President Emeritus Eddie Fenech Adami hopes that, in spite of the referendum result in favour of the introduction of divorce, MPs would still vote against in Parliament blocking its introduction.

Speaking on Radju Malta’s programme Ghandi X’Nghid, Dr Fenech Adami said that although the decision of the majority had to be respected in issues of a political nature, this should not be the case on moral issues.

“If there is majority who want abortion, we introduce it? The argument is the same,” he said.

The former Prime Minister said that on both sides of the House there were MPs who had stated that divorce was a moral issue and they would not budge from their position against. He said he believed the majority would vote according to their conscience, to what they believed was morally right independently of the referendum result.

He reiterated that MPs who had earlier voted according to their conscience should not forget their conscience now that the people had spoken out.

Compassion for people who were suffering did not mean doing away with one’s moral duty, he said.

Matters of moral principles, he said, should not be decided by the majority. One had to do what he believed was right even if he was on his own.

On this issue, MPs should vote according to their conscience.

“I am not saying they should ignore the vote in favour but the referendum is not binding. It is advisory, consultative. And on moral issues all MPs should decide according to what they believe is morally right.”

Dr Fenech Adami reiterated statements he made in The Sunday Times last week, that he had been negatively shocked by the referendum result.

However, this did not mean that the Maltese had lost their values. Many still enjoyed solid values but the spectrum of values in the country had changed substantially.

“I believed the majority would be against divorce and I was surprised when the majority voted in favour.

“Although I was shocked, it is always better to know reality as in this way we can give better value to our Maltese values and traditions.”

Dr Fenech Adami said that divorce attacked the family, which was the best value Malta enjoyed.

Its biggest danger, he said, was that it would pave the way for other issues. “The tendency is that we are being taken over by a new totaliarism which may be worse than communism and fascism... As soon as one starts going downhill, one will not be able to stop.

Philosopher Joe Friggieri did not agree with Dr Fenech Adami that an MP who had previously voted no, could not now vote yes without contradicting his conscience.

Some MPs had voted no according to conscience. But now that the people had spoken and said that they wanted divorce, they could feel that they had to vote yes according to conscience to respect the people’s decision.

Not doing so could be endangering democracy, Prof. Friggieri warned.

Dr Fenech Adami said that although he agreed with the philosophical argument divorce had been proven not to be socially beneficial and that it created confusion. It was not something that was good for.

Asked about article two of the Constitution, Dr Fenech Adami said denied this was making Malta a confessional state and said it was just a statement of fact that Malta was a Christian country. It was not even entrenched.

Asked about the Church’s contribution to the referendum campaign he said he believed the church had succumbed to the people’s attitude that they could decide for themselves.

With hindsight, he said, there was a lot which could have been done without there being a crusade.

The former leader of the Nationalist Party said when asked he did not believe that the Nationalist Party had lost its soul but he could see dangers with elements propagating liberalism.

He said when asked he still recognised his party but there were dangers that it could slowly start allowing itself to be moved by the currents rather than stay deeply rooted in its beliefs.

“There are elements which are propagating liberalism... This is good in itself but not on matters of principle...

“We are using language loosely without giving importance to each and every word. The danger we will be taken away by the current is the biggest threat today,” Dr Fenech Adami said.

He recalled his time in the PN when the question used to be – Do we believe this is right? And if the answer was yes, that would be done come what may, irrelevant of the electoral benefit.

He said that there was always an element which emphasised the electoral benefit and although this had to be listened to, decisions should not be based just on it.

Dr Fenech Adami said that as had already been stated, the law as proposed would be amended and he was waiting to see how it would develop.