UPDATED - PN General Secretary Paul Borg Olivier this evening denied that a motion he presented yesterday on the PN's position on divorce was restricting the people's right to a referendum.
The motion, due to be voted upon at a PN executive committee meeting on Saturday, says that the PN should take a position against the introduction of divorce; Nationalist MPs should have a free vote in parliament; and should parliament approve a Bill for the introduction of divorce, it will only come into force if it is confirmed by referendum.
Dr Borg Olivier stressed that according to the Referenda Act, a referendum on any matter had to be preceded by a decision taken by the majority of the Members of Parliament. This applied not only to the issue of divorce but any other issue subject to a referendum.
The PN could never propose anything which went against the law.
Earlier this evening the Divorce Movement said the PN's proposal to hold a referendum on divorce should a divorce bill be approved in Parliament was 'a filthy tactic' that aims to turn a promised referendum to decide the divorce issue into a possible referendum aimed at striking down the proposed law.
The motion, presented yesterday by PN General Secretary Paul Borg Olivier, says that the PN will take a position against the introduction of divorce; Nationalist MPs will have a free vote in parliament; and should parliament approve a Bill for the introduction of divorce, it will only come into force if it is confirmed by referendum.
The movement pointed out that Parliament could also strike down the promised referendum beforehand. The motion “unfairly presents the proposed law with a twisted double hurdle,” it said.
It pointed out that the Prime Minister's reasons for opting for a referendum was that government did not have an electoral mandate to introduce divorce and that on a matter of such fundamental importance he wanted to see what the people had to say before proceeding
“That was a reasonable stance and we did not oppose it.
“However, proposing a referendum only after a vote on the bill is taken in parliament completely defeats the purpose of having a referendum. It is a contradiction in terms since those who self-professedly do not have a mandate to represent the people on the issue of divorce would be doing just that if a vote is taken before going to the people.
“This would make a mockery out of any referendum that followed since it would not be a referendum to see whether the people wanted divorce and if they did legislation would be passed in favour in keeping with the salient principles the people would have voted for.
“It would be a referendum to have a second chance at shooting the proposed bill down in a ploy to make the Prime Minister seem like he's playing by the rules and sticking to his word when in fact he would not be doing so at all.”
The movement said that coming out with ingenious ideas of how to rob the people of their voice on such a delicate issue could not be applauded and was not in the best interest of society and the democratic process.