JPO is happily heading a coalition of sorts that will campaign for the introduction of divorce. While it is definitely encouraging that persons from both sides of the parliamentary divide can join with social powers that have been stonewalled out of the institution thanks to the PLPN rules it would seem that the very participants are blissfully unaware of how this IVA business can turn into a great deception.
It is one thing to form a movement that lobbies for the introduction of divorce and another to choose a slogan that is an evident throwback to the referendum moments pre-EU accession. I am sure that I will be called the eternal cynic in this respect and that the excuse that “some effort is better than no effort at all ” will be thrown back at me in full force but the advocates of this new IVA movement should be made aware of the constitutional (and marketing) pitfalls of their arrangement.
By orienting their movement to a referendum style formation the IVA for divorce group has already conceded valuable ground in the battle for the introduction of the divorce. They are virtually admitting that this will have to be a majority decision in the form of a referendum and/or consultation of the people. They are allowing the parties in parliament to do what they do best – i.e. abdicate from any responsibility of legislating for divorce as they should have done decades ago.
Instead JPO & friends give the impression of being much more interest in the limelight afforded by this discussion than by the actual force of their argument. Divorce is not a majority question. The Bonnett Balzans of this world may come back at divorce arguments with the fire and brimstone philosophy but the endline in a normal democracy operating in normal conditions would be for the parliament to legislate and allow for a legal possibility that has long been missing in our juridical system.
Instead we have IVA. And IVA to what? As we have pointed out previously under Maltese law we do not have a propositive referendum. Should we have a referendum on the matter that would probably come AFTER parliament introduces a law on divorce – because our law allows for abrogative referenda: a referendum asking the people whether they want to abrogate (cancel, annull, remove) a law that has been enacted. In which case the answer for the IVA movement should be LE (no, I do not want the divorce law removed) and not IVA. Quite a quandary no?
But of course the PLPN will play along with the whole idea of a consultative referendum. It pays them because they can blame “the people” for whatever decision is taken in the case of divorce. We might have JPO & friends to thank for any eventual cock up…
11 replies on “The "IVA" Deception”
Tut, tut, no link.
We are already heading into cock-up territory with Pullicino-Orlando, taking up Martin Scicluna’s and the Greens’ advice, presenting a bill that’s copy-and-paste of Irish legislation instead of presenting again Joe Brincat’s Private Member’s Bill from the 1990s.
It is really a case where you cross your fingers and hope that the best comes out of it.
Divorce is a basic civil right which should form part of the law. But politics is not simply about would one would like to happen. Politics is also about power, and we all know who is in power in Malta. It seems clear that the Prime Minister shall opt for a referendum on the issue, and that PL is to go along this way, as both PNPL do not have the guts to take a stand. How can such a basic reality be ignored?
So those who support the introduction of divorce have 2 choices: either to lobby for its introduction or to boycott the referendum campaign and prefer engaging in academic debate, whilst doing the biggest favour to the anti-divorce lobby.
Piss off Mike.Aren’t you getting a bit tired of being a moralist?
Mike I don’t think I need to be told what politics is about and I am fully aware of the zero-sum game into which AD have been thrown so there is no need to remind me that “politics is not simply about what one would like to happen”.
On the other hand while I am also used to the “idealist”/”academic” label I don’t think that you can get away with it this time. And here’s why:
1) The “IVA for Divorce” movement should not, as I said, accept the idea of a consultative referendum as a given fact. Since when is Dr Gonzi the arbiter of what is constitutionally correct? In my academic opinion AD should be busy reminding Dr Gonzi of his duty towards ALL parts of the electorate and not towards the relative majority he hopes to garner next election.
2) The manner in which the IVA movement has thrown itself behind a hastily assembled divorce bill accepts a hodge-podge of rights that had been drafted for another country’s citizens (Ireland) with a very different set of realities. Just one point (out of many) Mike. Have you read the bill? Did you find any reference to alimony and the effects of divorce thereupon? Rushing to JPO’s confused crusade under the lame excuse of a sudden attack of pragmatism might not be the answer.
3) AD have long been the advocates for the introduction of divorce in Malta. They did not need to jump on the showy bandwagon at this point in time to prove that point. At worst they are short-selling their hard earned reputation as advocates for a real divorce law by partnering with what is turning to be Malta’s latest Magical Mystical Show.
Don’t get me wrong Mike. J’accuse will campaign in favour of the introduction of a divorce law when the time comes. At the moment the battleground is one of uncertainty. Getting a half-baked divorce law simply because we acknowledge the sanscouilliste politics that only remembers its accountability to the people at the wrong moments might be your idea of pragmatic politics – in my academic, idealist mind it is a formula for disaster.
Have you seen the news about the first press conference?
Love the “it would appear”!
Oh, and there’ll be a Facebook page!
And this from Malta Today:
Which “citizens” if the electoral constituency for a referendum is different from the one that returns an MP?
You are right that in Malta there is no propositive referendum. However stating that the only referendum that can be held in Malta is the abrogative one is incorrect and misleading.
As one can discern from the Maltese law on referenda (Article 3 of the Referenda Act – Chapter 237 of the Laws of Malta), besides the abrogative referendum there is also a type of consultative or confirmatory referendum. This referendum is held to approve a proposal stated in a resolution approved by Parliament.
What is to my mind unclear is whether such a referendum is in principle non-binding or if it is always non-binding, or whether Parliament can be bound or bind itself to legislate according to the result of a referendum.
David
Wrong on both counts.
First, nobody here said that the Referenda Act allows only for abrogative referenda.
Second, the consultative referenda allowed by the Act does not “approve” anything because it could be inconsequential (so much so that the Act does not even mention fundamental conditions such as turnout or % of “ayes” which are needed for a referendal proposition to be carried).
Parliament is in no way bound to legislate according to the outcome of a consultative referendum. Indeed, it would be perfectly legitimate for an MP to vote against a clear outcome of such a referendum by claiming that the views in the constituency that elected him are different from the views expressed nationwide.
While you state I am wrong you undoubtedly confirm that I am right.
So you agree with me that the abrogative referendum is not the only referendum possible in Malta. Jacques clearly states that the only referendum is the abrogative one as his comment on what the law “allows” on “IVA” and “LE” shows.
Secondly the refendum approves a proposal by Parliament, which may be a bill (a draft law) or a law approved by Parliament. I tend to agree that Parliament is not bound legally by this referendum but may be bound politically. Can Parliament bind itself to vote according to a referendum result?
It has been reported that my old constitutional law professor’s advice was that the law is discussed by Parliament and is put to referendum before the final approval.
The Hon. Pullicino Orlando is convinced that Parliament will respect and vote according to the referendum result.
I see that the early bird beat me. (to what would proverbially be the morning worm). 100% right Faust.