Parliamentary initiative

Dear Sen. Bagnai,

Aside from the fact that my colleague is Garavini (I have never had the opportunity to ask her if she is a relative ), and that I, President, will be for a little while longer, I see that, as it is also natural that it is, something is missing about how "doing read".

I have done everything possible to make you understand that the initiative is now totally in the hands of the Government, and that if you continue with the bombardment of the decrees to the parliamentarians there is no objectively time left for anything else (the hours are 24 for us too).

This would be enough to end the discussion. With a decree of over 250 articles in the House, you don't have to think that there was nothing to do in the Senate. Since the reading is, by force of circumstances, unique, when a decree arrives in a branch of Parliament, it is "worked" (albeit remotely, with less control, and with a lesser ability to define political priorities) also in the other branch. In short: among the amendments that the Garavaglia-Comaroli duo valiantly defended in the Budget Chamber Committee there were also those coming from the Senate, and therefore we too, in the Senate, if not in the Commission, but in the various technical and political meetings we were committed by the relaunch. This is to say that if one proceeds by monstrous decrees the whole Parliament is paralyzed (not only the branch which formally has the role of analyzing the provision pro tempore ).

But I want to point out to you another trivial procedural aspect, which may perhaps allow you to distinguish the politician from the politician.

Presenting a bill is certainly an important gesture: every member of parliament can do it, hopefully in accordance with the political line of his or her group (otherwise he can sit in a mix). You deposit, you make an initial agency launch, then the design is assigned to a commission, and then you do the interview with the local newspaper, etc. A way like any other to certify your life in life at your college!

But for the draft law to be effectively discussed, another step is needed: in the Bureau, the Commission leader of the proposing party should raise his hand and say: "We would like to put the bill on the agenda!" Then a discussion opens and you decide what to do. Obviously, if the majority agrees with itself, and proposes something, the President has no way of opposing it. If the decisions were not unanimous, one could at most go to vote in the Commission, and the majority, with its numbers, would have in the Commission, as in the classroom, the power to impose their agenda and calendar of proceedings.

If it does not, it is simply because, for one reason or another, it has other priorities. It is up to the proposer to fight a battle within his party to make his proposal go ahead, or to be satisfied with the interview with the local newspaper. It must be said, in total honesty, that the objective conditions are such as to preclude, as I have already told you, even a Commission that works a lot like mine, to evade all the amount of bills filed. Even those, to understand us, that are not mere certificates of existence in life, deposited with an exclusively signage function.

But asking an opposition President (for a while) to worry about the process of a majority bill is, albeit lawful, a little naive, and this is not because I want to hinder the majority (there is no need: she does everything by herself, and unlike others I don't want to take credit that I don't have), as much as why you can't stay in Heaven in spite of the saints: if the blessed of the majority have no intention of talking about "equating the real estate unit owned by way of ownership or usufruct in Italy by Italian citizens residing abroad in the main dwellings, provided that it is not leased or given on loan for use ", a subject that I realize on an individual level can take on great importance, unfortunately who am I to convince them?

Here, things work like this, that is exactly how the #aaaaapolitica cialtroni would not like you to know that they work (because in this way they could continue to tell you about them in a way functional to their fascist project to abolish representative democracy).

That's all for today: I have to deal with things I won't tell the newspapers …