It was reported in The Times yesterday the referendum on divorce is planned to be called in this summer. It was also reported the House of Representatives may start discussing the Private Member’s Bill on divorce possibly as early as “next month”, seemingly before the referendum is held.

What is very odd is that all this information seems to have leaked out of the proceedings of the Nationalist Party’s executive committee meeting, which was held two days ago.

Allow me to state all this is very unsatisfactory from the democratic and, dare I say, the constitutional aspect. We voters have the right to know precisely what the road map leading to a final decision on the divorce issue will be from the persons who are officially and directly responsible to do so. These certainly are not the executive committees of either the PM or of the Labour Party!

Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi, on behalf of the government of Malta, needs to clearly and officially indicate what the government will be proposing to the House of Representatives on the 101 questions the country wants answered on the so-called road map.

Or is the government going to play second fiddle to the promoters of the Private Member’s Bill even on the question of the road-map? If so, then let the government say so officially.

President Emeritus Eddie Fenech Adami has already raised the alarm at the institutional level. He raised a number of pertinent questions, which, if not answered before the already heated political atmosphere becomes red hot, will mean chaos and confusion will cloud one of the most important social debates our country has embarked upon.

Another element of alarm is the confusion that exists on theapparent wish of Dr Gonzi and Opposition Leader Joseph Muscat to give their parliamentary groups a free vote. If this is the case, then why are both parties undergoing a heated internal debate on the question of divorce? Why is anyone expecting some final and decisive decision from either of the parties on the issue?

Each and every MP will vote in accordance to his or her personal conscience in exactly the same manner each and every voter will do. Or not?

The civil society has already embarked on a meaningful discussion on divorce, which is proceeding well independently of MPs. The electorate certainly does not want MPs to hijack the debate for any internal political struggle going on in either of the parties.

A more fundamental question is why have Parliament debated the Private Member’s Bill before the holding of the referendum?

So let us imagine the scenario where MPs, who don’t even have a mandate from the electorate on divorce, spend precious Parliamentary time, which, to boot, I am sure is desperately required to tackle the serious issues facing the running of the country at this delicate economic moment in time, to discussing the details of how divorce is to operate in Malta when the country has not yet even decided whether divorce is harmful or beneficial to the common good.

Cannot the promoters of the Bill explain the benefits of what they are proposing during the referendum? Or do they think the electorate is not clever enough to understand such issues?

Would this not be an insult to reason, logic and democracy?

What if the majority of the electorate decides that divorce, whether regulated by this Bill or any other Bill, is not acceptable? Would not MPs have wasted hours upon hours of precious time debating a “stillborn” Bill?

When the country came to decide on membership of the European Union, it first addressed the clear-cut question of whether the electorate wanted to form part or not of the EU and only when the decision of the sovereign electorate was taken did the MPs pass on to discuss the detailed legislation necessary for EU membership.

I urge the Prime Minister to answer all these questions urgently, otherwise there exists the serious risk the referendum will end up an unholy fudge of this Legislature.