Last Monday I followed the discussion of Bondiplus. It was a typical Mediterranean-style discussion: too many people; too short a time span; too hot a subject; too many interruptions; too many people talking without really being interested in listening to the others.

Many divorce debates are favouring an ‘us-them’, ‘right-wrong’ syndrome.

Then, last Tuesday I attended the first part of the debate organised by the Law students at University. Its content was of a very high level.

I disagree with the drift of Prof. Kenneth Wain’s pro-divorce arguments. But I do not doubt the sincerity of his belief that his position is best for the common good.

As always, I love listening to Dr Ruth Farrugia, who is so knowledgeable. Fr Peter Serracino Inglott, as usual, was a pleasure (and educational) to listen to.

I do not expect TV and radio programmes to be similarly calm and informative. We are a Mediterranean people and we do tend to flare up easily. Besides, heated discussions are more interesting to watch, and emotion is a valid contribution to the debate.

It is ironic, though, that the country of origin of the man who proposes a different way of debating things, is not able to use his methods in this historic moment.

Prof. Edward de Bono had proposed that we should move away from the pro-con form of debating.

All those who take part in a debate should say all the pros on an argument and then say all the cons. In this scenario consensus is more possible.

At least it would be more possible to respect each other. This could have been a good way forward, as there are good arguments on both sides of the divide.

However, there is no hope that such a method of debating will be adopted. The religious and secular fundamentalists will, I suspect, hold a lot of the debating ground.

The situation has been rendered more difficult because the Labour Party and two Nationalist MPs opted for a skewed referendum question, which, they say, represents the Bill proposed by Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando and Evarist Bartolo.

Dr Joe Brincat, who was the first to propose a divorce Bill to Parliament, posted on my blog a very interesting comment on this Bill.

According to Dr Brincat, the proposed Bill “presents a multitude of legal problems and is still an overgrowth in the Maltese judicial system in matters of family law. Both in substance and in procedural matters.

“It would need drastic amendments in committee stage in Parliament. It would create problems of interpretation and would not be an easy matter to apply.”

I expect MPs to heed the will of the people expressed in the referendum. There are different options possible for MPs who disagree with what the people decide, but undermining what the people opt for should not be an option.

However, what would be the best way to respect the will of the people?

Let us say that there is a resounding yes for the introduction of divorce. This means people would have opted for divorce legislation that has to guarantee maintenance.

What should an MP do if he is certain the proposed legislation does not guarantee maintenance?

Does not respect for the decision of the people imply a ‘no’ vote in Parliament?

It is surely not acceptable to go along with the pro-divorce movement’s interpretation that the law will not guarantee maintenance but only guarantee recourse to the Courts to get this maintenance.

This is not what the question says, and it is unfortunate that the movement is ready to ignore the question in such a manner.

Therefore, MPs who really want to respect the will of the people will have an onerous task indeed.

These are pleasures yet to come. For the moment, we will follow what will probably be a stormy referendum campaign.

joseph.borg@um.edu.mt