The government and the opposition will today meet to discuss the way forward on Labour’s motion to hold a consultative referendum on divorce.
An urgent House Business Committee meeting, chaired by Speaker Michael Frendo, has been scheduled for 11.30 a.m.
During the meeting, the Labour Party is expected to call for an immediate parliamentary debate, starting next week, on its motion presented on Monday.
Labour’s motion includes a timeframe which, if retained, is likely to see a referendum campaign fought during Lent.
It also leaves a very good chance of “D-Day” falling on the day after the liturgical feast of Our Lady of Sorrows (Id-Duluri) on April 15, which in that case would serve as the traditional “day of reflection”.
Labour yesterday said it was “confident” its motion enjoyed the support of the majority of MPs – its 34 parliamentary group members, plus at least one other Nationalist MP.
Nationalist MP Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando, who presented a Private Member’s Bill last year based on Irish legislation, has already expressed support for Labour’s motion, which is itself based on his draft law.
Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi has also given his backing to the motion, provided it proposed a “clear, specific and reasonable” referendum question. However, his comments were based on media reports about Labour’s plans before they were made public.
Since Labour leader Joseph Muscat made the proposals official, Dr Gonzi has refused to comment and yesterday dodged questions by The Times during a press tour of a factory in Bulebel.
But speaking on television on Monday night, PN general secretary Paul Borg Olivier also said there was agreement to move towards a referendum.
Heavyweight minister Austin Gatt, who has come out strongly against divorce, did not reply to questions by The Times about whether he would back Labour’s referendum motion.
Blogger and media lecturer Fr Joe Borg welcomed Labour’s “solution” to the legalistic conundrum which Dr Gonzi had labelled a “straitjacket” of political procedure. Dr Gonzi had said a referendum could only be held after a parliamentary vote on Dr Pullicino Orlando’s Bill.
The anti-divorce lobby stressed that if a referendum were to be held, it must be backed by a comprehensive information campaign for the public. Coordinator Andre Camilleri questioned whether a referendum before a debate would bind Parliament’s hands to “not even change a comma in the Bill proposed”.
Fr Borg pointed out that anti-divorce politicians like Dr Gonzi could never have taken the same line of action, since proposing a divorce referendum motion would contradict with his own position. However, he added, this could have been done by Dr Pullicino Orlando.
Fr Borg, who said the referendum question proposed by Labour had “an element of bias”, added that Dr Muscat had been “opportunistic”, especially because he had made his opinion against a referendum very clear in the past.
“Dr Gonzi’s position was logical and legal at all times but it clashed with the perception that was created about letting the public decide,” Fr Borg said about Dr Gonzi’s declaration that he would vote down the Bill before it could reach a referendum.
He also commented on a part of Labour’s motion which calls for no public funds to be used in favour or against a particular side of the debate.
He said the public had to be well informed through an unbiased information campaign, even to teach the public the basic differences between divorce, separation and annulment.
Meanwhile, when asked for clarification on that part of the motion, the Labour Party said it did not want to silence the national broadcaster on this issue. “This point relates to use of public funds by public entities. Television stations, including the state’s station, are duty bound to inform in a balanced manner. Needless to say, the Broadcasting Authority should be vigilant.”
Meanwhile, former Nationalist MP Josie Muscat criticised both parties for playing a “chess game” and accusing each other of U-turns. He said Dr Gonzi and Dr Muscat were both simply trying to find the best method of “justifying” their opposing positions.