Anti-divorce Labour MPs firm on referendum question

Even the most fervently anti-divorce Labour MPs do not believe the referendum question their party is proposing is “loaded”, as described by the Marriage Without Divorce lobby group.

They will, therefore, continue to support the question, even if the anti-divorce lobby group asks them to change their position and even though the question was likely to pave the way for divorce to be approved.

A survey by The Sunday Times showed 58 per cent of the population would vote yes to divorce if the question is based on the Private Member’s Bill presented in Parliament, which only allows divorce if a couple has been separated for more than four years.

However, support for divorce drops dramatically when respondents were asked whether or not they favour the introduction of divorce legislation, the type of non-specific question Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi wants asked instead of that proposed by the Labour Party.

Reacting to the survey, anti-divorce campaigner Andre Camilleri had said his movement would this week begin lobbying MPs about the “loaded” question being proposed by the Labour Party in a motion signed by its entire parliamentary group.

When contacted, MPs Adrian Vassallo, Carmelo Abela and Marie-Louise Coleiro stood by their original position.

Mr Abela said he signed the PL’s motion for the question to be based on the Bill and, despite the survey results, did not see any contradiction in his stand. “We have a Bill before Parliament based on these terms. If you leave the question open, any MP could put forward a proposal to be able to get divorced in a day and there are no guidelines or guarantees.

“My position is clear, I signed the motion, which we are discussing in Parliament and I will vote as I said I would. Obviously, the anti-divorce lobby group has every right to express their opinions on the question,” he added.

Ms Coleiro Preca said her stand was “clear” and when asked whether the question was “loaded”, she said the survey did not make her change her mind.

“What is certain is that the public should be well-informed about the pros and the cons of divorce. Many people do not understand the implications,” she stressed. If they did, the question would be “immaterial”.

Dr Vassallo, who said he was not “impressed” or “worried” by the survey findings, said the question was “the fairest” one that could be asked. The alternative, “a yes or no question”, would enable legislators to introduce any type of divorce in the future, he said.

“The most important thing is that, throughout the campaign, we clearly explain all the important factors, such as what maintenance really means.”

Nationalist MP Karl Gouder – who despite being in favour of divorce said he would vote against the PL motion in Parliament – also said the survey did not change his views.

“I think the question should be a matter of principle (a simple ‘yes or no’). This makes it a fair question. The truth is there is no guarantee the specific question would reflect itself in a Bill at the end of the day, so a question on principle is more honest with the people.

“Legislators should be allowed flexibility to debate freely,” he said.

The survey also showed that 88 per cent of respondents wanted their MPs to abide by the referendum result when it comes to a vote in Parliament.

When asked, both Ms Coleiro-Preca and Mr Abela said they would cross this bridge when they came to it. Dr Vassallo reiterated his stand that the will of the people would not affect his beliefs and he would vote against anyway.

Mr Gouder said he would accept the result of the referendum.