Referendum: those who vote are not in bad faith, liars or superficial. Or all three

Some of my friends are surprised that I decided to vote firmly Yep to the next constitutional referendum. Even if I had been of a different opinion, I would have converted to Yes, after reading the false reasons of “those of No”, since many, in unsuspecting times, were in favor of reform exactly identical to this, like the sublime Violante who was for the Yes to the so-called “schiforma” Renzi-Boschi, or Zanda and the Finocchiaro who in 2008 went for a cut exactly like today.

I declare that many of those who say No today until the day before yesterday were in favor of Yes to parliamentary courtIndeed, Renzi and his jolly Piddina scuderia at the time were in favor of abolishing the entire Senate, valued in the same way as the CNEL and transformed into an afterwork award for loyal mayors and regional delegates.

My feeling today is this: most of the “No” or are in bad faith either they are liars or they are superficial or it is the three attitudes that express the degradation that democracy has achieved. Totò said: “There are real things and supposed things, leaving aside the real things, where do we put them?” I do not go that far, but I am a serious and honest person, correct and I do not use the referendum to undermine the government that awaits the Messiah-Mario (see Pierfranco Pellizzetti’s post on fattoquotidiano.it) to manage the billions coming from Europe; I don’t vote No because I can’t say “I don’t want to do a favor to the 5S who took the initiative.” I don’t think I would have voted Yes if the idea hadn’t come from them.

Finally, to make a long story short, I do not vote No because that way I, who live as a politician, have one more opportunity, since there are more places to share, to have a prebend insured. If you wish, I can give you many names and describe many circumstances. We get to the issues.

“Those of No” do not bring arguments, but generic statements, such as “to decrease the number of parliamentarians is to decrease representation”, which has now become a boring mantra. They support comparisons inconsistent with the other European countries, of which they take as a whole, elected and appointed, while for Italy they only take the 400 of the chamber without calculating the 200 of the Senate. Good deal, good honesty. Openly say that this reform, which you want too, stinks you just because M5S is registered and the victory (no matter how sure) of the Yes would strengthen the government. Read the Instituto Cattaneo report that disassemble the No. piece by piece with scientific and true data in hand.

I cannot think that “those of the No” are stupid, so I can only assume that they are partial and incognito: they do not want this government that “must fall”, but they do not have the courage to say so openly. This is dishonesty, if it were true. Question: Are you the current representative of Parliament? Who, if all are appointed by the secretaries and heads of the party? Against blocked lists, Daily fact collected signatures for a popular referendum. Who, if none of the current 930 members of Parliament has ever campaigned? Who, if a third of all Parliament, that is, those who cut the reform, is chronic absenteeism with Bulgarian percentages and without any allocation? Can you tell me on behalf of which representation we have to keep them? Can you tell me how senators and deputies who work from Tuesday afternoon to Thursday morning can represent someone? They represent only the lazy, the retained and the interests of those who have elected them.

“Los del No” have read the report of prof. Perotti and prof. Boers that demonstrate with comparative data and percentages the utility of the cut, even in a situation “without changes”? Or believe in Romano Prodi which is for Yes, but vote No because you don’t know what will happen in the future? Mr Prodi was in favor of No to Renzi’s forestry reform, but voted Yes because the future could improve. Why can’t it improve now?

“Lords of No”, they cannot think that this cut (that I still have symbolic, as I would have been left with 150 deputies and 100 senators, perhaps also thinning out the Regions, Metropolitan Cities and Municipal Councils) Has it been approved following the rigorous constitutional process of Article 138? How do you say it is unparliamentary, anti-democratic, anti-rust, anti-dandruff, anti-anti-anti-everything, when it was approved by Parliament – “gentlemen of the No”, by Parliament itself, of which a large part today is for the No? How can you be serious when you say that democracy is the apocalypse?

The Pd of Nicola Zingaretti calls for a “prior” electoral law in a proportional sense, but also voted for this anti-democratic reform in the fourth reading. Where is the logic? You must be sure of the triumph of the Yes, because, logically, you would have to wait for the result of the referendum to decide which law to establish in terms of representativeness. If you win Yes, that’s one thing; if No wins, there will be more music for the next 150 years.

“Los del No” think of representation in local terms, contravening the Constitution of which it speaks “National representation” for each individual parliamentarian: “Each member of Parliament represents the Nation and exercises his functions without being obliged by mandate” (art. 67). How is it that they did not protest when this representation was questioned with the reforms of electoral disgrace and the blocked lists? Shouldn’t Parliament have, as the Constitution requires, a national representation, leaving territorial representation to intermediate administrations, such as Regions and Municipalities? What does “no mandate” mean? Or is this also a slogan? Parliament should have only one national college to remove it from servility towards party leaders and dignify pure representation.

“Los del No”, be serious, study, but above all be honest and never talk to your mother-in-law because your daughter-in-law proposes it, because if you do not want this government, fight, but with serious arguments, otherwise you are not only credible, but you are the cause of the degradation of democracy and you are the real attackers Constitution That with words, but only with words, you say that you are defending.