Gonzi's double insurance policy

Lawrence Gonzi's initial suggestion that the decision on divorce should be taken by referendum was complete hogwash. After hinting at a referendum in the aftermath of Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando’s bombshell last summer, he seems to have had cold feet.

Gonzi must have been advised that a referendum was a catch-22 situation for him. If the referendum said yes, he would have gone down in history as the PM under whose government divorce was introduced (probably a good thing for PN but not for Gonzi). If the referendum said no, it  would have broken up the coalition of liberals and conservatives. For in case of a 'no' the only option left for those wanting divorce would be to desert the party.  My hunch is that Gonzi has found a way out of his self-inflicted referendum quandary by trying to exploit divisions in the opposition.

It is now back to square one with the referendum relegated to a sort of a double insurance policy to block any chance of divorce being introduced in this legislature, even if approved in parliament. If the PN wants a referendum it would submit the legislative proposal presented by JPO and Evarist Bartolo to a referendum before a vote is taken in parliament. 

I never agreed with this course of action first because planning a referendum before a vote in parliament  would have been a procedural nightmare as anyone could have called for a division at any stage of the discussion.  But more fundamentally  it would have absolved MPs of their duty to pronounce themselves on an important issue.  But that is what people understood when Gonzi promised a referendum arguing that the issue was too important for parliament to decide.  They understood that the decision will be taken by the people not just in case parliament said yes.   

In reality, from day one logic dictated that the decision should be taken by parliament. No issue is too important not to be taken by parliament. That is why we have a parliament in the first place. It is up to those opposed to divorce to collect 30,000 signatures to call for an abrogative referendum in the unlikely scenario that divorce is approved in parliament in this legislature.

In this way MPs and political parties, including Labour, will assume their responsibility towards their electors. If the bill does not pass through parliament, the divorce issue should be settled by the next parliament elected after the next general election.

Hopefully all parties contesting the next election will declare their stance in their electoral manifesto. In this way the next government will have an electoral mandate on such an important aspect of public and social policy.