PN divorce resolution shelved hours after MPs were ‘forced’ to vote by show of hands

Reacting to Labour’s surprise motion that seeks to counter a PN resolution that effectively kills the possibility of a referendum on divorce, Lawrence Gonzi has now retracted the party’s ‘agreed’ position and announced in a statement, that “should the Opposition move a parliamentary motion calling for a referendum on divorce, PN MPs would be granted a free vote to take their own decision.” 

This latest development has irked many Nationalist MPs who are now asking the party to explain what is really going on after they were told to approve the resolution, by show of hands, after a request for a secret vote was defeated by an insistent Austin Gatt.

Gatt reportedly challenged his colleagues to show their hands if they wanted to rally behind the Prime Minister on the resolution, notwithstanding the numerous interventions by MPs and party officials during the meeting that it was imperative for government to stick to its promise of holding a referendum on divorce.

Speaking to MaltaToday, a number of PN MPs vented their frustration that the resolution has now turned out to be a farce, and last Saturday’s document was now transformed into an “ordinary piece of paper.”

According to reliable sources, Austin Gatt – who has taken a hardline position against the introduction of divorce, even threatening to resign his ministerial post should the party come out in favour of divorce – reportedly told MPs and party officials at Saturday’s PN executive committee meeting that: “a secret vote would be ungentlemanly” [mhux irgulija].

As Saturday’s PN executive committee and parliamentary group meeting approved the resolution after Lawrence Gonzi asked his  MPs for their support, claiming that his “hands were tied”, given that parliamentary procedure dictated that no referendum could be called before a decision was actually taken by the House, many brought up the risk the PN faced by killing the chance for the electorate to vote in a referendum on divorce.

Parliamentary secretary Mario de Marco, assistant secretary-general Jean-Pierre Debono and PN information secretary Frank Psaila were amongst the most vociferous on the risk the party was taking with its motion.

 “I need you all on board,” he told MPs, in a bid to shore up support to explain the process to the public.

Mario de Marco asked what the PN would tell the electorate, should the bill not be approved in parliament, and no referendum called. Jean-Pierre Debono and Frank Psaila stated that it would not benefit the PN to send confused messages to the electorate, and allow Labour to exploit the mess.

But everything changed at the end of this morning's Cabinet meeting, when Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi issued a surprise statement reacting to MaltaToday that revealed that Opposition Leader Joseph Muscat is tonight expected to present a motion in parliament to counter a PN resolution that effectively kills the possibility of a referendum on divorce.

The statement said that “should the Opposition move a motion in Parliament calling for a referendum on divorce, PN MPs would be granted a free vote to take their own decision.”

It added that, “if there was agreement on the question to be asked in the referendum, the Prime Minister would back such a motion in line with his position in favour of a referendum.”

"My position in favour of holding the referendum is consistent since no party has a mandate to introduce divorce," Lawrence Gonzi said in his surprise statement.

"If the Opposition, which was against the holding of a referendum, is now changing its position and wants a referendum instead of the Bill moved by Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando and Evarist Bartolo, I will grant a free vote on this motion too,"  the Prime Minister said.

The Prime Minister added: “If the motion for the holding of a referendum includes a clear, specific and reasonable question to be asked in the referendum, I will vote in favour of it, so that, as I have consistently said, the decision will be taken by the people. However my position and that of the party remains against divorce."