I can’t help it. I really have tried to take them seriously, but it’s no use.

The No campaign has consistently reminded me of that famous sketch in Little Britain, in which a humourless character sitting behind an official desk continuously stonewalls people asking for information by tapping a few keys on her keyboard and monotonously repeating ‘computer says No’.

I have tried to listen to their arguments with an open mind, truly I have. But when the irrationality went out the window my mind started to wander and I started focusing on the trivial, let’s say superficial things.

It hasn’t helped my efforts to keep a straight face when the people fronting the campaign have been pure satire gold. There’s Arthur Galea Salomone (Zwieg bla Divorzju) with his droooooning voice sounding like a mosquito buzzing relentlessly in your ear.

Then there’s Angelo Micallef (Le B’Rispettt Lejn il-Gejjieni) with his alarmingly big hair and a permanently petulant look on his face, looking for all the world as if someone stole his sweets. Anna Vella (she of the famous size ten remark) could easily play the role of a stern schoolmistress: very short steel grey hair, a no-nonsense glint in her eye and a smile which chills you to the bone.

Joyce Cassar made an interesting character study – I have never seen anyone pass so effortlessly from one emotion to another with a mere flick of an eye. She could be reasonably persuasive, using her voice like honey one second and then, before you could say ‘referendum’, she would summon up red-faced, self-righteous indignation. It’s quite a skill.

My own personal favourite was Clyde Attard (Kristu Iva, divorzju Le). I would sit there spellbound whenever he came on screen, with his almost endearing dimply smile and his head tilted at a charming angle as he pointed at me (rather rudely I thought) through the screen assuring me that Jesus loves me. Phew, thank goodness, for that. Tell Him thanks for me. Clyde, with his Bible in one hand, and a picture of Christ’s face in the other, fascinated me in that weird way in which I’m often fascinated by people who, in truth, scare me because of what they represent.

And finally we had Andre ‘Houdini’ Camilleri: now you see him, now you don’t.

So, all in all, the No campaign provided plenty of fodder for those who find the humour in even the most dire of situations. If the assortment of characters involved were not enough to make you collapse into giggles, we then had the ‘Yes but, No but, Yes but’ U-turns. Out of the blue the people who were so fiercely and ferociously against divorce suddenly changed tack. Divorce was suddenly OK if it was consensual – yes I can see that happening. A man who pounds you black and blue is going to sign on the dotted line for you to divorce him.

“You want to leave me? Sure doll, no problem.” Whack, pow, splat.

***

When things got stale and predictable on the official front, one could always turn to online comments for entertainment (or despair depending on your mood). So, here in no particular order, are a few of the daftest reasons I’ve heard people give for saying ‘No’ to the introduction of divorce legislation.

“My wife/husband might decide to leave me”

(…if your faith in your marriage is so shaky, I suggest you have bigger problems than whether divorce is introduced or not)

“I can’t stand Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando because he almost lost us the election, has been a rebellious backbencher, pushed for divorce for personal reasons and is undermining the Prime Minister”

(…those are a lot of strong feelings you have there and yet strangely irrelevant to the divorce issue. May I suggest you take up yoga?)

“I don’t want to see the smirk on Joseph Muscat’s face if the Yes vote wins”

(… smirking is a completely natural facial expression, and is not remotely connected to divorce. I would hazard a guess that smirks will continue to be seen from time to time in the next few years Unless we hold a referendum to make smirking illegal)

“I am against cohabitation”

(…this is one of the more intriguing reasons. Anyone who wishes to decipher the logic behind it is asked to send their answers to this newspaper)

“we should wait until the census in November to know the real statistics”

(…hate to break it to you, but according to the NSO, the data will only be completely ready for publication in 2014)

“We have not discussed the subject enough – the campaign was too hurried.”

(…seriously?)

“I don’t need it for myself,”

(… thank you politicians for instilling such a sense of civic duty in the electorate)

“all of us need to read the entire draft bill and understand it first”

(yes, I can see that happening in this lifetime)

“I’m getting married this year…it’s simply not fair.”

(… repeat after me: divorce is not obligatory, divorce is not obligatory)

“Because Gonzi says No …”

(hmmm…computer says No?)

[email protected]