One wonders why the issue of the introduction of divorce legislation in Malta has to be partly resolved by a consultative referendum (not binding) when the whole world except the Philippines has already done so. This matter should have been dealt with more efficiently, rather than having to incur the considerable expense of holding a referendum. But while we are at it, we might as well make the best use of such a costly exercise by extending it to incorporate another two important issues.

The first additional issue I propose to be included in this referendum is whether Malta is to remain a member of the European Union or not. It has been more than five years since the date of accession to the European Union (1 May 2004), and thus the Maltese citizens have a right to decide whether to remain or revert to what we once were – a truly independent and neutral country. The result of the previous EU referendum was termed to be too close to call (in spite of overwhelming propaganda in favour of joining by the EU, Maltese government and Nationalist Party) and had it not been for the blunder of the Leader of the Opposition of the time who advised Labour party supporters either to vote NO or not vote at all, a considerable number of eligible voters did not vote and, consequently, the result was most ambiguous.

By expanding the English proverb a bit further but without intending to actually harm any birds, the second additional issue I would like to be included in the forthcoming referendum is for the taxpayer (i.e. the Maltese citizens) to decide whether our honourable parliamentarians deserve a 20 per cent backdated pay rise (euphemistically termed as honoraria) while the rest of us lowly mortals get peanuts (ministerial honoraria €600 per week v worker’s €1.16 per week pittance). However, in this instance, I fear that our people’s representatives will loudly cry out that we morons/imbeciles are not capable of deciding and distinguishing between these three issues and voters might become confused when having to decide on so many matters simultaneously, and that, with regard to the honoraria, the honorary members knows best what is good for them not the general public.

Ultimately, I am sure that my aforementioned proposals will fall on deaf ears in spite of popular appeal, and the three birds will fly free without being hit with one stone (albeit at the mercy of our bird hunters/shooters).

Raymond Sammut

MELLIEHA