Anna FinocchiaroHe has already declared and argued, he will vote No in the referendum on the cut of parliamentarians, despite not being totally against it, in principle. She explains it calmly in a conversation with Formiche.net, the many times deputy and senator, minister for Relations with Parliament and for Equal Opportunities, as well as president of the Constitutional Affairs commission at the time of the Renzi-Boschi reform. It is not against the cut per se, she explains, as demonstrated by the Yes to the 2016 reform which provided for a reduction in the number of elected representatives, but not in a linear way. The difference, she explains, is that no balancing is envisaged with the current reform, but not only. That anyone who thinks, even among the constitutionalists who have spoken in favor of Yes in recent days, that the work of the Chambers would not be compromised is wrong: “Parliament will be vulnerable in its representativeness and efficiency, and I say this with 32 years of parliamentary experience behind it between the Chamber, Senate and Commissions”. And this, he adds, “will increase the sentiment of anti-parliamentarism which is also underground in the campaign to cut parliamentarians”. And on the electoral law …Finocchiaro, because cuts and corrections do not convince
you I am not opposed to the reduction in the number of parliamentarians, and I have demonstrated this by supporting the Boschi-Renzi reform, but that of 2016 was a reduction in the number of senators included in a constitutional reform that provided for the overcoming of perfect bicameralism. And then
And then the one envisaged in 2016 was a system in which the highest possible representation was given to regional institutions – which, as we have seen in recent months, have an extraordinary weight in the political, institutional, political and social life of the country. – and then 630 deputies were expected. In this case, instead
In this case, a linear cut is made in the number of parliamentarians thinking that the Chambers can work with 400 deputies and 200 senators, but the reality is that in this way the parliamentary system cannot function, neither from the point of view of representation, nor from that of functionality. Let’s talk about the first: a new electoral law like the one under discussion could remedy the lack of representation
. I tell you three things. First of all, I would like to point out that we are less than four weeks from the vote for the regional elections and the text you are talking about will certainly not arrive in the classroom before 20 September. Second, a proportional electoral law with a threshold can mitigate but not eliminate the negative effects on representation. The third
The third is that the electoral law is an ordinary law and today this majority makes a proportional law with a threshold of 5%, tomorrow another majority can make another law with which to heavily affect the representation of the Senate. However, the secretary of the Democratic Party Zingaretti linked the position of his party to the question of the electoral law. There is no risk that this indecision will highlight a weakness of the Democratic Party, regardless of how the referendum goes
I no longer engage in active politics, but it seems to me that the secretary of the Democratic Party has re-enacted the original pact signed with the 5 Star Movement. This pact has not yet been honored and is being challenged by the secretary of the Democratic Party less than four weeks after the vote: this shows that that pact has not been cultivated. The majority, on the electoral law, must also overcome the obstacle embodied by the position of Italia Viva. In 2016, at the helm of the Constitutional Affairs Commission, I work with Renzi and Boschi carrying out the work of the Commission. He thinks that surprises should be expected from him
Look, the electoral laws when they are voted can always reserve some surprises because since the secret ballot is foreseen, anything can happen. It seems obvious to me, however, that the secretary of a party like Italy lives that has an electoral consistency that is estimated at a maximum of 5% has every interest in obtaining conditions in the electoral law that allow him to have a minimum of success and therefore a representation threshold lower than that of 5% set so far by the majority agreement. A compromise between M5S, Pd and Italia Viva on the threshold below 5% could bring, as Zingaretti asked, the electoral law to the Chamber
I have no perception of what the level of bargaining is. I read in the newspapers that the threshold could be lowered. Let’s take a leap forward, to 22 September: the yes to the cut of parliamentarians wins. What consequences could there be on the government
This of the consequences on the government is a question that I hear recurring very often, but it is a question that overlooks an essential fact: the constitutional reform on the cut of parliamentarians was voted on not only by the majority parties, but also by all the opposition parties . It was voted on by Forza Italia, it was voted on by the Lega, by the Brothers of Italy. Therefore to hypothesize consequences from a vote against expressed by the referendum would seem strange to me frankly. If anything, the consequences will be measured with respect to the parties that supported the Yes to the reform and I remember that the Yes to the reform was supported by all. They voted yes in the House, which they want (laughs). If yes, there will also be the issue of the election of the President of the Republic …
Well, if the composition of Parliament with 200 senators changes, the election of the Head of State begins to become complicated under various profiles, including that which concerns the imbalance that is created between the delegated representatives of the Regions and the members of the Senate. Which proves that the take away Constitution does not work. What do you mean
The Constitution is not a take away from which you can take what you like and change what you don’t like. The Constitution is a delicate, sophisticated system, made up of checks, balances, a set of precautions that the constituents adopted so that the system was in equilibrium and there was no imbalance of positions of one power with respect to the other. It is obvious that these are issues to reflect on, but postponing, saying “then we will do”, “then we will see”, “then we will reform”, does not take into account the complexity and delicacy of the constitutional system. Let’s go back to September 22 again: to win and the No. What happens
Surely the victory of the No would have a political repercussion on the 5 Star Movement, which undertook this reform and would therefore pay a political price for it. But I don’t think it will go like this. I hope so (laughs, editor’s note), but at present it seems to me that the numbers do not go in this direction. But I also believe that there will be no complaints about the government from those oppositions that have already voted for the reform in Parliament. And then I think another thing. Please.
I think that this government would certainly have difficulties internally, considering that even within M5S there are positions for the no, and it is a fact that should not be underestimated, but the executive certainly has many other more important chapters to work on. , of great commitment and of great importance for the country. Frankly, I believe that this is the heart of the issues, I am thinking of economic issues, of school, of work, which we all hope the government will be able to deal with efficiently and effectively in the coming months. If the Si pass, the role of Parliament will really be at risk
I believe that this reform will put Parliament in great difficulty, which is also put to the test by much else, as these months have shown with provisions that were defined in one Chamber and the other limited itself to ratifying them. What does it refer to
I am referring to the conversion into law of the many decrees that took place in this period. But returning to the previous question, a positive vote in the referendum would in my opinion remain vulnerable in its representativeness and efficiency, and I say this in response to the constitutionalists who argue that efficiency would not be compromised. With 32 years of parliamentary experience behind him between the Chamber, Senate and Commissions, I can say that its efficiency would be undermined and this would only accentuate the criticism of parliamentarism that is also underlying the campaign to cut parliamentarians.
