Alberto Lucarelli, Ugo Mattei
The debate on the scandalous refusal to election day has had the effect of bringing out for a day on the main national media that the referendum will celebrated. Such was the silence that has accompanied so far our battle last week that even an experiment on a university class of 200 students in law told us that only ten of them knew that it would be voted on the water. The path towards the quorum is really difficult, even if the campaign is starting to take off. The Committee "means 2 to water the common good," for example, ha approntato un bellissimo «kit dell'attivista», scaricabile dal web e contenente materiali e informazioni essenziali per diffondere il nostro messaggio. Presto inoltre saranno disponibili bandiere referendarie da appendere ai balconi, una forma di diffusione del messaggio estremamente importante nel silenzio assordante dei media. Da questo punto di vista, ci sembra che perfino le un po' ambigue «invasioni di campo» di Di Pietro, che comunque gode di una visibilità mediatica che come movimento non abbiamo, abbiano comunque il pregio di far sapere che i referendum ci sono, cosa forse più utile, in questa fase, rispetto al rivendicarne la paternità.Occorre continuare a governare la campagna elettorale accogliendo i contributi di tutti in a journey that must be transformed into a march that involves people of all backgrounds and political beliefs. The debate sull'election day and the money squandered in order to break the quorum has shown us that the sovereign people is still capable of outrage. We can not be satisfied with having raised the issue politically. The challenge is to give jurisdiction to an instance of reasonableness that involves everyone and which can not bind the government. What to do? Perhaps once again that great national common good that is our fundamental law can show us the way. In fact, the waste can not be part of a political and administrative discretion. Those 300 million could be used to repair the shores of rivers, avoiding future disasters (with damage priceless). This shows that good governance has a potential multiplier of the value of public money that, like the 300 million coming from general tax revenues belong to all citizens and not the Minister pro tempore. L 'art. 97 of the Constitution establishes the principle of "good conduct and impartiality" of public administration. In this light, wasting 300 million is constitutionally permissible? Then to waste them for a drawing of a party, to make the referendum invalid, it is even more serious and shows the total bias of the administration. Eligibility against the government had in fact already existed before the Constitutional Court, exercising its own prerogatives. And we defeated. The Court said that the referendum is permissible, giving justice to us. The government can not now take revenge extra ordinem, squandering public money just to ensure that the sovereign people speak second Constitution. There is a gross violation of Article structure. 75, which contains a positive view of direct expression of popular sovereignty. In short, the politico-administrative discretion does not go directly to the arbitrary and contrary to the constitutional choices vigenti.Potremmo ask Napolitano to intervene, but too many times to pull the jacket on the Presidency of the Republic is not wise policy in a logic of constitutional responsibility. But we are not without remedies. The referendum committee is in fact a constitutional organ of the State throughout the duration of the referendum process. It can then pull up in front of the Constitutional Court a jurisdictional dispute between state powers. We are studying the issue. 300 million of public money are well worth the risk in this game, however, that would make it even clearer to all the irresponsibility of those who govern us. We are ready to go in front of the Consulta, but because it is written water law democracy. http://www.ilmanifesto.it/archivi/fuoripagina/anno/2011/mese/03/articolo/4280/
0 comments:
Post a Comment