Reforms, bipartisan constitutionalists and intellectuals on February 27 to avoid referendums

A oratory marathon to avoid the confirmation referendum on the premiership with the approval of a two-thirds majority of the Chambers. It is the initiative of constitutionalists and bipartisan intellectuals headed by Equal Freedom, Magna Carta Foundation and Io Cambio That Tuesday 27 February at
Umberto Hall in Rome they convene “free and independent personalities” to discuss the topic, aiming for dialogue rather than confrontation. The marathon will be announced during the scheduled presentation Tuesday 19th at the Fallen Hall of Nassirya of the Senate, of the initiative on the premiership taken by the three associations in which Gaetano Quagliarello, Giuseppe Calderisi, Stefano Ceccanti, Natale D’Amico, Nicola Drago, Enrico Morando, Antonio Polito will intervene.

“The technical conditions objectively exist to reach a shared model (of reform – ed.). We intend to work to build the political conditions, overcoming the already looming promises of referendum challenges, which would risk being drawn into the conflict between the Government and the pro-opposition. tempore, making the actual content of the reform and its effects on the country completely marginal”, reads the summons. In addition to representatives of Libertà Eguale, Fondazione Magna Carta and Io Cambio, the parterre of participants was interesting expected to date: Marco Bentivogli, Salvatore Bonfiglio, Corrado Caruso, Elisabetta Catelani, Stefano Ceccanti, Ludovica Chiussi Curzi, Francesco Clementi, Giovanni Cominelli, Salvatore Curreri, Luca Diotallevi, Nicola Drago, Carlo Fusaro, Pietro Ichino, Claudia Mancina, Alberto Mingardi, Enrico Morando, Andrea Morrone, Magda Negri, Pasquale Pasquino, Claudio Petruccioli, Umberto Ranieri, Michele Salvati, Mario Segni, Serena Sileoni, Alessandro Sterpa, Diletta Tega, Giorgio Tonini, Salvatore Vassallo, Giulio Vigevani.

Five points shared by the Group around which the discussion will be structured: “La reform of the Second Part of our Constitution is necessary – we read in the first point – It aims to resolve problems consciously left open to the Constituent Assembly (due to the international situation and the consequent mutual distrust between the main political forces) and never resolved to date”. Secondly, “the reform it must be the fruit of the widest possible convergence both in Parliament and in society, aiming for approval by a two-thirds majority in the Chambers. This is because on an institutional level it is good that the rules of the game are shared: when this happens the country and its political system are stronger; on a political level nothing justifies attitudes of mutual delegitimisation and, on a technical level, if we consider various more or less recent projects, the distances – however significant – appear to be bridgeable”.

Therefore the bipartisan group, identifying a “reasonableness” in the premiership model, states in the third point: “In light of the positions expressed by the political forces during the previous reform attempts, we – overcoming everyone’s preferences for specific and different models -, believe reasonable and appropriate for the proposal of the so-called “premiere” to be taken as a basis (or neo-parliamentary form of government). It has the advantage, if well constructed, of supporting dynamics already underway, starting from the return to governments with electoral legitimacy, changing without subverting the balance of the constitutional bodies”.

Spotlight on the limits of the reform model proposed by the Government in point 4: “The main limitation of the Government’s text is that it starts from the direct election of the Prime Minister, rather than the definition of its powers. It is a mirror-image limit to that found in the position taken by the main opposition groups, who in turn focus on saying no to direct elections, even before considering the prerogatives of the Prime Minister. This, in our opinion, must be equipped with “European” type powers, drawing inspiration from the experiences of parliamentary governments which have proven to be more efficient in matters of trust, no-confidence, calling of early elections, appointment and dismissal of ministers”.

And the controversial reference to the fifth point on the ballot paper: “Since the Prime Minister is called to exercise these important prerogatives, his electoral legitimacy must be very strong. The voter must be the arbiter of the choice of the majority and of the Premier. That which in other systems occurs due to conventions and customs – i.e. the direct legitimation of a majority and a Premier -, in our context it must also be regulated in a transparent and explicit manner on the ballot paper“. (by Roberta Lanzara)

Les Villas Du Soleil: Sunny News Today