PM made colossal U-turn on referendum – Muscat
The Prime Minister made a colossal U-turn on the divorce referendum and was now doing everything he could to avoid putting the issue to the people despite having promised to do so, Labour leader Joseph Muscat said yesterday.
“The people should have a forum where to express themselves, either through an election or a referendum,” Dr Muscat said, arguing the Prime Minister was acting to stop this from happening.
Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi, he said, had committed himself to this as early as July. In fact, Dr Gonzi told The Sunday Times in an interview last month: “Once we politicians don’t have a mandate, we will tell the electorate to vote, not the (69) people who haven’t been entrusted with this responsibility.”
Speaking during a radio programme, Dr Muscat also criticised Dr Gonzi’s “ambiguous” statement that he would vote against the divorce Bill even if that meant a referendum would not be held while hoping “that people will have the opportunity to vote in a referendum”.
“This is like shooting at someone and hoping to miss,” Dr Muscat said.
The developments follow the announcement of the long-awaited procedural road map agreed to on Saturday by the Nationalist Party’s executive committee and the parliamentary group. Under this road map, Parliament will be asked to discuss and vote on the divorce Bill. If approved at first and second readings, the government would then propose a clause to make the introduction of the law conditional on the outcome of a referendum.
However, in line with this plan, should the Bill be defeated, there would be no referendum.
Without giving much detail, Dr Muscat said that, when the time was ripe, Labour would “show that it is on people’s side”. Party sources said the Labour parliamentary group would today discuss options to the PN road map including the possibility of a resolution independent of the divorce Bill calling for a referendum on the subject.
Dr Muscat insisted he was always consistent in his belief that a decision having such “social and historic implications” should have the people’s mandate.
He was criticised by the PM, which recalled that, in 2008, he had referred to a referendum as a “waste of time”.
However, Dr Muscat pointed out he had made clear even before he became party leader he planned to present a divorce Bill after obtaining the people’s mandate in an election.
“I planned to have this Bill presented after an election when my intentions would have been put to the people. Now we have a situation where there is no mandate, so there needs to be a referendum,” Dr Muscat insisted.
Popular Stories
Update 3: Woman found dead in car,...
Updated: Woman dies in car crash
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Part of Dwejra 'Azure window' collapses
The end of the bar that ‘never closed’
Bundy does not know whether to...
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
This WAS the night - Kurt makes it...
'No need for early election if PM's...
In Discussion
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
Gozo tunnel could take 5-7 years to...
CABS remote controlled aircraft shot...
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Joseph Calleja condemns portrayal of...
Updated: Labour would give...
CABS drone shot down
Second group of migrants arrives
Adrian Vassallo in scathing...
9 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Raymond Sammut
Feb 14th 2011, 22:28
Dr Muscat is risking degenerating into a populist --taking whatever stance in the hope that his attitude would make him popular. It's an all too familiar theme of the Labour tradition.
Divorce laws would entail high impact legislation in Maltese society. Divorce laws are most likely to require Constitutional changes. For example, the Civil Court would become overloaded with cases involving family disputes because Malta does not have (as far as I know) a Family Court. Malta would not be able to establish a Family Court without changes in the Constitution.
For this reason, Dr Muscat is being irresponsible by trying to by-pass Parliament and take referendum directly to the people without a prior and thorough parliamentary debate.
Fred Borg
Feb 14th 2011, 14:49
Church and Politics should not mix. If one is a good catholic one will obey the church rules. But government should not force church ruling on its people. Democracy is for all. Government should be brave and take responsibly and not pass the buck. Give the people their freedom.
Karl Abela
Feb 14th 2011, 11:20
U-TURNS?
Joseph Muscat has the face to talk about U-turns? Is this guy for real???
Did Joseph Muscat forget that he almost ruined Malta's chance to form part of the European Union just for the sake of clinching on to power?
J Farrugia
Feb 14th 2011, 11:11
The Government did not promise anything. It was just one MP from te Government side which made a mess of himself and of his rotten agenda. The Government and the PM never promised anything to those who pointed a gun to their temple. The Government has no agenda and no mandate to introduce divorce and hence, it never broke any promises. It was only the Labour leader who made a u-turn when first he disowned the referendum and now wants a referendum. No political party has any popular mandate to introduce divorce in Malta. And by the way, the only way forward will be a referendum. I dont trust politicians with my life.
Phil Humphries
Feb 14th 2011, 10:27
Should we really be surprised by broken promises ? - How many is it now ?
The PM appears more concerned with driving his personal agenda than listening to the people.
That's not coffee on the breeze, Dr Gonzi, it's the wind of change.
Joe Zammit
Feb 14th 2011, 10:03
Divorce is a step backward. Progressive people back the indissolubility of marriage.
Divorce is a negative step. Progressive people back the indissolubility of marriage.
Divorce is a big injustice. Progressive people back the indissolubility of marriage which is justice according to the word given in the celebration of marriage.
Divorce is to the detriment of all people. Progressive people back the indissolubility of marriage which good for one and all.
Join in the battle between God and the devil! Fight the good fight! The victory is ours, it's already guaranteed!
a.micallef
Feb 14th 2011, 10:37
The christians have a history of battles, crusades, torture by the inquistors, murders, abuses on children and you still want to keep on fighting. Aktar ma jmur Joe aktar qieghed tiggrava u sejjer lura bhal granc. Ara tghidilnix li gejjien 3 ijiem tad-dlam bhal meta konna zghar u kienu werwruna. Dan id-diskors u kitba ta ftit fanatici ohra huwakollu abbuz u qieghdin tghamlu aktar hsara milli gid ghal-knisja. Illum nippreferi li nzomm it-twemin tieghi bejni u bejn Alla biss u ma nuza l-ebda agent , ghaliex minn dejjem kien hawn hafna agenti li huma foloz.
Joseph Calleja
Feb 14th 2011, 18:11
If you can guarantee that victory is yours, why the big hassle? And who said this is a battle between God and the devil? If it's their battle then let them fight it out. Why get us involved?
Divorce is:
A solution for all those who fall under domestic violence.
A solution for those who are mentally and physically abused.
A solution for those spouses who are cheated on day after day.(Adultery)
A solution for those who cannot bare to see their children physically and mentally abused by the other spouse
A solution for those who see their spouse come home drunk and reek the smell of another woman/man.
A solution for those whose marriage has already failed.
ANNULMENT=DIVORCE. One and the same
Divorce is not a disease like you would like everybody to think it is, but a cure for a failed. marriage which has no other recourse. Divorce is only there for those who need it. Divorce is a human right which should be afforded to all.
James Dimech
Feb 14th 2011, 09:00
Joseph Muscat in a Sunday Times Interview:
"Calling a referendum would simply amount to passing the buck. It would be an irresponsible failure to postpone the decisions that need to be taken"
Who is making U-Turns here ?