The sale of Maltese passports was not in the Labour Party’s electoral programme.

A lot has been said about George Abela’s refusal to sign the Civil Unions Bill. I am not comfortable with the discussion about the President not being able to ‘veto’ a Bill because he or she is not democratically elected.

While I understand that the President is not there to veto the democratically elected law-making government, I would like to know who is there to ensure that the government is faithful to its electoral programme and does not start adding things that were not in its manifesto.

It may well be that Labour’s big majority makes the government feel it has a right to do whatever it likes, but implementing plans not in its electoral programme is not democracy.

So far, we have already had the selling of our passports as well as the selling off of a sizeable portion of our national power company to a Chinese business. Would Labour have won a landslide victory had these policies been in its electoral manifesto? I doubt it.

It is also clear that the speed with which the Civil Unions Bill is progressing, without an adequate discussion on the rights and protection of any children involved, suggests a ‘gung ho can do’ attitude which risks sidelining the democracy which voted this Labour government into power. I would like to see a discussion about a possible Bill being passed allowing some authority – be it the President, the courts or any other suitable authority – to veto acts of non-democracy by a government.