The best way to decide to vote no in Saturday’s divorce referendum was to read the proposed law and study its consequences, the youth anti-divorce group said at its last press conference yesterday.

Appealing to emotions – what has characterised the campaign – may be more effective than trying to absorb legal facts. But it was the reality not the slogans that counted and how people would live if the law was introduced, Le B’Rispett Lejn il-Ġejjieni (No with respect for the future), said.

Article 77(1) of the Private Members Bill states that, in principle, a person stops receiving maintenance once they remarry, the group quoted, questioning the use of the word “guarantee” in the referendum question.

“Only the harm caused to children could be guaranteed,” said TV presenter Jean Claude Micallef, the “product of separated parents”, who addressed the press conference too.

The proposed law did not look at all scenarios and Mr Micallef highlighted realities that had been ignored by the pro-divorce movement, which was sweetening the impact of divorce to sell the product.

He mentioned the hypothetical case of a 50-year-old woman who had a divorce imposed on her and would have to fall back on social welfare and be left without a pension.

Divorce was no solution, and if a single mother got married and then divorced, he said, the man would not have to maintain the children that were not his once the marriage ended and she would again be a single parent.

Mr Micallef questioned the concept of being forced to remarry “to move on”, pointing out that not everyone was cut out for marriage. He disagreed with the idea the pro-divorce camp was pushing, that for children to be equal, their parents had to be married.

Separated couples were not all disgruntled and remarriage would not necessarily solve anything, he maintained.

Mr Micallef was also concerned about the speediness of the whole issue and the fact that many were still unclear on how divorce would affect them.

The group insisted that no international convention said divorce was a right; it created a new form of poverty; and permanent marriage, which had been around for centuries, was the best model for society. Saturday’s vote was a decision on whether to retain that model, or go for a unilateral divorce.