The insistence with which the government and most beats on the 'numbers' they have in Parliament to justify their 'legitimacy' to govern with this prime minister struggling with four processes, three of them for 'funds blacks' and 'tax evasion' and last for 'extortion' and 'child prostitution', says a lot about the degree of public ethics of which are equipped and with them part of their electorate that supports him.
In no other democratic country a Prime Minister would remain in place one more minute without being replaced by another person of his party or coalition to lead the government.
The allegations made by the Judiciary, supported by many elements, accounted for significant, are very serious and defamatory to any person or citizen. For a politician but, in particular, a ruler, for example, the President of the Council are 'counterproductive' to his public role as a legislature, especially in this case, whether the right of taxation and family, to name some.
possible that the majority do not have another person to switch to the task? Why do you rule out that the head of government can be replaced? The rationale adopted here is that the person has been elected by the people and therefore it can not be replaced without a new election and without violating the rules of democracy. This position enables 'Shout' the plot of 'red courts' so trying to 'overthrow' the electoral verdict.
For the part of court then insist in saying that the 'charges' should be 'proven' that there must be a final ruling until the third grade of the trial before the sentencing, and until then there is the presumption of innocence.
Now in the first case, the charge of conspiracy is 'totally instrumental' and 'misplaced' because in our system the head of government is not elected directly by the people, but by Parliament and may then be replaced by his own majority in that Parliament. So no reversal of the popular vote. Therefore insist on the charges of conspiracy is a clear 'pull' the Constitution is unacceptable for a democracy.
In the second court case, certainly the 'charges' should be 'proven' but these are in fact proven in the trials with his time trial. All this is for the judiciary in our constitutional system and in all democratic countries in which the principle of independence of powers.
Meanwhile, if the head of government is not 'resign' and even if they 'claim' in a loud voice all intentions to 'escape' to the judicial processes with legislative tricks and bureaucratic of any kind, you will have a 'crash' period 'institutional clashes' between the Government and the Judiciary by one side and the other, all that time will be the 'serious doubt of innocence' to be ruled by such a person. Before considering the image of Italy in the world heavily affected by bunga bunga and other events.
All of this comes at a time when the country is going through a difficult period of economic and social for which a government is endowed with the maximum authority and full time for the problems of the people and for the good of Italy as a whole.
If the majority is unable to replace the man, then face the 'crisis' at least for patriotism, for the good of the country. Earlier resignation of the entire government in the hands of the President under the Constitution which will give another government to Italy, including new elections, if necessary.
Outside of this framework there can be no solution but only aggravate the already serious problems and last but not least severe, further deterioration of the image of Italy in the World bunga bunga.
This is what they want most, the Northern League and all those who rush to make a pathetic defense of the office of President?
Would not it be better to close it here and separate the fate of the individual with the rest of the country?
I think so.
Raffaele B. 
0 comments:
Post a Comment