Tags
Related Posts
Share This
Tie Your Brother Down
“Nationalist MP Peter Micallef said yesterday that the result of the consultative referendum on divorce would in no way tie him down when the vote on the Divorce Bill was held.” The plot thickens.
Isn’t Peter right? It all boils down to the meaning of the vote that he exercises in parliament. Is it Peter‘s vote and his alone – making him free to tie it down with his heavy (or light, as the case may be) moral convictions? Does it belong to his constituency or the couple of thousand electors who rushed to casually elect Peter to his cosy seat in parliament? Would a quick head count among his electors convince Peter to vote in accordance to their will?
On the other hand does his vote belong to the nationalist party that worked so hard for men like Peter to get to his p’mentary seat? In that case Peter could only follow the PN’s guidance and in the event of their “position” (we don’t like divorce but our MPs will have a free vote) he is granted a one off chance to use his vote according to his cerebral and spiritual likings.
So what of the people? Peter is not Muammar after all. He cannot say “they love me all” and he definitely knows where they can stick their collective advice in a consultative referendum. It is consultative after all and this particular MP has been admirably frank and open about his position as to how much he values the opinion of the people in this particular consultation.
But is Peter wrong? How can he be? This has become a free for all in lascivious political nonchalance. It is what happens when we cut ourselves loose from all the “lawyering” and “legal niceties” and “verbal somersaults”. Parties with no position except for the fact that they have unleashed a collective of pussyfooting MPs to do as they like. Disquistions on referendum questions that are ultimately purely consultative – and as such allow geezers like Pete to say “I won’t be tied by the people”.
Which is why J’accuse still insists that there is only one way divorce can and should be introduced. On a party manifesto that wins the election and introduces the right to remarry via a legislative motion in parliament. Business as usual in a normal world.
In un paese di coglioni ci mancano le palle. – J’accuse 2011.
My view is that the original position of the Nationalist party (ie a referendum after a vote for divorce in Parliament) was more logical and legal, as a consultative referendum cannot bind Parliament.
A party winning an election on a
manifesto proclaiming divorce is unlikely in the near future as I think that none of the parties who can win the next election will have the introduction of divorce in their next electoral programme.
The question is not whether it ties him down…it is obvious that it does not, the referendum is an exercise where parliament asks council from the populance…the question is how will parliament and parliamentarians interpret the advice…it is already bad enough that minority interests are being subjected to a majority opinion…now if a majority opinion would still lean to the yes but parliamentarians would still ignore that opinion, than in my opinion, that would translate into the ultimate disdain towards popular opinion.
i think that at this point the anti-divorce parliamentarians are playing with fire. They seem to be laying their line of last obstruction which goes something like – the referendum result is not clear on what to do,
as they dilly dally till election day…if they follow this line they would be guilty of i do not know what…but something that is really serious…