So it now appears that a vote in favour of divorce legislation in the House of Representatives is, for all intents and purposes, a foregone conclusion. And, it has to be admitted, after a sequence of events taking place yesterday, this particular piece has undergone a number of metamorphoses.

First thing yesterday morning we had Minister Austin Gatt declaring in another section of the media that the Labour Party had lost its pro-divorce majority and that the PN ‘would save the day’. Then we had the Prime Minister acknowledging in an official party statement that there was a clear parliamentary majority in favour of divorce legislation.

And by yesterday evening, our newsroom had received a total of 37 confirmations from Members of Parliament that they would vote in favour of the thorny legislation. And with nine MPs still being undeclared and a further 13 who were unreachable on the topic, there is also scope for a further boosting of the parliamentary ‘yes’ vote when the time comes.

The Prime Minister was absolutely correct in issuing the statement that he did yesterday. Since last weekend’s significant ‘yes’ vote at the referendum polls, speculation has raged over whether there was actually enough of a parliamentary majority to carry the ‘yes’ vote the people had given through Parliament.

But following the referendum, there is simply no choice but to respect the people’s will, anything short of that could prove politically dangerous and, although it was a consultative as opposed to an abrogative (legally binding) referendum, a travesty on democracy.

The Prime Minister said as much in not as many words yesterday and, as stubborn his unflinching stance as regards his MPs’ free vote is concerned may seem to some, the Prime Minister’s statement was the right one, at least politically speaking.

Yes, he insisted that his MPs are to still have a free vote in Parliament. Many had hoped for something different, but that was unrealistic. But practically in the same breath it was stated that the will of the people must be respected and, as such, a divorce bill has to emerge from Parliament. It was also stated that a Parliamentary majority in favour of divorce was, for all intents and purposes, guaranteed and that, as such, granting a free vote to his MPs would not in any way imperil the passing of the legislation.

Those adopting a wait-and-see approach, in other words those who have remained undeclared, could very well have taken the wisest and most responsible approach. After all, after the readings and debate, which is bound to be vociferous, and the committee level and its amendments, the legislation to emerge from Parliament could take on any number of different forms. Having said that, declining to declare themselves, admittedly, is also probably the most convenient of answers.

But in this process of tweaking the legislation it will be of paramount importance to stay within the confines of the question put to the people in the referendum. That is what they voted on and that is what they should get.

As long as those confines are respected, MPs should have no reason to vote ‘no’, there are only a handful of MPs intending to do so and we believe their minds, at least some of them, may still be changed.

The House must now settle down to working together as much as possible, as the Prime Minister expressed yesterday, to ensure the country gets itself the best divorce legislation possible. If Parliament resorts to the bickering that had characterised so much of the referendum campaign that is now, many would say thankfully, past, it would be an injustice to the country and its electorate.

There are still so many open wounds left from the campaign, on all sides of the spectrum, that the parliamentary process should also be embarked upon and settled as soon as possible so that the nation can well and truly begin the healing process it so dearly needs to go through.