Triumph of clarity . End of half measures. Italy’s definitive entry into the club of Western democracies, the ones where you know who is the winner of the election night vote. Seventy years after the referendum of 2 June 1946, that between Monarchy and Republic, which sent into exile the King, another stark choice, Change versus Conservation. This was the scenario that Matteo Renzi had planned since his arrival at Palazzo Chigi, in February 2014. After the outsider coming to Florence executive summit, in a landscape of rubble political, economic, moral (a parliament unable to elect the President of the Republic, a former prime minister for social services, the recession), finally rewrite the Constitution. And complete the climb. With a plebiscite of the people.
It seemed a done only a few weeks ago, when the Prime Minister had called the birth of the Yes committees throughout Italy. He dreamed of being our Charles de Gaulle, with street clothes instead of the military and direct on Facebook instead of radio calls. The founder of a new institutional balance. Without touching the form of state and government, formally Italy would remain a parliamentary republic. At least for now. Because in a public interview with Eugenio Scalfari, on 11 June, Renzi had gone to propose a law to limit to two of the premier mandates. detector Purpose: The mandate is a nonexistent institution in the current Constitution, but typical of presidential republics.
In the summer of 2016, however, everything became uncertain : in Italy and in Europe, where there are countries with no government for eight months (Spain), others where they cancel and repeat the presidential elections (Austria), while someone decided to go away forever (Great Britain). And even the Renzi project was dissolved. It was composed of the substance of dreams and short-lived. Leaving the stage to a more italic script. No momentous choice. But a distinction succession. Ambiguity. Of uncertainties. Yes that sound like No, No ready to turn into Yes, and all destined to fade into a great Perhaps. While the debate rages in the streets, the division on the reform that rewrites articles 45 of the 1948 Charter becomes a Festivalbar constitutionalists: teachers on tour, plays, invasions in libraries, collections of signatures. The preview of the autumn season, when he comes back on TV what remains of the talk-show. With one certainty: the vote that a part of the country lives like a change of era, and another as the premise of an authoritarian outcome, has already turned into another. A long showdown between parties, currents, professors, intellectuals, journalists, filmmakers, where everyone puts his, all but the merit of the matter. The object of reform, almost unknown. An Italian referendum.
REBUS DATE
The Italian referendum soul dancer. Even on the day Armageddon has lost all certainty. In November of 2015 Renzi had said, categorically, that “the referendum will be held in October 2016″. Concept still repeated two months ago, before the local elections, “I hope we vote on Oct. 2. There, we will have fun, we’re going, numbers in hand, to show what it means to simplify this country. ” But on June 27, after the electoral drubbing of Rome and Turin and the first major cracks in his personal consent, the prime minister has begun to filter out other possibilities. “October? The period will be more or less that one. Maybe towards the end of the month. ” On July 11 then change your mind: “A nose could be November 6″. Now, however, the government is planning to move the date again, away to 27 of the dead month. Technically you could do even in December, before Christmas. Gianfranco Librandi civic Choice would even move the Last Judgment in the spring: “Better Renzi focuses on immigration, terrorism and budget law.”
According to Malpensante of the Movement 5 Stars and the Committee of the No temporal mazurka is just a “shell game” set up by Matthew to achieve the best karmic moment, the day when the planets are aligned to favor him and let him win the game. Renzi has scared the drubbing taken to administrative and customization ( “if he won the No I go home”) has not benefited the vote in polls, is certain. That the government is favorable to lengthen the stock in order to give more time to the Yes campaign, as well. But there are also issues of substance: the interweaving of the calendar between the Big Event and obligations related to the law of next year stability. Under the new rules, in fact, the financial 2017 will have to be approved by the Council of Ministers by 12 October, in order to be sent to Brussels by the 15th of the same month. The danger, highlighted the Commission President the House Budget Francesco Boccia in public and Giorgio Napolitano close friends, is that a victory of the No sink Parliament in paralysis. “Italy can not afford the chaos: the economic fragility (by banks to the lack of growth, from record unemployment bureaucracy) and the risk of not pass the bill on time Stability worried all the chancelleries of the EU partners,” recalled the editorials of the “Times” and “Die Welt”. A maneuver tears and blood, cuts and taxes, which takes note of a growth below one percent, could deliver the coup de grace to the referendum campaign. That is, of course, the opposite argument: if Renzi were to get from Europe higher cost margins could try to field an expansionary budget law and groped the electoral coup.
“Securing the law of balance “, and approved in at least one branch of Parliament before the referendum, is the new mantra of renziani. Not everyone agrees with the Head, though: vote in late November or early December, under the snow and frost on the one hand lengthens the time of the campaign allowing you to reset the best strategy catching up, the other is likely to decrease the number of Italians who go to the polls. And certainly will vote the most motivated. Ie those who serve in the army of the No.
O RENZI OR FLOOD
Supporters of the Yes in recent months they changed tactics and strategies, slogans and electoral gingle sending confusing everyone, including journalists. Initially Renzi, Maria Elena Boschi and the Democratic Party have staked their storytelling on ‘simplification’ Italian institutional structure and “cost reduction of politics”, very popular. But the criticisms have removed the pins of propaganda: if the councilors take really much less, cutting 200 senators will save crumbs compared to the overall cost of the Senate (according to the General Accounting Office you can save only on the 9 per cent of the costs). And the new bicameral “differentiated” is trapped in the new electoral law: the Italicum provides indigestible aspects such as the names of the list headers blocked by parties that may be candidates in most constituencies.
The enthusiasm is waned now . Some will vote Yes intellectuals but holding your nose (the Massimo Cacciari line: “a whore for reform but it is the lesser evil”), others – Scalfari and Ferruccio de Bortoli – say they do not appreciate a reform that weakens democratic counterweights. Constitutionalists with the opposing party and an opposition field more and more fierce, the leaders of the “Yes” changed communication focusing on the Two Chief World Systems. Minister Andrea Orlando explained that the victory depart from the room of the buttons “major economic and financial potentates who have expropriated the institutions of their duties.” The linking Woods has tried to enlist the antifascists explaining that if the ANPI will vote No, “the partisans, the real ones, they will vote Yes,” and has also extracted the card of terrorism: “We need an Italy that is stronger and a Europe able to respond united against international terrorism … to have stronger an Italy we need a new constitution that allows us more stability. ” Confindustria also fielded for the Yes, he played at the end of the world: the slides of the study center of Viale Astronomy speculate, in case of victory of the No, ‘Italian economy that loses in three years, four percent of the GDP, 17 points of investment and 600 000 units of labor, while the public debt sfonderebbe share 144 percent of GDP, per capita income would decrease by 590 Euros and the poor would increase by 430 000 units. ” “Bad and wrong, the worst old stuff,” said Susanna Camusso CGIL, which rejected the referendum but did not – unlike the Fiom leader Maurizio Landini – voting indications. In Pd the bale minority among the “Yes, No, Maybe, Boh”: Pierluigi Bersani went from “Yes” to “see”, adding that “with the referendum people will not eat,” Gianni Cuperlo reasoned by saying that “there are some good reasons to vote Yes but also substantive reasons to vote no “, while Massimo D’Alema – lost Renzi – pasteggerebbe champagne:” After him there will not be the flood, but the return of common sense “
italicum iN BILICO
the most important date to see how the referendum will, as usual, does not concern the matter of the vote but the law Italicum election that seems tied to a strange fate: went into effect only a month ago, on July 1, it has never been put to the test of the electorate, but by several parties is already considered dead, buried, to throw. The rough was the president emeritus Napolitano. Interviewed by “Sheet” (July 20) the life senator asked bluntly to change the law, “Today we must be honest and say that than when Italicum was conceived times have changed … The ballot It is likely, in the current context, to leave the leadership of the country to a political force too narrow legitimacy of the vote in the first round. Renzi’s prime minister, but it is also the secretary of the Democratic Party, and a change in the law can not also be done on the basis of a political initiative which is pivotally on the parliamentary groups of the party led by the prime minister. ” Translation: With a runoff is likely to deliver the country to the 5 Star Movement, Renzi hurry to change the Italicum.
The President of the Council , however, has so far been generic . Also because it can not change what he called a law “that all Europe envies us” on the grounds that it could win the first opposition party. Better to wait until October 4, the date key: will meet the Constitutional Court to assess the legality dell’Italicum. Just declare unconstitutional a codicil and it’s all to be redone. The ruling could come before the referendum. It would make it even more ambiguous: if the Yes victory would have an electoral law for the Chamber to be rewritten, in case of prevalence of No there would be a room with a mutilated law and a Senate with the old system of proportional representation. A medieval Feast of Fools, and we salute the stability of government.
INDUSTRY OF NO POP
Every important referendum , those intended to change the destiny of a country, it can turn into a deal: not only the great speculations on the Stock Exchange in London that characterized the days before and after the Brexit. Is there anything more pop: some company earned hundreds of thousands of pounds by selling t-shirts, sweatshirts and gadgets designer “Remain” or “Leave”. We have the war of the Yes Party and the front of No not seem originally a clash Ali-Foreman, able to excite the masses. And now instead, surprisingly, publishers have realized that well in recent weeks three books on the institutional referendum – despite the difficult subject – are on top of all the charts of nonfiction. The pamphlet by Marco Travaglio and Silvia Truzzi is devoured by holidaymakers at the sun loungers of the beaches in half Italian: “Why No: all you need to know about the referendum and against schiforma Woods-Verdini” (PaperFirst) sold 40,000 copies per hour . Labor, which for months has organized the “Done” campaign for the “No” where distortions complaint, follies and dangers of the law and has been around for a traveling show with Giorgia Solari in the shoes of Woods. Result: sold-out at every stop. And now rampant titles in the library. They range from the staid “They will say, we say. Handbook on institutional reforms “(Yale University Press), the constitutionalist Gustavo Zagrebelsky, the volume of illustrations on the” beauty “of the Constitution (The Ainis Michele and Vittorio Sgarbi of Theseus) vessel while Rubettino has just published a book by Valerio Onida and Gaetano Quagliariello . The latter, named one of the five “wise men” by former President Napolitano and widely regarded as one of the “fathers” of the reformist mess, is one of many who first voted yes and then he changed his mind surrendering to No.
is just the beginning . Online you can order for September dozens of volumes. From “Children destituenti”, to “I say No”, through “The reasons for the No” published by Altraeconomia and “Transition is (almost) over” (Giappichelli) Stefano Ceccanti. The constitutionalist is one of the brave to attack the less attractive (from the editorial point of view) “Yes the market.” With him are Giovanni Guzzetta, explaining his “Yes reasoned” for Rubettino (the publisher plays on both sides), Salvatore Vassallo with “Free the political” and especially the couple Guido Crainz-Carlo Fusaro who wants to “refresh” the Charter (Donzelli): the Democratic Party has sent to all MPs for the holidays and many have taken it badly, “What we have to do, memorize it?”. Paolo Cirino Pomicino, Rino Formica and other veterans of the First Republic have instead written “No to scarring of the Constitution”, ebook from 8.99 euro, while for 10 euro committees of No give readers the opportunity to read the speeches of most constitutionalists à la page. True horse cult among mainstream and libel is “No, dear Matthew!” Signed by Guido Castelli, Mayor forzista of Ascoli Piceno, who swears that he wrote a book against “the Renzi neocentralismo”. Cordoned off the shelves.
DISPUTE Theological
Among the constitutionalists the challenge on the referendum has assumed theological heights, stuff to embarrass William of Baskerville in the “Name of the Rose”. It all started in April, when the call of the 56 constitutional experts for No (there were Gustavo Zagrebelsky, Valerio Onida, Francesco Paolo Casavola, Franco Gallo, Enzo Cheli, Fulco Lanchester, and Roberto Zaccaria Antonio Baldassarre, Alfonso Quaranta and Paul Maddalena Ugo De Siervo and Lorenza Carlassare, Andrea Manzella and Luigi Mazzella) was branded by Salvatore Vassallo and Elizabeth Gualmini on “the Unit” as the burst of a “Council of emeriti”, in old age, “noble cultivated in their readings» who scorn “Matteo-the-commoner” because “disgusted the professoroni, their meetings and their sandwiches.” A few weeks later came the counter-appeal of the teachers for the Yes, in 184, ideally led by Ceccanti, one of the fathers of the Reformation, and was immediately derby. Cleaved with university departments, round of phone calls, conflicting appeals. Highly coveted those teachers who have decided for now not to take sides: their signature is worth double. Were few to escape, so far.
The world of show , by comparison, appears more sluggish and more confused. Witness the Roberto Benigni’s Oscar award, in the past six months from January to believe Yes No to “protect our wonderful Constitution” (May 3), until the new “Yes of reason” in the interview with Ezio Mauro ( “Republic “June 2), scrambled by fans and social and accused of performing in gyrations to snatch future contracts with RAI. On the editorial front, there was the expulsion of the Director Maurizio antirenziano Belpietro from “Free”, replaced by Victor Felts advocate Yes, told as a task for the government, mediated directly by Denis Verdini, Luca Lotti and publisher Angelucci ( “owners of private clinics and in need of public conventions,” he maligned Gad Lerner). In September Belpietro back on newsstands, at the head of a splinter group of the output from feltriano newspaper, the nuisance of Italian journalism in the lead, Giampaolo Pansa. Sounding the head, in the Soviet style: “The Truth.” It is first No. Even the replacement Agostini in Rai of directors of the three tg seems to rotate on the referendum: “They hunt Bianca Berlinguer so all will be deployed on tg Yes,” says the appointment of board member M5S Carlo Freccero, while the opposition attack CEO Antonio Dall’Orto field for the little space given to supporters of the No (according to the chairman of the parliamentary committee of Rai Roberto Fico supervision, “the supporters of the Yes had 78 percent of news time.” And who knows if, for them, it was really good.
Matthew UNDECLARED
Because, really , the new strategy renziana provides an almost unknown when the prime minister. the gap, the fuga mundi, silence. the trip to the Olympics in Rio breaks a long period of sinking. the submarine strategy, have leaked the spin doctors of Palazzo Chigi. Submerged, for be saved. Quite the opposite of the first months of 2016, when Renzi had announced he is ready to leave the leadership of the government, indeed, active politics if he lost the referendum. The purpose is disappearing slowly. And the prime minister is preparing for a long phase tactic: if you win the No. thwart a technical or institutional government led by Senate President Piero Grasso or Economy Minister Pier Carlo Padoan. Perhaps a tip of the American guru Jim Messina, which is quickly settling in Roman and Florentine liturgies. It should not be difficult for him, in 2013 he was handed Machiavelli prize. In Rome, when he’s not there in person, following the campaign collaborator Isabelle Wright. In the working group there are the spokesman Filippo Sensi, Undersecretary Lotti, director Simona Ercolani, the former director of Gay.it Alessio de Giorgi joined the staff of Palazzo Chigi, the former journalist of “Europe” Rudy Calvo appointed spokesman and former cuperliana Alessandra Serra, one of the few to know English. The committee has taken office in the Roman piazza Santi Apostoli, which was the scene of the Olive victories. Already Romano Prodi is an object of desire, the Yes and the No courting him but he has not yet deployed. And in this chaos the Professor thus proves to be a true sage. Italian.
No comments:
Post a Comment