MPs who don't vote in favour of divorce should resign - AD

AD, I don't think you are in a position to dictate about resignations when you have been big losers since AD was founded. It's up to the people to not elect someone to parlament if the people chose to, not your words. Your words are cheap.

First of all I am a big fan of Marie-Louise she is a pillar in the PL. What i cannot understand is if she is in disagreement why; 1. Why she voted for the referendum m she knew well that there was a chance that the iVa will win. 2. Why she is taking 2 years to leave the PL. to take 2 years pay which will add to her penssion? If she is not in agreement with the PL she leaves now.

MPs are there to serve the electorate! https://mazzun.wordpress.com/2011/06/05/vera-rridu-nsahhu-l-familja/

quite rightly said. if MP do have a conscience problem the only way foward for hte NO MP is to leave their postions. that is the democratic way to clear one's position.and such happens in countries where there is 100% democractic governance.

intom ta' l-alternattiva qisuli ghandkom xi mitt siggu fil-parlament. Dejjem tghidu x'aghandu jsir. L-ahjar l-ewwel li xxolju. Partit sfiducjat minn dejjem. Nisthajjilkomm qabda kantanti konstipati. Tassew kaz li dejjem tridu tirkbu l-bandwagon ta' xi hadd forsi ddabbru xi ftit voti.

MPs who don't vote in favour of divorce should resign - AD -------------------- Issa jirezenjawlek xi-Ministru Nazzjonalista u jitlef is-salarju x 2, u perkacci ohra! Dawk bhalissa qedin jagh,u il-homework kif jistghu joghgbu l'Alla u x-xitan d'daqqa b'l-anqas telf ta' voti ghax l'unika vizjoni li ghandhom hija sa l-elezzjoni li jmiss!

@ D. Borg - I agree with you that the electoral system is in need of a reform as to make the chances for a third party more credible but to say that that the two major parties' "ultimate war" is to keep third parties away is taking the argument a bit too far. AD complains that the system is unfair (and they are right) but then again it has failed to get more than 1% of the electorate on board. Had it achieved those 3% (even 2% at this point) it would have a more credible claim to make.

Jiena nemmen li il PL se jitlef pillastru li MLCP mhux ser tohrog ghal l-elezzjoni. MLCP dejjem hadmet mal batutu u ghalkemm b'din id decizzjoni li ser testjeni lanqas jien ma naqbel maghha, imma ma jmissa qatt harget stqarija li mhux hierga mal PL. Li kieku mill kamp l-iehor tal PN ghamlu hekk il-Ministri nahseb kienet tkun irgulija li taghmel hekk hi ukoll, imma bhal austin gatt qall car u tond li ser jivotta le u ma irrezzenjax. nahseb wiehed ghandu jikkonsidra dawn l-affarijiet.ara it tabib Adrian Vassallo ma irrezenjax u ha jivvota le. irriedu nifhmu ukoll li it-tabib Vassallo gab smerija kbira fid distrett fejn johrog , sa din qed iddur ukoll fuq il-mara tieghu li hija is sindku ta tax xbiex, avolja jien nemmen ukoll li il-mara tieghu maghandiex x'taqsam mal vot tar ragel taghha.

AD iridu jitkellmu.!!!!!!!.kemm ilhom johorgu ghal voti ma gabux jekk tghodd kemm ilhom f'daqqa ma dak li gab il-le.. AD ghax ma jsibux toqba u jmorru jistahbew zgur qatt ma kellhom appogg u voti daqs kemm kien hawn nies li qalu le....

http://mazzun.wordpress.com/2011/06/03/it-tabella-tal-kuxjenza-ipokrita/ - ISSA AGGORNATA LI TINKLUDI LIL TAL-LABOUR

If the electorate was given the opportunity to express an opinion I do not think it is democratic to force MP's to refrain from doing the same especially if they wish to stand by their decisions. The duty of parliamentarians is beyond that of the electorate. A decision should be expected by parliament once the whole issue is thoroughly debated in the interest of the country including those who voted No. The interest of the country may be at loggerheads with that of individuals solidarity or no solidarity, and parliamentarians are there to shoulder their responsibilities. This has nothing to do with yes or no but with political morality due to the State of the Country. And this responsibility should first be put forward by pro divorce parliament responses as by the no in a serious discussion ,not an immature seeking of approval irrespective of all other matters tied with a divorce law, and there are many of them for those who want to be honest.

If it were not for the fact that the Referendum was ►non-binding◄, I would agree totally with AD.   (But it was not!)

RJ I do not wish that this becomes a tit-tat - however there is more than meets the eye - and the fact that PN has & may, over-extended their stay is down to MLP/PL's sheer mistakes. HOWEVER when you consider that the PN was ready to risk Malta's EU accession, rather than have a third party represented in parliament - it becomes evident that whilst the PN & PL fight their petty battles on who officially leads the country and who has to pull cross party strings to get 'favours' (whilst pledging that they will reciprocate when in govt.) - the ultimate war is against anyone threatening the status quo that both PNPL are happy with, because it serves their joint vested interests and those who finance them. with that, i rest my case.

MPs need to represent the will of their constituencies. How can an MP possibly vote against divorce is his or her constituents are in favour? The government was too spineless to take responsibility and passed the buck to the people and the people have spoken. Certain politicians ought to be ashamed to even suggest that they are voting according to their consciences after costing the taxpayer €4M for this conscience-easing referendum - it's just adding insult to injury now.

IF MLCP CANNOT STAND THE HEAT, SHE SHOULD GET OUT OF THE KITCHEN ASAP. SURELY SOMEONE WILL STEP UP TO TAKE HER PLACE AND WITH A CLEAN CONSCIENCE VOTE FOR THE DIVORCE LEGISLATION. THE POLITICIANS ARE ELECTED TO SERVE THE PEOPLE OF MALTA AND NOT MILK THE MALTESE COW TILL THEY FIND THEMSELVES ON A LOOSING END BECAUSE OF THEIR OWN OBSTINATE OPINION.

Finally the AD has come out with a credible statement. It's about time the AD understands that the people of Malta are more interested in their own country affairs than making statements on foreign states. Now to sustain this statement, AD should try their hardest to enlist the brilliant Deborah Schembri & the courageous JPO. The reasons are that women in Malta should endorse Deborah and every woman should ignore the Curia and engage Deborah for their marital legal problems. Secondly, JPO might risk this idea for a second chance to be his own politician, seeing that his future in GONZIPN is very debatable. Other options are Michael Falzon and Evarist Bartolo Although Evarist Bartolo might not be ready to leave the gummy bears of the PL.

@d.Borg. It is precisely your kind of argument which brought to the point of rejecting AD as a part. "the 'problem' are the policies which the PNPL devise simply and solely to protect their absolute control." Here you are implying that there is only party in power which goes by the name of PNPL. Had they alternate power every 5 or 10 year then sucha claim would have been justified but if truth is to be told we had a one party (PN) for almost 25 where it imposed its own conservative rule ... and this conservative policy can be seen everywhere. But then again who am i to question the PNPL mantra.

As I stated before my aim is to see divorce legislation being enacted asap through the most pragmatic political solution without caring much how this objective is agreed to in Parliament. However I did state objectively the traditional and historic unviolable rights of MPs and ask the readers to look up historical cases justifying my stance. For me this principle of MP independence and freedom is of a higher order than the way an MP votes after a consultative referendum. Just to give one simple example: Imagine that we did have a political party with a manifesto for preserving hunting and bird trapping. A referendum is held on the issue and civil society by a large majority votes to ban hunting. Do you think that MPs of the hunting party are undemocratic if they vote against such a bill in parliament. We do not have a pro-hunting party but then no party told the MPs in the last election manifesto that they might have to vote for divorce or perhaps in future for something which even those voting in favour this time will have to oppose on moral or ideological grounds . There rests my case.

Kemm qeghdin tajjeb dawn tal-Labour......wara 25 sena fl-oppozjoni il-batuti jaqilghu fuq rashom; issa gew jaqghu u iqumu minn dawk li ghamluhom nies! Tal-IVA omini:tal-LE bil-kuxjenza quaquaraqua! Quoted from Leonardu Sciacca.

@RJ the 'problem' are the policies which the PNPL devise simply and solely to protect their absolute control. They do check each other out, however there is nobody to check that they do not co-ordinate matters between them to retain the status quo - namely absolute alternating PN and PL governments - barely accountable to what happens within their 5yr reign. The fact that they pay themselves handsome pensions - albeit the latest payrises have backfired on Gonzi since they were not agreed beforehand behind PNPL closed doors. More cheeky and blatant is the Electoral Law reforms which notwithstanding the declarations of both Gonzi & Muscat, have conveniently been aborted - so that the PNPL regime still denies any represenation for any third party unless they garner over 45,000 votes! Why do some voters stay at home one may ask - simply because again the PNPL regime have run roughshod over the hyped up Data Protection Act, and they has assigned themselves the privilege to gather, retain and process personal data. Thus whenever a traditionally blue/red voter feels let down by his party - he sends a message that he is sure they will decifer - stay home. Others are so disgusted by the petty self-defeating local politics - that they utterly despise anything to do with elections - and aware of the undemocratic threshold and hearing the (PN publicly & PL subtly) harping on 'wasted vote' (the same PNPL devised) - simply do not bother.... To gauge whether anyone is better or worse, best bet is to erase all the empty words and finally grab on the effectiveness or otherwise of raw actions / milestones and the value for money pour in the achieve them.

Cannot agree more with AD on this issue. Those who vote no or abstain are not honoring the will of the people so that should resign fortwith, and not tell us they will not seek reelection. That is not good enough.

The problem with AD is that it can't see beyond its own PNPL mantra - as if both parties are the same. Had this rewared them with votes, it could have been justified. Though, all I see is a dangerous propoganda which creates dissilusioment in the electorate. PN is bad; PL is bad - AD is the only democratic party in Malta. "We are better than the rest, because we just are." In the last election 7% stayed at home - they didnt go to AD. So I ask: where is AD going?

Once a person is elected to parliament he is his own free agent in the way he votes in Parliament. MELA GHALHEKK IVOTAW IVA GHALL 500EURO FIL-GIMGHA ARA HEMM MA'MISSETHOMX IL-KUXJENZA

aleo2 The problem here is that MPs are adopting two strategies which are inherently anti-democratic. 1) They are being as evasive as possible with journalists on a crucial vote and 2) They are simply referring to their 'conscience'. Both are insufficient in a true democracy.

Once a person is elected to parliament he is his own free agent in the way he votes in Parliament. His grouping or party may remove the whip and expel him from the party but that s far as it can go if an MP is still determined to vote the way he thinks best. His reason for voting so might be for a grave issue of conscience, an imagined slight or even for such silly reasons as the position of a pontoon in Birgu. The only democratic redress for those who do not agree with an MPs decision is not to reelect him the next time round. There are very good historical reasons and many past real situations for this right of MPs to be preserved and it is the only way if MPS are to be guaranteed freedom to represent their constituency and vote in a free, unfettered , unpressurised and nonthreatened way.

il-membri parlamentari kellhom bhal kull cittadin jesprimu skond il-kuxjenza taghhom bil-vot fir-referendum fit-28 ta'Mejju dak kien dritt sagrosant izda ma hux dritt tal-parlamentari li jastjeni jew jivvota le fil-parlament ghax din hija l-ghazla ta'maggoranza li lill parlamentari poggiethom fil-parlament biex jirraprezentawa ghalhhekk kull min miz zewg partiti jastjeni jew jivvota le POSTU MA HUX FIL-PARLAMENT................................

Agree with AD...............min ma joqodx ghar rieda tal poplu jwarrab...................u din ghaz zewg partiti mhux ghall partit wiehed..............

Someone had passed a comment that there was no referance in the General Election Programm of both political parties on the issue of divorce. It is precisely because that there was no referance in the electoral manifesto of both parties rapresenting the electorate in parlament, that the house of rapresentatives came up with this excuse and abducted from their responsability and thrown the issue on to the electorate to be decided by a referendum. Now that the electorate have decided,ALL members in that parlament should do their best to descuss and emmend where neccessary to ensure the best possable divorce legislation,but finally they should bow their heads to the electorate and vote in favour of this bill. If they don't,they are betraying the electorate and should resign.

Divorce? How dare the Maltese vote in favour of divorce? What's next? Democracy! What worries me is that 47% still think they have the right to tell people how to live.

I agree! Those who abstain or vote no should resign as explained in: https://mazzun.wordpress.com/2011/06/03/it-tabella-tal-kuxjenza-ipokrita/

You have to stand on some form of moral ground in politics. So your objection makes little sense. This has nothing to do with superiority or otherwise and everything to do with consistency and democratic processes.

Issa ghax xi hadd ha falza stikka, ghax haseb li t-twegiba tal-poplu se tkun 'le', i se noqghodu nfettqu biex nippruvaw naraw kif inkomplu nfixxklu u fuq kollox insalvaw wicc dan li ha falza stikka u li ma jixtieqx juri fejn se jixhet il-vot parlamentari tieghu u taghha. Issa spiccat d-demokrazija, it-trasparenza, it-tghajjir li xi hadd ma jiehux decizjoni, li xi partit dejjem kif jghidu l-inglizi qieghed fuq il-'fence'. Issa qed nzeffnu l-kuxjenza, u ma tigihx il-kuxjenza li nfaqna 4 miljun Euro ghax hsiebna li l-poplu se jnehhi l-piz minn fuq il-Parlament u jiddeciedi 'Le', u l-ligi tad-divorzju ma titressaqx. Ghax dawk favur ir-referendum kienu rgiel u nisa bizzejjed biex jiddikjaraw minn qabel li jekk ma tghaddix l-'IVA', ma kienux se jkomplu ghaddejjin bil-ligi. U dawn ma qaghdux isemmu persentaggi, kienu lesti li anke jekk bi ftit voti l-'le' jirbhu dawn jieqfu hemm. Imma tal-'Le' mhux hekk. Issa minn dahal fil-basla, minflok ifixkel, ahjar jara kif jipprova johrog minnha.

ML Coleiro has taken the most honourable way out.It is typical of her, out of loyalty to the party, notwithstanding that there may be other reasons for her taking this decision. As to Adrian Vassallo, one should consider giving him a nun's frock and dump him in some convent 'tal-klawsura' where he would have all the time to meditate.

@RJ AD moral ground over others? are you serious? Having the spine to call a spade a spade, and expressing opinions without assessing the votes lost or gained, or whether big businesses (generously donating to the party) will be annoyed or otherwise - has nothing to do with pretending to be morally superior. In actual fact AD have been calling for the introduction of divorce (to all and sundry) as a civil right since last century! As far as I know, JPO initiated the private member bill based on the Irish divorce law, on AD's suggestion. The pity is not that AD does not get at best credit, at worse ..... the pity is that we as taxpayers and as Maltese, have to foot the bill (literally) and sustain a lower quality of life (compared to what we can actually enjoy), simply because of the self-defeating, obsolete, and party-centered policies and vested interest that the PNPL have tied themselves with!

@ David. Whaterver David - but aren't you all the same: barking, craping ... one thing that pretty much is starting to annoy me about AD is that like the PN they always feel morally superior to the rest; of course in different but alas the same. One (PN) thinks that is had a God given right to tell people how to live their life. And AD always feel it has the high moral ground over others.

@ mazzun ghandek zball zghir, edwin vassallo mhux kontra bil kuruna fidejh, izda kontra bil vara fuq spallejh

Some people prefer the small dogs that bark. Others prefer the big dogs that crap all over their decency.

@ Dominic Chircop. Actually I wouldnt mind if Adrian Vassallo switches side. M Coleiro will not.

Marie Louise Coleiro Preca, Nittama li mhux qed tikkontempla taqleb il-kamra u 'sserrah lil Gonzi minn nuqqas ta' voti li ghandu fil-kamra tal-harrajja !

Tabella shiha ta' liema MPs se jittradixxa lil-poplu: http://mazzun.wordpress.com/2011/06/03/it-tabella-tal-kuxjenza-ipokrita/

AD is turning out like one of those small dogs which bark all the time from the safety of their home.