[ad_1]
The attack on the “tired rhetoric of the Italian model ”, the fixed nails of the prescription, Title V and bicameralism perfect, criticism of Basic income (which has nothing to do with the recovery plan) and the Bridge over the Strait defined “indispensable“. In the document delivered by the delegation of Alive italy to the Minister of Economy Roberto Gualtieri and the head of European Affairs Enzo Amendola are all the slogans of Matteo renzi in anticipating the presentation of the sixty “points on which we do not agree” among those listed in the drought of the recovery plan to access the next generation EU drawn up by the government. But the great absentee, or almost, is the “Hello plan” that the former prime minister had presented as one alternative future vision compared to the prime minister Giuseppe Conte, defined as “collage Irregular“From proposals from various ministries”without ambition and without soul“. To who 33 pages the Ciao plan delivered to Gualtieri by the Renzians means, medium: 13 lines in total his culture, infrastructure, environment me opportunity.
Others 30 (the cover was removed and a brief presentation addressed to the minister) are dedicated to the 62 “critical issues”Found in the government draft. Comments largely politics and of shape“, More than technical and in merit content. Among other things, justice, measures against poverty and the secret services are raised, which have little to do with the financing that comes from Brussels. Here and there are some ideas and suggestions that often correspond to content already present on the Palazzo Chigi recovery plan: see the update of Higher technical institutes, public-private partnerships for Investigation and technology transfer, interventions for disability.
Even in the working group the problem is one of “form” – The first complaint is that “projects of this type usually have a Executive summary and then a detailed analysis. Thus, for example, France Relance ”(which is not the French recovery plan: it also includes national resources). But the draft that reached cdm on December 7, although far from being final, as we have seen in later updates, actually contained a first part dedicated to the general objectives of the plan, complete with summary table of the planned allocations for each element. “No plans are needed hidden in drawers and pulled out at the last minute. Transparency is necessary ”, reiterates the party of the former prime minister, ignoring the numerous meetings of the Technical Evaluation Commission constituted in the European Affairs Commission in which representatives of the ministries participated. “We cannot accept a document without a vision, we cannot be accomplices of the greater waste of public money“And again:” The document is clearly a collage of different texts. We need it one pen for all text, not a collection of different pieces. “As for the expected and highly criticized workgroup for project management “We don’t think we can do without mission units and commissioners.“Always a matter of shape, in short: “It is a sensational mistake to start from Governance without having a clear vision: it is bureaucracy create missions without first clarifying what you want to do. “
No to Italy as a model: “provincial approach” – The criticism of past policies is not good – “it serves to guarantee the internal consent but throw one bad lighting in the capacity of team up of our country ”- and not even mention Italy as a model in the management of the coronavirus:“ we are not a model, on the contrary! In handling the emergency, our health personnel have been heroic but we have worse numbers than others, we are among the worst in the world by the number of dead despite a emergency shutdown tougher than the others with devastating economic consequences, the Germany In the first two days he vaccinated five times more people than ours: what makes us think that we can set ourselves up as role models for others? ”. The bottom line is that it is a “provincial approach” that “works for polls and talk shows but unfortunately does not correspond to the truth.”
It is also incorrect to “speak of a” broad query of stakeholders “:” It is true that the commission was made Colao but defining this as a consultation does not make sense: (…) Perhaps it is worth opening up for two weeks to a real debate with the country, with the trade unions, with the productive world, with the third sector instead of defining a broad stakeholder consultation that has happened in recent months, starting with General states“.
Prescription reform and title V are also in the crosshairs – The prescription reform ends up in the crosshairs, cited in the draft of the Recovery just to recall the reasons and emphasize that now we must also move forward in reducing the duration of the processes, which EU Commission has been asking us for years. “The node The reform of the statute of limitations is far from being resolved, given that it is the subject of the reform of the criminal process and is currently stagnant. Not having shared the commitment identified, for us it continues to be a priority problem to face ”, writes Iv. As well as the reform of the Csm Which will not be able to eliminate the current degeneration or even allow a true enhancement of merit ”. In general, for the Renzianos it is fundamental “to reaffirm without hesitation a legal and political culture guaranteed in line with our Constitution, too often questioned in words and deeds by the government and by some political forces.” All the annotations that seem to have been made on purpose to rekindle the tensions between the souls of the most.
Then the “lack of attention to institutional reforms“Because” this terrible pandemic has shown that Title V does not work. That he bicameralism the same does not hold, as demonstrated by the parliamentary management of this 2020. That the Cnel the fact that the Government creates working groups but never involves what in theory should be both the working group and the House of States General is not useful. As long as you don’t have the courage to say that real constitutional reforms are needed, the problems won’t be solved structural from this country “.
Super “morally unfair” bonus – It seems a direct attack on the 5 stars even the criticism of superbonus 110% that the maneuver also voted by Italy alive has just been extended until the end of 2022. “In our opinion, the amount of money for the 110% superbond is excessive and unjustified. Spending more on the superbonus than spending on hospitals, prisons, public housing, schools is morally unfair and politically wrong. “
“Bridge over the Strait that cannot be renounced” – Getting to the part about infrastructure, for Italia viva it is unfortunate that the draft mentions “all high speed excluding the bridge over the Strait of Messina (it is written that one arrives in Reggio Calabria and leaves again in Messina). We know that the Bridge as such is not a work that can be financed with the Recovery, but we also know that the money that will reach the infrastructures makes the bridge logically indispensable and easier to build ”. The great work dreamed of by Silvio Berlusconi and permanently archived by the government Monti, it must be said, was also highlighted again last summer by a group of deputies P.S.
Controversy over funds for “old” projects returns – The document also returns to the controversy over the fact that too small a part of European loans would go to “new” projects while “70% of the loans” would be used to “finance in better conditions expenses already planned in budget”. The observation does not take into account the fact that this quota has already been increased in the new drafts, in addition to the fact that the same Mario draghi – cited by Iv to support his thesis – in reality he stated that the important thing is that the projects have “high social returns”: it does not matter if they are new or old, they must be useful. Renzians do not see it that way: “Perhaps we are saying that we have projects of this type available for just over half of the resources? While for the rest we have no better use than financing “old” expenses, with the sole purpose of saving interest expenses (one a noble purpose but nevertheless denied for the sanitary month)? ”.
Basic income? “Make better use of that money” – Obviously, the citizens’ income will not be refinanced with European resources. But Iv’s delegation never misses the opportunity to criticize him and propose to spend that money in another way: “On page 74 it is said that it contributed to reduce absolute poverty from 7 to 6.4%. If these are the numbers, we may well say that revenues have it has failed. To argue that this measure has abolished poverty, mathematics must first be abolished. It is worth understanding how best to use that money, starting with projects toyouth employment, For him fight against poverty, Byreduction of labor costs“.
“Absence of large youth employment.” But there is – Youth employment, in fact: according to the document it is “the great absentee. It’s called Next Generation Eu but this plan takes money from young people with debts and does not pay back what it should ”. In fact, the draft mentions it, proposing a “structural review of active labor and social services policies and the modernization of the labor market to improve employment andemployability, especially among young people, and in particular among NEETs, women and vulnerable groups“He does not go into details, because as is known the individual projects are still in the selection phase. The Renzians propose an idea copied from the United Kingdom, a kind of improved youth guarantee for the NEETs.
The lunge in cyber security and services – Finally, a chapter on the Cyber security: “We are not convinced by the hypothesis of establishing a cybersecurity research and development center that will operate with public and private alliances, since its limits and contents have not been discussed. Furthermore, it would be necessary to understand how this center will function in light of the announced (and currently unshared) constitution of a Foundation for cyber security that should only answer to the government. The concern is also heightened by the repeated intention expressed by the Prime Minister not to grant the delegation to services, whose management has been centralized in his hands for 2 and a half years. On this election, Italia Viva expresses a radical dissent ”. Conte at the conference at the end of the year recalled that “the 2007 law attributes to the Prime Minister the political and legal responsibility for national security, I answer anyway, whether or not I use the option, it is not mandatory. These functions cannot be delegated ”. In any case, “we have an organism, the Drink, which has functions of supervision and control over the work of the Prime Minister and intelligence agencies, which guarantees respect for the general interest. Who asks the Prime Minister to have to delegate should explain why, they don’t trust the Prime Minister? So you have to change the law ”.
[ad_2]
