If there is anything that fills me with more dread than the thought that we have two more days of hearing about bloody divorce it's the fact that there're going to be so many days of post-mortem.

The guy who started all this off, leading to a waste of four million of the nation's euro (which is not entirely his fault, given that the blasted referendum is being held because the MPs are being derelict in their duty) is already coming up with the excuses.  According to this paragon of saying the right thing at the right time all the time, if the "no" vote prevails, it will be because of "spiritual terrorism".   

It seems he remains unable to grasp when he should put a sock in it.

Combined with Joseph Muscat's possibly pre-emptive strike that if the "no" vote prevails, this will not mean that divorce will go off the national agenda, I take JPO's latest episode of mouth-footing as an indication that the proponents of divorce legislation see their wizard notion as falling on deaf ears.

Whether this will be the case remains to be seen, and see it we will some time on Sunday evening, apparently.  

I can smell it: rampant Labour triumphalism if "yes" wins (as I hope it does, for reasons I've explained elsewhere) or barrel-loads of sour grapes and blaming GonziPN if "no" wins.   That's on the part of the pro-divorce lobby, whose level of intolerance with the non-liberal side of the equation is one of the least attractive of a pretty vast panoply of unattractive facets of their cause.

On the part of the anti-divorce lobby, a "yes" will, I suspect, lead not to any direct finger-pointing but to a strong rear-guard action to strengthen the resolve the the MPs who have declared that they will disregard the referendum result if thus inspired by their consciences.   It would be shameful if this were to be the case.   A "no" result will not, if the anti-lobby sticks to type, lead to any triumphalism or celebration but the country will be well down the road to further doses of smug self-satisfaction and righteous interference in the governance of the nation, a road we'd do well to avoid.

Oh well, whatever, at least we will be rid of inane remarks such as the one made by the antis, that the people are not well aware of the implications of the question as put. 

If they are not, what, pray, have you been doing with your expensive campaign for the last couple of months?