Adrian Vassallo MP (Labour), Ta’ Xbiex
Conscience rules in absence of mandate (1)
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.
Popular Stories
In Discussion
25 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Joe Micallef
Mar 29th 2011, 19:51
Really Dr Vassallo as much as I try I cannot reconcile the contents of this letter and your parliament vote in favour of the immorally misleading referendum question! Was it lapsus or coercion? Time to come clean
MBorg
Mar 29th 2011, 17:58
Well said. Some people do not know the meaning of a consultative referendum. A consultative referendum is used simply to obtain the people's opinion on a given matter. It is not binding in any way. No one must use political pressure on MPs. MPs have been given a free vote and they must use according to their conscience. No referndum result can make something seem right if it is wrong for you.
Kenneth Zammit
Mar 29th 2011, 19:38
Mandate or not, consultative referendum or whatever referendum you call it, it is still a result to what people clearly want ! As MPs elected and paid by its citizens, they should represent them and not vote in parliament against them ! If parliamentarians act against the will of the people there will be political consequences! If you have a problem with you conscience then resign.
Joe Micallef
Mar 29th 2011, 20:05
Kenneth Zammit there are two reasons why I don't think MPs are bound by the outcome of consultative referendum 1. The question is a misleading and loaded question 2. The MP represents the quota of electorate that put him in Parliament. Assume the referendum is 60% in favour and 40% against. Should the MP vote in favour as you suggest he will be statistically betraying the trust of 40% of his quota, that is, 40% of the people that gave him the right to vote in parliament who had they been told that there representative would be voting in favour of divorce may well have voted otherwise
victor pulis
Mar 30th 2011, 08:28
Voting according to one's conscience is the best option but not when there are some who would stifle our conscience because it goes against the pope's. JZ often tells us that if our conscience disagrees with what the pope says then it's wrong and we should disregard it.
Of course, we know what to do with this advice.
GiovDeMartino
Mar 29th 2011, 16:58
To all those who expect an MP to respect the will of the majority....If the majority thinks that illegal immigrants should be turned back even if that means that they will end at the bottom of the sea, do you expect all MP's to respect the will of the majority?
wally vella-zarb
Mar 29th 2011, 17:24
More than in an election, the results of a referendum clearly say that "The people have spoken and their choice on the proposed motion is ___ ". If an MP does not share the wishes of the majority as expressed in a democratic referendum on any particular motion he has two decent options: (1) abstain when the motion is put up for voting in Parliament or (2) resign from the post of MP because he no longer has the support of the electorate. Any other choice would be indecent because it would show that the MP couldn't care less about the wishes and aspirations of the electorate and therefore no longer deserves employment as a 'representative of the people'.
GiovDeMartino
Mar 29th 2011, 17:49
The people have spoken. They want to be governed by the PN led by Eddie Fenech Adami. But the will of the majority was NOT respected.
wally vella-zarb
Mar 29th 2011, 18:48
If you are talking about thirty years ago you know as well as I do that those were the rules at that time. You should have had the foresight to have the rules changed BEFORE playing and not after you lost - by the same rules under which you had implicitly agreed to contest the election. If you were honest you would also recall that the exact opposite almost happened in 1976 where 'the will of the majority' would have been thwarted by some three votes in one particular district. So eager were you to go against the 'will of the majority' at that time that you called for several recounts, hoping that those three votes would be nullified. So much for honesty!
GiovDeMartino
Mar 30th 2011, 11:25
Dom Mintoff publicly declared: I WILL not govern unless the majority is behind me. The majority was NOT behind him. And yet..............
Kenneth Cassar
Mar 29th 2011, 14:32
"In the specific case of the divorce issue, Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando et al had no mandate to propose divorce legislation".
One doesn't need a mandate for a Private Member's Bill. You, as an MP, should know this.
MBorg
Mar 29th 2011, 18:45
You , as a tax payer should know that divorce is no laughing matter. What JPO did with his private member's bill is indirectly asking us to foot the bill for all the broken marriages, separations and single parents that follow.divorce. MPs should have had a mandate before dealing with such a serious matter.
E Phillips
Mar 29th 2011, 19:53
MBorg,
You, as a taxpayer, foot the bill for many things, social benefits, MP's salaries, roadworks too name but a few. Perhaps you would wish to do away with those as well.
Daniel Abela
Mar 29th 2011, 14:22
Your use of the word "pontificate" was very unfortunate. I am sure you would'nt like to know for whom it can be very aptly attributed. But at least, it's good to engage in discussion in a light and jovial manner.
wally vella-zarb
Mar 29th 2011, 12:43
Feel free to prefer following your beliefs over the expressed wishes of the electorate, if that is your choice. Likewise, the electorate will be free to choose when it comes to voting for candidates to represent their wishes and aspirations come the next election. The decent course to take if faced with a situation where your personal beliefs are manifestly contrary to the wishes of the electorate would be to abstain. Personally, I chose to include you in my list of preferences because you happened to be included on my preferred list; I know better now. We all make choices in life.
Ramon Casha
Mar 29th 2011, 11:14
"It is being argued that MPs are in duty bound “to respect the will of the people who elected them”..."
Wrong. It is being argued that, once parliament sent the question to the electorate to be decided in a referendum, MPs are ethically (but not legally) bound to respect those wishes, even if they personally wanted a different result.
B. Cachia
Mar 29th 2011, 11:00
A referendum is held in order to provide a popular mandate for one course of action or another. Anyone who proposes to ignore the people's will would be acting undemocratically.
Henrik Piski
Mar 29th 2011, 10:52
Dear Mr Vassallo, if your conscience guides your decision and not the outcome of the referendum, I would strongly suggest that you resign as a MP.
Joe Zammit
Mar 29th 2011, 10:51
Conscience is reasoning.
No conscience can contradict the express and clear words of Christ about the evil of divorce: What God has joined together let no man put asunder! No conscience can genuinely go against this clear commandment of Christ on the necessity of the indissolubility of marriage and the intrinsic evil of divorce.
A conscience that suggests divorce to anyone is diabolical. The devil is pleased with divorce. God does not want divorce. This is the clear teaching of Christ and the infallible teaching of the Catholic Church.
If your conscience tells you something against the infallible teaching of the one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, do not follow your conscience. Your conscience is not infallible. Your conscience is subject to the teaching of Christ and his Church.
If you follow your conscience in disagreement with the Church, you are grievously stubborn and proud. Your stubbornness and pride will lead you only to hell. All those in hell appeal to their conscience for being there ... for ever... without any hope of redemption... there for ever!
Conscience is reasoning!
Keneth Zammit
Mar 29th 2011, 09:23
Disgusting, another form of dictatorship!
MPs are elected and remunerated to action the peoples' will, and not their own individual egoistic beliefs.
We got you up there, and we will pull you down if you go against the majority's will expressed through the results of a national democratic referendum.
GiovDeMartino
Mar 30th 2011, 17:08
The same as we did to Alfred Sant for ignoring the YES for EU vote.
acassar
Mar 29th 2011, 09:16
A good politician legislate according to the needs of society & not according to his conscience.......In case stay at home or join the Catholic action !!!
Alex Ciantar
Mar 29th 2011, 09:13
@ Adrian Vassallo - Then it is simple, that next election prepare yourself to move on and vacate your seat to someone more in touch with the people.................. then you will have no more problems where your conscience is concerned!!
Anthony Cachia Castelletti
Mar 29th 2011, 17:55
In that case so should GPO, Evarist Bartolo, and all other MPs who supported them without getting a mandate at the last general election
M Vella***
Mar 29th 2011, 09:05
What about divorce obtained abroad and is recognized in Malta Dr Adrian Vassallo ,does this not bother you.If divorce is not introduced in Malta,even from abroad it should be stopped,it cant be that who has got money can get divorced and who hasn't has got to cohabit for all his life,this is injustice,than either every body or nobody.In my opinion THE CHOICE IS ONLY MY OWN.