An Irish friend of mine texted me in the aftermath of the result of the divorce legislation referendum. What will you Maltese have to argue about now, she asked. She was joking, of course. She’s been working in Malta for a few months, long enough to know that we argue about everything imaginable. In fact the argument with most heat in it remains the divorce issue.

The people spoke as convincingly as could be in the referendum – there should be divorce legislation in Malta. But some representatives of that same people do not want to heed their electors’ command. Some want to abstain. Others to go against the people’s wishes and vote against.

I can see the point of both lobbies in the context they have positioned themselves. Instead of looking at the matter for what it is, a civil one, whether those who want the personal choice to divorce should have that civil right or not, they have adopted a moral stand about it. It is a matter of morality only if married Catholics choose to divorce once the legislation has been enacted. Those who do not make that choice are not involved in any morality, unless they take it upon themselves to judge divorcees. There is no moral judge but One. It is also always risky to judge rather than to say: There, but for the grace of God, go I.

Still, one should be prepared to accept that MPs who continue to resist the people’s will are doing so because they are seeing the issue one of conscience. There is no playing about with conscience – it belongs to the individual. H/she is the only arbiter of it. Except that, if they are MPs, as the representatives of the people they are in quandary.

I do not agree that anyone should threaten or seek to intimidate them or even argue that they must accept the people’s decision once, in conscience, such MPs feel they cannot. Yet, neither can they go against the people they represent as if it were the lightest of matters. It is not. It is undemocratic. Nor can they argue that they are respecting the right of minorities.

In the divorce issue that does not come into it – no legislator is forcing anyone to divorce. In the democratic context, those who disagree with the people’s decision have a basic choice: to stop representing the people and resign.

That is the proper democratic option but some resist that democratic outcome of listening to their conscience.

There is a second-best option put forward by the abstainers themselves. They say they will not block the people’s democratic choice – they will simply not vote. I, for one, can accept that. I suggest, however, that, to avoid any ruse or suspicion of it, when the vote is taken they stay outside the House. If they stay for the vote and say “Abstain” there might be some bright spark who holds on a point of order that their abstention should count as a no. It should not but the House would embark on yet another argument.

Those who are saying they want to vote no can, likewise, stay out of the vote, motivating their absence as a sign of disapproval. Should they insist on actually voting no, the vote would still pass but they would have got away with their undemocratic stance.

We really should not be arguing about these points. They are clearer than crystal. Using examples from the past, such as Labour’s stupid stance not to be tied by the EU referendum, does not change the present situation.

These are not happy times for the Prime Minister. However, he votes or does not vote, divorce legislation will be enacted under his watch. He will get confirmation of the loss of this argument in the referendum. He may, however, get away with defeating the opposition’s motion on the huge pay rise the Cabinet granted itself.

If so, that will be a vote outcome that does not represent public opinion, which has condemned the retroactive pay rise and its size in no uncertain terms. The Prime Minister might win the vote but he will certainly lose the argument.