After the approval of differentiated autonomy we are in a middle ground. The Calderoli law has established a procedure to achieve the devolution of materials to the Regions that request them. The road is clear, the agreements remain to complete the work.
An irreversible historical goal will thus be reached. It will no longer be up to the State to safeguard fundamental rights throughout the national territory, but to the individual Regions on the basis of negotiations defined separately with the government. It will be the end of national solidarity and of any idea of a unitary country. An outcome also protected from any second thoughts: the agreements, which will be defined by the government in office and the current minister for autonomies, will be approved by a silent parliament with an absolute majority and will not even be able to be subjected to a repeal referendum. In force for eternity, despite the hypocritical prediction of a ten-year duration of the agreements (and then what happens if there is no consensus from the region to withdraw?). Everything is now ready for the face of the Republic to change.
What can be done to prevent this announced outcome? Something can still be attempted, but it is necessary to take action immediately and be aware of the virtues and limits within which one can operate. These are measures that have been discussed several times by this newspaper, but they are worth remembering.
The editorial team recommends:
Selfishness as the measure of all things
THE FIRST WORD it is up to the Regions. They can bring the newly voted law to the Council. It is sufficient for a region to exercise the right that article 127 of the Constitution attributes to it. This article establishes that within 60 days of the publication of a law the Regions can raise a question of legitimacy for infringements of their sphere of competence. Until now we have heard many presidents, especially from southern regions, some even from the right, denounce the risks that the adoption of the agreements would produce on the stability of the country. Now they have the opportunity to assert their reasons in front of the Council.
A check on this point would seem to me to be necessary and even respectful of the mutual roles of the State and the Regions. However, it would be a very bad signal if there were no such appeals. Because it would demonstrate that the institutional representatives are not able to react by instead letting political calculations or (in the case of the regions currently governed by the right) majority loyalty prevail. A demonstration of how regional autonomy has operated profoundly.
The editorial team recommends:
The rights of citizens are not those of the regions
What the outcome of the appeal will be, what the Council will decide, cannot be said. For now it is a question of asserting all the reasons that would determine violations of constitutional articles and principles starting from that of equality and the deemed violation of fundamental rights in the different parts of the national territory. Then the word will go to the Court.
The second path that can be taken is that of the request to repeal the law that has just been approved by referendum. It is not an alternative path to the first, if anything complementary. It does not concern the constitutional illegitimacy of the Calderoli law, but its political merit. It can be activated by 500 thousand voters or by five regional councils. Also in this case it would be physiological that such a controversial law opposed by vast sectors of public opinion would cause the activation of that instrument of participation that the Constitution makes available: the referendum.
I see that the entire opposition, finally united, says it wants to take this path. Well, a strong reaction. What is the scandal if those who don’t like such an important law want to subject it to popular judgment? Even in this case it could be said: if not in this case, when?
The editorial team recommends:
The No front is a promise of an alternative
However, it must be clear that it is also a difficult challenge, not without obstacles, which therefore must be faced with decision and knowledge of the facts.
It is the “factual and legal” conditions that make the challenge very complex. First of all, the regulations in force regarding referendums impose very short deadlines (signatures must be collected or requests approved by the Regions by the end of September). Secondly, the admissibility of the referendum request cannot be taken for granted, in light of previous constitutional jurisprudence which is actually very controversial and not at all defined. Thirdly, the disaffection from politics (the last elections were dramatically explicit) makes the quorum of validity – the participation of at least half of those entitled to vote – extremely difficult to achieve, in the absence of great popular involvement.
Of course, at this point there aren’t many other ways to go. Therefore, it is worth trying to climb the mountain. Ultimately, it is a journey made in stages and, even if we don’t reach the top, the journey, if taken seriously, could always turn out to be virtuous, it could still serve to get out of the den into which the progressive forces seem to have locked themselves, starting to make themselves feel. Let me explain. Who can deny that collecting over half a million signatures against the differentiated autonomy project in August would not represent a sign of vitality and consonance of progressive forces with the country? And this in itself, in these times, would be a result.
IT IS TRUE that admissibility cannot be taken for granted, but it is also true that the doubts raised are based on a completely questionable jurisprudence and on very fragile arguments. We will talk about it another time, but it is very questionable that a referendum can be prevented on the basis of the two arguments normally advanced: both the connection with the budget, which is exclusively formal in the face of a declared financial invariance; and the presumed binding nature of a merely procedural law in the face of a constitutional provision that does not “oblige”, but limits itself to “allowing” the request for further forms of autonomy. In any case, it is a game worth playing. Then the final word will be up to the Court, but each has his own role.
Finally, the challenge of the quorum, many realists do not delude themselves into thinking that they can break the wall of chronic abstentionism which in the case of the referendum would be added to that induced by the contrary absentees pour cause. That would be the biggest challenge. You can lose, but if you don’t fight you are already lost.
A final response to those who say that in any case the government could proceed with agreements even after the repeal of the Calderoli law. Yes, this is so, but it is a reversible argument and does not consider the “symbolic surplus value” of appeals to the people. The history of referendums teaches us.
