Pass the "praise the Beloved", that stabilizes the government Gentiloni. The two questions allowed, one – to- one on article 18, the explosive true – rejected. Under the direction of dr. Slim is protected – at least this is the intention – the path ordered of the head of State: election law and voting, without any incidents and tensions. An operation, as anticipated from the'HuffPost in the past few days, from "blasters" to remove the first mine, which would have allowed Matteo Renzi to blow up the legislature so as to avoid the referendum of the Cgil on the jobs act.
The Court is a battlefield. With the rapporteur, Silvana Sciarra, which ends up in the minority on article 18 and, in the end, resigns from the role of "editor" of the judgment, the role given to the vice-president. The Sciarra had argued that the referendum of the Cgil was admitted because linear, abrogating and "non-manipulative", and especially supported by the previous Court, as the referendum of 2003. Eight to five, counting the final. With eight judges, in fact, have accepted the opinion of the State Attorney, on the question "manipulative". That is, the question is not limited to delete the restrictions on the make-up, but it introduces a rule from scratch. On other questions, vouchers, and contracts, and no tension. The questions in the Palace are not experienced as "mine". In this case, the blaster, however, is the Parliament. Because the way to blow up the referendum laws for the voucher. Says a source close to the dossier: "it is Not easy, but it is po ssible. The question of the Cgil is abrogative of all the norm on the voucher, therefore not just any change. Should be a law, therefore, that to abrogate the present provision and build another framework, that name changes and governing those forms of work". Translated: if the point you return to the “Biagi law” – there are already proposals in committee Cesare Damiano, ” the referendum on vouchers is defused.
Returning to the Consulta, where in today’s session there were two judges. One, Giuseppe Fridge, has resigned. And just today, the Parliament met in joint session – even if in vain – to replace it. The other absent, Alessandro Criscuolo, for health reasons. Some judge, in favour of the rejection, we will show you annoyed by the thesis of the "political pressures" on the Council, that after the judgment becomes the main accusation of the secretary of the Cgil Susanna Camusso. Under the wise direction of Loved eight judges removed the eighth paragraph of a question is very long, emphasising the effects of manipulative. On the background of the legal logic, according to the idea that direct democracy may not prevail on representative democracy with the questions cut out unscrupulously and with effects on the maxi reforms that would be granted to the Rooms. Called in the raw: the question would not be “corrective” but “purposeful” because the arti cle 18, for how would the question of the Cgil, would also be extended to firms with more than five employees.
For the Sciarra, the reference for eligibility is the ruling number 41 of 2003, which declared admissible the referendum that broadening the applicability of the protection of article 18 under 16 employees, and extended even to the enterprise with only one employee. Identical to the matter on the question of 2016. Not only. Entering more in detail. Traditionally, the article 18, that the elasticity for unjustified dismissal, and stood in front of the two thresholds: that of the 15 employees in the commercial and industrial companies and the bottom five for agricultural enterprises. The question of the referendum (admitted) in 2003, aimed to abolish both of these thresholds, so that all businesses – commercial, industrial, and agricultural – even with only one employee would become subject to article 18. The question discussed today is jump-only one limit, that of the 15 employees in the commercial and industrial businesses, and therefore the limit would be only 5 employees for the agricultural. Here is the argumentation of the rapporteur, ended up in the minority: what is the meaning to say that 2003 was abrogating in fact, the referendum was held – and this is manipulative? And again: “if the Court has deemed to be eligible in 2003, a question that repealed all limits, because it does not admit of a question that only eliminates one? It would be like if the Court contradicted itself.
"In our memory we do not remember similar pressures on the Court" complaint with the secretary of the Cgil. "The judgment is animated by a logic of policy," says a piece of the left out of the Pd. The left dem, instead, invokes changes on the legislation of the voucher "but we have to vote yes in the referendum". In substance welcomes in the Award Loved because he would not have brought results, but it would have blown up the government. Leaving the voucher as they are.
Between 15 days poor, the other judgment of the Court on the Italicum. The centre of gravity of legislature it is moved those hundred steps that combine the palace Court, and the Quirinal. To vote with an orderly, he had said Mattarella. The first, mina was taken away.
No comments:
Post a Comment