Government backbencher Edwin Vassallo on Tuesday warned the Leader of the Opposition that a time would come when, as Prime Minister, Joseph Muscat would try to pick up the pieces of a fragmented society his divorce referendum motion would have led to, only to find that it would be too late as things would have slipped too deep in the quagmire.

In a 95-minute contribution during the debate on the motion to hold a consultative referendum on the introduction of divorce, Mr Vassallo said he would fight the pro-divorce mentality to his last breath, even at the expense of losing his seat in Parliament.

He quoted British Prime Minister David Cameron saying that “it is vital for the country that children are brought up with the mother and father. The family matters. What a crazy thing for a country to be saying to people, when we all know that family breakdowns have such terrible consequences, ‘Split up and be better off’. It is madness when we have this approach.”

Mr Vassallo augured that perhaps “Joseph Muscat needs to change this”. He told Dr Muscat that as a young party leader he could sow so much good. Winning elections was not the “be-all and end-all” of things, he said.

Statistics proved that divorce was not the right medicine for problems the family was facing. In the 27 EU member states, one out of every three children, or nearly two million, were born out of wedlock every year. He urged parliamentarians to work together to stop this haemorrhage.

Earlier, Mr Vassallo said the motion was unjust, deceitful and morally irresponsible. It was one that presented a manipulation of the conscience of parliamentarians and the electorate. The precedent set by the Private Member’s Bill equated to political hijacking. The final result of the debate and referendum could, in time, be considered irregular, as Parliament was moving away from standard procedures.

The motion before the House was nothing more than a manipulative manoeuvre to win a vote in Parliament and make a political partisan statement. Dr Muscat had made a U-turn by wanting a vote in favour of a referendum, when in 2008 he said that a referendum would be postponing a decision, failure of leadership and a case of passing the buck.

This, he said, substantiated his belief that calling for a referendum before the legislation was approved was manipulative. The Labour leader was resorting to political management and arm-twisting techniques to have a motion for a consultative referendum before the debate took place. This caused moral and political pressure, compromising and influencing voting in favour of the legislation – so different from a free vote.

Mr Vassallo said it was ironic that the Labour motion for a referendum had been presented in Parliament days after the PN had approved a resolution against the introduction of divorce, giving a free vote to its MPs on the Divorce Bill, and then holding a referendum only if the Bill passed.

He said The Times and The Sunday Times appeared to be in favour of divorce, and called on them to balance their act. Journalists needed to be more objective. The media were not informing their audience that the referendum was merely consultative.

The impression was being given that the referendum was binding, mandatory and executive. Similarly, why was Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando’s Facebook page so biased in favour of divorce?

Mr Vassallo asked why Malta was not debating the Bill in Parliament first and then having the referendum.

He called on MPs to reject the motion, saying that if a free vote was promised, one needed to respect the right to a free vote. Compromising this would be unjust and deceitful. The House, he said, needed an indication from this consultative referendum. It was ultimately the MPs’ responsibility to acknowledge that all results remained on their conscience. This motion was jumping the gun on a debate that tackled a serious issue that would have a significant impact on society.

Acknowledging the fact that MPs had a legitimate right to put forward a Private Member’s Bill, Mr Vassallo added that a precedent had, however, been set and there was a case of political hijacking. In itself this was an irregularity.

On a point of order, Dr Pullicino Orlando said that he had every right to do what he had done and he had acted according to the Standing Orders. He denied he had set a precedent or acted irregularly. He asked for the protection of the House.

Continuing, Mr Vassallo insisted that it was a precedent that led to a promise made to people to indicate what their will would be. There was an agreement between both sides of the House for a consultative referendum. This seemed to be taken by politicians and the media to mean more than what it meant, giving a different and unjust interpretation in an irresponsible manner. The problem, he said, lay in the fact that irregularities would then lead to further irregularities.

The final result of the debate and referendum could, in time, be considered irregular as one was moving away from the standard procedures. He therefore called for more care to diminish the risk of such a process.

Turning again to the proposed referendum question, Mr Vassallo underlined this contained information which was not in line with reality. Maintenance and the protection of children were being quoted in order to play on people’s sentiments. As proposed, the divorce was the same as the one granted by Las Vegas. He said there was no responsible divorce. One had to decide whether one wanted divorce or not. Once divorce was enacted, it would be subject to various amendments which would change the initial concept dubbed as “responsible”.

Mr Vassallo said he understood very well the difficulties of those suffering, but one was taking citizens for a ride by proposing a picture that divorce would alleviate their suffering. It was not true that poverty-stricken mothers would become better off. The only thing divorce would change was that these people would have another possibility to marry.

He could not understand the opposition’s contention that the divorce debate had to be perceived from a civil point of view without mentioning religious beliefs. The House had strong religious values which needed to be respected. Even though divorce had nothing to do with Canon Law as such, it still remained a question of morality on the part of those who were to take the decision.

Mr Vassallo said that there was a division between the state and the Church, but such a division could not be strong in the ethos of the Maltese politician. MPs had the responsibility to decide the path Maltese marriages were to follow, as much as they had the responsibility to sustain marriages and definitely not to disrupt the moral path.

MPs should bear public witness to their personal faith and should not fall into what he called “the trap of moral relativism”.

“Take abortion… some people call it pregnancy termination, but it is still abortion.”

Again Dr Pullicino Orlando protested at this line of reasoning, and could be heard drawing the Speaker’s attention.

Mr Vassallo: “Let’s not forget that three Labour MEPs voted in favour of abortion…”

Dr Muscat: “On a point of order, Mr Speaker, Mr Vassallo is factually incorrect. The MEPs voted against a specific clause calling for abortive services, but voted in favour of the entire report which called for the eradication of poverty.”

Continuing, Mr Vassallo said Europe was facing a marriage breakdown every 30 seconds and an abortion every five seconds. The biological father could never be replaced by the second man in the family. This was a circumstance that would follow a divorce.

Mr Vassallo said he was not ready to put Malta’s families at risk. Once the family lost its relevance, it would be difficult to restore its importance in society.