Political operation: in this way the Court has defused all referendums, not just those rejected

17 February 20222 years ago babelfish

We leave to the legal experts, to the "technicians", the technical-juridical reading of the inadmissibility judgments pronounced yesterday by the Constitutional Court on three of the eight referendum questions that came to its attention. Instead, we allow ourselves, here, a political reading of the decisions of the Court, since it is undeniable that for decades the admissibility judgments of referendums have responded not only, and not primarily, to the iron logic of the law, but both in admission and in rejection. , for reasons of political expediency. So much so that over time the Court has extended its discretion, introducing "innovative" criteria of inadmissibility with respect to the limits set by the Constitution – and often even in contradiction between them. But an essay could be written on this topic …

Our political reading is not the one that will surely be the most popular today in the newspapers and in the comments of the experts. Indeed, we invite the readers – and the politicians who read us – not to be misled by the easier reading: a conservative court, not in step with the changing society, which slows down progress, which would be represented by the decriminalization of murder of the consenting party and the legalization of drugs. Of course, these impulses may have prevailed in some constitutional judges. But do we really want, for example, to attribute the president of the Consulta, Giuliano Amato, to the “Science and Life” share, or the Lega-Fratelli d'Italia, or the Binetti-Gasparri share? Let's not joke.

It would be a serious mistake to go along with the reading that a part of the left, including the promoters of the referendums on euthanasia and cannabis, will fail, or rather of a "right-wing" court that has held back the civil and social progress of the country. It would therefore be an error of political myopia, if that part of the right that sees a narrow escape in the rejection of these two questions saw reasons to rejoice, in a logic of opposing supporters. Here the problem – and it seems to us that Daniele Capezzone last night was the only one to show himself aware of it and to warn – is not to rejoice when the referendums of one's political opponents are canceled and to complain when it is up to one's own. The serious problem is that of the arbitrariness of the decisions of the Council, in particular in referendum matters for decades. Error in the error, if the Brothers of Italy, to spite the League, brushing up on its justicialism did not support the referendums on the Severino Law and pre-trial detention.

Our reading is another. It will not escape the most attentive observers who, coincidentally, the Court has eliminated with surgical precision – we repeat: beyond the substantive reasons that we will analyze elsewhere – the three most "attractive" questions, most capable of sparking a debate in public opinion and therefore to drive the turnout. In short, the constitutional judges have eliminated the three questions that would have almost certainly made it possible to reach the quorum set for the consultation to be valid.

In this way, the Court has cleared the field, has defused the referendum, indeed the instrument itself, as it has been doing for twenty years now. One of the cards that the constituent fathers have made available to Italians to express their consent or dissent, in this case to directly affect the legislation, is in fact seized by a Council of Guardians.

Five referendums on justice have survived the Court's trap. Relevant issues, but on which it will be much more difficult to warm the hearts and minds of the voters and bring them to the polls. The questions admitted are harmless enough for the magistrates and, again as it happens, the more politically sensitive one, on the modalities for the election of the CSM, can still be defused in Parliament, where the reform text of the Minister Cartabia has just arrived. On the other hand, it would have been much more difficult for the political forces to agree in record time on euthanasia, cannabis, not to mention the civil liability of magistrates.

Therefore, the logic that we see in the decisions of the constitutional judges is: “where we could only thin out, we have reduced, you take care of the rest in Parliament” . It will therefore be the Parliament to finish the job, also defusing the last remaining question – the one on the CSM – of greatest interest to the voters.

Amazing, in particular, is the rejection of the two questions on the legalization of cannabis and on the civil liability of judges, on which referendums had already been held in the past. President Amato explained that as the question about cannabis was formulated it would lead us to "violate international obligations" and would have produced "unfitness for purpose". But the Constitution does not allow referendums on the laws of ratification of international treaties, not on any law, in any sphere, which, if repealed, would invalidate the object of an international agreement. The rationale of the constitutional limit was another: that our international placement was not called into question by referendum.

There are now international treaties and conventions in any sphere – cultural, scientific etc… – following such a broad interpretation of article 75, nothing could be submitted to a referendum.

Marco Cappato, one of the promoters, then accused President Amato of making false claims claiming that the referendum did not concern the table in which cannabis is present: "They were not even able to correctly connect the paragraphs of the drug law . A material error that cancels the referendum ”.

While the questions on euthanasia and cannabis, as they were written, also technically lent their side to the ax of the Court, the truly scandalous rejection is that of the question on the civil liability of magistrates. Here, Amato's motivation at the press conference was surreal, like a real bumblebee.

"Since the rule for judges has always been that of indirect responsibility, the introduction of direct responsibility makes the referendum more than abrogative, innovative … The rule for judges has always been that of indirect responsibility, unlike for other public officials, but this is a fact and a law… ".

A tautological explanation: since the rule has always been the same, a referendum that changes the rule is not admissible, but this is precisely the function of the referendum … In any case, if the question presented today is innovative, even more so must that of the 1987.

And thank goodness we would not have looked for "nit in the egg", as perfidiously the Thin Doctor had assured on the eve … and then did the exact opposite in the council chamber.

One last note. The press conference, at the end of the council chamber, of President Amato was undoubtedly innovative with respect to the communication practice of the Council, who evidently wanted to be no less, in terms of protagonism, than the President of the Council Draghi and the President of the Republic. Mattarella, also giving from the iconographic point of view the idea of the triumvirate that today governs, or rather reigns over our country. A completely new choice, questionable, because the Court should speak with the judgments, to protect its credibility and authority.

It seemed to us a completely inappropriate sentence, for example, the one pronounced by Amato on Parliament "too busy with economic issues" to devote "enough time" to find a "solution" on "conflicts of values", while it is "fundamental that in Parliament understand that if these issues go off their agenda they can fuel corrosive dissensions for social cohesion ". Should the President of the Council use a press conference convened to illustrate the decisions of the Court to throw jokes at Parliament and remove a few pebbles from his shoes by responding to criticisms received in the press?

The post Political operation: this is how the Court defused all referendums, not just those rejected appeared first on Atlantico Quotidiano .

This is a machine translation from Italian language of a post published on Atlantico Quotidiano at the URL https://www.atlanticoquotidiano.it/quotidiano/operazione-politica-cosi-la-corte-ha-disinnescato-tutti-i-referendum-non-solo-quelli-bocciati/ on Thu, 17 Feb 2022 03:55:00 +0000.