The Prime Minister’s letter to Dr Joseph Muscat with a proposal about the way forward for the divorce debate is welcome news indeed. The Prim Minister’s letter is considerate and moderate. It shows his – and I say the people’s – concern that the country should manifest the greatest maturity possible while passing through this historical moment. I have no doubt that Dr Muscat shares the same feelings.
The Prime Minister is making two proposals: (i) about the timeframe; (ii) the referendum question. I see no reason why Dr Muscat should say no as both requests of the Prime Minister are in line with positions already taken by the leader of the Partit Laburista.
When should we hold the referendum?
The Prim Minister is suggesting that the debate about the motion should not take the few hours suggested by the Opposition some days back. He is also suggesting that instead of rushing headlong into a referendum the country should take some more time and vote in the end of May. The motion of the PL is for holding the referendum just a few weeks before that. The difference is minimal. Moreover, Dr Muscat had consistently shown that he was in no hurry to get divorce legalised. He repeatedly stated that he would make a move in this direction only after he became Prime Minister, whenever that would happen to be (if it happens to be). If Dr Muscat was ready to postpone the matter by two years or so, why should he not agree to the Prime Minister’s request to postpone it by a few weeks?
The motion of the PL describes the legalisation of divorce as “a major piece of legislation that will have a historical impact and is of great significance for our country.” Does the urgency shown by the PL justify the seriousness of the decision? Should we rush into a referendum as if the whole world was falling around us and only a quick referendum would save the world? Had someone proposed the demolition of a couple of rubble walls I am certain that more studies would have been commissioned and more time taken to reach a decision!
Though I agree that the baby was given a mature birth, I am not suggesting that the referendum be postponed until all relevant studies are carried out. Like the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition I am also against the holding of such a referendum during Lent. If this were to happen, only God can predict the use and abuse that could potentially be made. The Church would be an outright loser.
However, I agree with the Prime Minister that a respite of a few weeks can help people grasp the issues more and understand them better. This slightly slower process could lead to a more mature decision, which should then be respected. A May 2011 referendum is definitely quicker than Dr Muscat’s target for some time in 2013 or 2014 – as Dr Muscat has constantly lobbied for.
The referendum question
Dr Muscat’s thoughts on the way divorce should be introduced have changed 180 degrees. He consistently said that divorce legislation should be decided by members of Parliament. He consistently said that holding a referendum on the subject shows a failure of leadership. Now – quite naturally for his own good reasons - he is all out for a manifestation of a failure of leadership. He is not only in favour of holding a referendum. He is also in favour of a referendum question which takes away all discretion and power from the MPs as it would decide (at least politically) not only that there should be divorce but also the type of divorce that there should be. The proposal of the Prime Minister for a yes or no vote meets the original position of the Leader of the Opposition more than half way. It consults the people about their ayes or noes for a referendum and then would put the onus on MPs for the way the will of the people should be executed. Dr Muscat should not have any principled objection to the PM’s proposed referendum question as it adequately addresses Dr Muscat’s concern about a failure of leadership more than his own motion does.
The motion of the PL
I cannot fathom why the MPs of the Partit Laburista have put their signature for a divorce question favouring a Las Vegas type of divorce. How could Dr Marie Louise Coleiro Preca and Mr Karmenu Abela take part in an activity of the Moviment Zwieg Bla Divorzju and then put their names for such a motion without – at least – adding a personal explanation?
The motion of the Partit Laburista is for a divorce question favouring a no fault divorce. If the motion is approved one would be able to get divorced if one wishes to be divorced. The only inconvenience is that one has just to wait for four years to do it. That’s all there is to it. I cannot fathom how the proponents of the motion are saying that they are against a liberal divorce law when this is exactly what they are proposing.