There are “no reasons for a postponement, we will see if there are appeals”. Giorgia Meloni’s introduction sounds more or less like this to the Council of Ministers convened unexpectedly on Saturday morning to immediately resolve the problem opened by the resolution of the Central Office for the referendum of the Supreme Court, which accepted the appeal of the committee of 15 jurists. The question is therefore clarified, adding, as indicated by the Supreme Court, the articles of the Constitution affected by the Justice reform which introduces the separation of the careers of magistrates. But the date, there is no doubt, will not be touched, so we will vote on March 22nd and 23rd as already established.
ANSA AgencyThe approximately 40 pages of the ordinance had already been shared the evening before among the ministers but the convocation found many far from Rome. You connect from the prefectures (Tommaso Foti from Piacenza, Luca Ciriani from Pordenone, Adolfo Urso from Bolzano). In Milan, where the Winter Olympics have just opened, five of them meet (Matteo Piantedosi, Elisabetta Casellati, Alessandro Giuli, Daniela Santanché and Carlo Nordio). Dark faces, the government didn’t expect it. The Supreme Court of Cassation, one of the arguments that would have been made during the meeting, had already approved the question presented with the collection of parliamentary signatures and had not recognized the need to clarify the constitutional references that could change. Today, however, it becomes “indispensable”. Several of them intervene, rather annoyed. Nordio, like Alfredo Mantovano, explains that the correction is a mere “clarification” that does not affect the “substance” of the referendum. So the date doesn’t change. We revise the question and move on.
And while in the closed rooms of the Council of Ministers we are questioning the opportunity for some judges to participate in the vote (“no one felt the need to abstain”, one of the comments) outside to express the same doubts aloud – giving rise to a rather violent clash – is the FdI group leader Galeazzo Bignami, who is also no stranger to taking particularly harsh positions, followed by equally as many controversies. The decision comes from “former PD” magistrates or those aligned “for the NO to the referendum”, says Bignami, pointing the finger at the former deputy and president of the Justice Commission Donatella Ferranti and Alfredo Guardiano, who defends himself by speaking of “serious and unfounded” accusations. The same criticism is also expressed to him by the president of the Union of Criminal Chambers (and of the Penal Chambers for Yes committee) Francesco Petrelli.
So while the Council of Ministers is deliberating on the new question – which Sergio Mattarella will sign shortly thereafter, defining the decision as “legally impeccable” but at the same time inviting them to “respect” the Supreme Court – outside there is a deluge of declarations against the judges of the Supreme Court, from the centre-right, in defense of the same judges from the ANM and Cassation, against the government and in defense of the independence of the robes from above all the Democratic Party. The decisions of the executive show “the usual arrogant arrogance of those who command and do not govern”, the Dem head of justice, Debora Serracchiani, goes on the attack, speaking of “arrogance and lack of respect for the institutions”. And while Maurizio Gasparri announces a question to ask for an inspection on Guardiano, it is Bignami’s words, “overbearing”, “shameful”, who “loved dressing as a fascist hierarch”, the recurring comments, which raise the harshest criticism. For the Dems, this shows “the true face of the majority that wants to delegitimize the judiciary every time it does not bend”. Therefore, Angelo Bonelli summarizes from Avs, given that they are the ones who “wanted to politicize the referendum”, it is even more necessary to go and vote “no” to give “the eviction notice to the majority”.
The thesis of the centre-right is opposed, which instead sees the resolution as yet another “political” decision to hinder the government and for this reason invites people to vote “yes” to “restore impartiality to the judiciary”.
Reproduction reserved © Copyright ANSA
