[ad_1]
Francesco Storace
The opposition is there. But in at least one case, Luigi Zanda represented him at his best. Of course, more with words as heavy as stones, than with deeds, since the senator is still locked in the Democratic Party. But at least it says what needs to be said.
The Holy Mother Constitution attributes the legislative process primarily to Parliament. In fact, everything is now in the hands of the government. If such a thing was said – and they do – any member of the opposition, today it would belong to the sad normality of a time without politics.
If a majority parliamentarian says so, two things can happen: everything falls apart. Or the intervention is hidden. The second step. Because it is a comprehensive denunciation of a very dangerous trend for the Republic.
Luigi Zanda, who chews the Constitution at lunch and dinner, is one of the few exponents of the Democratic Party to win the (interested) applause of Matteo Renzi. Certainly, his words of the last days in the Senate Hall were decidedly indigestible for Giuseppe Conte’s stomach. The man who wants to rule without rules.
Renzi himself commented on Zanda’s speech on end-of-year confidence in government: “The credibility of the institutions derives from respect for democratic forms, which at this moment are at risk of being questioned.
And this is precisely the center of Zanda’s speech in the Senate. From the parliamentary times with which it was “allowed” to discuss Italian money: “The budget bill was examined and approved by the Chamber of Deputies, while the Senate concentrated its speech in the reduced space of a few hours.” A single day for the most important measure of the year is something that remains difficult to understand.
“It would not be reasonable – said the senator of the Democratic Party – to remove an objective vulnerability that we cannot and should not consider an ordinary moment in the life of institutions.”
What to do then? There are two paths that can be followed, one alternative to the other: “Changing the egalitarian bicameralism, strengthening, in a bipolar vision, the stability of the Government and the guarantee system can help Italy to be freer, stronger, more prosperous; but achieving a new balance between the powers of the State, in fact, operating by practice and not by constitutional procedures, exposes our democracy to substantial risks because we do not know how these precedents can be used in the future.
It is easy to imagine which of the two is the preferred and pursued model by the Prime Minister. Although honestly, Zanda has attributed this practice to recent governments and not just the current one. Who perhaps discreetly abused Dpcm …
In any case, a speech that leaves no wrinkles, especially in the deepest part, where Zanda has decidedly sunk the sword: “The Constitution wants both houses to participate equally not only in the final approval of legislative acts, but also also in its elaboration in the Commission and in the Chamber, and violating this principle is a vulnus that cannot be repeated. Likewise, the exceptional modalities with which the decree-law on the so-called refreshment stations were approved cannot be considered precedents. In this provision In addition to the well-known critical issues of all the maxi-amendments, the content of four decree-laws was included through their transformation into amendments to the final text.
And the explanation for a dissent that is profound is there: “We do not know how doctrine and jurisprudence will classify this innovation, but each decree-law is a provision in its own right, based on its own specific requirements of need and urgency. Putting them together in a single law of conversion is a daring forcing, certainly risky because of the precedent it can set.
The same conclusion of the exponent of the parliamentary majority gives applause: “Days ago – Mario Draghi had argued and who knows how much he would have liked the quote of the Giuseppe Conte sentence – it was recalled that public debt can be good, if it is directed to expenses productive, but it can be bad if you waste it seeking consensus. The same fate can run the modernizing reforms that we so badly need, but which, like the debt, can be good or bad: the reforms approved by Parliament according to the rules of the Constitution are good; the reforms adopted in practice, emergency after emergency, are fragile and risky, on an inclined plane whose final result is difficult to see ”.
In a serious country, these words, authentic stones, deserve a discussion in themselves. In Italian. Guess what.
[ad_2]
