Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando will be asking the Nationalist Party executive committee tomorrow to take a stand in favour of “responsible divorce” after proposing changes to the general secretary’s anti-divorce motion.
The PN executive will debate the motion outlining the party’s stand on divorce in the last of a series of meetings held to discuss the matter after Dr Pullicino Orlando presented a Private Member’s Bill last year for the introduction of divorce.
The original motion moved by Paul Borg Olivier takes a clear anti-divorce stand and proposes a road map on how the decision should be taken.
Dr Pullicino Orlando’s proposal speaks of cohabitation and links it to marriage breakdown. “There are circumstances where a marriage breaks down irretrievably and some seek new relationships that should be considered a family when this is based on love and mutual respect,” his amendment states. It goes on to propose the introduction of divorce to give such couples the chance to get married.
“Without removing the obligations to one another of a couple that chooses to cohabit, the state has the choice in these circumstances to consider that the introduction of a responsible divorce law will bring more order to society.”
The road map suggested in the original motion speaks of holding a referendum on divorce if Parliament approves such a law. The PN is also suggesting its MPs be given a free vote.
The chosen road map means divorce can only become law after going through two stages: a positive parliamentary vote and a yes in a referendum.
From the government benches it is only Dr Pullicino Orlando and Karl Gouder who have publicly expressed themselves in favour of divorce. However, Dr Pullicino Orlando would not be drawn into saying whether his divorce Bill enjoyed a parliamentary majority. “I will be voting in favour of divorce in Parliament and in a referendum if it is held,” the backbencher said.
Mr Gouder was less forthcoming when contacted, insisting he did not want to say how he would vote in Parliament. “There is a process and I will wait for Saturday’s (tomorrow’s) executive meeting,” he said.
For President Emeritus Eddie Fenech Adami the chosen road map was the logical option because the parliamentary process would take its full course without being interrupted.
“From what I can understand there will be no referendum if Parliament votes no but we will have to wait and see because things can change,” Dr Fenech Adami said.
He welcomed the proposal to allow MPs a free vote on the matter despite the party heading towards an official anti-divorce position.
“I think it is a good stand. On principle, the party is against divorce, a position that respects the party’s values but there is nothing strange in allowing a free vote in respect of the divergent opinions within the party,” Dr Fenech Adami said.
The PN’s decision to take an official stand and the suggested road map elicited contradictory reactions from various organisations.
In a scathing attack on the road map proposed by Dr Borg Olivier, the pro-divorce movement described it as “a filthy tactic” to turn a promised referendum on divorce into “a possible referendum aimed at striking down the proposed law”.
Iva movement chairman Deborah Schembri said the holding of a referendum after MPs would have voted yes unfairly created “a twisted double hurdle” for the proposed divorce Bill.
“The Prime Minister’s reason to opt for a referendum was that the government did not have an electoral mandate to introduce divorce and that, on a matter of such fundamental importance, he wanted to see what the people had to say before proceeding. That was a reasonable stance and we did not oppose it.
“However, proposing a referendum only after a vote on the Bill is taken in Parliament completely defeats the purpose of having a referendum. It is a contradiction in terms because those who self-professedly do not have a mandate to represent the people on the issue of divorce would be doing just that if a vote is taken before going to the people.”
Dr Pullicino Orlando and Labour MP Evarist Bartolo, who is co-sponsoring the divorce Bill, form part of the Iva movement, which also includes Alternattiva Demokratika chairman Michael Briguglio.
AD welcomed the PN motion that parliamentarians should vote on divorce legislation.
“Elected representatives should stop being ambiguous and come out with a clear position on the issue,” Mr Briguglio said, calling the promised divorce debate a step in the right direction.
In contrast to the Iva movement’s position, AD said calling a referendum on divorce without a vote in Parliament would have been an abdication of the functions of political parties and parliamentarians.
Mr Briguglio expressed his doubt whether divorce enjoyed a clear parliamentary majority, adding only the presence of AD in Parliament could guarantee a yes vote for divorce legislation.
Progressive student organisation Move urged political parties not to influence the electorate in a divorce referendum. “In the same way Lawrence Gonzi will be giving his MPs a free vote in Parliament we expect him to give people a free vote and refrain from campaigning in a referendum on the basis of a decision taken by his party,” the organisation said.
ksansone@timesofmalta.com