In Parliament’s war on annuities . The Presidents of the Chambers push it to revoke the sentenced , but many claim the allowance is a right accrued and irrevocable for former MPs.
Piero Grasso and Laura Boldrini but do not want to listen to reason: the Chambers can and must decide quickly on the issue. In particular, the Boldrini is “unacceptable that we continue to provide annuities to who is guilty of serious crimes such as corruption and mafia” and urges that the bureaux of the House and Senate to come “as soon as possible” to decide on the matter.
Fat, for its part, has dueled at a distance with the former president of the Constitutional Court Cesare Mirabelli , whose negative opinion on cutting annuities threatened to make more tortuous the road taken . The opinion of Mirabelli had already been delivered in recent days to the offices of Deputies and the Senate: the eminent constitutionalist argued that removing the board to a person sentenced is equivalent to stab him a sort of punishment, and the accessory penalties can only be established by law . Not only Mirabelli argued that it is very doubtful that you can touch on a retroactive treatment pension acquired. Well, forget it.
In these and other observations, Fat has responded with a large document presented to the quaestors of the House and Senate, whose synthesis is: go ahead anyway . According Grasso argue that the Chambers can not intervene on annuities is “paradoxical”. The area is within the sphere of autonomy of the House and Senate, it is not true that need a law. Grasso said that the issue of annuities is linked closely to the law Severino, who established the cases of ineligibility and disqualification for who is guilty of particularly serious crimes (mafia, corruption, embezzlement). So, is the syllogism of the President of the Senate, “should the requirements for membership to the Chambers falls the right to the falls and the right to the annuity.”
No comments:
Post a Comment