No 330, July 17, 2010
*************************
"COUP" IN PIEDMONT? will therefore be the TAR in Piedmont to decide who won the regional elections? It 'too early to say and we must have respect for the judiciary, but what emerges is quite absurd. I am familiar with election laws and it seems to me that - if the comments of the press will be supported by the facts - you are mounting a "case" very questionable.
Let me clarify now that I am not defending anyone, and if Mr. Young of the list "for Seniors Cota" has made pies and forged signatures for some candidates (which is more than a dozen have preferences in the region) should be tried and sentenced, but his personal responsibility do not understand how it can be turned on voters. If this list had not been the person who might have voted voted for the Bresso? I think not, since "Cota" was written in yellow in the symbol of Retired high, so ... E 'is illogical to think it makes no sense, I think almost everyone would "override" vote for another list of center-right!
So as you can argue that the will of those voters was not to endorse any presidential Cota? Perhaps the list will be driven by the view of the regional council, but the votes attached as valid votes cast in president Cota, and how!
But more serious are the judgments that arise soon on other lists. The "green green" is in Piedmont with its own symbol (the bear) as for decades and it was not clear why only this time the symbol was not gone well - and in fact, the TAR has accepted them - but the case is still Scandereberg clearer: the former leader of the UDC (the parent company was in the region of Casini's party) was recently released from his own party to make a motion their own to challenge the unusual choice of the UDC in Piedmont of siding with the left.
his case was on the newspapers and on TV for two months, all have spoken, but how do you say that those who had voted had not explicitly declared, convintamene voted for their Cota? That the TAR now claims that only the "double cross" on a symbol, and another on behalf of the President Cota) can confirm the explicit desire for a choice is absurd and serious. You could vote with the "double cross" or just the symbol of a list (as I did it personally, and - like me - millions of people) knowing that the vote will automatically go ALSO the presidential candidate. So vote only the symbol was an expression of legitimate votes, right, adjust: how do you now, after the elections, saying that those votes are not worth more, possibly recovering only those who explicitly stated they also Cota? The same goes for other strips, however, irrelevant to the final bill. But the judges of the TAR
realize that by doing this cancel out the will of millions of people on the basis of complaints after the elections (because the left did not contest the first of the lists, if they were considered to invalidate?) Canceling an intention to an entire electorate? And if that was the free expression of the popular vote, it is right repeat the elections in a few months, maybe even with other candidates? That's why this is really a bad history where there is a risk that any intangible stance of the Court is then viewed in a political key. We hope that at the end of the new referrals and assessments to decide the TAR in a more fair than the actual commitment of the citizens.
PDL: RULES AND TRANSPARENCY
hard not to feel difficulty in dealing with his usual candor and respect towards the players of undoubted crisis that has ravaged the PDL. I think the comb are two aspects that must be addressed and that they can no longer postpone: the structure of the party and transparency. A party may
be "light" and made more or less only of electoral committees in the elections (it's basically the American case) or have its own hierarchy, the rules of internal democracy, of the persons elected at every level, as well as for decades has been for the parties 'historical' Italian, but for the PDL is now deciding whether or risk a fragmentation into groups and factions, "foundations" and currents.
The PDL is not just a toy in the hands of Berlusconi's face and decide what he wants, but certain rules are needed or the toy is broken sooner or later, whatever the good will and the value of the founder. Berlusconi can not see, know and know everything, deal with the government, reforms, international relations and also a large party composed of people, sensitivity, different backgrounds. Are then used for the rules, a real state and observed, the elected leaders (and not always appointed) at all levels to allow the debate, the growth, the creation of representative structures correctly.
A party where each member can legitimately say that his respect of others and then adapting to the will of the majority. A party in which candidates can enjoy other opportunities and are designated with the risk that more of the value of personal closeness and the Count always consistent with those in power at every level.
not you grow up without rules and - even if the party was "light" - they should be allowed the choice of candidates be transparent and fair methods or - in the long run - the party breaks up.
second important aspect of transparency and I have to reiterate what I have argued on other occasions: we must have the courage to impose a correct approach to those who make policy. The PDL should not be a party where people sometimes just get his wish to do business because you're close to the (alleged) power. Here we also need clear rules and verification number, a "filter" in the actual enrollment for the nominations and appointments, especially where it is historically easier management of power between the contiguity and politics in gray areas where he thrives cloudy. And who does not behave well to be expelled for unworthiness, you can not always accomplish all, it was not credible.
We agree on the need to regulate the interception and prevent certain types of delivery, but we can not and should not hide the fact that between us there is obviously people who do not behave well. If sometimes there is a real risk of a deliberate intervention "policy" of certain magistrates, one needs a careful and immediate preventive action to clean up various schemers who among us should not be there or single rotten fish smell is all about This aspect must be calm, practical, hard-liners. Do not forget these things and these episodes are especially ideal voltage drop of the people, their desire to make policy, the credibility of all. Down by Berlusconi, in short, we must humbly give us on these issues clear and unambiguous line of conduct.
Greetings and good week! MARCO ZACCHERA
0 comments:
Post a Comment