Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi yesterday toned down the declaration by Nationalist MP Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando that a divorce referendum will be held next year after the issue is debated in Parliament.

The proposal was considered as rather confusing by certain quarters and President Emeritus Eddie Fenech Adami described having a referendum on a law after a parliamentary vote as “almost unconstitutional”.

According to Dr Gonzi, his only commitment is that “if no complications arise”, the Private Members’ Bill presented by Dr Pullicino Orlando three months ago “will start to be discussed next year”.

“I don’t want to jump the gun. And I don’t want anyone to start speaking about referenda because there is a parliamentary process that needs to go ahead,” he said.

Dr Gonzi reiterated his personal stand that the final decision should be taken by “the people”.

“I think it is correct of me to insist that this decision must be taken after MPs have expressed themselves,” he said, meaning MPs could be given the chance to decide on whether the matter should be put to a referendum.

“The discussion should take place in a constructive manner... The decision should be taken on an informed basis and not on emotions or with guillotines. I will not accept any guillotines or time impositions whatsoever,” he added.

Dr Gonzi criticised the Labour Party for having a “confused” stand, which assumes that the divorce debate should be postponed to the next legislature.

When contacted, Dr Pullicino Orlando said he had “nothing to add” to the comments he made on Wednesday about a meeting with Dr Gonzi on the matter, despite the Prime Minister’s clarification.

What Dr Gonzi and Dr Pullicino Orlando seem to agree on is that the Bill discussed in Parliament should be subjected to the public’s verdict.

But Dr Fenech Adami, who has already expressed himself against holding a referendum for such matters of principle, slammed the idea of proposing a referendum after a Bill has been discussed and approved in Parliament, questioning its mechanics. “If the Bill passes through Parliament after a third reading, then the President has to sign it as early as possible,” he said, adding it could be unconstitutional for the President’s approval to then be subjected to popular will.

On the other hand, if the referendum is held after the President’s assent, then it would simply be giving the people the option to repeal a law that has already been approved.

Law professor Ian Refalo said it was possible to pass a law subject to a referendum. “One possible scenario is to pass legislation that will come into force on approval in a referendum,” he said. He pointed out that for the matter to go to a referendum, a majority of MPs would have to approve of the idea.

“It is highly anomalous for a Bill to be discussed but not voted on,” he said.

Another possible scenario Prof. Refalo mentioned was for Parliament to enact a law laying down that any text approved through a referendum would be put into force and then simply put the Bill to a referendum.

As things stand, he said, any law passed in Parliament can be repealed through a referendum. “But I don’t suppose that’s what they mean when they say they will put it to a referendum,” he added.

The Referenda Act does not cater for situations where a referendum is used to propose a law. A referendum can only be used to consult the people or to repeal certain laws or sections of them.

The Labour Party said the latest events “clearly confirmed” Dr Gonzi lost control of his party and was being led on this important issue instead of leading.

The party said there was a fundamental problem with having an anti-divorce Prime Minister moving legislation and a referendum with which he did not agree.

“As a leader, Joseph Muscat is a consistent advocate of responsible divorce and will continue to campaign for it, be it in a parliamentary or a referendum vote, while acknowledging that freedom of conscience must be granted to those taking the decision,” the PL said.

On the other hand, Dr Gonzi first refused to discuss the subject, then tried to “buy time” when a Bill was presented by one of his own MPs and now seems to have committed himself “privately” to a referendum despite the internal debate within his party, it added.

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.