If Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando lit the blue touch paper when he sprung a surprise last year and presented a Private Member’s Bill on divorce, Austin Gatt – in an article in The Times last Wednesday – caused a veritable explosion.
Dr Gatt, who has always worn his heart on his sleeve and whose unwavering loyalty to the Nationalist Party can never be called into question, said he would leave politics immediately if the PN takes a stand in favour of divorce.
Whether this was a last stand (he is due to retire at the next election anyway) in favour of what he believes are the party’s core principles or a tactical ploy intended to force the PN’s hand or flush out similar statements from those with an opposing view on divorce, only Dr Gatt can answer.
It could, of course, run even deeper and is, perhaps, a loud and clear message from someone from the old guard to the newer crop of Nationalist MPs that he has had enough of them attempting to dictate the PN’s agenda, even if his Prime Minister has taken a more conciliatory – some would say appeasing – line.
But this public spat by these two outspoken Nationalist MPs is taking attention away from what should be the main issue. Which is why are both parties seeking to take a collective stand on a subject like divorce in the first place?
This question is even more pertinent since the decision has effectively been taken to hold a referendum either before or after what will probably be a free vote in Parliament. Particularly since divorce is not going to be an election issue, the parties’ positions are largely irrelevant.
However, more important than that is the very essence of the decision MPs, as well as the public, are being asked to take.
We are not faced with the prospect of joining or not joining the EU, as we were in 2003, which was a political and economic choice of the biggest proportions – and one that affected every one of us whether we liked it or not.
On issues of this nature, and smaller ones that are related, political parties have the duty to establish a position and advocate it.
Divorce is different. The Prime Minister has to date steered a sensible course on the subject. Yet by taking a stand on the issue, the PN will be undoing that. It would be different were everyone to toe a collective line after a party pronouncement. But we already know that will not happen.
It is therefore incongruous, not to mention dangerous. The Nationalist Party has had its fair share of turmoil in recent months – most recently with the MPs’ and ministers’ salary issue – so why cause more strife when there is no need for it?
Similar divisions may also exist, of course, within the Labour Party, but we are going to have to wait to find out, since Joseph Muscat, in the past so vociferous on the issue, has gone silent.
The strongest argument why the parties should not take a stand lies, rather ironically, in a comment made by Dr Gatt, who said he would not be able “in all conscience” to back a pro-divorce party.
How an individual determines the issue of divorce is precisely that: down to conscience. And MPs should be free – though hopefully not before ensuring it is well formed – to use their own conscience to vote without any political hindrance from their parties.