Infrastructure Minister Austin Gatt (Always Against Divorce, June 3) felt the need to directly answer a “small matter” which I raised when I had asked PN whip David Agius during a Favourite TV prog­-ramme whether Dr Gatt will keep his word and resign from Parliament now that divorce has been approved by the referendum.

In his answer to my question, Dr Gatt claimed that (a) what he said was actually written down and can be found published in The Times, (b) that the piece was written before a party executive committee meeting and that (c) effectively he wrote that he would resign from the party – not Parliament – if the party took a position in favour of divorce.

The minister said that since this did not happen there was never any need for him to resign.

Let us look into what the minister had actually written. The “resign from Parliament” piece was actually published in The Times on January 26, carrying the heading The Only One Value Is The Family. In that article, Dr Gatt states:

“The party will be in good shape – no matter what decision (on divorce by the PN executive committee) is taken – as long as everyone agrees the democratic process requires a vote and that if you are a party boy you need to respect that vote.

“I – labelled a conservative since I am anti divorce (which goes to show the great democratic credentials of the pro-divorce lobby!) – will respect whatever decision the party takes. If that decision goes against what I conscientiously believe in, I would resign from Parliament since I would not be able in all conscience to back a pro-divorce party and I cannot ever expect my view prevails over the majority view.”

So Minister Gatt had actually promised to resign from Parliament (and not from the party as he said in the recent letter) had the Nationalist Party adopted a position which goes against what he conscientiously believes in because he cannot ever expect his view to prevail over the majority view.

In other words, Dr Gatt – without being asked to or pressured into a particular position – put forward an absolutist yardstick or principle: in the unhappy case of a clash between what he conscientiously believes in on the one hand and the realisation that the majority view should prevail, he would resign from Parliament. Of course, this principle is flawed because it does not differentiate between values and the so-called fundamental principles. That is, however, another argument altogether which I would gladly go into in a future opportunity.

The legitimate question is this: In this case will Dr Gatt be applying the same yardstick or principle he himself formulated in his January 26 article? Or was this yardstick merely used as a means to an end, in order to muscle a No to divorce position within the Nationalist Party come what may?

What makes matters even worse is that in the letter of June 3, Dr Gatt did not only refute any claims of resignation but confirmed that he will vote no in Parliament on the Divorce Bill “because for (him) it’s a matter of conscience and conscience is not an elastic band that changes with vote levels”.

And I had thought that the Austin Gatt principle was constant and clear for him! Apparently he no longer expects that his view should not prevail over the majority view, in this case as expressed by the majority of the people in the referendum.

Democracy, indeed!