While Libya burns and the world, variously, fiddles or imposes a no-fly zone over a country without a functioning airforce (no-drive zone, anyone?) we continue debating the divorce question as if it is the most important thing since Creation.
We have now been regaled with the erudition of none other than Rev Prof Peter Serracino Inglott, who tells us that it is premature to introduce divorce because sufficient research hasn't been done. I'm not sure what sort of research the eminent scholar wants done, because divorce has been around for quite a few years and in quite a few countries.
Perhaps he wants to produce a scholarly paper on the effects of growing up and smelling the coffee on an insular, egotistical population of a minuscule island that has held itself in thrall to authoritarianism, particularly of a religiously fundamental variety, for countless years.
In the meantime, we have been lumbered with a damn fool question designed to assuage the consciences of the waverers and buck-passers, who will kid themselves, and try to kid us, that we're not deciding whether to introduce divorce sic et simpliciter, but "responsible divorce".
Actually, we're not going to decide anything, we're just going to be asked what we think and then the people whose consciences caused them to pass us the buck are going to see if they will deign to give our opinion any sort of credence.
The really hilarious thing is that we've been and gone and got ourselves a Jasmine Revolution all of our own on this one, if you'll forgive my debasing the real revolutions going on around us. Going the rounds of Facebook as I write is a poll which simply asks "Divorce, in favour or against?", extending two elegant fingers in the general direction of the pullers of wool over our eyes.
A more eloquent, and simple, denouncement of the vapidness of Labour's question would be difficult to find. For the record, I clicked the "in favour" button, of course, and I will vote "yes" to Labour's stupid question, unless I get so mightily annoyed with the opportunistic partisan messing around that is starting to tinge the debate that I simply abstain or vote "No".