PN committee to discuss Divorce Law amendments
The Nationalist Party parliamentary group has agreed to set up committee to suggest amendments to the Bill on divorce, Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi announced this afternoon.
Speaking after a meeting of the Group, he said the committee would be composed of Tonio Borg, Dolores Cristina, Mario de Marco, Jesmond Mugliett and Francis Zammit Dimech.
The composition of the committee includes MPs who had said they would vote in favour and others who indicated they would vote against divorce in Parliament.
Dr Gonzi said a procedural motion would need to be moved in the House to formalise the procedure to be followed for the parliamentary debate on divorce.
It was revealed last Friday that the government and the opposition are having talks on ways to enable all MPs to take part in the committee stage of the debate - which is usually restricted to the five members forming the Committee for the Consideration of Bills. The two sides are also considering ways how suggested amendments could be presented early, and how officials from the Yes and No camps could give their input during the committee proceedings.
The debate is expected to be held next month.
Dr Gonzi confirmed that the Group had also discussed the Opposition motion on ministers' pay and the government position was explained.
Earlier, former minister Jesmond Mugliett said questions he had on this issues were answered 'to a point'.
Popular Stories
Old buses, drivers to return
Former Judge Ray Pace found dead
Updated: Minister apologises for...
Three new Nationalist MPs elected –...
Where’s Everybody staff is given notice
Updated - Director of Prisons submits...
Update 3 - Woman trapped as car crashes...
Revealed...the face of a Maltese woman...
PL reacts as PN labels Franco Debono's...
In Discussion
Old buses, drivers to return
Updated: Minister apologises for...
PL reacts as PN labels Franco Debono's...
Updated - Director of Prisons submits...
Enemalta seeking minimum five year gas...
Protected birds shot and trapped as...
Mario de Marco, Zammit Dimech concede,...
PN postpones salaries as financial...
Updated - PM's offer to Opposition MPs...
76 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Mr T Pace
Jun 7th 2011, 18:16
The referendum has shown that the majority are in favour of divorce. However this does not imply that the government side is obliged to vote in favour of the Bill. There are quite a few laws, such as taxation, with which the vast majority do not agree. Yet these laws had been passed.
The real test is a general election in two years' time. The pro-divorce side could make an issue of it if one of the parties inserts it in its electoral program and the other not.
It could be considered a courageous decision if the PN does not insert it. However it would be even less so if it feels that the majority are against divorce. Furthermore the electorate would probably keep in mind whether candidates within their own party had voted according to its wishes.
Ms D Galea
Jun 8th 2011, 15:15
can we please have a referendum about wether or not we should still pay income tax and let the majority decide?Thank you.
Anthony Busuttil
Jun 7th 2011, 09:15
Vote Gonzi get Berlusconi !!!!!!!!!!!
etienne m
Jun 7th 2011, 09:12
ma nafx ghala in nies (pn ppl) jajdu ghax iridu jatu kass il 47 fil mija li ivutaw le fir referendum.
il poplu tkelem u qal "IVA AD DIVORZJU"
kien hemm mistoqsija u ivutajna ghal dik il ligi u istoqsija , mela ma hemmx post al emendi.
issa jew jivutaw skond ir rida tal poplu ( ifiser jivutaw iva) jew inkomplu imoru aktar il bahar, ninsew li dan u pajjiz demokratiku u nigu bhal pajjiz ditatur u jivutaw le.
l MP'S qedin hemm ghax ivutajnjlom ahna u qed jiraprezentaw lil poplu malti.u mux qedin hemm bix jamlu li iridu ghax kif ga at dan mux pajjiz didtatur imma pajjiz demokratiku
Mr Joseph Aquilina
Jun 7th 2011, 12:33
Because this was a non-biding referendum, used by government to understand the will of the people, 52% is far off from what the people since that 47% voting NO shows that the country is divided on the subject. Therefore a responsible government must legislate in order to respect the full result of the referendum and not be blinkered by party politics.
MaryJo Camenzuli
Jun 7th 2011, 18:05
Dittatura insiru meta t-53% tal-elettorat isiru 100% fil-Parlament.
Il-liberta' u d-demokrazija jfissru li l-minoranza tal-MPs li huma kontra d-divorzju għandhom jitħallew jivvutaw liberament biex jirriflettu l-minoranza ta' 47% tal-elettorat li d-divorzju ma tridux.
53% = 53%, mhux 100%.
47% = 47%, mhux 0%.
Anthony Caruana
Jun 7th 2011, 08:26
what a joke this lot is
pass the law and lets get on with our life
give your self the pay rise we normal pepole can't stop you and lets get on with the price rise and low pay
one day it will all back fire but we will have to wait for it ???
and close the unions down because they are all talk ???
mind you the EU just the same one min they say they are going to one thing then they don't do it so us poor soul just have to put up with it
ahc
John Fenech
Jun 7th 2011, 08:14
To those who commented about order and sanity, I am of the opinion that you might take the horse within watering distance but is the horse thirsty? Will the water offered slack the thirst?
From a good percentage of the comments about divorce it is not amiss to conclude that divorce is not the main agenda on board, otherwise why the unreasonable demand to rubbish the legal and normal procedure to arrive to the enactment of the divorce law?!
What is important is for the authorities concerned to set up efficient and down to earth guide systems to assist the couples before and after marriage. While those who matter will put into motion viable legislation or controls so that the dwellings will no longer constitute at least 35% of the couples income!
Mr mario gellel
Jun 7th 2011, 08:06
@NO,PN LOBS
THE REFERENDUM WAS FORCED UPON US. WE DID OUR JUDGEMENT. THE WORLD SAW IT AND ANNOUNCED IT. THERE IS NO TURNING BACK. GONZIPN HAS NO ALTERNATIVE BUT TO LEGISLATE IT.
DEMOCRACY + MAJORITY ARE SUPERIOR TO PERSONAL CONSCIENCE.
THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE MUST BE ACCEPTED WITH NO HICCUPS.
NO LESS WILL DO.
Ramon Casha
Jun 7th 2011, 06:22
There's no harm in discussing this and proposing amendments, as long as the items in the referendum question are adhered to, and no major changes are made that alter the spirit of the original bill.
Joseph W. Galea
Jun 7th 2011, 01:21
OK, so the referendum said yes. But unfortunately referendums do not make the laws in any country since any referendum could be challenged.
Having said that, the "elected government" now has to sort out how the divorce law in Malta will be acceptable to all the people, yes, including those who for one reason or another did not vote in the fererendum (about 30 or so %)
If anyone thought that once the referendum results were known the "laws" will be enacted immediately, they are very much mistaken. There are many points to be discussed and ironed out in order to have a fair and acceptable law enacted.
So, do not be surprised if this divorce law will take a year to go into effect and that all depends into how much fighting (campaigning for the next election) there will be during the debates.
If this is plentiful, it may take up to the next election, in which case I am sure that the 30% abstentions will be heard from. One must remember that in a lot of cases an abstention means no.
If that is actually the case, if the large majority of the 30% are against divorce (which could be the case) they will be enough to have the PN back in power again.
So, be patient and let the legislation take it's course. Having waited forever and a day for some sort of divorce laws in Malta, a year or two more is not going to make much difference.
Mr Alfred Cassar
Jun 6th 2011, 23:14
People are commenting in here without knowing how a law is passed through Parliament. i won't even try to explain to them because I know I would be talking to the wall
Mr Dominic Chircop
Jun 6th 2011, 23:14
Things get more and more complicated. Who is to be responsible for amendments ? The same honourable Minister who last year vented his rage on liberals, and practically invited them to quit the nationalist party !
He may probably do some slight tweaking here and there, like changing four years to forty years !
Moviment Iva ghadpDivorzju beware !!!!
Mr John Cassar
Jun 6th 2011, 22:28
Unfortunately it is evident that the PN, instead of listening to the popular vote, will try propose mediocre amendments to the tried and tested Irish Bill. I, for one, am loosing patience and hope. If ,as I anticipate, this will become a final effort to restrict the referendum question, I will walk away for good.
Maybe it's time a real leader took over the former liberal-conservative coalition that now resembles the political wing of Opus Dei.
Ms D Galea
Jun 6th 2011, 21:42
Veru li wara l elezzjoni li jmiss, fil-kamra tar-rapprezentanti ha jkun hemm partit wiehed biss, jigifieri dak li jkun rebah il-gverm bil-voti tal-MAGGORANZA? Min jitlef , billi jkun fil-MINORANZA , mhux ha jkollu dritt isemmi lehnu .Inutli allura li jkun hemm membri parlamentari jirraprezentawh.
Mr Paul Caruana
Jun 6th 2011, 21:23
This is a very important and delicate piece of legislation, so it is important to put aside the winners and losers mentality, and go into the nitty gritty of the bill, such that we can come up with the best possible option, while keeping to the spirit of the question as approved by the Maltese people in the recently passed referendum.
Let us be clear on one point: the people will not tolerate attempts by anyone to scuttle the law at the parlamentary committee stage.
Mr A Bonello
Jun 6th 2011, 21:09
PN you are all losing your credibility with your lack of planning ahead,internal squabbling and arrogant means of not accepting the worded referendum that the people chose to give a yes to.you are all complicating the process and should stick to what people voted for as written in the referendum voting document.Pure arrogance is evident.
Mr Charles.C. Brown
Jun 6th 2011, 21:08
The yes vote was indeed a very sad day for Malta and a certain disaster looms as you will all see in the years to come. Now lets hope that we wont see young families breaking up with young children ending up with step fathers mascarading as the good samaritans!!!!!
Gerry Cowie
Jun 6th 2011, 20:03
No piece of legislation is passed without first being discussed and tweaked until it is fair to all. Why do some have a difficulty with this?
Mr Joseph Brincat
Jun 6th 2011, 22:13
FAIR >> IS A NICE WORD
WAS IT FAIR FOR THOUS PEOPLE
WHO NEEDED DIVORCE ???????
Paul Giordimaina
Jun 7th 2011, 04:56
Mr Mizzi who do you think you are to tell the Prime minister who he put on the commitee.
Mr Anthony Mizzi
Jun 6th 2011, 19:29
PN committee or Conglave?
Why wasn't JPO or karl Gouder included in this "Committee" ?
Mr Joseph Brincat
Jun 6th 2011, 19:05
THERE ISN'T ANY BUTS OR IFS ! ! !
ALL AROUND THE WORLD KNOWS THAT
THE YES VOTE WON IN THE REFERENDUM
SO FOR GOD SAKE GET ON WITH IT >>> Dr GONZI
J. Schembri
Jun 6th 2011, 19:14
Yes on which law? There was only a referendum question and no law. We put the cart before the horse sort of.
Mr Joseph Cauchi Senior
Jun 6th 2011, 18:22
Many believe that when a shrewd and persistent sales-man tries to sell you something at all cost, without giving the client any time to think of whether to buy or not, but tries to force you the sale, one tends to believe that there could be something “sinister” in this deal!
This is the same attitude being expressed by some, (to be fair, literally a handful), of the Yes camp in forcing this legislation at all costs without giving our 69 (PN and PL) parliamentarians enough time to study and come out with a fair and just legislation.
It is only a matter of few weeks, so why all this rush?
JC.
Anthony Schembri adami
Jun 6th 2011, 18:58
Have yoy seriously consider that the bill besides divorce is a very crude bill unworty of an M.P.
Mr Joseph Calleja
Jun 6th 2011, 19:20
Those incompetent 69 (PN and PL) parliamentarians gave up that right when they dumped the vote on the people. They sold their souls to the devil, now they want to retrieve it? What kind of gullible people do you think we are? They ceded that vote to the people and the people have spoken. Why did they spend 4 million euros of the Tax Payer's money if they are not going to abide by the end result? I think their plan backfired Mr Cauchi Sr.
Tony Borg
Jun 6th 2011, 21:50
You are very right Mr. Calleja. Parliamentarians are there with the people's mandate to legislate, even for the minorities' needs.
Ms Rudi Mcbeal
Jun 7th 2011, 12:34
@Mr Cauchi Senior
Why all the rush? Some, apparently proposed to their loved one as soon as the referendum result came out. They couldn't at least wait till after their divorce from their first wife.
Charles J. Buttigieg
Jun 6th 2011, 18:09
When I’m asked if I want sugar in my coffee I answer yes. If the waiter refuses to put sugar due to his insistence that sugar is bad for me I’ll walk out of the coffee shop. Likewise when we tell our servants in parliament what we want we have a right to get it and if they refuse we’ll push THEM out of OUR coffee shop.
Mr Joseph Cauchi Senior
Jun 6th 2011, 18:21
But, if the waiter tells a diabetic, would this diabetic also walk out of the coffee-shop?
JC.
Michael Vella
Jun 6th 2011, 20:02
@ J. Cauchi Senior
Having read many of Charles J. Buttigieg's comments, i would say that if Gonzi was the waiter and Buttigieg was the diabetic, Buttigieg would walk out anyway....that is until bar manager, Joseph Muscat, says otherwise....:)
Charles J. Buttigieg
Jun 7th 2011, 00:04
Joseph,the waiter's duty is to serve the customer not to impose what he thinks is bad for others.
Mr Joe Gatt
Jun 7th 2011, 00:51
Mr Joseph Cauchi Senior
But, if the waiter tells a diabetic, would this diabetic also walk out of the coffee-shop?
You are going to see people applying for divorce soon Mr Cauchi, wether you approve on not, Tough.
Welcome to catholic Malta, where sugar will be banned because of a Diabetic. Where Aircraft flying over Malta will be brought down because they may come crashing out of the Sky.
Where church going will not be allowed, as the Majority have voted for Divorce, and according to Angelik an Earthquake will destroy our Cities including the churches within.
Wake up and get real.
Alistair Busuttil
Jun 7th 2011, 06:10
In coffee shops usually you are given a sugar basin or sugar sachets,if you want you can use it if you dont just leave it there
Mr Joseph Aquilina
Jun 7th 2011, 12:35
@Alistair Busuttil
Luckily (or hopefully, depends on whose in power), government is a little bit more responsible for its clients (the people) then your normal coffee shop.
Mr Victor Laiviera
Jun 6th 2011, 18:02
As a confirmed LP supporter, I suppose that I should be rubbing my hands with glee to see the PN digging the hole it finds itself in ever deeper and wider.
But I simply cannot. I am a Maltese citizen before I am a Labour supporter and I know that all of us - Red, Blue, Green or any other colour - will suffer through such a glaring lack of good governance.
Mr Joseph Aquilina
Jun 6th 2011, 18:16
So in your book - doing your homework means "lack of good governance"?? So in your book, trying to pass a law that also represents the 47% who voted No is "lack of good governance"?? I hope Joseph does not think it the same way as you because I pity the minority who voted against him if he ever makes it to government!!
Mr Joseph Cauchi Senior
Jun 6th 2011, 17:50
Why is it that some commenters are so pushy in trying to get this bill through without having the patience of waiting to see that a sensible and a just divorce legislation is available to all the Maltese citizens,
a) with the main focus of strengthening the family,
b) that all interest of the children are taken care of and
c) that there won’t be a Las Vegas style divorce.
Yes, divorce legislation is going through as per the referendum result! This was guaranteed by the Prime Minister himself.
What puzzles me is the rush being engineered by some people. Why? Haven’t we been without divorce for so many centuries; so what difference would a few weeks make?
Patience is a virtue!
“Qattusa ghagellija, frieh qomja tghamel”.
JC.
Mr Michael Debono
Jun 6th 2011, 19:32
Reading the names of the P.N. legislators it is felt that the law that will be proposed will make it impossible for anyone to apply or be granted divorce. Just wait and see. The NO have not given up.
Anthony Grech
Jun 6th 2011, 17:47
Every Member of Parliament went to vote in the Referendum. All like us men in the street had the opportunity to vote according to their conscience. So their and our conscience was put to rest by voting YES, NO or abstain. Therefore now the Conscience excuse is only a gimmick. Stop all this nonsense and act by passing the Referendum result as law as soon as possible. The people in their majority has spoken There are more important things to be tackled by you. So act now!
Mr Albert Farrugia
Jun 6th 2011, 17:40
Why cant the YES voters get it that there is a legislative process through which all laws must pass? It is their fault that they let themselves be duped into believing that the divorce law will be approved by them, and not by parliament. Laws, especially important ones like this, need their time. All the cries for a quickie legislative process are really cries for mob rule.
Mr Giov DeMartino
Jun 6th 2011, 17:39
"former minister Jesmond Mugliett".......minjaf kieku l-kelma "former" ma kinitx hemm l-affarijiet kinux jiehdu xejra differenti? Minjaf?
Paul Giordimaina
Jun 7th 2011, 04:59
Wait mate wait plenty time left.
Mario Vella
Jun 6th 2011, 17:05
Why not JPO? Policy of exclusion? IVA Movement please watch for delaying tactics! Parliament should not take long to discuss or approve. The principles of the Bill reflect what the voters have approved by the referendum. Amendments should only touch on technicalities, nothing more nothing less! IVA should set a deadline by which the Bill should be approved, otherwise they should call the masses to the streets. If the GonziPN feels uneasiness in having the Bill approved, the PM should call an election!
Joseph Borg
Jun 6th 2011, 17:29
very well said!
Mr john vella
Jun 6th 2011, 17:39
@Mario Vella
You either not informed or shooting from the hip when you asked: "Why not JPO?"
I do not know this man and am not looking forward to know him, however what I saw of him, he is very able to take over and not allow anyone else to speak.
He sure make a good member of a committee! HA!
Wilfred Camilleri
Jun 6th 2011, 17:03
I suppose Mr. Barrett that you want parliamentarians to pass laws without first discussing them. All laws are discussed by parliamentarians before a vote is taken on them. It's the prudent thing to do!
Joseph Borg
Jun 6th 2011, 17:32
but seems that after the EU referendum it didn't take that long to discuss things since immediately after the result the pm called an election and 2 days after he sign the agreement! Then, no committee was set up to "DISCUSS FORMALITIES AND SUGGEST AMENDMENTS!
Mr Joseph Calleja
Jun 6th 2011, 17:40
Not when the government just spent 4 million euros of the Tax payer's money. You mist still be in denial with the rest of the other losers. This discussion is over. the decision was made by the people in a very expensive referendum. You should know, you were there. Are you telling us that they spent all that money for nothing? Are you saying that the politicians should ignore the will of the people? Get over it Mr Camilleri, it is over. The final vote was Yes and that should be enough conscience for the politicians.
Mr Joseph Aquilina
Jun 6th 2011, 18:14
@Mr Joseph Calleja
Do you have an idea of what a non-biding referendum is? or how parliament in general works!!?
Joseph Borg
Jun 6th 2011, 19:04
Joe Aquilina ....instead of trying to teach others about parliament and politics I suggest to get you facts right first....THE EU referendum was NON BINDING as well just in case you forgot......in few days the government called for an election since PL didn't accept the ppls will...so with your reasoning ...should we go for elections? cause looks like history is repeating itself to me.
And for the record...the EU effected everyone.....Divorce only effect those involved in divorce! Thus I EXPECT the same short times like the PN did in 2003 since they worked so fats and efficiently at that time!
Mr Joseph Aquilina
Jun 7th 2011, 12:31
@Joseph Borg
The EU referendum was on negotiations between Malta and a foreign body, that is the EU. This referendum was on a private bill. In the EU referendum negotiations with the EU where done and complete, this referendum was based on a sentence that was not even good for the referendum it self. An election was needed because PL did not want to recognise the result of the referendum. PN is recognising the result of the referendum. IN FACT a divorce law will be passed. However PN, unlike PL, seems – at the moment – to have a little better understanding of what democracy is and what it means to represent the interests of the minorities as much as that of the majority. I can't understand what is your problem with that … at the end of the day the will of the people will still be respected!!
Mr Victor Laiviera
Jun 6th 2011, 17:02
This is just a plan to subvert the will of the people by delaying the introduction of divorce legislation and watering down its provisions.
Malta is fast losing its credentials as a parliamentary democracy - if it still has any.
Mr Joseph Aquilina
Jun 6th 2011, 17:23
After the last election did PL vote in favour of every motion raised by PN? Why No? I mean PN won the majority of votes so according to your reason they should have had PL supporting them for the whole 5years right!! or?
Democracy is just that! MPs representing the will of the people and the will of the people in the last referendum is not that clear cut since half voted in favour and another half voted against. Therefore responsible MPs are duty bound to try and come out with a law that do justice to the result of the referendum!! That is come out with a law that provides divorce but at the same time show respect to the other half of the Maltese that voted against it by addressing some of their concerns!!
At the end of the day those are Maltese as much as those who voted Yes! or?
Mr Giov DeMartino
Jun 6th 2011, 17:31
Victor, ghar-ruh il-mejtin li vvutaw LE ghall-EU, issemmix izjed id-demokrazija. Isma minni u jaqbel lilek u lill-PL.
Joseph Borg
Jun 6th 2011, 17:37
I am AGAIN going to ask you the same question....since I voted LP in my last election and PN won? can you please enlighten me how should it work in the parliament since I WAS AGAINST THE RAISE OF WATER AND ELECTRICITY BILLS.....but still the 49.8% that voted for LP were ignored!.......very sad argumentation!
RESULTS ARE THERE TO BE RESPECTED....(btw I didnt agree neither with Alfred Sant re: EU referendum to make things clear)
Mr Giov DeMartino
Jun 6th 2011, 17:50
Joseph Borg is perfectly right. In 1971 I voted PN but MLP won. I was against the raise in the price of petrol by some 250% and more, against the raise of a loaf of bread, a bottle of milk.....And yet
Mr Victor Laiviera
Jun 6th 2011, 17:54
Sur DeMartino, xi tgħidli għall-mejtin li, skont il-PN, ivvutaw LE għall-Integration?
Mr Joseph Aquilina
Jun 6th 2011, 17:55
@Joseph Borg
"but still the 49.8% that voted for LP were ignored" - This unfortunately shows how little you know about democracy. Those 49.8% still got represented in parliament. MPs representing those 49.8% where involved in parliamentary boards to represent the interests of that minority!! The Opposition leader - thanks to the position he held in parliament - could make pressure for investigations to be held. In a true democracy the parliament represent the majority as much as the minority. I can't understand why it should be different now!! At the end of the day MPs are still expects to vote on those amendments! So if there is majority they pass, if there is no majority they fall.
Mr M Borg
Jun 6th 2011, 17:56
@Joseph Borg
Do you really believe that little Malta can control oil prices ? What diference does your voting for LP in the last election has to do with the W&E bills.
If you want your bills to go down you should speak to OPEC, they are the ones who contril global oil and gas prices. The NP or LP do not have any say in the price.
Joseph Borg
Jun 6th 2011, 18:13
my issue WAS NOT a political thing...I JUST GOT AN EXAMPLE....of course i know bills still rise that was not my point...my point is that the argument by Mr Aquilina does not stand cause a referendum/election result should be respected irrelevant what the amount of % was........What I meant is that in democracy results count and minority is not an excuse after results cause otherwise we never do anything.
As regarding the issue....very simple...If the country spent 4m euros to get the ppl opinion than since the MP's are representing ALL the country as you rightly said....than they should all vote yes since the MAJORITY of the ppl told them what they want!
Mr Joseph Aquilina
Jun 6th 2011, 18:26
@Joseph Borg
and therefore ignore the minority which voted NO? Rather then pass a law that can unify the YES and NO camps, parliament should pass a law to further divide the two camp. Nice reasoning ... an idea you got from watching too much one news? just asking ...
Joseph Borg
Jun 6th 2011, 18:56
Just for your information I DONT even watch maltese tv since I have much more important things to do than watching rubbish on maltese stations, moreover I dont know what one news has to do with what I said....it make it obvious that you are one of the blindfolded PN supporter who thinks Malta is Dubai.....secondly it is nonsense trying to win an argument with someone who does not even know the meaning of Referendum/Election result mandate and is trying to preach out democracy.....I suggest you go on google and wikipedia to get informed. An I rest my case
Mr Giov DeMartino
Jun 6th 2011, 20:07
Tergax issemmieh dak ir-referendum meta l-PN ma kienx jithalla jorganizza ebda attivita politika u meta l-vot ma KIENX SIGRIET Qatt smajt bit-trusted friend? Il-Pl ghandu passat mahmug wisq u tghid x'tghid se ssibni warajk bil-provi konkreti f'idejja. L-ewwel meeting tal-Pn kontra l-bejgh ta' ajjizna lill--Ingilterra kien se jsir Dingli Circus.....Jekk ghadek zghir, kif nahseb li int, saqsi x'kien sar dak in-nhar. U jekk ma ddahhals laburist nieghek biex "jurik" kif tivvota, miskin int. Kwazi cert li se tibqghu tinjorawni.
Mr Victor Laiviera
Jun 6th 2011, 20:54
Is-Sur DeMartino għandu memorja speċjali ħafna - aktar ma jgħaddi ż-żmien, flok jinsa, jiftakar affarijiet ġodda.
Ħasra li huma frott il-fantasija mhux frott il-memorja.
Per eżempju waħda mill-affartijiet li nesa s-Sur DeMartini (jew ma jridx jiftaker) huwa li fl-1958 (meta sar ir-Referendum tal-Integration) il-pulizija kienu jaqgħu taħt il-Gvernatur Ingliż u mhux taħt il-Gvern Malti.
Joseph Borg
Jun 6th 2011, 21:06
jiena ha ninjorak zgur ghax li qed tghid assolutament ma jinteressanix....kulhadd ghandu passat tieghu u kulhadd affeg imma jiena fit 2011 qed nghix u x jigri bhalissa jinteressani....x gara il bierah passat u ma tistax tibdlu.
Moreover, ha ninjorak ukoll ghax mal punt li qed nghid jiena ma ghandu x jaqsam xejn li qed tghid int. Jekk int supporter tal PN blindefolded jiena mhux neccessarjament ax nissimpatizza mal PL u akkanit noqtol.
Just for your info, mhux kull malti huwa iffissat fuq il politika u jekk jissimpatizza ma partit tahsbu li kull ma jghid il kap huma sagro sant!
Mr Paul Barrett
Jun 6th 2011, 16:39
It would appear that having spent 4 million euros on obtaining the views of the citizen, there is a plan to delay, confuse and if possible, snooker any chance of a workable none bureaucratic divorce law i.e., an application to the Court for dissolution of marriage following four years of legal separation or in the case of certified four years of separation, a Court hearing to confirm all the financial and custodial steps have been sorted.
Mr Joseph Aquilina
Jun 6th 2011, 17:04
The views of the Maltese are very clear, half of them want divorce while the other half does not. In true democratic country, parliament is there to represent the majority as much as the minority. I can't understand how any MP (regardless of party background) can be in favour of legislating in favour of half and against the other half. All MPs should therefore be in favour of implementing amendments to the law so that this can address better the obtained result - even more so when both parties agree that there was a lot of cross party voting!!
Joseph Borg
Jun 6th 2011, 17:28
so according to your reasoning what should we do after the next general election? since in Malta the government only gets half the votes! IN A TRUE DEMOCRATIC COUNTRY.....ANY ELECTION AND REFERENDUM RESULT IS ACCEPTED BY ALL THE MPs .
Irene Forster
Jun 6th 2011, 17:46
Delaying tactics methinks
Mr Joseph Calleja
Jun 6th 2011, 17:51
@ Mr Joseph Aquilina,
I don't know how you do your mathematics but 53 vs 47% do not add to 50/50. The final vote was over 53% Yes and that does not equal as you say, half of them want divorce while the other half does not. very simple mathematics Mr Aquilina, the Yes vote won and the no vote lost. I hope I was able to clear any misconceptions you might have. That is why they declare a winner and a loser. If it was really 50/50 then it would be called a tie. Why do I bother? Give it up and let us move on. Gone Fishing
Mr Joseph Aquilina
Jun 6th 2011, 18:09
@Mr Joseph Calleja
Do you want me also to write down the number of voters, the number of those who voted yes, no, abstained and those PL supporters from PL core districts that opted to ignore dear Joseph!! Just to make you happy!
Mr L Vella
Jun 6th 2011, 18:55
Mr Aquilina, it's only the yes and no votes that count. The people who abstain forfeit their right to be represented, and those who opted to ignore "dear joseph" have no bearing at all on this discussion. You can now stop trying to be smart.
Mr Michael Debono
Jun 6th 2011, 19:45
Mr M.Borg. Of course the government had no say in the rise of the price of petrol, but it alone has a say to give adequate compensation to let citizen face the increase of oil.
Mr Joseph Aquilina
Jun 6th 2011, 16:38
Finally, a responsible move that hopefully will show there is still true democracy in this country and the the parliament (and MPs) are there to represent the majority as much as the minority!!
Please choose the reason of your report below: