The Leader of the Opposition wants a free vote on the undefined draft law on divorce, which he intends to present before Parliament. Yet, the same Leader of the Opposition did not allow his own Labour Party any free vote on the motions that in effect spell the end of the PL after nearly 90 years of existence.

Neither did he give the delegates a free vote on what may be a threat to the serene co-existence between the Church and the state, relations existing ever since the fall of the Dom Mintoff/Karmenu Mifsud Bonnici Labour governments.

On the morning of the PL conference's last day, Joseph Muscat thundered in the pro-Labour Sunday paper It-Torċa that the "waste of time for internal discussion and campaigning" among the mythical Labour delegates had come to an end. Clearly, they were expected to unanimously pass all power to the New Movement about which nothing is known other than who its leader will be: the self-appointed Dr Muscat. And unanimously did they vote.

Where was the passion, the anguish witnessed in conferences that saw the end of a line and the beginning of a completely new one such as when the Italian Communist Party accepted social democracy? Then, for the first time, unanimity was thrown out with delegates "in favour"' and others "against".

Yet, not all is clear within the labour ranks. This week's pro-Labour newspapers published articles by regular columnists begging to differ from the Labour conference's unanimity on the divorce issue. So why did the delegates accept so easily Dr Muscat's will?

More fundamentally, why did no one ask Dr Muscat how he intends to implement the "aspiration" of the new movement, also approved unanimously, to bring about a secular state. Surely, Dr Muscat's secular aspirations must include the removal from the Constitution of any reference to the Catholic Church. Indeed, Dr Muscat will have the best of opportunities to clarify the issues at hand before none other than the head of the Universal Church, which he wishes to marginalise from public life.

Yes, the leader of the New Progressive Movement would assure the visiting Pope that he spoke in favour of the Cross remaining in the classroom but then how would he explain his real secular aspiration to remove the wording from the Constitution whereby "Religious teaching of the Roman Catholic Church be provided in all state schools".

The Pontiff will, no doubt, be informed of the PL conference's unanimous acceptance that the state would officially prepare young couples for marriage, preserving the fundamental values of marriage, which, of course, would include Dr Muscat's private member's Bill on divorce. Clearly, therefore, the Cana Movement, like the PL delegates, must now see what the leader of the New Movement defines as "the signs of the times".

Could there not have been one delegate, one member of Parliament ready to distance oneself from Dr Muscat's New Progressive Movement by still agreeing that the Constitution should protect the Church from Dr Muscat's progressive political correctness by calling the Catholic Church as the "religion of Malta"?

The Pontiff might, of course, ask what is there in the Constitution of Malta to stop any Parliament from introducing divorce or even abortion, not to say euthanasia, even if the Church were constitutionally allowed to "teach" each to be wrong. Surely, Dr Muscat would answer with the intellectual honesty one credits him that no such provision exists.

Would not the Pontiff, to balance the constitutional equation, ask if Dr Muscat intended to remove also the reference of pupils having the right not to undergo religious education against the will of the parents or the law prohibiting the Church from using moral pressure on voters during elections?

On the other hand, Dr Muscat may protest that none of the above measures are in the Progressive Movements' intentions and that it will not even contemplate any changes in the constitutional balance that exists in the Church-state relations. While this would please the Pontiff, pray, what leaves up the New Movement's leader's secular sleeve other than the old cynical ploy to win votes?