After yesterday’s vote in the House, the Conte II government remains suspended pending the vote in the Senate that will be held in the evening. Net of the political bargaining to find “responsible” who can replace the votes of the Renzians who have slipped away from the majority, there are also constitutional knots to be resolved. Formiche.net talked about it with Vincenzo Lippolis , professor of public law and comparative law at the UNINT and constitutionalist, who paper in hand dissolves them one after the other, then recalling a previous one … Professor, in the Senate the relative majority will be enough for Conte or it needs an absolute majority
It is necessary to distinguish the constitutional level from the political one. Under the first profile, based on art. 94 of the Constitution, only a relative majority is required to have the confidence of the Chambers, not the absolute one of the members of each assembly, therefore undoubtedly the Conte government can certainly remain in office. From the political point of view, on the other hand, from
the political point of view the speech could be different, because losing a member, a parliamentary group, and therefore having limited numbers, can have difficulties in implementing its program. But this in no way invalidates the fact that according to the constitutional rules he remains in office.The constitutional knots are intertwined with the political ones: reassigning the two dicasteries will be enough to have greater stability
From a constitutional point of view, the fact that some ministers resigned and Conte took over the interim and in practice. Then when there are resignations of ministers, the interim does not last long and the departments are reassigned. This is part of a now consolidated practice and Conte receiving the trust yesterday in the Chamber and, probably, today in the Senate, can safely proceed in this direction and make changes to his government structure without resigning. For the rest, whether this is enough to coagulate a new parliamentary group, a new political entity that is a substitute for the one that abandons the majority as Italia Viva, I have no elements to say. Mattarella urged the political forces to take responsibility. A relative majority as it would be seen from the Colle
The President of the Republic can always advise and admonish. The fact is, however, that everyone here is talking about a crisis, but we are not in a situation of formal crisis, because the government has not resigned. Explain to us better.
Faced with the abandonment by the ministers of a political force, Italia Viva, and the fact that IV no longer votes to trust the government but has abstained in the House and I imagine it will do the same in the Senate, it has correctly decided that there was a political clarification before the Chambers. Now, if this political clarification leads to a confirmation of the confidence on the part of the two Chambers, the government is not required to resign, but possibly to report to the Head of State also for the purpose of filling those positions that have remained vacant or reshape the government structure, what is called “reshuffle”. But he has no obligation to resign. That Mattarella could then wish for a more solid solution in the Senate and another aspect, but the numbers are what they are. It wouldn’t be the first time.What does it refer to?
In another situation, in 2010, the deputies of Futuro and Liberta from the Berlusconi government left the majority. Gianfranco Fini had left the Popolo della Liberta and thus all the Finians slipped out of the majority. In the vote on the motion of no confidence in the Chamber that was held in December 2010, the Berlusconi government was able, by three votes, to gain confidence because the votes of the deputies of the Future and Freedom were offset by the adhesion of parliamentarians elected on different lists. So the fact that today the votes of Italia Viva are offset by votes of non-elected senators in the lists of the parties that have formed the government is not a completely new fact, there is a precedent. The Constitution, I repeat, requires only a relative majority for the government to have the confidence.To stay in parallel with 2010, also Italia Viva come Futuro and Liberta is a new parliamentary group, born from a split between parties…
That’s right. Italia Viva did not exist when the second Conte government was formed. Renzi and the parliamentarians who followed him were in the Democratic Party. Initially, therefore, the government had a political formula that included the 5 Stars, the Democratic Party and the LeU, no other subject. This is another element that may lead us to believe that all in all the procedure followed by Conte falls within the constitutional canons. The reshuffle always requires the passage from the Chambers
The history of Italian governments presents numerous cases of reshuffling, that is, the replacement of ministers. Very often when it was a question of replacements of a single minister there was even no debate in the Chambers, only a communication was given. In this case, however, it is different, because it is a matter of recalibrating the composition of the government as there is no political component, not just a single minister. In this case it is more correct, as in the path followed by Conte, that there is a parliamentary verification. Assuming trust in the Senate, what could be the constitutional hitch Conte could run into in the coming weeks
At a technical level, a problem can arise when it comes to approving measures for which the Constitution requires an absolute majority of the Assembly, such as the budgetary variance that is on the agenda tomorrow. Here, in this case the measure requires an absolute majority and with the numbers that Conte should get today he could have difficulty approving it. But we have to see what Renzians and the opposition will do. Renzi stated that he will vote for the deviation, so the problem does not arise. And here, then, the political knot: a majority in the balance …
Exactly. Such a small majority remains exposed to the risk of not reaching a relative majority when it wants to approve any type of measure, even if it does not require an absolute majority.
