seems to understand that even Beppe Grillo hours wondering radical changes to the Constitution, starting with two articles, the 71 (on the draft law of popular initiative) and 75 (on the referendum repealed). I give the second of two projects grillini with its unfounded reasons relating to the quorum (to sink the Institute of popular democracy was certainly not this just the barrier, as having made - and continue to make - and difficult questions at the same time heterogeneous, moving away from the original spirit that had the founding fathers) and any consideration of what would happen if we were in Italy a government that controls the television and information (ops. .. what I wrote!).
I want to focus instead on the reform of Article 71. Grillo would make compulsory the public discussion of proposals for popular law within six months from the filing of signatures and quotes the example of what he presented (" has not yet been considered by the Senate after more than three years " : statement is not true, because it is pending in the Constitutional Affairs Committee).
It 's the classic populist demagoguery found the Cricket: Do not know if the claims of ignorance of the constitutional mechanisms for the sake of all take the piss.
First, a premise. It is not that Parliament considers the draft laws of deputies and senators of ignoring the citizens' initiative. There are proposals - presented by politicians from important - assigned to the various committees and, between one thing and another, lie there for years. I'll take one at random, the creation of the Authority for services and use of transport infrastructure by some elected in opposition May 15, 2008, the examination committee began April 7, 2009 (after eleven months) and, after almost two years, we've lost track. In cases like this there are thousands: a search for second Openpolis , of \u200b\u200b6018 testi a iniziativa parlamentare dal 2008 ad oggi sono diventati legge solamente 34, ossia lo 0,56%. La domanda è: per quale motivo la proposta di legge di iniziativa popolare dovrebbe avere una corsia preferenziale rispetto alle altre? Perché la richiedono cinquantamila cittadini? Ma allora si introduce una nuova fattispecie di legge: la legge costituzionale, la legge di iniziativa popolare e la legge ordinaria. Una roba che non ha senso sotto il profilo della filosofia del diritto, un mostro giuridico. Se la ratio è la spinta del popolo, non si vede perché non dovrebbe – con la stessa insulsa e assurda motivazione – anche essere approvata. Pensiamoci bene: è il solito criterio propagandistico usato da Berlsconi quando dice che the polls are on his side and is the same argument that recurs when Gasparri, the mash telegiornalistici, said the opposition must be quiet because it is the center to win the election ("the people are with us" "one million people in the streets? and other fifty-nine million that remained at home? "and so on).
Then: What does "public discussion"? Once a proposal should be examined by the committee (such as the one presented by Grillo) discussion is already public. The want here within six months? And why not? And why the Assembly should discuss it before then, perhaps in preference a questioni più stringenti? Senza contare che se la maggioranza è ostile a quel progetto, questo non passa comunque. Se il problema è che il calendario dei lavori è troppo condizionato dal Governo in carica, allora esso riguarda non soltanto l’iniziativa popolare, ma – come ho scritto poc’anzi – anche l’iniziativa parlamentare, specialmente se di opposizione, e si può risolvere emendando non la Costituzione, ma il Regolamento di Camera e Senato.
Il punto che Grillo non afferra è che il problema del Parlamento non è la produzione legislativa. Anche in questi ultimi tre anni, periodo del quale tutti diciamo che i nostri rappresentanti non fanno niente, non sono mancate le nuove leggi, 197 in everything seem to be few, but one every five days. The Italian legal system is immense, no one knows precisely quantify (150 thousand, 200 thousand laws?), But it was found that at least ten times higher than the French or German.
If anything, the problem is that the Parliament's two Houses have the same powers and that, even compared to what happens in other countries, ignoring the focus on legislative and executive control of address: the report still shows Openpolis as there are ministers (Alfano, Maroni, Fazio, Tremonti, Brambilla ...) that little or nothing to respond to questions, in other countries, their behavior would object of ferocious criticism, the public will not forgive, but we do not we pay attention.
From here you should start. Then, once established as we organize the House and Senate, even with the appropriate changes to their rules, we can discuss what to do with proposed initiative. Without fast track, though.
0 comments:
Post a Comment