Short answer to the inconsistent arguments of the Yes

After attending the Byoblu Special Referendum , I made a brief reflection on the contradiction and non-existence of the arguments for the Yes.

  1. The teacher. Nicotra is opposed to the fixed number because it was not in the spirit of the constituents, who wanted a proportion: I only agree that the law on the fixed number was also voted in the 1960s by Moro who was a constituent member. Evidently something is missing, then, and it is that the referendum is about another fixed number, so why vote YES?
  2. We always insist that it is not a question of number but of quality: yes, but then why vote on a dry cut of the number and that's it?
  3. It is said that cutting the number improves quality: but what does it mean? It means efficiency. Efficiency should not be the criterion for a good Parliament now. On the contrary, Parliament does not hold back the abnormal number of laws initiated by the government and the EU enough, becoming a paper passer. This does not change with the referendum, indeed it gets worse. Then the YES lapses.
  4. The master argument for the YES is that we would have too many MPs, but that number is absolute not relative. The absolute number of representatives for a democracy is absolutely irrelevant. Indeed, if it is asserted, it is clear that the intention is to go against representativeness, which is also formed by the number, as well as by the quality of the representatives.
  5. When we point out that according to the official tables of the Senate, we are in 24 place out of 28 in terms of proportion to the number of inhabitants, then the supporters of the YES tell you that we are comparing things that are not comparable. Yes, but then we would have too many parliamentarians compared to whom, for whom, for what? Who decides this if not a comparison with our partner countries?
  6. According to them, the comparison is not relevant because in countries like Spain, France and Germany there are parliamentarians who are not directly elected, so the comparison must be made between numbers of directly elected parliamentarians. And here the donkey falls: tell it immediately that you want to cut not the politicians, but those elected, wanted, preferred and voted by us !! Those bother you not the others !!
  7. If we have to compare the elected parliamentarians among the countries, well then we can remove those indirectly elected but we must add, as I did here , the parliamentarians of the directly elected federated bodies – Germany, Spain, Belgium – but while we are there we must also add the beyond 1800 directly elected councilors in France, and 800 and a few directly elected Italian regional councilors. Also in this case Italy comes out with the lowest average of representativeness, now, let alone with the victory of the SI.

In other words, this is a useless referendum at least, as a maximum nefarious one, which we would have gladly done without in this catastrophic context of acceleration towards the new world order and multiple attempts to attack our rights of all kinds.

Nforcheri 19/09/2020


Telegram
Thanks to our Telegram channel you can stay updated on the publication of new articles of Economic Scenarios.

⇒ Register now


The article Short answer to the inconsistent arguments of the Yes comes from ScenariEconomici.it .


This is a machine translation of a post published on Scenari Economici at the URL https://scenarieconomici.it/risposta-breve-agli-argomenti-inconsistenti-del-si/ on Sat, 19 Sep 2020 18:18:58 +0000.