The divorce legislation issue threw up a broader matter – whether there is a need to amend the Constitution. That question arose because of the 1993 (effective 1995) concordat between the state of Malta and the Vatican, which gives supremacy in some instances of separation proceedings to the Ecclesiastical Tribunal, and because of references in the top legal instrument of the land to the religion of Malta being the Catholic religion.

The question whether it was time to revisit the concordat grew stronger as divorce legislation was passing through Parliament in the wake of a strong referendum Yes vote, and also a strong second reading Yes to the resulting enabling Bill. That outcome drew most comment regarding the Prime Minister’s personal defiance of the people’s will by voting No on the second (and later third) parliamentary reading of the Bill.

Lawrence Gonzi came under fierce attack, not all of which appeared in the traditional and new social media, but being very much on people’s lips, especially the young, some of whom, irrespective of their political colour, nowadays speak with derision of the GonziPN brand. That will resurface in the general election campaign, along with the decision of the Cabinet, at the Prime Minister’s behest, to grant itself a hefty pay increase without due transparency and, worse still, approval by Parliament through the Budget votes.

Meanwhile, the concordat and Constitution issues will come up for closer scrutiny. To an extent some of the expected heat was drawn. The Curia, probably not without prodding from the Vatican, indicated that the Church would not oppose revisiting the concordat.

That was a diplomatic tactic suggesting that the Curia debacle in the divorce legislation referendum had not been lost on Church authorities higher than the Archbishop, despite his unwise reiteration that he did not regret subsiding the No campaign with funds collected from the faithful for other purposes, and wishing he had been able to contribute still more.

If the tactic was diplomatic, the way the local Curia has continued to treat Deborah Schembri, the chairman of the No campaign, is not. The Curia suspended the campaigning lawyer (as it had done others) from handling separation-cases clients who chose her to represent them before the Ecclesiastical Tribunal.

Subsequently the Curia said it would not also suspend lawyers who had expressed themselves in favour of divorce legislation.

That notwithstanding the Curia left Schembri’s suspension in place, even primly refusing to discuss it in a related meeting with the Chamber of Advocates because “it was not on the agenda”.

Weeks on, the suspension remains in place. That is beginning to smack of vindictiveness, not at all a Christian trait or a good example to the faithful.

That Curia stance will strengthen the call for a review – even a removal – of the concordat, twinning it with fresh calls for changes in the Constitution. Such calls are no means partisan. The strongest and most sensible call came from a Nationalist lawyer MP, Franco Debono.

In his three years in Parliament he has acquired a reputation for being outspoken. I do not agree he is just that. He had put his side in a corner by holding back his vote on important legislation, yes. On that occasion the Prime Minister had to eat humble pie, visiting the MP at home on the silly pretext that he was somewhat unwell, but really to plead with him not destabilise or embarrass further the government.

Debono does not shoot from the hip. He thinks things through, as his contribution to the debate on the second reading of the divorce Bill confirmed. And it was he who called out for a new Constitution to reflect modern times and Malta’s adherence to the EU.

His invitation should be heeded. In the nature of things the Constitution, reflecting Prof. J.J. Cremona’s great ability in 1964 (he now concentrates on poetry, with astonishing vigour, plus long-standing competence), has aged.

It is time for a redrawing. One which recognises more clearly Malta’s secular character, yes, by guaranteeing freedom of religious belief and of conscience, without bringing in any particular religion for special mention. But also, doing much more.

For instance, is it not time that the patching up of the electoral laws to ensure majority rule – a majority of votes in a general election to be translated into a majority of parliamentary seats – be replaced by a new electoral law, mirrored in the Constitution? Is it not time we gave every single vote its democratic representative worth, fitting votes directly to seats, perhaps with a reasonable – and not ridiculous – minimum qualifying limit regarding representation rights carried out on a national, and not single constituency, basis?

Both major parties seem to remain afraid of that. They had lengthy talks. They collapsed them. They now studiously ignore the issue. I suggest to the Labour Party leader, representative of a new political generation, this is an issue for him to champion. It would above all be fair. It would be politically astute, attracting Alternattiva Demokratika second preferences. It would put the Nationalists to shame if they continue to oppose the democratic proposal.

I suggest it’s time to have a new working group, with representatives of the three political parties in it, tasked with coming up with proposals for a new Constitution within six months. I further suggest that the PN and PL do not wait for the 10-week parliamentary holidays to be over to agree on that. They will still be politicking every blessed weekend, saying little that is new.

Let them come forward on this one-item agenda. The country deserves it.