Eddie Fenech Adami changes tack like a weather vane changes direction. In 1981 he put Malta through a living hell when a parliamentary majority was denied him though he had a majority of votes. He wanted the people’s will to prevail.

That was 30 years ago and what applied then does not matter now – to him. Because just two weeks ago he was asking parliament to ignore the people’s unambiguous vote for divorce legislation.

Before the divorce referendum Dr Fenech Adami never said its result should be ignored. Now, because the result has not gone the way he wanted, he says that the divorce issue should never have been put to a referendum.

He did not mind the referendum being held, until its holding showed him how wrong he was in his perception of the people’s will. He wants to foist his divorce morality on everyone, quoting Jesus Christ.

But he quotes only selectively. It’s a pity he does not quote Our Lord in more instances, such as about injustices, of which more than one court has found Dr Fenech Adami guilty.

Now he has changed tack again. He says the divorce legislation should be left to another parliament. Now it is back to the will of the people, who have however expressed themselves already. He wants the people to express themselves again.

I do not agree with divorce, but then I do not want to deny it to those who believe in it. Why should I try to impose my way of thinking on others, especially if they are in a majority.

Who am I to say I am right, everyone else who does not agree with me is wrong? Will divorce make a loving couple less loyal, will its absence make them more secure?

He has criticised the Church for “succumbing to pressure”, and would have had priests elaborating on the divorce issue. But he does not criticise those priests who went far beyond the pale in their “elaboration”.

He always was divisive, and would have the Church be like him, as it was in the past, much to its very own detriment.

Dr Fenech Adami seeks to project himself as a man strong in his beliefs. I remember him in opposition, vigorously jabbing his finger in the air against the law introduced in Mr Mintoff’s time, making the bishops legally liable for wrongdoing.

The bishops could not, at the time, be taken to court. Dr Fenech Adami promised that that law would be the first off the statute books under a Nationalist administration.

The PN has been in government, almost uninterruptedly, since 1987. Am I mistaken – as far as I know that piece of legislation remains in being. Another change of tack, perhaps?

Roger Mifsud

Rabat