Unfortunately the statement and the response by the Opposition Leader were heavily under reported by the local media. I think that they merit attention. This is a delicate moment when apart from interests we must and need also to appraise values and the type of bloodshed that if reports are correct, is simply horrendous. The Libyan people simply deserve better, irrespective of what will happen in the coming days and hours.

Primarily the PM and the Opposition Leader showed that political leaders can rise to the occasion, put partisanship aside, focus on the national interest, and avoid the temptation of indulging in petty and partisan squabbling.

While the PM correctly reiterated Malta’s condemnation of the violence seen in the past few days and insisted that fundamental human rights and the legitimate aspirations of the people should be respected, he thanked the Opposition Leader for his constant support over this issue and referred to a meeting with business leaders in which the government agreed to consider the setting up of a task force that would help sustain companies with interests in Libya.

Malta cannot be accused of weakness for emulating what the US did – in holding its horses until the last Maltese citizen was and is safely out of Libya.

Joseph Muscat showed strong maturity last Sunday when he once again expressed his appreciation for the way in which the Opposition was being kept constantly informed on developments by government on the Libyan crisis.

While I accept the need for prudence and agree with the Foreign Minister that prudence is not a sign of weakness, we need to speak up clearly as Labour did that we unreservedly condemn all violence in Libya, and insist that human rights are rights which by definition need to be respected. As a UN member we need to fulfil our obligations too. On the other hand the crisis should give Malta impetus for serious dialogue between the peoples of the Mediterranean. Contingency planning on worst case scenarios regarding the immigration threat is also vital. Potentially this could impact locally even worse than the 1986 raid on Libya itself.

On the other hand the PL deserves credit for striking a balance between its humanitarian obligations and the safeguarding of our national interest. Let us hope Europe will show the same solidarity with us as we have done with others in moments of crisis, especially if the migration crisis develops further.

The highs of political and parliamentary life need to be highlighted particularly at this juncture when politicians and political parties in general seem to command very low esteem and many people might have lost their interest in the entire political class. I would have liked to wax just as lyrical about the way the divorce debate developed.

But alas, I cannot afford the luxury to do so.

While my colleague Evarist Bartolo went out of his way to emphasise that the motion was being backed by a majority of the House, including the whole Labour group and some members of the PN Group, he made the strong point that the people would only be asked if they backed the possibility of divorce when a marriage would have irrevocably broken down, while couples would need to have been separated at least four years and maintenance and child care arrangements would have been made already. Much to my surprise, Minister Dolores Cristina, who I have always rated as one of the most rational government Ministers even when I do not necessarily agree with her political views, surprised me somewhat, when she made two politically incorrect assumptions:

• that the PL proposal was a loaded question aimed at selling the idea of divorce in attractive wrapping as well as that it hid realities and was open to interpretation;

• and secondly that the people were owed a clear question, not necessarily a yes or no.

In all honesty the second question should have been better addressed by the Hon Minister to her own leader and Prime Minister – since he was the one who has reduced the whole issue to a YES/NO question; thus showing great insensitivity to the complexity of the whole delicate issue.

That is unless Ms Cristina is already in the loop of possible plans ahead by the Prime Minister to come forward with yet another U-turn to mitigate the negative impact his YES/NO question generated by trying to find a compromise solution with the sole objective – that of avoiding a parliamentary vote on the whole resolution that could expose the cracks within the PN’s parliamentary group on such a matter of substance.

It was very unfair of the Minister to accuse the PL of trying to play with people’s emotions and confuse them in the process.

If anything it was Lawrence Gonzi who did expressly that.

Not only by coming down like tons of bricks against divorce and then allowing a free vote on the issue, but also by rightly attacking anybody who might have harboured the mere notion of a quick fix divorce solution only to end up proposing a Las Vegas type of divorce through his own strictly YES/NO option.

The minister even chose to repeat the Castille mantra that Joseph Muscat refused to reach consensus with the Prime Minister on this issue by refusing to engage with him on the matter.

Nationalist arrogance has reached such an all time peak that anytime anyone from our side tends to disagree with government, we are instantly accused of going against the national interest or rejecting the option of a consensual agreement.

If the minister finds solace in the fact that according to the NSO the amount of cohabiting couples was relatively small then even if this were so it showed complete disregard towards the interests of minorities in society.

If the Prime Minister rightly claims that he will keep insisting on job creation/security until there is not one person left unemployed, we should adopt the same attitude on divorce.

Whether there are 10,000 people who want it or just 10 persons we should not play this game by numbers or statistics.

When a Labour government had decriminalised homosexuality at a time when it was almost unthinkable for one to admit that he or she was ‘gay’ it surely did not go by statistics. But it had merely limited itself to the observance of the need of a new civil right. The same way it did when it introduced civil marriage in the mid- 1970s.

Divorce would be bad if it was imposed from above by any legislator or authority.

It is just an option that one can exercise only if interested. There is nothing obligatory and I also know of a number of couples who although separated are not that interested in it as an option.

But on the other hand once the Church itself allows and implicitly encourages marriage annulment to enable people to start a fresh life, even if they happen to have children out of their failed marriage, I see no reason why we should allow ecclesiastical annulment, civil marriage, separations, cohabitation but not divorce… strictly for those interested in it.

Let us hope that as the debate continues to unfold in the coming days it will not assume the proportions and dimension of a crusade and that pro and con arguments will continue to be made rationally.

[email protected]

www.leobrincat.com

Leo Brincat is the Shadow Minister for the Environment, Sustainable Development & Climate Change