Comedy of not so funny errors

The divorce debacle is still raging. If there are 325,148 eligible voters living on this fair isle of ours, there are, I’m sure, as many differing opinions on how and when and whether divorce should be introduced.

The Prime Minister has gone on record saying he is personally against the introduction of divorce. The Nationalist Party took the same stand. The Leader of the Opposition has stated he is personally in favour of divorce. The Labour Party refrained from taking an official stand on the matter.

Although there was no mention of the D-word in the electoral programmes of both major political parties, the Labour leader had pledged to present a Private Member’s Bill if and when he was elected Prime Minister.

And this is the first not so funny error. The phrase “A Private Member’s Bill” speaks for itself: it is none other than a proposed law introduced by a backbench or cross-bench member of a legislature. So, if the Leader of the Opposition was dead set on the idea he needn’t have waited till he was Prime Minister, which, ultimately, could be of Never, Never Land; he could have presented the Bill anytime he chose to. But he never did.

They say procrastination is the thief of time and, sure enough, the carpet was pulled from under his feet when a PN backbencher took the bull by the horns and presented a Private Member’s Bill himself, as was his right to do.

There are many more amusing aspects to this whole enchilada. First we had a whole hullabaloo on who should decide on whether divorce is introduced or not with many expressing their view that the responsibility fell squarely on the shoulders of the members of Parliament. Others believed that, since neither political party had the mandate during this legislature to introduce divorce, the decision should be taken by the people, hence, a referendum. Arguments from both sides on this issue are still going strong.

As far as the political leaders are concerned, for the Prime Minister calling a referendum was the best way forward and although the Leader of the Opposition had claimed that “simply calling for a discussion or passing on the buck in a referendum would simply equate to a failure of leadership’ (The Times, August 25, 2009) he eventually performed an impeccable Labour U-turn, agreed with the Prime Minister and opted for a referendum.

Sporting one of his chameleon cloaks of convenience to exploit this new environment, the Labour leader hastily threw a parliamentary motion together which included, among others, the wording of the referendum question! Although there was no unanimity on the latter, there was agreement to hold the referendum on May 28. Labour’s motion was approved by Parliament on March 16.

But Labour’s pyrrhic parliamentary victory was very short-lived. And here comes the cherry on the cake. Labour’s motion stipulated that “the President’s writ had to be signed within 15 days, therefore not later than March 31”. Heartily enjoying the comedy, the Labour leader merrily explained that the 15 days were specified “to give the President time to return from Australia”.

The writ was in fact published on March 30, “a day after the (Electoral) Commission received the legal advice to publish it as soon as it is received” (timesofmalta.com, April 2). The legal advice was given by none other than Ian Refalo, professor of constitutional law at the University, the only expert in this field.

Labour, in its incomprehensible rush to hold the divorce referendum mega quickly committed a crucial mistake: it denied nearly 3,000 young people their right to vote.

The only voters eligible to vote in the referendum will be those whose name appeared in the last published Electoral Register (October 2010). Had Labour been wise enough to present the motion without the 15-day limitation, some 2,800 new voters who would have appeared in the April 2011 would be allowed to vote.

Labour has since issued a statement saying it would have been prepared to move a parliamentary resolution that would have allowed the referendum writ to be published at a later date and this in spite of the legal advice given to the Electoral Commission “to publish it as soon as it is received”.

The PN’s reaction was immediate. It claimed that Labour had not changed and continued to think it could “manipulate” the electoral system as it had done in the past. It blamed Labour for depriving 2,800 young people of the right to vote stressing, rightly so, that “this manoeuvre by the Labour Party is a ridiculous mess and is dangerous for the electoral process – a move that would have set a dangerous precedent” (timesofmalta.com, April 1). It has now transpired that, while the motion was being debated in Parliament, Labour ignored the Electoral Commission’s advice to stall the issuing of the writ till April 18 as the new Electoral Register would not be published before April 15. But this information fell on deaf ears. Why Labour went ahead anyway is anybody’s guess but it has only itself, or its leader, to blame!