introduction of divorce. Where will that leave those who are clamouring for divorce? Empty-handed. Would they then be grateful to Muscat? Would this possible result reflect the Labour leader's undertaking to help everyone achieve their wishes?

Gecko, we are practically saying the same thing. We differ only in the wording, perhaps. What I actually mean is that I have no qualms with Dr Vassallo airing his views on divorce, but I would find his stance absolutely absurd if he votes against the people's right to a referendum on anything, not just on the divorce issue, but on any other issue that might cause division within the nation. We live in a democracy, so even people with Dr Vassallo's principles have a right to uphold their principles. Where they have no right is if they attempt to deprive others from voicing THEIR views and striving to have them prevail. To my mind, this is the best proof of democracy. Even if the Gonz does not seem to appreciate it. But then, his DNA comes from that other Gonz of yesteryear who had managed to bamboozle GBO but not Mintoff.

Knocker 2 I beg to differ. Practicing Catholics have the right, in fact the duty and obligation, not to make use of divorce, or rather not to remarry after divorce But to vote against the introduction of divorce is totally selfish and undemocratic. In other countries the normal iter for Catholics is separation, divorce, annulment if they wish to remarry within the church. And no one questions that iter for a single moment - not even the most devout of Catholics or the Catholic Church itself in those countries. Divorce has absolutely nothing to do with religion or the sacrament of matrimony. Divorce is a civil right and effects only the relationship of the individual with the state.

Jekk id-deputati tal-PL ma jivvotawx KOLLHA KEMM HUMA b'mod li jsir ir-referendum ikun cwiec u lanqas jisthoqqilhom ikunu fil-Gvern. Qed nghid l-aktar ghalik sur onorevoli dottor adriano vassallo. Dr Adrian Vassallo has every right to vote against the introduction of divorce in Malta since his conscience dictates so. But to vote against the people's right to decide is anti-democratic and anti-Christian. Dr Vassallo is to be admired for his principles but ought to be castigated loudly and publicly should he vote against the people's right to decide their own future. Needless to say practising Catholics have every right to vote against the introduction of divorce but they have NO right to deprive others from voting as they wish and according to THEIR conscience. I am sure Dr Vassallo will agree with us on this. If not, f---k him and his f-------g principles. In other less irate and more politically correct words, if he votes against the people's rights he will go down in history as a the bloodiest moron in Maltese legislative history; if he sticks to his principles yet votes for the people's right for a referendum, he will go down in the same annals as one of the most principled politicians we ever had.

hawn qed jurru min huma il vera demokratici fdan il pajjiz, partit laburista li jghatti dritt lil poplu li jideccidi. u partit nazzjonalista li jrid jidetta il valuri tigheu fuq is-socjeta. well done dr muscat il maltin warajk u diga bdejt turi mil bankijiet ta l-oppozizzjoni li int il mexxej tal-maltin. minajr l-ebda interess personali u favuri lejn hadd! izda l-uniku interess tighek huwa lejn il poplu malti. GONZI Your ANTI-DEMOCRATIC MOVE IS FAILING! issa naraw dawk li huma ma nahha tal gvern u huma favur id-divorzzju kemm jemmnu fi-demokrazija f-pajjizna, jien jithol u ma jitholx id divorzzju nigi naqa u nqum. izda li dal pajjiz ikun anti-demokratiku. imexxi min partit li ilu granfatt mal poter 30 sena tbezzani wisq! irridu id-dritt demokratiku li nazlu xi ridu ahna fdan il pajjiz mux li tiddetaw intom, tirrani!

why???? everything is coming to ur advantage dr muscat! let JPO's bill be killed and forget about the referendum. just ask karmenu vella to leave a full page in the manifesto reserved to the introduction of divorce! by taking a radical approach in favour of the introduction of divorce, which is an inevitable step that our country will take, u will steal the liberal base that for over 30 years where happy voting for the PN!

SURPRISE, SURPRISE - Since we know everything it is no longer a surprise at all.

Partit nazzjonalista sar il-partit tan-Neanderthals. U jirragunaw qishom il-mujehadin.

This seems to be a good move by the PL but the PL should still try to mantain a detached stance about the divorce issue as it has done up to now. Divorce pe se should not be politicized and is very much an individual matter. A referendum for divorce in which the public vote is a must!!! Yes a register of those MPs from both sides who vote in favour and against divorce needs to be kept and made public. This will help the public vote for those who it deems best respect and represent their ideals in the next elections.

Min jaf x'genn qabadha lil dik tal-Bidnija! Tghidlek lanqas haqq kemm ili nipprova nirridikola lil Joseph biex nintghogob ma' Pisani u shabu ta' Kastilja. Kif hallejthom ftit waqqghuni ghan-nejk. Bah! Ahjar il-mahmugin ta' Dubai minn dawn il-qatta' cwiec! Serves her right, of course. She ought to find out that she is backing a bunch of incompetent nobodies who would never have made the grade unless EFA decided to trust them rather than John Dalli to keep the torch of "Christian-Democracy" - another word for corruption galore protected by the local medieval Church. Maybe she will finally realize - and admit - that she cannot be a true liberal and back the medieval Gonzi gang at the same time! But will she ever learn, or rather, can she ever learn when she has tied the future of her "little business" to the GonziPN bandwagon?

If I may make a suggestion to your esteemed publication. Please maintain a register of all the politicians from both sides of the house. Include in the register every individual house members position on the issue of divorce by which I mean not whether they are for or against in principle but whether they will vote in favour or against in Parliament. It is important that in the next general election , we the electorate will know exactly who of our parliamentary members believes in basic human freedoms. We will then pass judgement on them come the next election. It is all very well and good that a member of the house may be against divorce for his or her personal religious reasons , however as a representative of the electorate they have to be made to understand that the interest of their constituents surpasses their personal interests and those of the church. This is how these people will learn to become accountable for their actions.

well, a referendum is always good, so the people will make their choice, like showing their opinion! BUT, a referendum is not enough, because you have many people, who don't know what does divorce law means! how can they know, when many people don't know the difference between a TRUNK and a TREE? So it must be introduced immediatley, because its a fundamental human right! I say this to those who oppose the divorce law," don't be afraid of a divorce law, you should not be since you have a strong relationship, and your man or wife loves you". i cannot understand why all this fear about just a law! "you think that your man or your woman, will leave you because of such LAW?". Incredible but true- it's only in the mind, just an emotion of fear! don't listen to the catholic church, the church only wants to decieve you, control you, laugh and smile to you , like a puppet just open your eyes of the malice and manipulating of the church. don't be afraid of GHOSTS! you are free to choose on your own will!live your life happily free or be controlled. RESIST OR SERVE!