“Yesterday (Wednesday 31 May, on the occasion of the vote of confidence in the House on the manoeuvre, ed.) Lorenzo Dellai, our group leader, declaring his support for the government, made a very, very painful speech. I go along the same lines: the favorable vote for loyalty and seriousness. Perhaps an abstention would have been more correct on the merits of the measure and, I would like to say, on account of the way in which the government coalition is interpreted.
We have major concerns about the shadows we see. The correction is equal to 0,2 points per 3,4 billion percentage of GDP. It was Europe's request and it was a correct request; perhaps, if there had been less controversy, it would have been much better, e I also suggest not taking Europe's prominence lightly on the subject of the IMU as a first home. The Minister was in a hurry to reply: but we'll take care of it here. When the mistakes are full-blown, we should start thinking about how to correct them.
The IMU removed from everyone is a mistake, because first homes are not all the same. And, then, there is the Government's commitment to the full deactivation of the safeguard clauses; but it cannot be done with a decree-law that moves the date of this deactivation to March 31st, as I read this in the newspapers. That is, the idea is clever: since otherwise they start on January 1st, we move them to March 31st. No, you have to do it first! An operation must be carried out before the elections to secure the accounts.
The fight against tax evasion. I've said it before, it doesn't seem systematic to me: it is too discontinuous and with contradictory messages and condoning winks. The reduction of machines dedicated to gaming: but there is no contrast to the philosophy of gambling, as scandalously advertised.
The measures for local and territorial bodies are positive, just as the further partial allocation of resources to the provinces was right, because one must think of school buildings, roads and the environment. As well as the measures for calamitous events starting from the earthquake are correct, transport and railway safety.
Then there are a couple of political issues on which it would be worthwhile to go deeper. Occasional work: the contents of the new discipline appear appreciable, but the political management has been absolutely questionable, totally questionable. It could have been achieved differently through a confrontation with the social partners: so it seemed only an institutional shortcut or the game of three cards, a breathless cunning. That's not how things are done! If the Government does not intervene by resetting everything, it cannot then re-propose it in other guises, in a partial way, through an amendment that is proposed by the rapporteur, without directly assuming responsibility for it: it is not done like this!
And then this regulation on museum directors. I understood the rule, but not the controversy with the TAR! The rapporteur did not do it, but they are there
been even louder-sounding controversies; and it is still very dangerous. Why is it dangerous? Because the basic question lies in a certain impatience with controls and does not concern only the TAR, but the jurisdictional protection against the exercise of public power. There are balances that must be preserved and it is useless to be annoying with respect to these controls: they are necessary! If anything, we need to write the laws better or worry, when we do acts, that they comply with the laws in force.
It has been said – and the rapporteur also said it correctly – that the narrow path has been consolidated, but it remains very narrow. I add: the reflection of these hours cannot fail to be directed to external attention and, in particular, to the financial markets. Anyone who had the opportunity to be present at the Bank of Italy's meeting yesterday, with Draghi in the front row, knows that there was a climate of serious concern; compared to this, there is the impression of superficiality and underestimation.
These days are characterized by the agreement on the electoral law: welcome, even if only the aspiration for stability is German, which instead appears a mirage! The technicality, which we've been aware of since yesterday evening, appears a bit instrumental to the fear of losing and therefore predominantly defensive: governance is not contemplated, in case floating.
Compared to the Porcellum, the full deprivation of citizens continues in the choice of parliamentarians. In Germany they have double the vote; here is the single vote, therefore it means that the candidate in the single-member constituency is a decoy. It does not work like that! It's a wrong thing. It is not a question of fearing broad agreements – because, when there is a broad agreement, it is positive -, but of looking suspiciously at mere pacts of power.
Now, this covenant should still include the duty of accountability. Because let's also admit that it's a pact: well, this provides for the duty of responsibility. There may be an agreement on the electoral law, but not on the date of the vote, which is not available to the contractors: there is a prerogative of the Head of State, which should be respected in order to avoid even going into an institutional crisis.
The President of the Republic did well to remind us of our duties and the general interest: this duty falls to those who want to bring forward the date of the elections and carry with them the burden of securing public finances and our accounts with respect to valuation judgment of the markets; and it must be done before the vote, not offer Europe the provisional exercise! Honorable Brunetta, you forgot about September 2011. From time to time he came here to tell us that there had been a coup; here, the markets judge on the basis of evaluations that are not available to us: are we playing with fire?
Personally, I have always believed in a broad centre-left coalition; but all of this envisaged a sincere propensity for coalition, a common program and shared leadership, which Renzi has no intention of pursuing, given how he treated Alfano yesterday, his closest ally in this legislature. Unfortunately, and I am very sorry, this will have to be acknowledged. We will see who will really succeed in proposing a broad centre-left coalition.
The PD will not be able to play all the parts in comedy: the alliance with Berlusconi and the claim that the centre-left is in one party. Look, this thing can't stand! Citizens demonstrated a great capacity for critical analysis on the occasion of the December 4 referendum and I think it will reappear in the upcoming political elections”.
