Nationalist backbencher Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando has made it clear he has no intention of resigning if his party formally adopts an anti-divorce stand.
However, the divorce bill promoter said he would reconsider his position in the party, but not in Parliament, if he is denied a free vote during any stage of the process leading up to the divorce referendum.
In a surprise move last Wednesday, PN heavyweight minister Austin Gatt threatened to resign as an MP if his party backed the introduction of divorce at the end of a debate at executive level.
Dr Gatt wrote in The Times: “If that decision goes against what I conscientiously believe in, I would resign from Parliament since I would not be able in all conscience to back a pro-divorce party and I cannot ever expect that my view prevails over the majority view.”
His view was interpreted by some as a challenge to Dr Pullicino Orlando to quit the party if the PN takes a stand against divorce in the coming days. PN sources say there is a movement for the executive to give the thumbs down to the introduction of divorce, though the party would continue embracing people of different views.
The discussion was prompted by Dr Pullicino Orlando’s surprise Private Member’s Bill on divorce last year, which is likely to lead to a referendum on the issue close to summer.
With a final decision expected to be taken next week, Dr Pullicino Orlando told The Sunday Times he is determined to get his message across “without the need for drama”.
“My party is not monolithic. It has grown because it embraced people with different views, but I will respect the decision taken by the executive, provided it is made clear there will be a free vote. Dr Gatt should avoid making certain declarations since they are putting unnecessary pressure on the PN executive.”
Dr Pullicino Orlando app-lauded the way the discussion has evolved within the executive so far, saying it echoed Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi’s wish for a civil debate, embracing different opinions.
However, Dr Pullicino Orlando emphasised the importance of giving utmost care to the wording of the PN resolution.
He insisted the PN had historically never been against divorce; otherwise it would never have endorsed candidates who had favoured its introduction. Categorically coming out against divorce now, he said, would do untold harm to the party.
“Are we actually going to dictate the party’s stand for the foreseeable future? Do we realise the repercussions of doing so?” he said.
The outspoken MP urged his party to wake up to the reality that a potential majority of Nationalists were actually in favour of the introduction of divorce.
A recent survey by the current affairs TV programme Xarabank showed that 47 per cent of those who said they voted PN in the last election would be prepared to vote in favour of divorce provided it is only available to couples who have been living apart for four years, have tried everything possible to seek reconciliation and where the maintenance of children is guaranteed.
This contrasts with the 40 per cent of PN voters who are against divorce.
“We have to be really careful about the way we’re going to come out at the end of this debate. Those opposing divorce have to realise we can’t afford to hurt the many people who feel very strongly about this issue.
“We also have to start analysing the political cost of such a sensitive decision. We risk seeing people who traditionally vote PN abandon our party – irrespective of the referendum result. The political implications of taking a categorical stand could be enormous. Let’s remember it’s the voters who make up the PN – not the MPs, the administration or the executive.”
If the party were to fully embrace Catholic values, as some are claiming, then why was it working towards a cohabitation law, Dr Pullicino Orlando asked.
He urged the more conservative wing in his party to take heed of theologian Fr René Camilleri who recently said he considered it worse if a country introduces cohabitation than if it legislates in favour of divorce.
“Why are we stopping (separated) couples from re-marrying after being separated for four years? We’ve put the divorce issue on the backburner for far too long,” he said.