We have it from the pro-divorce movement (March 22) that it is to embark on a Yes campaign in the run-up to a consultative referendum on the divorce issue, scheduled for May 28. The first event will be a public discussion in Rabat on April 10.

Any impression that the Iva movement will enter the fray on the strength of electoral support would be erroneous. The Iva movement seems to have assumed the role of a lunga manus of the two MPs who originally introduced a Private Member’s Bill on divorce without an electoral mandate. Now, without waiting for the referendum outcome, the same movement is already pontificating to MPs as to how they should vote in Parliament on an issue of conscience following the referendum.

It is being argued that MPs are in duty bound “to respect the will of the people who elected them”, and that “they were elected by the majority and, therefore, they should respect the will of the same majority”.

In the specific case of the divorce issue, Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando et al had no mandate to propose divorce legislation. Much less is he (or the Iva movement for that matter) qualified to pontificate on the moral obligation of MPs when they come to vote on an issue of conscience.

As far as I am concerned, I made it amply clear that I am determined to navigate by my own star in matters of conscience.

I have no hesitation in publicly affirming my intention to be loyal to my conscience and steadfast to my principles.

I am comforted by the added knowledge that, ever since I was elected to Parliament, I have had no mandate to tamper with the Maltese social structure by means of divorce legislation. Moreover, all Labour MPs have a “free vote” on this sensitive issue.