Young people who were expecting to cast their vote for the first time during the divorce referendum are disappointed about being disenfranchised but do not know whom to blame for this.

The political parties have pointed a finger at each other over the fact that the May 28 referendum will only permit those listed on the October electoral register to vote and not new voters on the register to be published this month.

Lara Azzopardi, who just turned 18, said she was expecting to vote since she knew the latest electoral register would be published in April.

“I think it’s very unfair. I feel very strongly about this issue,” she said, adding she would have voted in favour of divorce.

“I’m sure both parties share a bit of the blame but from the information I’ve gathered it seems it’s mostly (Labour leader) Joseph Muscat’s fault because he rushed everything. If he had waited a bit longer we would have been able to vote,” she said.

The Nationalist Party blamed Dr Muscat for the “mess” since the timeline his party provided in its divorce referendum motion did not anticipate this problem.

However, Labour insists it had offered a practical solution, which would have been to delay the publication of the President’s writ by a few weeks – something Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi described as “scandalous” because it would set a dangerous precedent in electoral law.

A number of young people affiliated with the Labour Party have set up a Facebook group called Stand Up, urging young people who have been deprived of their right to vote to protest outside Parliament tomorrow evening.

Ms Azzopardi said she was unaware of the planned protest but, given the right opportunity, she would consider making her voice heard over the issue.

Yanica Sant, who turned 18 in October and, therefore, just missed her chance to vote by a few days, is also disappointed.

She too is unsure whom to blame because both parties are blaming each other, but she thinks the issue could have been solved by delaying the writ by a few weeks to allow as many young people as possible to vote.

“Not allowing us to vote doesn’t make much sense, because at the end of the day, this is going to affect our future. It’s something which affects all of us, regardless of when we turned 18,” she said.

Although she knew some people of her age group were going to have to miss out on voting, she thought anyone who turned 18 before December would have made the electoral register.

“I’ve been really following the divorce issue and attending all the debates I could,” she said, adding that she was leaning towards the yes side.

Ms Sant said she would probably not join in any protest and instead spend her time trying to influence the way others voted.

Victoria Decelis, 18, said she was initially annoyed but now just sees it as “one less thing to think about.

“I didn’t really know how I would vote, but I was looking forward to it because it would have been my first voting experience.”

Asked if her friends and she were planning to protest she said it was unlikely. “We’re all a bit indifferent, I guess.”

Appropriately for the age group involved, both parties have released YouTube videos to explain their positions and absolve themselves of any responsibility for this situation.

They also continued their blame game in the media – with the PN accusing Dr Muscat of defending a “mess” he created himself, and the Labour Party saying its “roadmap” had originally been agreed upon by both sides until the Prime Minister made another calculation.

Meanwhile, Dr Gonzi yesterday reacted strongly to comments made the day before by pro-divorce Nationalist MP Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando, who warned his party against making “petty” arguments in this debate.

Dr Gonzi said it was not petty to play around with electoral law, and if the law allowed the publication of a referendum writ to be delayed, it should be amended because otherwise it could set a very dangerous precedent where political parties could manipulate electoral law as they liked.

“If someone thinks that this is petty, then we are living on different planets.”

Dr Gonzi also denied there was any agreement by both parties on Labour’s “twisted” method of resolving the matter. On the contrary, he said legal advice was sought, and the legal adviser said this should not be done.

Instead of such a scandalous move, the Labour Party could have presented an amendment in Parliament, Dr Gonzi said.