Of all the comments that I heard and came across in connection with last Wednesday’s vote on the second reading of the Divorce Private Members’ Bill was one particular remark that implicitly suggested that some of the government members might have voted the way they did for purely tactical reasons, citing as an example the fact that the majority of the No voters came from Cabinet itself while other lesser mortals enjoyed the ‘luxury’ of either abstaining or else voting in favour.

As a particular Nationalist MP has long been arguing, the core issue at stake on Wednesday was which way the Prime Minister’s vote would go, since he was expected by members of his own parliamentary group – as well as by discerning members of the public in general – to lead by example.

Bearing in mind that the PL was compact in the way it did vote, the obvious became even more evident when it transpired that without the massive PL support for this legislation, the Bill would not have seen the light of day and not even been agreed upon in principle, regardless of any fresh obstacles that might surface in the coming days at the committee stage.

It was an insult to anyone’s intelligence for Lawrence Gonzi to express satisfaction at the vote and claim that the people’s will has been respected when not only did he refrain from voting in favour but he even did not have the decency to abstain.

Judging by the irresponsible manner in which he acted, he has tarnished any claims that the PN might aspire to, to try and hopefully regain their long lost liberal credentials. But, apart from this, he has through his own actions reduced a very important piece of legislation to a numbers game as if we were playing poker in the House.

His argument that had we not voted according to our conscience we might as well have dissolved Parliament holds no water at all.

I found it even stranger that there was talk from the Nationalist benches of even entrenching this legislation in the Constitution when, until recently, they had lobbied for an over simplistic yes/no vote as if we were in Las Vegas trying to make our minds up about an instant divorce process with the same ‘care and consideration’ of someone who had just walked into a fast food joint.

During my contribution to the debate on Monday, I raised a number of issues, some of which I would like to humbly share with your readers:

During the referendum we did not vote as implied on the Private Members’ Bill but on four basic principles on which, in view of the majority of the House members, responsible divorce should be hewn.

Rather than reviving past memories of the referendum debate many MPs should have been more forward-looking and pro-active in their interventions.

If it was painful to hear ministers complain that the draft bill would create more confusion without their even bothering to make any practical suggestions, it was downright insulting for a particular minister to hint that the onus of improving on the draft bill should fall squarely on the shoulders of those MPs who favoured divorce.

I paid tribute to IVA Chair Debbie Schembri for not only being instrumental in pushing the campaign forward but also for having articulated her arguments in an intelligent but simple and direct manner that avoided the customary legalese that most lawyers tend to fall victim to.

One would have expected inputs from the No movement to try and see some of their most valid points factored into the legislation, particularly when it came to safeguarding the rights of children.

I mentioned in no uncertain terms that only until recently there were influential people close to the governing party who had not excluded the possibility of early elections in the wake of the resounding referendum result. Certain diplomats will no doubt be able to confirm this.

It was pathetic that some of my colleagues chose to sit on the fence out of fear of losing votes if they expressed their stand on the issue publicly, the same way that one cannot but deplore the fact that some MPs and ministers, by their own admittance, kept their own district’s voting patterns in mind when going public on this sensitive issue.

The argument or claim that the time is not ripe for divorce holds no water. Statistics already show that it is but, as I have long argued, figures are irrelevant even if there happen to be only a handful of people potentially interested in benefiting from and exercising this civil right.

I was perplexed how certain sections of the media suggested that the PL was reconsidering its position on NO FAULT DIVORCE when none of us had done so publicly. In sharp contrast, not only did conservative elements within the PN express such doubts, but liberal elements also kept on picking holes in this concept that has been long entrenched in our local separation processes.

I deplored the fact that certain ministers kept on repeating the mantra that the inevitable steps to follow would now be same sex marriage, euthanasia and abortion. Even the Prime Minister and key Cabinet Ministers fell into this pathetic trap.

Although I totally agreed with Joseph Muscat that there were no winners or losers in this saga, I am more than sure that had the referendum been lost, in spite of his open door approach, Muscat would have been rubbished by the PN with its sole objective being to hamper his electoral chances.

If proof was ever needed that the PN had politicised this issue completely one need only mention the fact that the No movement chose to rely on a slogan coined from a hybrid of PN manifestos and election campaigns while some of the principal strategists within the PN, who usually help out during general and MEP elections, were brought on board to help throughout the various stages of the referendum process.

Even though during the referendum campaign much song and dance was made of the need of a social impact assessment before deciding on the way forward on divorce, no serious attempts were made to launch or hold such a study either then or now by the anti divorce campaigners. Many rightly or wrongly perceived this as a mere delaying tactic.

On a positive note, speakers from both sides of the House strengthened their view that Church-State relations now need to be formally reviewed. In our heart of hearts most of us are convinced that this can only happen under a future, would be PL government.

What jarred most was the fact that during the referendum campaign the PN tried to galvanize the conservative vote nation wide to gloss over the cracks in its socio-economic policies, its recent attempts to try and regain the upper hand by setting a new liberal agenda sounded both tactical and opportunistic.

Even worse, all those who proposed that the PN should re-focus on a liberal orientation, did not make any serious attempt to flesh out what their would be liberal agenda could or should consist of.

One more reason why the Nationalist members should have voted for this draft bill lies in the fact that the proponents of the Bill were men enough to declare – months ago – that if the referendum were lost they would withdraw the Bill immediately.

I strongly believe that not only is the PN experiencing a serious identity crisis right now but it is caught between two stools in the sense that it is badly divided between those who would love to turn the clock back while others would like to see it grow in sync with current sentiments and values.

At the end of the day, I feel that the biggest slap in the face for the Prime Minister was not the result of the way the vote went.

But rather that whilst during the referendum campaign he repeatedly argued that society should adhere to its long entrenched values, various eminent Nationalist exponents argued both in the House and beyond the confines of Parliament itself that it was high time the PN read the sign of the times and developed its values in sync with the demands of present day realities.

The comment delivered last Tuesday by the Prime Minister’s own brother that it would be treacherous of him to even consider voting against will definitely leave its indelible mark in the history of this debate.

Nevertheless, in the final analysis, only time will tell whether a real quantum leap has been made or not. It all depends on whether certain people who should know better will experience a culture change and change their mindsets.

On a positive note, Maltese society seems to be already very much on track.

[email protected]

www.leobrincat.com