from Il Manifesto, Sunday, January 30, 2011 Public Water
the court reopens to the public in all areas of Ugo Mattei
30 / 1 / 2011
The filing of judgments of Constitutional Court relating to the referendum on the water can only be welcomed because it gives greater clarity on several points. In fact, the repeal of the plant goodness we had imagined was confirmed in unequivocal terms both for the referendum that allowed non-eligible. From the first point of view, particularly important is the motivation which the Court allows us to pursue the repeal of the entire system Ronchi Decree. If he wins the "yes" not only the water service but also the local public transport, services, collection and disposal of waste and various other local services can be arranged with a wide variety of tools publicistic vocation or journalism. The odious obligation to sell a company for actions motivated by profit may be defeated, will open up new spaces for democratic and participatory management finally to what belongs to everyone. All this is in fullest harmony with European law. The motivation clearly exposes the deposited mixture of ignorance and arrogance of the positions to be proclaimed loudly and Ronchi Tremonti (both embarrassed, but especially the first, then the holder of the department of community affairs, was so unprepared for the basics of European law) and those with which Italy had slipped from the values \u200b\u200bof common struggle, arguing the same argument to the last government. The battle on the water is thus enriched with new allies and the notion of common goods, which the Court discusses for the first time in its history, is enhanced once new important collective activities. Also transport and waste, which are already subject to major civil rights battles against privatization, must be managed in logical label, owned and long term.
The Court also admitted the third question (repeal of return on capital) recognizes the crucial importance (ie sufficiency to its purpose) and no ambiguity. Remove the return on capital from the bills means in effect excluded from the profit motives acceptable in the management of the common good by definition, such as water. This should discourage private interest groups to make a water business.
Interesting are also the motivations of the referendum is not allowed. This is where it is found that a crucial step. We decided to present the second question (not without a thorough discussion among us writers) to caution, fearing that the repeal of 23 bis (first question) and could lead to. Article revival. 150 of the Environmental Code, that the same 23 aa had almost completely abrogated but that reproduces most of the structure on the model of management. Today the Constitutional Court clearly tells us that the revival will never occur and that in essence will be enough to win the first referendum for the effects of the victory of the latter. In a word, the Constitutional Court has given us a discount and, as he says authoritatively, the second referendum does not add anything to our system. Our caution was perhaps too much, but in any case that the Court has expressly ruled out the revival there in subsequent proceedings in the case of several proposals of interpretation. This alone justifies the effort that you have filled in another form.
Severa is instead the Court in respect of the question DiPietro. It will expose all the basic ambiguity, incomprehensible and contradictory statements. In fact, in an attempt (not in our opinion and according to the Court) to separate water from other services (given the 23 bis treats them together), Di Pietro was likely to make us even repeal the rules that make public good. And the Court tells him flatly. Unfortunately however the Court did not accept our proposal to align the Act Ronchi (the obligation to sell locks as known at the end of 2011) with the actual experiment of the referendum. Here is not that innovative courage that would have been justified by the need to give constitutional protection effectively to the common property. The Court should have delayed the requirement of a referendum held for sale, thereby, already through interpretation, that the moratorium on pursuing a political forum.
0 comments:
Post a Comment