LONDON – Italy should vote ‘ no ‘ in the referendum of December 4th. This was stated by the Economist, in an editorial in the number that comes up today at the newsstand. The british weekly writes that our country has actually need of broad reform, “but not those proposed” by Renzi in the referendum. The influential newspaper, which in recent months has spoken out against the Brexit and against the candidacy of Donald Trump at the White House, writes that the current president of the Council represented a great hope of change and that the referendum, in his intentions, serves to bring about the changes that Italy n eeds to grow the national economy and not to be the main threat to the survival of the euro”. However, as stated even in the title of the article, the Economist has no doubts: “Italy needs to vote no” in the referendum. BUT THE ECONOMIC OBSERVERS ARE DIVIDED The constitutional amendment proposed by Renzi, observed the weekly, does not address the real problem, which is the rejection of the Italian to make the necessary reforms. “And any secondary benefit” derived by the changes in question would be contradicted by the negative consequences, “above all, the risk of trying to put an end to the instability that has given Italy 65 governments from 1945 on, there should be a strong man. This is the country that has produced Benito Mussolini and Silvio Berlusconi, and is vulnerable in a way disturbing to populism”. According to reports gathered by the Republic, the decision to stand up for the no split to the Economist. The director, Zanny Minton Beddoes and some young columnists, on the other – lined up for the yes, and greatly perplexed the opposite choice – the foreign correspondent from Italy, the leaders of the services on the Europe and other analysts. Says a source from the inside of the editorial staff of the newspaper: “We have supported Remain in the referendum on the Eu, and Hillary Clinton in the presidential election american. Our decision to support the ” no “in the referendum in Italy, therefore, could be considered the kiss of death”. In the sense of a third party endorsement defeated at the polls.
it is true that the bicameral system Italian produces a stall and reshape it would seem logical, continues the editorial of the Economist, “but the details of the reform insult to the democratic principles”. The Senate would “not elected”, but rather composed of members of regional assemblies and mayors: and the newspaper note that the local authorities in Italy are often the most corrupt. In the second place, the reform grants the majority party in the Chamber “an immense power, giving the higher party 54 percent of the seats and the guarantee of rule of the five years.”
The risk that the british weekly glimpse of it is to qualify which of these conditions would be in the future Beppe Grillo: “The spectre of Cricket as a prime minister, elected by a minority and held in power by the reforms of Renzi, it is a possibility that a lot of italians and a large part of Europe judge that they alarming.”
And how to assess the “risk of a disaster” if the referendum will be rejected? The Economist concludes the editorial: “The resignation of Renzi may not be the disaster feared by many in Europe. Italy could put together a government interim coach, as he has done many times in the past. However, if the referendum lost unleashed the collapse of the euro, then it would be a signal that the european cu rrency was so fragile that its destruction was only a matter of time.”
- Topics:
- Referendum
- referendum
- the referendum, December 4,
- the Economist
- Starring:
No comments:
Post a Comment