Austin Gatt says he will vote against divorce in Parliament, many MPs still undecided

Joe Galea

Jun 13th 2011, 10:52

Any memeber of parlament doesn`t respect the decision made by the people on the referemdum I suggest that they should resign with immiadate effect including Gonzi !!! this is a democratic country or has it become a regime TA TALIBANI

Tonio Bugeja

Jun 5th 2011, 09:53

ACCORDING TO JPO, MP`s have a duty to their electorate and cannot vote no to the Divorce Bill......
But Christians CAN abrogate their duty towards the teachings of their namesake Jesus Christ.............

Mr Saliba Francis

Jun 5th 2011, 07:19

@ Chris Galea (4 June 16.30)

If you are Christian you follow the teaching of Christ.
If you are a Christian priest you disseminate that teaching without equivocation.
If you are a democrat you take into consideration a referendum that is undoubtedly CONSULTATIVE, not obligatory.
If you are a politician you see how to manipulate the situation to the advantage of your political party at the next election.
IAnd if you are a statesman? What statesmen?

Mr Anthony Mifsud Bonnici

Jun 5th 2011, 06:50

Dr. Gatt, kuxjenza tghakkes liz-zghir ghandek imma. Ghax ma trahhasx id-dawl u l-ilma halli forsi nemmnuk kemm ghandek kuxjenza li ma tiggebbidx. Haga wahda se tghamel tajjeb Dr. Gatt, li mhux se tikkontesta darb'ohra ghax il-politika tieghek hija materjalista u l-poplu ghandu bzonn nies imexxuh b'kuxjenza socjali. STOP

Joe Fenech

Jun 4th 2011, 19:57

So what was this referendum circus for?

Joe Fenech

Jun 4th 2011, 19:26

"La Commedia Non E Finita"

(from Pagliacci 2: Il Ritorno Dei Deficienti)

Claris Galea

Jun 4th 2011, 16:30

All things considered , BWSC and other shenanigans , I would consider myself more Christaian than some Ministers , however I fail to see their logic.
Firstly , they or we , compare the divorce referendum with the EU referendum .
Nothing could be far apart as these two , The EU Referendum is affecting everyone as now we feel the pinch , but the Divorce Referendum only applies to the Non Christians , as we believe in our Religion and will marry for life . Religion is not the State !
Secondly as a Christian , one should respect the opinion Minority and the Majority, and have compassion/help for the needy .
If you are a christian and a Democrat , Democracy dictates that you respect the VOTE of the Majority .
Would we see tha same turncoats into parliament in the next General Election ?
Respect of the result of the Referendum is paramount to save the PN .Any other actions will only lessen their hold of the idea as them being the heroes of Democracy !
This is a CIVIL LAW , if you a re a true believer , you would marry for LIFE .
One member of Parliament ahs shown he does not know either the Constitution and neither his ? Religion . Christian Democrat my foot !

Tonio Bugeja

Jun 4th 2011, 16:00

Onor Austin Gatt, we will take your word seriously if ever you kept your word and lowered the price of energy and fuel, when you said that you will lower it only if the price of oil fell down to I don`t know what! Which you never did! Or Can you come up with another version of what you had said on that day? Thanks to you, the price of oil products are subsidising the expenditure of your government making Malta lose its competivitity! This said, the clowns on the other side of the fence will not lower it in spite of their criticism. Onor Gatt, about the issue of divorce, I am four square behind you! People should realise that this was a consultative referendum and that MP`s should not necessarily vote according to what citizens voted for. If that was the case, the referendum should have been binding, which was not. Also, I insist that this should have been taken care of by a party which would have included this in their electoral manifesto. Apart all this, the divorce bill as presented is full of holes and has been half baked. I would have appreciated our representatives to shoulder the responsibility and decide according to their conscience without burdening Malta`s coffers with a 4million euro bill. In this, I congratulate all our catholic MP`s irrespective of their colour for their steadfastness. Onor Marie Louise Coleiro Preca, I do not know why you are calling it a day. Politicians of your mettle are something we can`t afford to loose!

J. Borg

Jun 4th 2011, 15:36

I think Hon Austin Gatt should be applauded for being a man of principle. He said NO and still says NO. Just like Dr Adrian Vassallo. On the other hand, people like Michael Gonzi and David Agius are are ignoring (i) the remaing 46% who said no and (ii) the initial stand taken by PN before the referendum that divorce should not be introduced. People like Michael Gonzi and David Agius must not be supported again in the coming election. We need people of principle like Dr Austin Gatt.

Mr Saliba Francis

Jun 4th 2011, 14:15

Since when has a craftily worded referendum question replaced the clear words of condemnation by Christ as the basis for the formation of a well-informed voters' consclence?

Will those who obfuscated the conscience issue and who suggested ways and means how one could still vote for what was wrong and yet avoid sinning by adjusting his/her conscience?

Will they come out now and justify the volte face of a conscience suddenly ceasing to be supreme but that, as long as the divorce bill is before parliament, conscience is to be considered supeceded by a consultative referendum vote?

I used to think that the obfuscation was unintended. I am not so sure now!

Francis Attard

Jun 4th 2011, 11:45

Dr.Gatt, you now have to shoulder the responsibility of your irresponsibility. If you really wanted to avoid the ambiguous situation you are in now, you should have done as the Editorial of 'The Sunday Times' of the 13th of last February clearly expressed.

Mr Lawrence Fenech

Jun 4th 2011, 10:13

Nowadays who cares what you do, you have become a problem to both parties.

Ms Maria Vassallo

Jun 4th 2011, 09:30

Minister Gatt,
Onor.Marie-Louise Coleiro Preca,
Onor.Dr.Adrian Vassallo,

we admire your christian fortitude in going against the current!

Mr Bartolo Edward

Jun 4th 2011, 09:08

I am inclined to hold the belief, that expecting all the parliamentarians to vote in favour of the divorce bill, is a little of an outstretch, even democratically speaking. The bill does not need an unanimous vote to pass as a law, and both the leader of the opposition and the prime minister are saying that they are on the lookout to make sure the bill passes.

Although, as a catholic I cannot condone divorce, this is the reality that is taking shape at our parliament. Hopefully, our legislators make a law that strengthens families, instead of encouraging disgruntled partners to break their bond.

Finally, there is no successful marriage without a great deal of personal sacrifice. Anyone wanting to marry expecting no personal sacrifice is bound to break the bond indefinitely. Furthermore, there are no two persons that match completely, only personal sacrifice makes this possible.

Simon Cutajar

Jun 4th 2011, 08:37

No problem Austin ! you vote against divorce and I vote against You next election ! and don't forget that is round the corner ! You are one of the worst there is in the PN .

Mr ALFRED MICALLEF

Jun 4th 2011, 07:58

Il-PN - partit xieh, antikwat u partit teokratiku, partit li jghamel parti mil-knisja u ghallhekk fi
zminijiet tal-llum qatt ma jista jkun partit aktar popolari u liberu. Nistaqsi, ser jghamel il-PN dwar
id-drittijiet tal-omosesswali ?? Dawn illum rikonoxxuti mad-dinja, imma skond ir-rabta tieghu
mal-knisja, il-PN ma jistaqx anqas jaccetta lil dawn. Imbghad in-nies omosesswali li hemm
fil-PN, dawn qeghdin hemm ghax-show ?? Dawn qeghdin komdi fil-PN ?

CHARLO' SAMMUT

Jun 4th 2011, 07:57

he will vote no for the pepol that vote no and he is doing what the other half of the voters say in last sat. referendum .

proset Austin Gatt !!!!

kuxjenza Nadifa !!!!!

Miriam Zahra

Jun 4th 2011, 06:48

I applaud all Members of Parliament who will vote AGAINST the divorce bill. If God, in His perfect Wisdom says in St. Matthew 19:6 "What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder." then how can anyone disagree with God? God knows that divorce is not the solution. God is all-knowing and only wants to protect mankind from experiencing pain, tragedy, misery, and sin. Adam and Eve thought they knew better than God and disobeyed God, so now we all suffer for their disobedience.

If Malta disregards God's command against divorce and approves and enacts a divorce law, then all of us and all of our generations to follow us will suffer grievously. Up until now, we Maltese people have been extremely fortunate not to suffer very much in comparison to the citizens in all other countries where divorce laws exist. If Maltese people could travel abroad, you would all see how much people suffer in all of the other countries due to the fact that divorce laws exist. In fact, you would be heart broken for these people and feel truly grateful that our society has been spared so much misery and sin.

Whenever mankind disobeys God, then mankind suffers. Please listen to God's wisdom. For the sake of Malta, please vote AGAINST the divorce bill. United Malta stands, and divided Malta falls. Please focus upon improving marriages and not destroying them.

May God bless Malta

George Vella

Jun 4th 2011, 05:29

Re divorce both political parties are facing a great issue as now the ball stands at the feet of parliamentarians . I remind all that during last election we have elected them without the issue of divorce being presented to us. So as law makers they have the duty to vote no re the divorce law no matter the result of the consultative referendum which was forced on us. It should be a free vote and any member of the House has the right to ask for a secret ballot, thus ensuring that they vote according to their conscience.

Shaun Azzopardi

Jun 4th 2011, 00:38

What well-formed conscience tells a person to do the opposite of their duty?

What well-formed conscience can't distinguish between an action [namely marriage breakdown] and a law that merely recognizes and does nor create it?

Not supporting a situation where a partner leaves their partner does makes one against divorce in principle. However it doesn't make one anti-regulation and anti-realist. Legislation is needed to recognize new social situations.

Mr Alexander Galea

Jun 3rd 2011, 23:51

By opting for the referendum MP's have reliquished their rights for an opinion, we have made the decision for you - you just have to execute. MP's are paid by us to work for us, otherwise find another job.

Mr John Camillleri

Jun 3rd 2011, 23:05

47% of the people who are against divorce want MPs to represent them in Parlaiment. Adrian Vassallo and Austin Gatt declared to this regard. Thank you for your loyalty to us.

Steve Elliott

Jun 3rd 2011, 22:32

no when you are beaten

Mr Saviour Scerri

Jun 3rd 2011, 20:09

Nisperra li hadd min dawk li qed jiktbu dwar il vot tal-poplu huwa sovran ma kienux hawn Malta meta fl-81 il MLP ma kellux il maggioranza tal poplu imma il maggioranza tas-siggijiet. jekk xi hadd minkhom kien hawn... X'GHIDTU DAK IN-NHAR ...?????? Li il Kostituzjoini hekk kienet tghid? Veru u issa ghal min ma jaf'x dan ir-referendum huwa skond il- Kostituzzjoni ukoll u huwa RAPPREZENTATIV. jigifieri . ir-rizultat ma jorbot lil- HADD.............. li jkollu jivvota favur.

Edward Hughes

Jun 3rd 2011, 19:41

Bla blab la, I have had enough of hearing all this blabber about divorce….all this waist in money on media advertising, billboards…ext, ext….why do we always have to make a small thing into such a massive issue.

Divorce is just another option people will have on there plate. How they use it is there problem.

STOP WAISTING TIME AND MONEY!!!...how about getting all the other problems sorted!!!! That’s what I would like to see, and that’s the only way any party will gain my confidence back!

Mr M Borg

Jun 3rd 2011, 19:22

@ Edmond Azzopardi

" saying at sometime in the future the Labour Party will manage to win the general election does not make me a Labourite or stop me from working hard to ensure it does not happen at the next election, which I will wholeheartedly do ! "

This is what Austin Gatt wrote in his letters in today's Times. It seems that you are wrong, Austin Gatt will be contesting the next general election.

By voting No he will not be going against the wish of the people.His No vote will represent those of us who voted No.

Tim Gauci

Jun 3rd 2011, 18:40

PLPN - same thing different color

Mr Edmund Azzopardi

Jun 3rd 2011, 18:28

You will be on the bad side of history. Not contesting the election next time round is not good enough. I do not care what you said before, the only "honourable' thing to do now is resign before you go against the PEOPLE

Charles Massa

Jun 3rd 2011, 17:52

Il kuxxjenza imissa missitu meta ha euro 500 zieda fil gimgha. Issa inbilli se jivvota kontra mhux xorta se tghaddi ligi ta divorzju

Mr G Mangion

Jun 3rd 2011, 17:50

Mhux ta b'Xejn il - lejboristi Jitwerwru min - Minister Austin Gatt !!!

Biedem ta Karratru Sod, Tal Kelma u ta Grinta Kbira go Hdan Il - Partit Nazzjonalista Fil Gvern.

Prosit U koll lil M.Ps Kolla li Ma Jhallu lil Hadd li Jiddecidi ghalihom Fil - Parlament specjalment

Min - J.m and co......:)

MALCOLM SEYCHELL

Jun 3rd 2011, 17:44

Jmisshom l MPs nazzjonalisti jirrezenjaw kollha jekk se nitkellmu fuq principju. ghax il partit dawn l ahhar 7 sena gie partit ultra socjalist. zgur ma fadal xejn nazzjonalismu go fih. pero l mps issa qamu ghax se jirfsu il kallu tal knisja. tkuniex iktar ipokriti. irrezenjaw u mhux tkissru partit u pajjiz ghall snin shih

M Muscat

Jun 3rd 2011, 17:21

Min ma jirrispettax ir-rieda tal-maggoranza tal-poplu Malti, la ghandu postu fil-PL u l’anqas fil-PN u aktar u aktar fl-ghola istituzzjoni tal-Pajjiz… il-Parlament.

Izda postu zgur mhux f’Malta jew fl-Ewropa izda mat Talibani...

Ma nafx x wicc irrid ikollok biex tivvota kontra rieda tal poplu u specjalment kontra divorzju, aktar u aktar meta hajtek zgur ma tkunx ta’ ezempju kif wiehed jghix hajja Kristjana…

Ghalhekk kull min ser jivvota kontra jew jastjeni ghandu jirrezenja minnufieh, jekk le, ghallura l-Poplu ghandu ma jivotalux fl-elezzjoni li gejja ghax ma jkunx ta’ min jafdah.

Gino Caruana

Jun 3rd 2011, 16:50

ARA BIEX HA 500EURO FIL-GIMGHA MA'MISSETUX IL-KUXJENZA IVA IVVOTA...........IL-KUXJENZA GHANDA TIDHOL F'KULL PASS LI TAGHMEL ONOREVOLI

Mr elton grech

Jun 3rd 2011, 16:43

konna nafu minn qabel illi r referendum hela ta' hin u ta' flus... jekk ma jghaddix issa mil parlamenti (kif qisu qed jidher il-kaz) tkun iktar hasra ...izda xi elezjoni ohra tasal u kif ikun il-kaz, nfittxu l-Alternattiva skond il-bzonn

Mr Alex Buds

Jun 3rd 2011, 16:36

If that is the way you feel about it dear Minister, then you still do not understand that the people have spoken, or you simply do not respect their will.

So please resign immediately - you do not belong in Parliament, the house of the people.

Mr Saviour Fenech

Jun 3rd 2011, 16:23

Too all Yes blogers. Dr Gatt is voicing a minority opinion and the minority opinion is represented by 46.7 of those who cast their vote. He is correct in his action.

Gino Caruana

Jun 3rd 2011, 15:55

Il-membri parlamentari, kellhom bhal kull cittadin id dritt li jesprimu skond il-kuxjenza taghhom bil-vot fir-referendum tat-28 ta'Mejju, dak kien dritt sagrosant, izda ma hux dritt tal-parlamentari, li jastjeni jew jivvota le fil-parlament, ghax din hija l-ghazla ta'maggoranza, li lill parlamentari poggiethom fil-parlament biex jirraprezentawa, ghalhekk kull min miz zewg partiti jastjeni jew jivvota le..... POSTU MA' HUX FIL-PARLAMENT

Charles Micallef

Jun 3rd 2011, 15:49

Dr Gatt is his own man, and old enough to decide what he wants to do, and if he now wants to vote against the result of the referendum, so be it, he has got nothing to lose since he says that he is going at the end of this administration's term.

Marcelle Cini

Jun 3rd 2011, 15:48

@S.Callejja
Lighten up !This was meant for those who voted No, to accept that the majority voted Yes and it must be respected whether one agrees with it or not. If it was the other way around, I am sure they would have not wanted it any other way.

Mr Joseph Cauchi Senior

Jun 3rd 2011, 15:30

Malta is committing a grievous mistake by legislating for divorce! But this is what 37.69% of the eligible voters voted for!

All this, because of Political Correctness of our system of so-called “democracy”!

Divorce should never have been politicised, because this is a SOCIAL and MORAL issue and therefore politics should never have been involved in such matters!

But some of our “politicians” wanted to piggy-back and gain some brownie points from this issue, alas!

Will it also be justifiable if a referendum result would favour Abortion and Euthanasia to be legislated in Malta or for that matter even Bigamy or Paedophilia, because a relative majority (37.69%) said so?

What is intrinsically wrong can never be justified by a popular vote!

A wrong will always remain a wrong, no matter how many coats of white-washing are employed!

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, it’s always a duck!

What the Nazis did in the Extermination Camps in Auschwitz was legal according to German law; but was it MORALLY right?

JC.

Marco Meli

Jun 3rd 2011, 15:29

u mela! sawtu l poplu ghax hekk haqqu! demokrazija inezistenti!! l aqwa l 500 ewrows eeeee! dik kuxjenza!!!

Philip Hili

Jun 3rd 2011, 15:27

Sinjuri Onorevoli Nazzjonalisti,

Qieghed fejn qieghed bil-fiducja u l-voti ta' l-eletturi Nazzjonalisti.
Ma nahsibx li ser jaghddilkom mill-kuruturi ta' mohhkom li qeghdin hemm fuq ghax kien hemm xi laborist qalbu twajba u vvutalkom!! Issa qeghdin izghelu bikom. Kaz mhux il-boghod - iz-zieda fis-salarju li ghalkemm huma jaqblu wkoll maghha, meta joghogobhom isawtukom biha u jimlew lil poplu kontra taghkom!!!! Thalluhomx jinqdew bikom!

Zewg toroq ghandhom:-

1.) jew titilfu l-voti "TAL-FTIT" li bicciet minnhom zgur mhux ser jafdawkom ghax ma jemmnux fikom
minhabba li huma ta' twemmin laborista, pero' tkomplu tgawdu l-voti u l-istima TAL-HAFNA,

2.) inkella takkwistaw il-voti TAL-FTIT imma zgur li titilfu l-voti u l-istima TAL-HAFNA.

L-ghazla f'idejkom. Wara tigux tibku ghax ikun tard wisq!!!!

Ian Micallef

Jun 3rd 2011, 15:07

prosit to Austin Gatt, Adrian Vassallo and Marie Louise Coleiro amongst others. The referendum showed that there is a large minority who are against the introduction of divorce and those have to be respected. Moreover its a matter of values and conscience and those MP's have a right top vote according to their conscience without jeopardizing what the majority has voted for. I fail to understand why such arrogant comments from readers in respect of those MP's who still have respect to our Christian values. If we fail to uphold these values, and it appears that we are moving to that way, we will face a society which lacks respect, love, dignity and solidarity.

Mr Evarist Saliba

Jun 3rd 2011, 14:47

The mentality that conscience, that is the well-formed belief of what is right or wrong, should play no part in casting your vote if this is not in line with the majority, explains most of the ills that plague, and have plagued, society. It is a mentality of abandoning oneself to the current.
To those who say "Vox populi, vox dei" I remind them of the retort of Prof. Fogarty when he replied, "I have a higher opinion of the Almighty."

Mr M Saliba

Jun 3rd 2011, 14:24

I would appreciate if Hon Austin Gatt declares what his conscience says regarding the increases in energy bills, and the fact that the common man recieved €1.60 wage increase for the cost of living and his honour recieved an increase of €500 a week.

Hon Gatt voted according to his conscience in the polling booth. As the people's represenative in parliament he should not go against the clearly expressed will of the people of Malta.

Charles Sammut

Jun 3rd 2011, 14:11

Helllooo Austin!
If you vote against the intro of Divorce in Par la ment..it means you are against the wants and demands of the people. This means that your position as a MP is no longer tenable ,because you were elected by the people to obey and serve those same people who voted YES in the Referendum ( remember you are a Public Servant..still a Servant allbeit a highly,excessively and overpaid paid servant).
So, if you are not fit to do your duty and obey the Referendum....empty your desk,packup your bags..and get out of the Public Service.
Do not worry, you will still be able to enjoy your lerks and perks paid for by US the voters!

.....and the beat goes on...and the beat goes on.....

James Catania

Jun 3rd 2011, 13:59

Dr. Austin Gatt,

Inti kellek ic-cans tivvota bhala cittadin bhalna fit 28 ta' Mejju u hemhekk stajt timxi fuq il kuxjenza tieghek kemm ridt. Issa ha tivvota bhala Membru Parlamentari jigfieri il kuxjenz tieghek ma ghandiex x'taqsam ma l'affari, imma ir rieda tal poplu li tellawk fil poter , DIK BISS, ghanda x'taqsam.

Jekk mintiex kapaci tirrispetta maggoranza li intrebhet b'mod demokratiku, inti mitlub thalli is-siggu tieghek u tirezzenja.. dak li qed jistenna il -polu minghandek anke min tellaq fil poter in the first place.

Jew tirisspetta il magorranza jew tirrezenja... Dik ghanda tkun id-decizjoni tieghek fit-totalita taghha.

Marcelle Cini

Jun 3rd 2011, 13:58

The No vote won the referendum. MP's and Ministers are announcing that they have to vote yes because t it is a matter of conscience .
Uproar ! The No vote must pass because the will of the majority must be respected.
Those who voted Yes say that the referendum was consultive and not binding.
Uproar! The NO vote must pass because democracy must prevail. Majority rules!Those who voted No demand that It must not pass .The NO vote has a majority!!!!

Mr william cauchi

Jun 3rd 2011, 13:52

Mamma mia, l'arroganza ta dan il bniedem ma tispicca qatt.

Meta kien kullhad (barra erba yes men) kontra certi ''progetti'' baqa addej bhal bulldozer. Hu jifhem l-izjed, hu il-ministru, w ma stajniex immeruh. Mhemx xtaghmel!

Issa izzejjed, Anki id-demokrasia bhux se jaccetta. Tajba din, il-ministru tal poplu ma jaccettax id-decizjoni tal-poplu. Dan x'jahseb li hu.

Allinqas irrispetta lil-minn tellak w itlaq bil-kwiet.

Mr M Borg

Jun 3rd 2011, 13:51

I voted " No " many others voted " No "many stayed away.

We , the ones who voted " No " want all our MPs to vote " No "or resign.

That is democracy ! Do what we say or resign !!

J Zammit

Jun 3rd 2011, 13:40

Reading some of these comments of the naysayers clutching at straws in denial of this referendum result, its unbelievable.

What the mp's almighty conscience ought to tell them is to vote a resounding YES. Abstaining and voting no will only give the naysayers more futile hope that somehow or other the will of the majority can be ignored or its voice diminished. They may have become the minority themselves but their mentality is still that of a domineering majority. who have had their way for far too long. The majority of the Maltese decided in favour of the Real minority, secularism and true European Democracy.

Mr M Borg

Jun 3rd 2011, 13:33

A person who has a strong character is not a person who will change his opinion to please others. Austin Gatt said from the very start that he is against divorce and that he will never vote in favour of it.

Being a man of strong principles he will stick to what he said.

Not all of us voted Yes in the referendum , who will represent us if all MPs voted Yes ?

If you do not want to turn parliament into a joke, MPs should not be forced to vote one way or the other when they are supposed to have a free vote.

A free vote allows all MPs to choose weather to vote No or Yes.

A free vote does not mean that all MPs " must " vote Yes !
That is not unless some think that we are living in a dictatorship and have to say " yes "to everything.

Ramon Casha

Jun 3rd 2011, 13:26

Did Austin Gatt vote against, or in favour of having the referendum?

If he voted for the referendum, then why is he now voting against its result?

Philip Hili

Jun 3rd 2011, 13:17

Mamma Mia!!! X'misthija!

Il-poplu Malti jghin, jaghder u tigieh hasra minn dawn il-poplu, u Varist irid igibna bhalhom!!!!! O! Mulej ahfrilhom ghax ma jafux x'hinuma jghidu!!!
Tinsewx li sa ftit taz-zmien ilu konna "terrorist religuzi"!!!!

"Meanwhile, divorce co-sponsor and Labour MP Evarist Bartolo has upped the ante against MPs planning to vote against the will of the majority, suggesting a Maltese version of Egypt's Tahrir Square occupation."

Victor Pulis

Jun 3rd 2011, 13:08

I am so relieved whenever I hear politicians speak about conscience. Sometimes i doubt if they know the meaning of the word. As for Adrian Vassallo. There is still hope that he will vote in favour. Jesus Christ may make an appearance and advise him to vote yes. He could also send a message with his mum through Angelik or Tonio.

Stephen Koludrovic

Jun 3rd 2011, 12:54

The only solution to this situation is for Mr. Gonzi to wind up parliament and call for an early election.

This way No blackmails by disgruntled PN MPS.because of his one seat majority, and his religious beliefs still intact

It might be a bitter pill to swallow, but for the good of the country and democracy, some sort of sacrifice must be made.

Mr Tommy Vella

Jun 3rd 2011, 12:29

It's not individual MPs that have to reflect the will of the majority but Parliament in toto. Each individual MP must vote according to his conscience.

Simon Scerri

Jun 3rd 2011, 12:24

I agree with Austin Gatt. Principles are principles and where religion is involved majority does not count!!!
Austin a man to be missed in future!! There are some things that I don't agree with him and others I do.
Divorce is no opinion if you are a true Catholic. I admire Austin!! PROSIT!!!

Mr Ray Azzopardi

Jun 3rd 2011, 12:18

immisek tirrezenja dr gatt u taghmel il wisa ghal haddiehor ........ jien ghalija qed toffendi lil dawk il mijjiet li tefaw il vot fuq ismek ghax huma tellawk hemm ....u int ghandek toqghod ghad decizjoni taghhom u mhu huma joqoghdu ghad dak li trid int .......

J Debono

Jun 3rd 2011, 12:09

Dear Mr.Evarist Bartolo,

Are you trying to compare the situation in Malta to the situation in the Mid-East and North Africa?! Let me remind you that those people are fighting for Human Rights and not Civil Rights.

Well, then again..... come to think of it Malta did have a similar scenario back in the 80's, remember?!

Victor Rodenas

Jun 3rd 2011, 12:05

Talking about elastics.We have been told many times on TV that May was going to be the last month with analoge TV, now from 1ST.June we are going to have digital TV......Nothing happened(only in Malta)we are still seeing analoge TV.Many people spent a lot of money in buying new TV`s,or got cable TV,..Ha,ha,ha...how stupid we are,.....Virteous Austin should tell us what really is happening,was this a scam?

Mr William Flynn

Jun 3rd 2011, 12:02

Mr Charles Caruana Carabez

Thomas More was FOR divorce not against it*. What cost More his head was he put his pope and Rome above his own king and country.

If Austin Gatt wishes to put his pope above the Republic and its people, let's pass the hat around and put enough together for a one-way ticket to his beloved pope and Vatican.

His head should remain attached to his body; if we chop it off what could he hang in shame?

I don't believe More is a saint because the very idea of an afterlife offends all logic. Anyway he was a zealot on steroids who murdered people at the stake for the heinous crime of (wait for ir) translating the bible into English so ordinary folk can read and understand it. That's what the pope wanted and More obliged.

However those who believe in heaven and saints must realize that there's a saint in heaven sitting next to god, who thought divorce was a great idea if two spouses had irreconcilable difference; and he lived 500 years ago!

As I said I don’t believe in the afterlife but often I wish there is a hell and almost always when I read about the crimes of the Catholic church which are too many to list here..

(* Utopia is a word coined by Thomas More (known by some as St Thomas More). More, a Catholic bordering on Puritanism wrote in his "Utopia" that in that fictitious and ideal country "in case of adultery or insufferable perverseness. In these cases the senate dissolveth the marriage, and granteth the injured leave to marry again".)

Joe Galea

Jun 3rd 2011, 12:01

Majority has won!!!!! PN should respect peoples choice!!!! those MP who disagrees should resign immadiate effect!!! Bye Austin and the rest that thinks like you!!

David Bonnici

Jun 3rd 2011, 11:59

Where is the "democracy"?

Sandro Privitera

Jun 3rd 2011, 11:55

Onorevoli,

Min tellghak fil-parlament? Il-kostitwenti tieghek.

Min ivvota favur id-divorzju? Il-kostitwenti teighek.

Mela ... 1+1=2 mhux 0.5 ...

Jekk il-kostitwenti tieghek iridu d-divorzju, int OBBLIGAT tivvota favur.

Mhux LE jew TASSTJENI ... IMMA FAVUR. Hu l-OBBLIGU tieghek jekk int qed tirraprezenta lili!

Kull raprezzentant tal-poplu ghandu jivvota skond l-outcome tad-distrett li jirraprezenta.

Fil-Parlament, int qed tirraprezenta lid-distrett MHUX LILEK INNIFSEK!!!!

SP

Rene Camilleri

Jun 3rd 2011, 11:54

Dawk li sal-bierah ippontifikaw fuq il-maggoranza u l-minoranza, issa biddlu d-diska. Issa hierga l-ipokrizija! L-aqwa li meta tigi l-Istrina ninsew dan kollu u nahsbu li ahna 'l fuq mis-sema! Il-barrieri u l-firda ta' bejn il-partiti waqghu biss quddiem ghadu komuni li issa ingheleb. Imma hekk il-pajjiz qed jiehu u jibqa' jiehu li jixraqlu. J'Alla dan hu bidu gdid - li diversi drabi gie mwieghed lilna.
Rene Camilleri

David Battistino

Jun 3rd 2011, 11:54

What's all the fuss? Nobody is saying that the Bill will not pass. The Prim Minister had said so even before the Referendum, when he was coming out of the Palace in Valletta, after the motion by Joseph Muscat was passed. He had said that the will of the people will prevail as what was wrong in the past (1981) is still wrong today. The situation is that no MP who is against Divorce wants to go down in history that he had voted in favour of something which he/she does not agree with in principle - this applies to the contrary. To abstain means also that you wash your hands and you don't have an opinion but to say NO means that you don't agree whatever the rest of the world may say - in this case. For some this is Character for others its Dictatorship. For me this is Character ! Come next election these people won't mind if they are elected or not. It's not the parliament seat that makes an HONORABLE Person but your output or lack of it !

Mr Jo Camm

Jun 3rd 2011, 11:51

Il-vera AUSTINAT dal-bniedem. Sewwa taghmel Austin, hekk ikunu l-irgiel!

Mr Charles Bayliss

Jun 3rd 2011, 11:35

Therefore Minister Austin Gatt should resign immediately as he (we know this) has no respect to the Maltese Citizen. You should not wait till 2013 to leave politics. Just pack and leave, and this is coming from a Nationalist voter (at least until the last General Election). JUST PACK AND GO.

Mr Stephen Florian

Jun 3rd 2011, 11:35

Austin Gatt should resign from parliament with immediate effect and should start respecting the will of the majority. Time to stand up and be counted and turn a new page in this country for the sake of democracy!

M. Mallia

Jun 3rd 2011, 11:29

As some of the people in parliament were spineless and put this bill in the people's hands thus splitting the nation in two and costing our taxes arround 4 million euros and after the majority has decided in favour of Divorce our parlamentarians have still to vote for the law to go through...!!! This is a real jokeExcuse conscience ...The Parlamentarians have to respect the people's will and let the law pass with flying colours and not use their conscience as an excuse. So Mr. Gatt and others that feel the same problem..Your Conscience played its part when you voted in the referendum so now do your job and let the law pass...!!! I wonder does your conscience regarding the pay rise for members of parliament eat you up inside when you know that there are people struggling to earn a living for their families ????

William Agius

Jun 3rd 2011, 11:26

This is really a farce. MP's were not elected to represent their personal interests, or "conscience", but to enact the will of the majority. If they can't do that they should resign, or at least abstain.

Mario Camilleri

Jun 3rd 2011, 11:25

@Mr M Borg:
The argument was Conscience is a word as opposed to deed which is material/physical harm or good. Let me put it this way then - you wouldn't intend to harm anybody by your conscience, but you do so with your thoughts which would then lead to physical actions. That's how people kill one another, steel or rob etc, ect. That is called "premeditation". That's how the Government acts not by their conscience, so why now?

The rest, you said "divorce will change Malta forever" well you should consider upgrading to a future teller!!
And by the way, considering the fact that as you said divorce will change Malta's future so lets move on with the rest of the world and the Philippines now, why stay behind?
I remember when the IVA along with the PN on joining the EU campaign, were always insisting to see other member states how they've improved particularly Ireland. So that's what we did today. We looked at the whole world.
Regarding taxes,surely you don't believe that because of divorce we will have to pay more.....have you ever calculated how much fuel you put in your vehicle as opposed to what you pay? Do the elec/water bills really reflect the actual consumption? And the list is endless. So you still think that only divorce is going to be a huge burden on the Maltese society?

Alfred Vassallo

Jun 3rd 2011, 11:23

What I cannot understand is this: If the members of Parliament ABBDICATED their right to pass the Divorce Bill and left it to the people to do it for them, AND the people returned a comfortable ‘Yes vote’ Why are it now that they still find it awkward to implement the People's wishes. Is it not enough that they did like Pontius Pilate and washed their hands out of it and now they want......What exactly.

Mr l. theuma

Jun 3rd 2011, 11:19

Did not Joseph Muscat declare more than once that he would leave a free vote to the parlamentarians? How is it, that now he is dictating to them to abstain? Is this not dictatorship?

Joe Baldacchino

Jun 3rd 2011, 11:17

Also Dr Gatt said that if the Yes vote pass he will resign....mmmmm so he has nothing to worry about his conscience.... Just hand in your resignation as promised..... You will have a super clean conscience...
Voting yes for EU500 increase as his salary and for us EU1.16 he thinks he is a saint

Mr S. Calleja

Jun 3rd 2011, 11:09

What Dr Gatt is stating is so wrong on many different levels that I don't know from where to start. The issue stopped being a matter of conscience for the MPs the moment they decided to abdicate their responsibility of legislating and pass the decision to the electorate. Now the matter of conscience is not whether they should vote yes or not, but rather, whether they are going to respect democratic values or not. No argument in favour of abstaining or voting No can logically be made. No voters do not require a representation since the issue is already settled - divorce will be introduced. However you cannot have your democratically elected representatives working against the fundamental concepts of democracy. A referendum is the ultimate democratic tool and, while opposition is welcome before, having an opposition after can only hinder the democratic process. Imagine the situation whereby all MPs vote according to conscience and the bill fails to go through. Then what? Our democratic values will be internationally disputed and questioned, since a similar situation usually arises only under totalitarian governments. The only logical way that MPs can vote is by proceeding with the formality of voting Yes - their conscience was only an issue at the polling booths where their vote counted as 1 just like everybody else's. Now that the decision has been made democratically, it is NOT Dr Austin Gatt who is voting, or Dr Gonzi, but the post he holds, e.g. the Minister of Transport or the Prime Minister. Posts don't have consciences, they have duties and responsibilities.

edgar agius

Jun 3rd 2011, 11:04

I don't know why this fuss! The PL voted against the people's wishes in the 2003 referendum

Mark Shaw

Jun 3rd 2011, 10:53

Here's my simplistic view of politicians, they are elevated to a position of authority to represent the wishes of the People, we do not need to choose certain individuals other than to decide who we desire to represent us ( The Masses) other than who we think can best do the job for us, they are employed by Us ( through taxes) so that the majority can speak through the one mouth and be heard! They is not there to decide what is best for the people other than to do as they are required by the people! in this instance voting in a way as to represent the Peoples opinions! the PEOPLE have decided, i believe only 3 districts voted No in the Ref, only those areas related politicians should have a valid excuse for voting no, anything other is a dereliction and any politician voting against his electorate's wishes should be sacked, they are after all an employ of the People

Karl Abela

Jun 3rd 2011, 10:48

I AM VERY DISAPPOINTED IN YOU EVARIST!!!

I always thought you were one of the few labour MP's who are moderate, but suggesting a similar action with to Egypt's Tahrir Square occupation is a very big shame. Trying to use this as a gun pointed towards the government's head is indeed a VERY CHEAP argument of getting what you personally want.

If this is the best that you can go then you have no place in deciding our country's future and you should resign immediately.

Mr Joe B Edwards

Jun 3rd 2011, 10:48

Austin Gatt forgot about the EU referendum!! Resign Austin, you may be one of the best men that Gonzi has, but it appears your emotion has clouded your judgment. It seems in Malta you have to choose between arrogant religious twats and DPRK V2.

I will seek better representation in parliament next time around, I will choose people who think logically and not people who disregard democracy in favour of emotional feelings. Don't cry Austin.

Mr Carmel Farrugia

Jun 3rd 2011, 10:47

I cannot understand why Mr Bartolo seems to be expecting all MPs to vote in favour of divorce when the voters are split into a majority and a minority. The minority has a right to be represented in Parliament. Using the same reasoning in the next Parliament, the party which gets 50% + 1 of the votes should take all the seats, without an opposition. Mr Bartolo think again.

Mr Anton PIsani

Jun 3rd 2011, 10:37

I think that with some logic and simple maths this impasse can be easily solved. Everyone (except Joe Zammit) agrees that the law has to be enacted. However if all vote according to conscience there is a risk it will be rejected. Starting from the parliament vote launching the referendum, on March 16, should all MPs vote the same, the yes would win 36-33. Now it is known that, from the PL there is 1 vote against and 2 will abstain. That makes it 33-34. All is needed are at least 2 more PN MPs who abstain. If this happens, all other PN MPs can vote according to their conscience without any risk to democracy. I think all arguments whether or not an MP has a right to vote No after the referendum are frivolous. What is important is that the law is not rejected.

Mr Charles Caruana Carabez

Jun 3rd 2011, 10:32

His conscience cost St Thomas More his life; our conscience cost 4 million euros; their conscience costs MPs nothing.

Pierre Borg

Jun 3rd 2011, 10:30

Please respect other people's opinion, can you that least. Even i would have voted no in parliament even though the result is in favour of IVA. This is a personal issue, and one cannot play around with his conscience. you had the right to VOTE IVA but let me VOTE LE. The problem with the IVA camp is that you cannot accept others having different views and you tell us we are imposing. I put my views on Facebook before the referendum and mostly everyone told me INT MOHHOK MAGHLUQ, INT MINTIEX MODERN.
No problem i am happy as i am and will always work that marraige is for ever and cannot be dissolved.
But let us have our opinion and respect that. Thank you.

Mr Marco Cremona

Jun 3rd 2011, 10:29

This brings up the eternal question - are MPs representing themselves (and therefore their conscience/ideals/principles), or their party, or the constituents in the district(s) they have been elected from, or the electorate on a national level?

Mr Joseph Galea

Jun 3rd 2011, 10:27

...therefore the only way to Austin Gatt is to resign!!

Mr Joseph Cauchi Senior

Jun 3rd 2011, 10:24

These Men and Women are NOT intimidated by the threats of not being elected in the forth-coming elections.

One is free to do whatever one wants with ones vote, but this type of people don’t give a hoot, because they are strong in their convictions and are never swayed from their principles!

They are definitely not like a reed that blows with the wind!

They are made of strong character, principle and above all substance!

Hardly can one attribute these characteristics to the other MPs!

Come next elections, what they may lose on the roundabout they will certainly win on the swings and probably multiplied by 100!

They are not cowards, chickens or power-hungry but simply Men and Women of SUBSTANCE!

If only we had more of such people in our parliament, but alas!

JC.

Stefan Limongello

Jun 3rd 2011, 10:24

"Today, a positivist conception of law seems to dominate many thinkers. They claim that humanity or society or indeed the majority of citizens is becoming the ultimate source of civil law. The problem that arises is not, therefore, the search for good but the search for power, or rather, how to balance powers. At the root of this trend is ethical relativism, which some even see as one of the principal conditions for democracy, since relativism is supposed to guarantee tolerance of and reciprocal respect for people. But if this were so, the majority of a moment would become the ultimate source of law. History very clearly shows that most people can err. True rationality is not guaranteed by the consensus of a large number but solely by the transparency of human reason to creative Reason and by listening together to this Source of our rationality. " - ADDRESS OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI TO MEMBERS OF THE INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION, 5 October 2007

Mr Andrew Grech

Jun 3rd 2011, 10:21

"Democracy is when the indigent, and not the men of property, are the rulers."
- Aristotle

Mr Angelo Vassallo

Jun 3rd 2011, 10:20

@ Mr George Calleja

The referendum results speaks clearly in favour of divorce, 53% voted yes and 47% voted no. But that does not mean that the bill through parliamnet has to pass unanimaously.

GHALFEJN QEGHDIN TINKWETAW DAN L-INKWIET KOLLU?

Mr Lawrence Fenech

Jun 3rd 2011, 10:11

Qaddis iehor dan fejn jidhirlu. Imma l "IVA " tghaddi whether you like it or not. We have had enough of your arrogance. We look forward to your retirement.

Mr Angelo Vassallo

Jun 3rd 2011, 10:10

@ Mr Victor Laiviera

I know very well your heart beats. You tend to see ALL RED. But for the sake of those who do not know you, you have been very clear. Because JM wishes to pass this bill through Parliament with unanimous vote , accolites like your kind self are ready to say YES SIR. AS YOU SAY SO SIR.

It is crystal clear but very RED at the same time.

Johan Bartolo

Jun 3rd 2011, 10:07

Sinjuri, Skuzawni imma bdejt nara il-Kummenti ta` bicciet minnkom u hassejt li kelli nhalli tieghi.

Huwa fatt u verita` li hadd m`ghandu jigi injorat imma jekk nimxu b`din il-mentalita`, ghaliex fl-Elezjoni Generali minoranza minhabba differenza ta` 1500 persuna biss setet tigi injorata bla problemi!? U issa il-minoranza fir-referdum ghandha distakk mill-maggoranza ta` 6% tal-votanti imma din ma tistax tigi injorata.

Huwa veru li dawn kienu cirkustanzi differnti minn xulxin, imma la f`wahda giet rispettata ir-rieda tan-nies fl-ohra ghandu jigri l-istess.

Mario Camilleri

Jun 3rd 2011, 10:06

This bill should not go through parliament. It should have stopped by the result of the referendum. Technically it has to pass through parliament. But as both parties agreed that there should be a referendum, then it should have stopped there with both parties agreeing that the result is final. Therefore there would not be any interpretations of whether conscience should prevail over democracy, peoples' sovereignty as opposed to individual thinking, etc.
All MPs voted resting on their conscience, so they did their bit where God is concerned.
All there is to it now is to both leaders declare that the peoples' decision be respected and without having to vote for the second time therefore all MPs would rest with their clean conscience. We need not stick to this issue any further. Punto e basta! End of story!.

Joseph Pace

Jun 3rd 2011, 10:06

Everyone had their chance to vote in the referendum.

The ending result needs to be applied or else this would go against democracy. It is not the majorities problem if any MP is not in favour. This decision was asked to be taken by the public in general and the message was clear. If you do not have the guts to follow through then resign.

Mr George Calleja

Jun 3rd 2011, 10:04

Why all this hullabaloo? The referendum results speaks clearly in favour of divorce. 53% voted yes and 47% voted no. So parlamentarians are duty bound to adhere to this result by passing the divorce law by the same percentage registered in the referendum. So there is no reason why we should object to those who are about to abstain or vote no in parliament. They have the right to do what they feel as long as they still respect the people's decision. After all during the referendum there were thousands that voted no, abstained and even did not bother to pick their vote. That's true democracy!

Mr John Mallia

Jun 3rd 2011, 10:00

Shows that Austin Gatt and Adrian Vassallo know nothing about democracy. They had to time to vote according to their conscience before and in the referendum. Now the people have declared themselves and they, as the people’s representatives, have to vote accordingly.

Just imagine if a party promised ‘something’ in its electoral manifesto, get voted in office for it, and then leave it to its members to vote according to their conscience, with the result that this ‘something’ doesn’t pass through Parliament. It would be scandalous and totalitarian! Now, in this case, since their was no electoral mandate, Parliament has opted for a referendum – a tailor-made, straight-to-the-point referendum – to know what the people’s will is for this one single issue. The people has voiced its will and it is their respresentatives’ responsibility to vote according to it. Anyone who disrespects this is denying us representation and shouldn’t be in Parliament.

And for anyone hiding behind the ‘consultative’ aspect of the referendum, of course legally it is a ‘consultative’ one, but don’t you see any anomaly in a scenario where Parliament consults the people and then ignores their will? Your arguments, for example, would eliminate all the anomalies of the 1981 election results, making it ‘just a perfectly legal result’, which it was... but I believe that it was a lot more than just that.

Mr M Borg

Jun 3rd 2011, 09:56

@ Edgar Azzopardi ( 09.32)

" Those MPs who will go against the will of the people after deciding to let the people speak and decide this issue should resign with immediate effect ."

Now that is a real lesson in democracy, do what we tell you or leave ! What ever happened to the non binding referendum we voted for ?

Did you complain when you got to know that the referendum was not going to be a binding one ? So why are you and others complaing now ?

IVA winning did not turn a consultative referendum into a binding one.

Mr Christopher Grech

Jun 3rd 2011, 09:46

In a so called democracy, if the will of the people should be respected, the parliamentarians should thereafter, HAVE NO SAY in the matter! There should not be even a vote whatsoever do to the will of the people! Why? Because the people have already voted, if we believe in democratic principles.

Therefore those people who would have voted no, should NOT have an opinion, to vote in divorce in this case. Politicians after referendum results should be even allowed to have an opinion, when voting, because in a referendum the people, who are supposed to be considered to be sovereign, should supersede political party politics, and even Parliament, and this is what matters.

Joseph Tanti

Jun 3rd 2011, 09:43

'Dear MP's, I do NOT care about your conscience. You are in Parliament to represent US, your constituents, not yourself. So, if we voted FOR something, you have the right to vote for it, or to abstain. But, our referendum result precludes you from voting against our wishes. If you can't stand the heat, please, get out of the kitchen' (VCF, 2011).

Mr BERNARD STORACE

Jun 3rd 2011, 09:43

It's absolutely absurd that HIS conscience comes into play now when in the distant and not so distant past he has run roughshod over the will of the people......new parliament, city gate, foresta 2000, triton fountain, road works etc. These hipocrites should resign because they are not fit to rule.

Mr Michael Camileri

Jun 3rd 2011, 09:41

Think this analogy.

Smokers who were allowed to smoke in public places had more rights than none-smokers who were being affected by smokers.

The same can be said for Divorce and the church/current rules

The church currently has overbearing pressure over the 52 % which by the way is a majority. Those who DONT want Divorce do not have to divorce. why can they not see this. Those who wish to have divorce can, they can on the terms outlined in the referendum.

Mr Vella, you do not have to be a professional to be democratic. Democracy does not belong to Lawyers, Doctors, Priests....But to all. Believe or not, EVERYONE is involved with politics. We are all politicians in our own right. You are saying Democracy belongs to an exclusive club? Very perverted in my opinion.

Would you be making the same NON Democratic claims if the vote was 52% Against Divorce?

Mr M Vella***

Jun 3rd 2011, 09:37

@Mr Saliba Francis,defying the result of a referendum is a dangerous thing,very dangerous. I remember the PN in the 80s preaching about "ir rieda tal Maggioranza"How times change!!The MP’s who do not respect the will of the people should be punished in the next general election.Punto e busta.

Michael Buhagiar

Jun 3rd 2011, 09:33

Hiergin id- 'demokratici' bhal john vella! Eh ghax ghadda l iva brainwashing? Mela l- le x'kien! Ninqdew b' kollox sa anka b' Alla u bit- tfal! U jigi joseph aquilina jghidilna ghax maggoranza mhix! Anka meta kien hemm ir referendum tal ewropa, ma kienx hemm maggoranza. Fejn kont dakinhar? Jew bdejt tghajjar lil PL talli dakinhar kien ivvota xorta kontra!

Mr Mario Paul Ellul

Jun 3rd 2011, 09:33

1. Never do anything against conscience, even if the state demands it: Albert Einstein

2. It is easier to cope with a bad conscience than with a bad reputation. Friedrich Nietzsche

3. A man cannot be comfortable without his own approval. Mark Twain

4. In matters of conscience, the law of the majority has no place. Mohandas Gandhi

5. Through pride we are ever deceiving ourselves. But deep down below the surface of the average conscience a still, small voice says to us, something is out of tune. Carl Jung

6. Every judgment of conscience, be it right or wrong, be it about things evil in themselves or morally indifferent, is obligatory, in such wise that he who acts against his conscience always sins. Thomas Aquinas

7. If a superior give any order to one who is under him which is against that man's conscience, although he do not obey it yet he shall not be dismissed. Francis of Assisi

8. Any person of honor chooses rather to lose his honor than to lose his conscience.
Michel de Montaigne

9. I cannot and will not cut my conscience to fit this year's fashion. Lillian Hellman

10. A conscience without God is like a court without a judge. Alphonse de Lamartine

11. Public opinion is a second conscience. William R. Alger

12. I want to make this perfectly clear: you can be sure that I will never be a yes-man except to my own conscience. Charles Edison

13. There comes a point when a man must refuse to answer to his leader if he is also to answer to his own conscience. Hartley William Shawcross

Mr joseph saliba

Jun 3rd 2011, 09:32

Wanting divorce is one thing. Wanting to use the divorce bill to belittle 'GonziPN' is another.

Edgar Azzopardi

Jun 3rd 2011, 09:32

The question of 'conscience 'is being misinterpreted . Those who do not agree with divorce have every right to. But , it is one thing going by your conscience to do what you think is right for you, and another thing letting your conscience decide what others want to do. Voting yes to having divorce legislation as is the wishes of the people, does not go against a conscience that does not allow that same MP to resort to divorce him/herself...so I cannot understand Gatt's moral qualms and of that of others.

It is very ironic, that one of the few times(through a referendum) that the MPs are bound to do what the people want, they are finding all sort of excuses to get out of doing it !

I wonder if we, the people can do the same when taxes are imposed on us,?when laws with which we do not agree with are passed, ?when our money is spent on projects we do not like ? or when Minsiters give themselves outragious salaries behind our backs? It seems Austin Gatt's conscience has been is quite dromant in these circumstances and only stired to impose his opinion on how people lead their private lives.

Those MPs who will go against the will of the people - after deciding to let the people speak and decide this issue - should resign with immediate effect. If they cannot fulfull their role of 'representatives of the people ' they have no palce in the House of Representatives. Abstaining is for sore loosers!

Mario Camilleri

Jun 3rd 2011, 09:31

God does not judge each and everyone of us on our conscience but on our good and bad deeds. Deeds are actions or performance, as opposed to Conscience which is just a word. Need not say any more.

Mr Angelo Vassallo

Jun 3rd 2011, 09:31

@ Mr Victor Laiviera

You stopped short of telling us who are those MP's who believe in democracy and who are those MP's who do not believe in democracy.

Are those who will vote NO or ABSTAIN or the ones that will vote NO?

It is good to know what you are actually talking about.

There will be no UNANIMOUS vote in Parliament. FORGET IT

Michael Buhagiar

Jun 3rd 2011, 09:28

Meta kien hawn ir referendum tal Europa, in nies ghajru lil partit laburista talli ivvota ghal minoranza li vvutat kontra. Issa qed jghidu li bhal Austin qed jaghmlu tajjeb li jirrapprezentaw lil minoranza. Fejn irridu ahna naqbzu ghal minoranza u fejn irridu ahna le. DAWN huma l veru naghag lebsin ta lpup ghidilha l knisja!

Mr jason mallia

Jun 3rd 2011, 09:27

Il liberta ta MP kienet biss qabel sar ir referendum u meta ivvutaw fir referendum bhala cittadini Normali . Issa li l poplu iddecieda , id demokrazija ( li najtu hafna bija) titlob li dawn m ghandhom l ebda free vote imma Rispett lejn ic cittadin . Kull min jastjeni jew jivota le ( Miz zewg nahat ) Ghalija jkun qed jaghmel Santata ( Alfred sant times , jghaddi r referendum u baqa jinjora r rieda tal poplu ) . ........l opinjoni tieghi hi li hlejna €4 Miljuni .

Kulhadd qed jghid " nivotaw skond il Kuxjenza " .............allura nistaqsi jien , Meta Tivota kontra r rieda tal maggoranza tal Poplu , allura hemm il kuxjenza ma tghidlek xejn ???

Halluna !!

Mr Carlo Buttigieg

Jun 3rd 2011, 09:27

What I can't understand is why Parliament is voting again. Didn't they all vote when we did? The referendum should have been enough for Parliament and it would have made it a lot easier on everyone. If someone is very religious, how can we ask him to vote against his beliefs? I think that the best solution would be for Parliament to vote for not having to vote. That would be the honourable way and the people's wish would be respected.

Mr joseph saliba

Jun 3rd 2011, 09:23

Some power hungry individuals' itch to resuscitate archaic anti-clericalism and unreasonable demagogy aping our african neighbours (no comparison with our situation). Maybe our PM's exemplary rightousness in this situation will help them bide their time, but smelling majority their adrenaline is playing tricks on them, making them show their real selves.

Mr Matthew Grima

Jun 3rd 2011, 09:22

So MPs will get to vote twice, in the referendum and in parliament, if it doesn't pass, what was the point of the referendum?

Mr john vella

Jun 3rd 2011, 09:20

This is not the will of the people. Punto e Basta!
This is the will of 52 per cent of those that I saw and I believe were brain washed by a hand full who wanted Divorce, using the usual dirty political campaign, so much so that one on the board of a station who's leader promised a free vote showed us how aggressive he was if one did not agree with him.
Is this the make believe democracy at work. Either comply their way or they cry and assassinate your character if you oppose, as we saw it happen to some because they said they are against. Why did they assassin any church that oppose? why did they stop speaking on minority and demand democratic rule? Why on a particular station only poison was heard on the air 24 hours on 24 hours now it all stopped and we are back with George tad-donut?
This is not democracy! We are a bunch of amateurs calling ourselves democratic!
The nation will cry in due time and no one will be accountable then!
SHAME

Mr James Rizzo

Jun 3rd 2011, 09:19

Jiddispjacini hafna naqra din l-intervista. Int elett minnha - il-maltin u mhux mill-kuxjenza tieghek. Tirraprezenta lilna - u mhux il kuxjenza tieghek.

Il-poplu tkellem u int membru parlamentari qed tinjora il-maggoranza. Imma meta il partit gie elett b'maggoranza zghira ma qadtx taqla kwistjonijiet ux ?

Dan ifisser li se jkollna gvern li qed jinjora l-vot tal-poplu, u li allura jamlu Gvern illegittmu. Kabinett bla rieda. Min jixrob u min iqeghed lilu nnifsu qabel il poplu. U Gonzi jhares.

Elizabeth Camilleri

Jun 3rd 2011, 09:15

Voting against will of the people....I THINK NOT!!

Ir-referendum kif kien qal Gonzi stess qabel ma sar, kellu jkun wiehed konsultattiv u mhux wiehed decisiv. Issa li nafu x'inhu ir-rizultat, bhas-soltu nbiddlu il-kliem. l-MPS qatt ma kellhom obbligu jirrispettaw il-maggoranza, pero' jaraw x'kien ir-rizultat u imbaghad jimxu minn hemm.

Nies bhal Marie Louise Coleiro u Austin Gatt ta' min jammirahom, ghax jafu li ghalkemm qed ipoggu il-posizzjoni taghhom fil-parlament, izommu il-principji taghhhom sa l-ahhar kif ghandu jkun.

Mr Michael Camileri

Jun 3rd 2011, 09:14

Mr Gatt had his opportunity to VOTE in the referendum.

The PEOPLE want divorce, this is not the time to go against the wish of the people.

Mr Bartolo Edward

Jun 3rd 2011, 09:14

Many atheists, apparently, cannot grasp the simple difference between a matter of conscience, and an opinion. Dr Gatt, may as a human being be in favour of divorce, but in conscience, he is against. For instance, one may be convinced to take revenge over an injustice, but one's catholic conscience may prevent one from doing so.

After all, that is why having a conscience makes sense. It is completely different having ad-hoc convictions or beliefs (aka opinions) guiding us.

Trying to disregard the wealth of having a conscience will not convince anyone knowing what a conscience is to reject it.

The more atheists argue, the more light is shed on their fallacies. It is useless to bring in science to argue against God, because the word of God, was never intended to discuss or explain scientific matters.

Mr Joseph Brincat

Jun 3rd 2011, 09:13

@R Gauci.

It is a catch 22 situation for GonziPN.

Contemporary history has to be re-written.

(jb)

Etienne Bonanno

Jun 3rd 2011, 09:12

The respect of the people towards the authorities, be it the Church or Parliament has never been so low as it is today. Everyone on both sides of the political spectrum is united in their disgust at the shameless way democracy is being manipulated and played around with. We had thought that the days of tampering with democracy were over. Apparently we still have a ways to go.

J Debono

Jun 3rd 2011, 09:11

Fil-waqt li nemmen li r-rizultat tar-referendum ghandu jigi irrispettat, ma ninsewx li hareg biss 73% tal-elettorat biex jivvota. Din realta' ohra li trid tigi ikkunsidrata ukoll. M'iniex se noqoghd nispekula ghaliex ma hargux jivvutaw, izda dawn in-nies la kienu konvinti li jivvutaw le u lanqaz iva. Ghalhekk min qed jirraguna li f'Malta hawn xi maggoranza ezorbitanti favur id-divorzju, sejjer zball. Ghalhekk filwaqt li l-process demokratiku irrid jigi mwettaq, dawk il 60%+ li ma ivvutawx favur id-divorzju iridu jigi jiflessi fil-parlament ukoll.

Ms B Cassar

Jun 3rd 2011, 09:10

Hawn erbgha parlamentari waqatilhom ir-raggiera nahseb ahjar ifittxuha ma jmurx jitilfu posthom il-genna. U halluna!

Decizjoni wahda se nzomm ghal l-elezzjoni li gejja - min ivvota kontra id-divorzju fir-referendum mghandux vot min ghandi - as simple as that.

Mr Simon Lungaro

Jun 3rd 2011, 09:09

I would see nothing wrong with Minister Gatt voting yes for the divorce bill. After all, he is in Parliament to represent his people, not his conscience. The moment when he should have voted according to his conscience was during the referendum.

On the other hand, all this talk is irrelevant, as long as the law passes. The Prime Minister is dealing with the matter as best he can, and already declared that the will of the people will be respected.

It would be better if we used our time and energy to debate new subjects, such as allowing voters abroad to vote by post or at embassies, and the question of excessive censorship.

Mr W Cassar

Jun 3rd 2011, 09:08

Its going to be interesting to see how this divorce bill goes through.

Some people here are saying that Austin is a man of principle and doing right thing by standing by his No. As a personal view I commend him, but lets put this in to context, he is a representative of the people when he is in office. Personal opinions need to be put aside and he needs to bow to the will of the majority as a representative of the people.

You cant have your cake and eat it! In this way he is also setting a precedent by saying that it is ok to do as you deem fit, all in the name of principles. However what principles? Religious ones? You either have high morals and principles throughout and speak up for example with the power station controversy or you shut up.

This leaves me with only one opinion of you..... a Hypocrite, therefore you should resign as you are not fit to lead, politics is not about pick and choose at your convenience. It about the will of the people YOU serve, a humble servant...however I think...you think ...we serve you!

Charles Sammut

Jun 3rd 2011, 09:08

"Dr Gonzi says there is nothing wrong in voting no or abstaining in Parliament because that would reflect the division within the country. He recalled it was what the PL had done on EU accession."

What a howler! If the PL voted against the people's wishes, so can the PN.

How's that for confirmation that GonziPN's democratic credentials are no better than Alfred Sant's "Il-partnerxip rebah." attitude after the EU referendum. And for this shameless lot, GonziPN will be spending €100,000,000 of our hard earned cash to build themselves a new nursery on stilts by Xaqq il-Belt. Miskina Malta.

R. Gauci

Jun 3rd 2011, 09:07

Wara li qed naqra f'dawn il-jiem nispera li l-ebda Nazzjonalist ma jazzarda jerga jsemmi l-1981, dakinhar kien hawn il-kostituzzjoni bhala skuza, illum xi skuza hawn? Il-poplu jrid haga u se ncahhduh minnha?

Mr Joseph Brincat

Jun 3rd 2011, 09:06

SO YOU ARE VOTING AGAINST

THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE

SHAME ON YOU

Mr Victor Laiviera

Jun 3rd 2011, 09:05

The Divorce debate and referendum has had an unexpected side effect. It is showing us which of out MPs believe in democracy and which of the do not. And those which do not even know what th word means.

It is good to know - and to remember.

Mr M Borg

Jun 3rd 2011, 09:05

Prosit, well done. None of our MPs should be afraid to vote No.

People had a free vote during the referendum, no one was forced to vote yes or no.

Our MPs are having a free vote in parliament and they should be free to use it.

Ms Xaxa Caruana

Jun 3rd 2011, 09:03

@Austin Gatt

U ejdli ftit x qaltlek il kuxjenza tieghek meta int u Ministri l ohra hadtu zieda papali u ahna il poplu tajtuna cucata?

X'tejdklek il kuxjenza meta dejjem nisimu li ghola, il gas, il petrol, il-hajja?

Mela ghalfejn infaqna dawk il flus kollha ghar referendum?

Mr Saliba Francis

Jun 3rd 2011, 08:58

@ Mr M Vella (3 Jun 08:35)

It has been said many times by the divorce lobby (I DO NOT AGREE) that it would be correct and not sinful to vote "yes" in the referendum even though that goes diametrically opposed to the teaching of Christ himself. Now the same lobby has the brazen cheek to insist that members of parliament vote against their conscience so as to accomodate a fraction of the people (less than 38% of the population) even though they would have to defy Christ's prohibition of divorce against the dictates of their conscience.

How crassly illogical and contradictory is that volte face about the supremacy of conscience!

Loranne Zammit

Jun 3rd 2011, 08:53

relax guys.... il-ligi tad-divorzju ser tghaddi.

Tarcisio Bonello

Jun 3rd 2011, 08:52

Austin Gatt is a Man that you cannot live with but which you cannot live without.

If everybody had your b's then Malta would be a much better place.

Prosit - you were elected in parliament to vote according to your beliefs

Ms Rudi Mcbeal

Jun 3rd 2011, 08:48

Bravo Dr Gatt. Kudos to a brave decision - others should follow suit.

J. Galea

Jun 3rd 2011, 08:46

Messa kienet fuq spallejkom from the first begining. Tahsbu xejn li sejjrin il-genna issa.

Mr Joseph Brincat

Jun 3rd 2011, 08:43

Democracy flushed down the drain.

In any case you said that you would not be contesting the next election, unless, of course, you suddenly have another change of heart!

(jb)

Demis Paul Scerri

Jun 3rd 2011, 08:42

You are there to represent the outcome of the referendum. Although I share the same political views I still don't share your conservative approach. The voice of the electors should be always respected. This is what the Nationalist Party thought me throughout my life..... we were the champions of democracy, unfortunately I have my doubts nowadays where we stand.

Charlie Borg

Jun 3rd 2011, 08:42

Buli ghalih, il-Belti! Dik imhabba lejn id-demokrazija, fejn irridu nhobbuha d-demokrazija! Ghajb! Xejn hlief ghajb!! Jigi jaqa' u jqum mill-maggoranza tal-Maltin!

Carmel Xuereb

Jun 3rd 2011, 08:41

Hon. Ministru Austin Gatt intser tivvota LE Parlament ghax il-kuxjenza tnigzek, tajjeb. Il-votanti li tellghuk hemm hekk tad-distrettteighek qali IVA allura inti se tmur kontra r-rieda taghhom. Mela biex la tnigzek il-kuxjenza u lanqas tmur kontra ir-rieda tal-votanti kun RAGEL u CALL IT A DAY. . . .IRRIZENJA MILL-PARLAMENT ghax issa jidher bic-car li inti qieghed hemm mhux biex taqdi lil poplu Malti u Ghawdxi imma biex taghmel dak li tghidlek il-kuxjenza. Ara meta ghollejt id-dawl u l-ilma l-kuxjenza fejn kient tghid. . . nahseb MARSALFORN ghax-xemx. Hallina Sur Ministru u fittix itlaq minn hemm ghax ghandhom ragun hafna Nazzjonalist qed ihallu l-partit meta jaraw dak li jemmnu fih huma qed jigi dettat u distrutt mill-kuxjenza ta' xi whud. Kun RAGEL

Mr Dominic Chircop

Jun 3rd 2011, 08:39

Austin Gatt has the right to vote according to his conscience.

I appeal to all Nationalist liberal voters of the first district not to vote for him anymore, if he still harbours any idea of contesting further.

Cornelius Murphy

Jun 3rd 2011, 08:37

Austin Gatt, If your conscience is telling you that your opinion is more important than that of the people, they you need to do the honourable thing and step down now because you are not fit to represent the people.

Mark Galea

Jun 3rd 2011, 08:36

Il-ligi tad-divorzju ghandha tghaddi la l-poplu ivvota hekk - pero trid tirraprezenta lil dawk li qalu LE ukoll - jigifieri tghaddi b'53% tad-deputati favur u 47 tad-deputati kontra. Dik hi d-demokrazija.

PS. @Joseph Muscat - lanqas irnexxielek tikkonvinci lil tal-partit tieghek kollha, kif tippretendi li ta' kontrik jaqblu mieghek.

Mark Lombardo

Jun 3rd 2011, 08:36

Prosit Austin - bil-vot tieghek se tkun qed tirraprezenta lis-47% tal-poplu Malti, li ghazlu li jzommu sod fil-principji taghhom u ma jitkaxkrux mill-kurrent. Fil-politika ghandna bzonn nies li jispiraw lill-poplu u mhux li jibzghu jiehdu decizjonijiet tajbin minhabba l-voti. Il-Prim Ministru wera maturita' kbira meta rrispetta l-verdett tal-poplu, madankollu dan ma jfissirx li l-membri parlamentari m'ghandhomx jivvutaw bil-liberta' kollha. Il-vot fil-parlament ghandu jirrapprezenta lill-poplu kollu u mhux lil parti mill-poplu. Dan hu l-qofol tad-demokrazija.

Mr M Vella***

Jun 3rd 2011, 08:35

You can’t use your conscience to go against the will of the people.If you vote no you would be defying the result of a referendum.The will of the people must be reflected in parliament.
“Arab Spring” going on around the Mediterranean? Perhaps it’s catching

Mr Leonard Brincat

Jun 3rd 2011, 08:35

Where was your conscience when you voted for 500 euro increase and giving the people 1.16 euro.???

Mr victor caruana

Jun 3rd 2011, 08:25

No mp has the right to follow his conscience in this case. In parliament they represent all spectrum of voters conscience. The referendum has picked the dominant conscience and so the mp's has to respect that major conscience and not their own. If they want to follow their conscience at the exclusion of the voters they have no place in parliament.

Ramon Mangion

Jun 3rd 2011, 08:24

Ma tantx kinu damu jahsbuwa biex approvaw iz-0zieda taghhom. Hemm il-kujenza safja kienet.... u hallunaaa

Christopher Camilleri

Jun 3rd 2011, 08:12

If the decision of the majority will not be implemented by our MPs, I bet that the PN will lose the next general election. The leader of the opposition would definitely capitalise from such an opportunity and be elected.

Mr Mario Paul Ellul

Jun 3rd 2011, 08:08

Dear Austin, il-kuxjenza mhix tal-lasktu - Prosit ghax in-Nisrani hekk ghandu jhares lejn dak li jemmen - int se tkun qed tirraprezenta lili u lil 46% li qalu LE.

Fl-opinjoni tieghi, il-ligi issa ghandha tghaddi la hemm 3%maggoranza li jridu hekk, pero dan ma jfissirx li l-MPs iridu kollha jghidu Iva ghaliex b'hekk ma jkunux qed jirriflettu dak li jrid il-poplu. li kieku l-poplu v-vota 100% Iva - hekk ikun hemm lok ghal min jastjeni jew jghid iva fil-parlament, pero la hemm hafna anqas, ir-rieda ta' min ivvota Le trid tigi riflessa ukoll fil-Parlament.

Mr elton grech

Jun 3rd 2011, 08:07

No one is telling the ministers not to follow their conscience. They, like everyone else, had the right to choose during the referendum. Now, the will of the people must be respected by doing their duty as representatives of the people.

If they do not, then why was there a referendum in the first place?

Paul Saliba

Jun 3rd 2011, 08:06

issa nerga nivotalek!!! la lilek u lil hadd mil partit jekk tmorru kontra dak li ivvutajna ghalieh.

ghaliex mela hlejna 4 miljuni fuq referendum!! IMMISKHOM TISTHI

FEJN HI IR-RIEDA TAL-POPLU???

Irene Forster

Jun 3rd 2011, 07:56

So democracy is coming to an end in Malta, roll on 2013 so we can say adios to these mullahs from both sides of the house.
Stephen Forster

John Camilleri

Jun 3rd 2011, 07:55

Vera bravu e! - int qed fil-parlament ghax il-poplu poggiek hemm - issa trid toghqod ghar-rieda tal-poplu jew inkella warrab. Jekk thoss li ghandek timxi skond il-kuxjenza tieghek almenu ittelliefx il-process u astjeni mela tivvota kontra - billi tivvota kontra tkun qed tmur kontra ir-rieda tal-maggoranza tal-poplu l-istess poplu li lilek tak il-poter li tkun fil-parlament mela Austin tghamilx bsaten fir-roti jew warrab minn hemm bhalek ghandna mijiet li kapaci jiehdulek postok - J Camilleri

Julian Agius

Jun 3rd 2011, 07:54

Why 4 million wasted on referendum! I am not in favour but majority is!
J.Agius

Joe Farrugia

Jun 3rd 2011, 07:48

Reflecting the will of the people in parliament means that we should have a 100% "Yes" vote. The result of the referendum was different. The will of the people should be reflected even in the number of "No" votes and the number of abstentions.

Joe Farrugia

Jun 3rd 2011, 07:45

Bravo Austin. Before the referendum we appealed to the people to follow their conscience. Now our MPs should have the right to do the same,

Mr John Cassar

Jun 3rd 2011, 07:40

I remember you preaching about "ir rieda tal Maggioranza" when you were General Secretary of the PN. How times change!!

Since the party does not seem to have any proper leadership, you can do as you please. Ultimately it is the party, not you, that will pay the price for the decision you make.

Adieu!!

Mr Hamish Dempster

Jun 3rd 2011, 07:35

How pathetic can Austin be. He listens to his conscience about divorce but has no conscience at all for the Maltese Families by hiking up the utility prices such as electricity, water , gas and fuels. My advice to him is to resign.