Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi said today that it was unfair that MPs were being pressured to declare how they would vote in Parliament on divorce, when the legislative process was only just starting.
He said that while he had stressed, as soon as the referendum result was out, that the will of the people would be respected, MPs should not be asked how they would vote until the legislative process was complete and the final version of the Bill was ready. What would happen if the final version did not reflect the referendum question which the people had expressed themselves on?
Dr Gonzi said he had been consistent throughout this issue. He had argued that since the political parties had no popular mandate for the introduction of divorce, the issue had to be referred to a referendum.
Once the result was out, he had declared that the will of the majority had to be respected.
This was in contrast to the Labour position in 2003 when the Labour Party contested the result of the EU referendum. At the time, the issue was settled with a general election.
The result was not being contested this time.
However, Dr Gonzi said, the EU issue was a political one, while the divorce referendum involved belief and conscience.
Nationalist MPs, he said, had been guaranteed a free vote.
Some of the Nationalist MPs had expressed concern to him that if they voted Yes, there would be consequences within the party. He had stressed to them, however, that there would be no consequences, and MPs should feel serene to vote as they wished.
This was very different from the situation at the Labour Party, where it was very clear that Labour MPs did not have a real free vote, as was evident from certain statements and reports of threats, Dr Gonzi said.
His position, Dr Gonzi said, was that the will of the majority of the people had to be respected while, as far as possible, MPs were free to vote as they wished in Parliament.
Some had even said that should they have no choice than to vote yes to ensure that the will of the majority was respected, they would rather resign.
However, it was clear, Dr Gonzi said, that a majority for divorce already existed in Parliament.
Of course, Dr Gonzi said, he remained personally against divorce, but he also had a duty to safeguard the opinions of others, including those who were against divorce in the referendum but had now decided to vote in favour in Parliament.
He also had a duty as prime minister and an individual, to safeguard the rights of all those who wished to say Yes, No, or Abstain. To impose on how anyone should vote was unacceptable.
Dr Gonzi regretted the fierce attacks made by the Labour camp on the Church and said he hoped that national reconciliation would come about quickly.
The country needed to re-focus itself on important issues, such as creating the right environment to ensure that families remained strong, Dr Gonzi said. He hoped that the country would emerge from this phase united and determined to have stronger families.