Referendum, the typical case of the trick that is there and is also seen

by Andrea Marchina

Regardless of the end result of the next referendumThere is no doubt that the legislative process and the recent referendum campaign have been anything but linear and easy to understand for those who still have the slightest consideration of logic. On the other hand, given the actors involved, I would have been surprised otherwise. There are two clues that make this referendum the typical case of makeup there is, and you can also see it.

First clue. As we know, for a constitutional reform to be approved without passing popular opinion, the votes in favor in Parliament must not only represent the absolute majority of both Houses in the four scheduled votes, but in the last two it is necessary that they reach two-thirds of the members of the House and Senate.

In this sense, the behavior of some parts is curious. The Pd opposes to the reform in the first three readings (February, May and July 2019) and then vote in favor of the same exact text last read in the Chamber (October 2019). All thanks to the corrective the cut included in the new government agreement, certainly not the metamorphosis in record time that saw them go from energetic opponents of the 5-Star to faithful allies of it. The metamorphosis took place, look at it, just before the last vote.

Makes it even better Go Italy. ‘Yes’ to the first two votes, abstention at third reading in the Senate (a pause never hurts), and then vote ‘yes’ in the House. Just enough to avoid achieving two-thirds but, at the same time, appear favorable when it is cut in the last decisive step. Clearly, in case the ‘no’ won the referendum, they had tried.

The League de Salvini, although he is not in the first row, he cannot avoid participating in this comedy. They vote ‘yes’ in all parliamentary passages in a clear trance state, then they realize, they repent and cry Once this is done, they run to sign the referendum request (with 9 senators, 42 from Fi, 5 from the Democratic Party, 10 from Misto and 5 more) and trust that the voters can repair the damage.

Second clue. The local press, which notoriously has nothing to do with the parties and the circle of private interests they often represent, chooses the most absolute silence throughout the parliamentary process, and then out of nowhere in view of the referendum. Obviously in favor of pluralism.

In fact we have the so-called center-left newspapers (La Repubblica, La Stampa, L’Espresso, Il Messaggero, Morning), Italian-style liberals (Paper me The reformer) and the center-right (Free me the newspaper), all lined up as one man against reform. Fight against populists, anti-politics, anti-parliamentarianism and save democracy. Nobel Peace Prize!

Very noble intentions, for God’s sake, that wouldn’t be out of tune at all if it wasn’t a reformation. identical those desired by the center-left and center-right moderates in the last five legislatures; were it not for the favorable opinion of constitutional experts of the caliber of Onida, Carlassare, Zagrebelsky, Zaccaria, De Siervo and other dangerous Democrats; And if it were not for the enormous consensus that this reform gathers among the voters, the same ones who have shown that they can also say ‘no’ when it was appropriate to do so (2006 and 2016).

In short, one track is just one track, two are one coincidence, and we need at least a third to be able to speak remotely of test. So let’s renounce any suspicions and by convincing ourselves that the Democratic Party has changed its mind about corrective measures, Forza Italia has taken a rollerblading, the League has voted four times without their knowledge, our newspapers will save us from the new regime, their editors are just editors and they have no interest to shake the government, Onida & C. are grillini and the people are ox. Good mark.

The Supporter blog hosts posts written by readers who have decided to contribute to the growth of ilfattoquotidiano.it, subscribing to the Supporter subscription and becoming members of the Fatto social club. Among the publications sent by Peter Gomez and the editorial team, he will select those that he considers most interesting. This blog was born from an idea of ​​the readers, keep making it your space. If you want to participate, sign up for a voluntary subscription. You can also follow the editorial meeting live, sending us suggestions, news and ideas in real time, choosing the queries that our journalists will make and having access to the entire paper file.