The Civil Unions Law passed by Parliament on Monday, in particular the right of gay couples to apply to adopt, has exposed a split right down the middle of a Nationalist Party that is struggling to regain unity under its new leader whose first decision after taking over from Lawrence Gonzi – that of having two deputy leaders – is now coming back to haunt him.

Simon Busuttil’s move to divide the responsibilities of deputy leadership a day after being elected PN leader was made to embrace the different factions of a party that was reeling from a historic defeat in the March 2013 election.

But today, nearly one year later, that decision is proving to be more divisive than unifying, as having two deputy leaders sharing equal power has forced the PN to take an unpopular stand which, although on the surface is being adamantly described by the party as “one voice”, is nonetheless a sign that there is an internal tug-of-war.

On Monday, the Nationalist Opposition chose to abstain on the vote on the Civil Unions Bill, which included gay adoption. This decision, according to what has been said by PN exponents in public, came about after long hours of discussion within the parliamentary group structures, during which the liberal and conservative wings of the party fought tooth and nail, with neither side willing to give an inch.

Sources told The Malta Independent on Sunday that the liberal side, led by deputy leader Mario de Marco, vehemently wanted the party to vote in favour of the bill.

The conservative side, led by the other deputy leader, Beppe Fenech Adami, adamantly pushed for a vote against the law as proposed. While the latter faction could accept civil unions, the inclusion of gay adoption as part of the law was strongly opposed.

Leader Simon Busuttil, more of a liberal than a conservative, was himself in favour of a yes vote, but the conservative side’s threats ultimately forced a compromise with which neither side was happy, but which was the only position on which there was agreement.

The 30-member parliamentary group was split precisely in half, 15-15, and the sources said that, with some persuasion, the numbers could have changed by one or two in favour of the liberal side, but there was no way of convincing the rest.

The conservative wing could not be swayed, not even when a string of experts brought in by the party to discuss the issue with the MPs made it clear that there was nothing morally wrong if a “yes” vote was given, the sources said.

An expert in moral theology who addressed the PN MPs argued that, once the party had made its objections during the second reading of the bill and had tried its best to convince the government to postpone the gay adoption issue, the party’s collective and individual conscience was clear.

But this was not enough for a change of heart from the conservative MPs, and the party – as admitted by Dr Busuttil himself – had no option but to abstain.

The Malta Independent has contacted the majority of Nationalist MPs over the last few days, asking them what their position would have been had their party not abstained and had they been given a free vote, and also whether they felt comfortable with the position the party took.

It seems that word soon started going around that they were being contacted, and they decided among themselves – or were instructed – to give a similar reply.

Call after call, the common answer was that the vote was taken unanimously, and thus they should not answer the “hypothetical” question of what their personal choice could have been.

“I vote according to my parliamentary group,” many of them said. Some chose to explain that abstention in itself sent a very clear message. Others went a small step further, but ultimately their answer confirmed the common position taken as a whole.

“There is no way that I will comment on what my personal vote would have been, like some others did,” Jason Azzopardi said, in an obvious reference to comments given by another MP, Claudette Buttigieg, in an interview with The Malta Independent earlier this week. “When you are part of a parliamentary group, and you take a unanimous decision, you should not go around saying what your personal vote would have been.”

Mrs Buttigieg had said that she tried to convince her fellow Nationalist MPs to vote in favour of the Civil Unions Bill, but after long discussions the party decided on a compromise.

She admitted that she would have wished for a free vote, but she had to abide by her party’s decision.

Robert Arrigo, Giovanna Debono and Censu Galea said that their personal opinion corresponds perfectly with Monday’s vote. Others argued that their own personal opinion as a member of the party is ultimately the party’s decision.

Albert Fenech said that “no logical mind would have combined civil unions and gay adoptions in one single vote. The sole purpose of this was so our Prime Minister would be applauded as soon as he came out of Parliament.”

Joe Cassar also made reference to the Prime Minister, stating: “There is no way we would have fallen into his political trap. We stuck to our principles because we do not agree with the adoption clause.”

Kristy Debono said: “If the promised study with regard to gay adoption had been carried out, and it proved right for our children, then I would have gladly voted in favour.”

The stand taken by the Nationalist Party was explained by leader Simon Busuttil in an interview with The Malta Independent. He insisted that the PN was always in favour of civil unions, but that it chose to abstain on the law that included gay adoption, in the best interests of children.

He said the party had made it clear that the adoption clause should not be part of the law, but the government had not listened. He said that a free vote would have been exactly what the government wanted, and therefore they decided to abstain and explain their position just before the vote was taken.