A big majority of the members of the PN executive committee this afternoon voted in favour of a motion moved by PN General Secretary Paul Borg Olivier declaring the party's position against the introduction of divorce.
The motion also says that a pending bill on the introduction of divorce will be discussed in Parliament as soon as possible and that MPs would be granted a free vote. Should the Bill be approved, it would need to be confirmed in a referendum.
The holding of the referendum only if the Bill is approved by the House was the subject of intensive debate in this morning's meeting, with many members arguing that the people had been led to believe that they would be heard about divorce, and yet no referendum would be held if the Bill was defeated in the House.
Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi, however, insisted that that was the best position.
Amendments moved by Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando, seconded by Jesmond Mugliett, calling on the party to back the introduction of divorce, were defeated. The only amendment that was accepted noted that the rate of separations in Malta has risen.
Dr Pullicino Orlando was among those who argued that the party would suffer politically if the referendum was not held.
The committee also discussed the question to be put if the referendum is held, and it was agreed that it would be based on the contents of the Bill.
The party position and the forthcoming debate in Parliament are now being discussed at a meeting of the PN parliamentary group.
Earlier this week, the Divorce Movement attacked the PN's referendum proposal, describing it as “a filthy tactic” to turn a promised referendum on divorce into “a possible referendum aimed at striking down the proposed law”.
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.”