My criterion for evaluating reforms is this: if those who propose them are not able to describe in an understandable way the problem they want to solve, the proposed solution and the way of measuring whether – once the reform is approved – the problem is solved, well, then that reform is either worth nothing or responds to needs different from those declared.
I recognize the legitimacy of one of the arguments used by some who will vote Yes in the referendum on the reform of the judiciary: every reform in this country always generates a conservative response. Real.
The same people who defend reforms on principle, let’s say, then add: if the reform of the judiciary fails, no more reforms will be made for a while.
Well, to me this seems like an excellent argument for No.
Because the point is exactly that, in the event of approval of the judiciary reform, this right will feel legitimized to proceed with its package of interventions to revise the Constitution and the relationship between powers.
