The referendum on the approval of a constitutional review approved by parliament by an absolute majority requires, as a sovereign act of the people, to be largely accepted (remember that our Constitution was approved with 453 votes in favor and 62 against). This is to confirm or not the rules of civil coexistence of a national. This is to confirm or not the rules of civil coexistence of a national community and therefore it must be excluded from the special interests of individual parties and it has to be the object of a dispassionate judgment of the people who must determine whether the change respects the interests and rights of all citizens and is maintained the main basis of our Constitution.
Essentially, the referendum has to “unite” the people and not to divide them on political grounds, as incorrectly did the President of the Council of Ministers, by transforming the referendum, from a review of a legislative document, a review of what decided by the executive and Parliament.
We have to remember that when the Prime minister Alciade de Gasperi spoke for the first time about a popular referendum,he left the government desks and sat down among the parliamentarians to emphasize that the government had to withdraw when the word passed directly to the sovereign people. We have also to be remember that Calamandrei emphasized that in our constitution “there is all our history … all our sorrows, our misfortunes, our joys”, in short, he said that a constitutional amendment can not be dealt with a light heart, but with the knowledge to perform an act of the highest ethical and legal value.
Something very serious is that this revision distorts the current Constitution (which could just do a new constituent assembly) surpassing in this writer’s opinion, the limits imposed by the constitutional review procedure provided for by art. 138 of the Constitution.
We need to know well the content of the reform and wonder at the same time, what are the practical effects of this revision on our economic and social politics. The basic question, in essence, must be clear and unequivocal: in conclusion: “what are the goals? Who benefits from the change “?.
The question is tautological, because anyone would answer yes; and it is misleading because many aspects contained in the review (election with just a few votes of the President of the Republic, emptying the value of the Senate and others)aren’t contained in the application and It is unconstitutional because it infringes Article. 16 of the known law of 1970.