The Prime Minister last night wrote to the Leader of the Opposition proposing a May 28 referendum and asking for the question put to the public to be limited to a simple “yes” or “no” to divorce.

Lawrence Gonzi urged Joseph Muscat to join him in making a “genuine effort” to reach a consensus on the method of how to proceed with the referendum “even if we don’t agree on the substance”.

The letter, sent at 8 p.m., sealed another eventful day of meetings behind closed doors as the government and the Labour Party sought to finalise the matter that has seen the situation over a divorce referendum recurrently shift in the past days.

In his letter, Dr Gonzi said divorce was a delicate matter and as politicians they had a huge responsibility when it came to legislating on an issue affecting the future of vulnerable people, especially young children whose parents went their separate ways.

He thus called on Dr Muscat to make two amendments to the divorce referendum motion Labour presented last Monday and yesterday formally requested be put on Parliament’s agenda on Tuesday.

He proposed Dr Muscat amend the motion which says the referendum should be held 40 days after the publication of the writ to avoid a clash with the feast of Our Lady of Sorrows. Dr Gonzi suggested the referendum be held on May 28.

The second amendment involves the question that should be put to the public on the day of the referendum. Dr Gonzi believes the people should be asked a straightforward question of whether or not they agreed with the introduction of divorce. This would allow MPs to be able to vote freely according to the views expressed in the referendum and according to their conscience.

Dr Gonzi, who urged Dr Muscat to meet him in the coming days in a bid to reach an agreement on the two points, proposed the debate on the referendum should start on Wednesday and be wrapped up by March 16.

Even if both leaders eventually see eye to eye, the situation risks becoming increasingly complicated because Nationalist MP Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando – who had sparked off the debate on divorce when he presented a Private Members’ Bill last summer – in the morning said he would change tack and “campaign against a yes vote” if the question were changed to a simple “yes” or “no”.

“I do not want to give any legislator, now or in the future, a blank cheque to potentially use this as an excuse to introduce a Las Vegas style quick-fix divorce,” Dr Pullicino Orlando said, pointing out this was a double-edged sword since the public could effectively be giving a mandate to enact any type of divorce law.

He was speaking right after meeting Dr Gonzi, who yesterday morning met MPs individually on the amendments he wanted to make to Labour’s referendum motion.

Dr Pullicino Orlando insisted he had no intention of undermining the stability of the government’s one-seat majority as was claimed by sections of the media.

Labour’s proposed question for the referendum reads: “Do you agree with the introduction of the option of divorce in the case of a married couple, which has been separated or living apart for at least four years, when there is no reasonable hope for reconciliation and where adequate maintenance is guaranteed and children protected?”

Dr Gonzi is known to have made to his MPs a legal argument as to why this question was problematic. MPs who spoke to The Times said Dr Gonzi felt it did not make sense to consult the public on the parameters of a Bill that had not yet been passed in Parliament because these were subject to change.

The law could become more conservative or more liberal, depending on how the parliamentary debate eventually ensued, he said in his meeting with the MPs.

The MPs, who did not wish to be named, also said Dr Gonzi told them he also wanted to change a clause in Labour’s motion, which proposes that state funds could not be used to promote either side of the divorce debate. This point was not mentioned in Dr Gonzi’s letter to Dr Muscat. Dr Gonzi fears this would prevent certain government commissions or appointees from publishing research, for example, that could be interpreted as favouring a particular side.

Pro-divorce MPs allege phone tapping

The co-authors of the divorce Bill, Nationalist MP Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando and Labour MP Evarist Bartolo, are suspecting their phones are being tapped and have asked the police to investigate.

Their pro-divorce movement said the two MPs filed a formal complaint with the Police Commissioner after they heard strange noises on their mobile phones on Wednesday night.

“Dr Pullicino Orlando and Mr Bartolo were holding a conversation related to an activity that had just been organised by the movement yesterday (Wednesday) at 8.40 p.m. They both suddenly heard a whirring sound and the mobile connection was cut off.” This, the movement claimed, gave rise to the suspicion that their conversation was being “hacked”.

It said it considered this to be “a potentially serious matter” and a thorough investigation was in order.