Opposition leader Joseph Muscat has turned down the Prime Minister’s request to frame the referendum question as a straightforward ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to divorce.
Dr Muscat said the Prime Minister’s choice of question was “simplistic” and ignored the complexity of the issue at stake.
A motion presented by the opposition, which has the backing of all 34 Labour MPs and Nationalist backbencher Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando, proposes a question that highlights key elements of the Bill before Parliament rather than a generic one asking people whether they agree with the introduction of divorce.
Dr Pullicino Orlando and Labour MP Evarist Bartolo are piloting the Bill before Parliament.
In a reply to a letter sent by Lawrence Gonzi on Thursday evening, Dr Muscat yesterday said he was willing to accept the Prime Minister’s proposal to hold the referendum on May 28 and for the debate on the motion to start on Wednesday.
Explaining the reasoning behind the specific question proposed by the opposition, Dr Muscat said MPs would be bound by the key principles that underpinned the divorce Bill currently before Parliament.
The principles, which according to Dr Muscat make for responsible divorce legislation, include giving couples who would have been separated or living apart for four years and with no hope for reconciliation the option to divorce.
“I dare say that such a specific question not only ties the hands of today’s legislators but also those who come in the future.
“If responsible divorce becomes law, and in the future there will be lawmakers who would want to change any one of the principles outlined in the referendum question, they would be morally and politically obliged to first consult the people,” Dr Muscat said in the letter circulated to 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?”
When contacted, the Prime Minister’s spokesman said Dr Gonzi was disappointed that Dr Muscat failed to agree to a consensus about the question to be put forward to the electorate.
In his letter, the Prime Minister had expressed his wish there would be agreement on a question which impacted families so intimately, his spokesman said.
Dr Pullicino Orlando has gone on record stating he will not accept a generic question since this gave MPs a blank cheque to introduce a Las Vegas-style divorce.
Labour had also called for the referendum to be held 40 days after Parliament approved the referendum motion. This would have coincided with Lent and the possibility of people going to vote the day after the feast of Our Lady of Sorrows.
This is likely to change with Dr Muscat yesterday showing willingness to second the Prime Minister if he puts forward an amendment to hold the referendum in May. However, if Dr Gonzi did not do so, Dr Muscat said he was prepared to present the amendment himself.
The correspondence came at the end of an eventful week that saw the House Business committee in Parliament fail to reach agreement on when Labour’s referendum motion would be discussed.
Reacting to these events Alternattiva Demokratika yesterday described the Prime Minister’s “manoeuvring” on divorce as shameful and detrimental to the people, insisting it did not make sense to ask a generic question in an eventual referendum.
Addressing a news conference outside Parliament, AD chairman Michael Briguglio said Dr Gonzi wanted a generic question out of political convenience because surveys had shown that people were less in favour when the question was open ended.
Mr Briguglio said the Prime Minister’s behaviour was a bigger reason for the Labour Party to take a clear position in favour of responsible divorce rather than sit on the fence.
ksansone@timesofmalta.com