[attach id=328151 size="medium"]The Nationalist Party headquarters. Photo: Jason Borg[/attach]
A free vote on the Civil Unions Bill would have split the party and played into the hands of the government on the eve of the European Parliament elections, PN sources said yesterday.
Their comments were made in the wake of the criticism levelled against the PN that the decision to sit on the fence and abstain on the Civil Unions Bill sent the message of a weak party whose decisions were ultimately dictated by political convenience.
Former PN MP Karl Gouder on Monday tweeted to express his disappointment that his party had not done more on the issue.
MPs and party officials who yesterday spoke to this newspaper said that there had been full consensus in favour of civil unions but on the issue of gay adoptions there were diametrically opposed views.
They questioned the government’s resolve to include gay adoptions in the Civil Unions Bill, insisting this was mainly intended to split the party and score political points.
On the other hand, some MPs conceded that the party had not covered itself in glory by shying away from taking a decision. Some argued that it would not have been the end of the world if the party had not been unanimous in its vote.
“This is not an issue on fiscal policy where you have to toe the party line at all costs but a decision on gay adoptions which only surfaced after the general election,” one MP said.
Consensus on civil unions but opposing views on gay adoption
He argued that a free vote would have conveyed the message that Opposition MPs enjoyed more freedom to express their views, claiming that a number of government MPs had not been allowed to express their reservations on gay adoptions.
However, others were less critical, saying that there was little room for manoeuvre as the party was against gay adoptions and so was braced for a lose-lose situation.
“In normal circumstances we would have had every right to vote against the Bill as the amendments tabled by the Opposition had been defeated. However, this would have conveyed the message that we were against civil unions, which is not the case,” he added.
He said the party was partly to blame as it never legislated to recognise same-sex relationships in spite of being in government uninterruptedly for 15 years.
One party official insisted it had taken a position after all as it had expressed itself against equating Civil Unions with gay adoptions. He argued that these two issues should have been kept apart and that the abstention was backed by an explanation. Ultimately the party leadership felt that in the circumstances this was the only compromise it could make as it would not irk the two opposing camps.
Asked whether this issue would compromise the party’s support, he said that he was looking forward to closing this chapter, adding that the party now had to move on.