Anti-divorce Labour MPs 'hope for referendum'

Labour MPs Carmelo Abela and Marie-Louise Coleiro Preca have given indications that they will be working towards a referendum on divorce, if they are to legislate on the matter.

“I feel this is an issue that the people must give us MPs a mandate for us to decide according to their wishes,” Coleiro Preca told an audience at Zwieg Bla Divorzju’s presentation of four MPs who expressed their reservations and opposition to the introduction of divorce, at a debate moderated by Dr Simone Borg.

“This is a matter of conscience, but I cannot impose it upon others without a mandate from the people. And it should be an informed decision by the people... I believe in a discussion that is well-informed, that goes beyond crusades and fanaticism, but I’ve been disappointed so far,” Coleiro Preca said.

Her colleague Carmelo Abela also declared it should be people who give MPs the right to vote on divorce. “I hope there will be a referendum,” Abela said.

Their comments this evening gave indications that Labour could be presenting a united front to vote for a divorce bill that would pave the way for a national referendum on the matter.

The Nationalist party’s executive and MPs will be voting tomorrow Saturday on a motion against the introduction of divorce. The motion also lays down that any referendum would take place if the divorce bill, tabled by Nationalist MP Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando, is passed by parliament. Pullicino Orlando has tabled his own amendments to the motion.

Parliamentary secretary Jason Azzopardi expressed his personal belief that such “matters of principle” should be decided by referendum. “It’s no use talking of this at this stage now... any proposed bill would have to include a clause that takes the bill, once voted into law, to a referendum if it is to be put into force.”

From the audience, Times columnist Austin Bencini remarked on the lack of participation from the ‘world of work’ and unions on the debate. He also remarked on the seemingly “well-educated audience we have here... The country still has no objective information on the matter, or the maturity in this debate to take this decision. And as citizens it is our duty to bring this debate to all sectors of society.”

Nationalist MP Charlo Bonnici stated that his religious beliefs could not be left behind in his parliamentary duties, in his explanation as to why he would vote against the divorce bill. “As an MP I cannot ignore the common good when I will vote on this matter. And when I look at our society and others, I have come to the conclusion that divorce will hurt even more people through its introduction.

He expressed agreement with parliamentary secretary Jason Azzopardi, who earlier stated his concern for the introduction of a ‘divorce mentality’. “Once you have this mentality, you are removing the commitment of the ‘till death do us part’ bond,” Azzopardi said.

All four MPs stressed the importance of having stronger families and giving children an education that nurtured long-lasting marriages. “I don’t think it’s a matter of being for or against: we should take the opportunity to strengthen the family,” Carmelo Abela said.

“Having strong marriages, and a certain social order, is something we need even more than other countries do. Having people united in marriage is especially important in small countries. The consequences of broken families and marriages are well known. We must look towards the common good: it must triumph over anything else,” Abela said.

Azzopardi dubbed the decision as a ‘defining moment for the country’. “Perhaps it is a wake-up call... my opposition to divorce is political in the widest sense of the word: I ask first what the common good demands of us?”

Azzopardi added that it was against the forma mentis of the Maltese to have divorce. “Our culture is to have durable marriages. We could have had divorce under Roman law... and later under the Napoleonic code. We never chose divorce.”

Azzopardi briefly floated the prospect of having children vote in a referendum, by way of a revealing example into how children would refuse such a prospect (“if we want to know the effects of divorce on children, we should have them vote on it”). It was an idea latched on to by the audience, who expressed regret that no such suffrage could be possibly contemplated for a referendum.

Coleiro-Preca however said that there were ways that children could be sounded out on divorce, while Azzopardi declared that the state could not abdicate its responsibility in preparing people for marriage.

“We cannot let this responsibility fall solely upon the shoulders of the Cana movement,” he said referring to the Catholic organisation that prepares spouses marrying with the Catholic rite. “There are people who are choosing civil marriage and they cannot be ignored. The State is involved in their cases of separation but not in their preparation for marriage.”

All MPs called for the need for relationship education amongst children and young people. Coleiro Preca said the country needed factual studies on the state of its marriages, and even proposed that a parliamentary committee for the family be set up. She also called for a review of civil and Ecclesiastical annulment procedures. “It is unacceptable that people are left hanging due to long-winded procedures, so long that even separated spouses ended up cohabiting with new partners.”