It is all well and good for those of us who are lucky enough to not be current Air Malta employees to concede that the inevitable is now upon the airline and its bloated workforce.

Yes, staff levels must be cut if the airline is to survive, but those employees who face the prospect of being cut loose should also be looked after in much the same way as has happened in similar past experiences. The good news is that the government yesterday pledged as much.

It is quite beside the point at this stage in the game to beat ourselves up over how staff levels at the airline were swelled to their current numbers, or how the colossal failures that were Azzura Air and the RJs contract came about. Of course, accountability for such decisions will eventually need to be established and taken.

The plain fact of the matter is that either jobs need to be shed, or the airline needs to be shed. There are simply no two ways about it. As such, there are some very difficult decisions, and negotiations, on the very near horizon for the government and unions.

No, the employees are certainly not to blame for the current state of affairs, but their sheer numbers are undoubtedly at least partially accountable for the airline’s current financial state.

Those resisting any job shedding at the airline would do well to reconsider the stance and concede that at least some jobs will need to be cut. Only then can a real revamping of the national airline be undertaken.

Against this backdrop, the government is walking very thin line. The airline’s restructuring will undoubtedly require the taking of some very controversial decisions but a failure to act, and act quickly, could very well mean the downfall of the airline and the possibility of the loss of far more jobs than could be contemplated through even the most painful of restructuring exercises.

And with the General Workers Union resisting any redundancy at the airline, heated negotiations are expected very soon.

It is hoped that the government’s efforts to redeploy Air Malta employees in the public service are successful – not only in terms of retaining employees gainful employment, but also in terms of such redeployments being aimed at areas they are truly needed, where they can continue to be productive - and not into any possibly even more expensive white elephants.

Referendum still possible, but still wrong

The workings of how the proposed introduction of divorce would be approved have shifted recently from the question of whether there should be a referendum or parliamentary vote to what has been confirmed will now be a parliamentary vote plus a referendum should all the right boxed be ticked by Parliament.

The Nationalist Party yesterday put up the forecasted “twisted double hurdle” against the possible introduction of divorce by deciding the issue would be resolved first by Parliament and then, possibly, through a referendum to be held only if MPs approve the Private Members Bill on divorce.

In a nutshell, the Prime Minister yesterday cited parliamentary procedures which effectively stipulate that since the Private Members Bill on divorce does not refer to a referendum, one could not be held before the Bill was approved by Parliament.

As such, if MPs were to vote against the divorce Bill, the matter would stop dead in its tracks there and then. But should they vote in favour a clause for a referendum to be held would be proposed. In the eventuality that the clause were to be defeated in the House after MPs voted in its favour, the Bill would be made law.

We have said in the past that a referendum on the issue is not the right correct path and that stance has not changed. A country should hold a referendum on an issue that affects the entire population, and EU membership was one such issue that affected everyone – the young and the old, the married and the separated and each and every social and economic class.

Divorce, however, is not. Unless we are to swallow - hook, line and sinker - the argument that the introduction of divorce stands to destroy the whole of society as we know it, then this is not an issue that should be put to a popular vote.

We also have the argument that there is no political mandate to introduce divorce, but then again, Parliament is to vote on the issue all the same. All well and good as a vote in Parliament is the only vote that should be taken.

The reason being that this is an issue that affects the minority, the separated couples, who, at least in 2008, represented just 22 per cent of married couples. As such, a referendum on the issue of divorce, which is after all a civil rights issue, would be undemocratic.

It is only those who are affected by a potential law that are able to fully grasp its ramifications. It boils down to a question of either holding a referendum solely among those affected by the problem or having the country’s elected representatives, who have been entrusted to take such decisions on behalf of all the people, do what they have been elected to do.

Any politician who advocated for a divorce referendum is simply shunning their responsibility. They have been elected to decide upon such civil rights issues and not to simply throw the ball back into the electorate’s court, where it now may or may not eventually land.