In the fog of war, sight is the first thing to be lost, sometimes of the most simple of objectives. Combine that statement with our natural proclivity to polarise any issue under the sun and it will be glaringly obvious why the divorce debate has degenerated into one where confusion reigns supreme. We have campaigns based on sniping and broadsides mutually exchanged between the two factions rather than on a calm and rational discussion on the issue facing us.

In this environment, it is going to be very difficult to try and approach the matter calmly and logically, knowing full well that the slightest hint of any leaning to any one side will be immediately pounced upon by the other and subjected to irrational harangues that are probably the reason why so many people are pronouncing themselves as being sick of it all. However, I shall still take the step of approaching this issue on the basis of my convictions and ideals, hoping that my rational and objective viewpoint will strike a chord in the minds of those who, like me, are trying to make some sense of all the nonsense being bandied about.

We, as voters, are being asked to express our opinion in response to a question that, in my opinion, has proven to be the first source of confusion.

How can the average Maltese voter be expected to understand the logic or, rather, the lack of it, which resulted in the hasty adoption of a question based on a law drafted in another country? The question purports to be one with detail when it only skimps the deeper issues involved.

While one has to accept that there are many couples and families who are facing problems that need addressing, that does not lead naturally to a leap to a conclusion that this divorce legislation being drafted is the solution. The existence of the problems that we are all aware of does not necessarily mean that the first attempt at a perceived solution is necessarily the best, or even a good, way forward.

I query not only the motive behind the presentation of this issue for decision but also the rashness and the haste apparently behind it. On what basis and societal study has it been based? If problems exist, and they do even in my close circle of family and friends, is this a solution? I am not so sure of that and my major apprehension is that, while I proclaim the need for a solution and exclude nothing so long as it is a careful and wise decision, this hasty and shallow proposal is extremely narrow in scope and myopic in vision.

If adopted and introduced, the damage could be untold and, by the time it is fixed, irreparable damage might be done to a number of families, individuals, our future generations and society in general.

My appeal is therefore not for any one extreme position. I have heard arguments and looked at scenarios which, if viewed in isolation, would give strength to either introducing divorce or not introducing divorce. In both cases, however, there is only one area of overlap, namely the need for a cautious, balanced and well thought-out approach, which is definitely not the hallmark of the proposal in front of us.

Introducing divorce now on the basis of what has been proposed could be the introduction of a barbed piece of legislation which will be very difficult to extricate once inside the flesh of our society.

We are not necessarily at a crossroads in this referendum but are perhaps at traffic lights. While a crossroad would mean we have committed to an irreversible direction, a traffic light still showing amber would, if going red, still leave us the option of a green at a later stage, when it is safer to proceed forward.

Deciding on such an important issue in the heat and hysteria of this polarised campaign surely cannot bode well, so it is clear we need to cool down and come back to this issue more rationally and objectively, possibly after a national conference on the matter.

This solution I am proposing could only be achieved if we, as a people decide that, through our vote on May 28, we say no, which could well mean not yet, sending a clear message that we want, need and deserve a proposal that is worthy of our intelligence and concerns for us today and for ours tomorrow.