“On June 18th, in a Roman square we heard firm words against differentiated autonomy. It was said, on Schlein’s part, that «Differentiated autonomy aims to increase the inequalities for which the South and the internal areas of this country have already paid too much. There is no redemption for Italy without the redemption of the South. We do not accept the idea that there are citizens of series A and series B, depending on the region in which they are born. This is the biggest violation of Article 3 of our Constitution, which talks about removing obstacles, not building others as this Government is doing. Equality, solidarity, rights for all. We do not accept that a child born in Reggio Calabria has a life expectancy five years less than a child born in Bologna.”
How can you disagree? And in fact like Ravenna in the Municipality we agree because the stop to differentiated autonomy has always been among our founding points. It is surprising that it has also become so for the PD, given that even in these hours Bonaccini is breaking all the records of climbing on mirrors to explain that «The proposal that Emilia-Romagna had put forward – shared and defined together with all the social partners in the Labor Pact and without ever a vote against in the Regional Council – aimed to directly manage only specific functions within the 23 areas envisaged. To simplify, reduce bureaucracy, provide more effective responses to citizens and businesses and be able to plan the necessary interventions in the area, without asking a single euro more from the State”. Is there still anyone capable of comparing these slogans, because they are just slogans, with those of Salvini the day after the approval of the Calderoli Law? «For a more efficient and more modern Italy, with less waste and more services for all citizens, from North to South». Other slogans, sure. But the underlying matrix is the same.
In fact, what Bonaccini calls “the Emilia Romagna proposal” was not a constitutional amendment; it was a pre-agreement signed by Bonaccini himself and the then prime minister Gentiloni of a similar nature to those of Veneto and Lombardy. And it was possible for the same reason why the one approved the other day is a simple government initiative bill and not a constitutional amendment like that of the prime ministership. Both, Bonaccini’s pre-agreement and Calderoli’s reform, are based on rubbish, that reform of article 116 of the Constitution desired and obtained by the centre-left, not the centre-right, of the Prodi, D’Alema and Amato governments. That’s where the 2001 amendment came from which provided for differentiated autonomy. And if it is a question of overturning the Constitution, as was rightly said in Piazza Santi Apostoli, this comes from the same political party that both Bonaccini and Schlein refer to.
Bonaccini has a point in saying that what he calls “the Emilia Romagna proposal” has nothing to do with “the Calderoli bill on differentiated autonomy, a provision that is wrong in substance and method”. In reverse. The new law does not lose sight of Bonaccini’s pre-agreement and indeed takes it into consideration precisely to make it proceed on a preferential track. Article 11 reads as follows: «The initiative acts of the Regions already presented to the Government, for which joint discussion between the Government and the Region concerned has been initiated before the date of entry into force of this law, are examined in accordance with the provisions by the relevant provisions of this law”.
If this does not mean automatic entry into force, then why doesn’t Bonaccini push forward the Popular Initiative Law (LIP) for the withdrawal of the “Emilia Romagna proposal”? Yet the Emilia Romagna No Differential Autonomy Committee (which like Ravenna in the Municipality we have joined since its constitution) deposited all the signatures necessary to start its discussion on February 5th. The point is that the PD cannot be trusted. It is the same PD that, represented by de Pascale, reassured Minister Calderoli in November 2022: «We delivered a document to the Minister with our initial reflections on differentiated autonomy, underlining that the Provinces do not have any negative prejudice». And that today, through the mouth of de Pascale himself, the only negativity that he can find in what Schlein calls the split-Italy is the possible regionalization of the Fire Brigade? Nothing else?
Like Ravenna in the Municipality, we do not know whether the proposal put forward by the center-left to subject the recently approved law on differentiated autonomy to a referendum will be successful. This path is worth trying too, like any other form of struggle, and we will support it. However, for the reasons stated above, it is clear that there is no trust on our part in the center-left and in the PD in particular. We have already seen other times what happens when the PD joins a referendum battle for reasons that have nothing to do with those declared and belong only to the narrow confines of temporary political convenience. The Water Referendum taught a lot in this field. So, if it is a battle in which the PD believes for the content and not to carry out its usual games, show us. Soon the President of the Region will put his signature under the letter of resignation before leaving Bologna and starting to triangulate between Strasbourg, Brussels and Luxembourg. We ask the PD to demonstrate its honesty of intent by forcing Bonaccini, before leaving Bologna, to put his signature alongside the formal withdrawal of the pre-agreement he signed with Gentiloni. This is the same Bologna cited as an example by Schlein in his speech in Piazza Santi Apostoli. Therefore you should be able to keep in mind where he spent years as vice president without ever saying a word against differentiated autonomy in Emilia-Romagna style. For Ravenna in the Municipality it is clear that the “no” to differentiated autonomy can only be pronounced in the same way in Bologna as in Rome. For the center-left we don’t know. With the distrust that distinguishes us, we expect to be surprised.”
