It is not the time to celebrate the Republic, but to save it. And we can only do this by starting from where we don't want to end: the United States of Europe. We have already entered the European Union and it is now very difficult to get out of it. We haven't entered the United States of Europe yet, but that's where they want to take us. Game over: "definitive" end of our democratic and constitutional freedoms. Liquefaction of Italy into a new Superstate with respect to which even the EU will arouse us nostalgia.
Well, since prevention is better than cure, this time let's not get caught unprepared. While waiting for other, and more radical, decisions (such as Italyxit) to mature, we at least strengthen the Constitution, making it "impregnable".
For the uniform constitutional doctrine there are fifty-four articles of our fundamental law – the first, those bearing the fundamental principles and inviolable rights on which the Republic is based – that are not modifiable. And this in compliance with the provisions of article 139 of the Supreme Charter itself, according to which the "republican form" of the state is not subject to change, even with the procedure of article 138.
Mindful of the tragic experience of the fascist dictatorship, endorsed by the Kingdom of Italy, the constituent fathers wanted at least one cardinal principle to be exempt from the possibility of modification, even through the constitutional revision procedure. And they identified this principle in the "republican form", precisely, understood not only as an institutional configuration antithetical to the monarchy, but also as a complex of all the fundamental principles inscribed in the first 12 articles of the Charter and all the fundamental rights enshrined in articles 13 to 54. The same principles, and the same rights, so to speak, clearly violated by the European Treaties for a number of countless reasons (which we are not going to elaborate on here).
We agree, we would miss it. And yet we cultivate a dream. That the high jurists of the Nation, and the high jurisdictions of the same, authorize themselves (authorize us), to an exceptional "departure" from the rule. After all, the world's top economists have "authorized", and "legitimized" (without our authorization and without any legitimation) the epochal change in the structure of civil coexistence responsible for the political, economic and social ruin of our country. That ruin, those "ruins", on which Covid 19 has simply spread salt today.
A small but good argument, in truth, to risk gambling, there would be: that identified by the best doctrine, according to which modifications to the first part of the Charter would be exceptionally possible where " in melius ", that is, improving and enriching with respect to the principles contained therein.
Well, then let's dream; little else remains, and no one can stop us from doing it. And we hope for a change " in melius " – and therefore, perhaps, admissible as mentioned above – of two of the more "rigid" rules of our fundamental law. A change that would not take anything away from what the constituent fathers had in mind; on the contrary, it would strengthen the spirit, and the "ratio", of the "rules" they themselves gave birth. Which would allow us to avoid, now and forever, that otherwise unavoidable drift (on the horizon) that responds to the name of "United States of Europe".
Our "dream", in other words, is beneficial, so much so when the Unionist "Big Dream" has revealed itself, and is proving to be "evil". Ergo, if the latter has been accepted, and digested, by almost all jurists and inflicted, like a life sentence, on all citizens of Europe, we do not see why the former cannot be taken into consideration. When the "end of a world" comes, all dreams come true. Not only the ugliest ones, but also the most beautiful ones. And since dreaming costs nothing, we proceed with the dream.
We could think of an "enrichment" of article 5 where we read that "The Republic, one and indivisible, recognizes and promotes local autonomies", integrating it as follows: "The Republic, one and indivisible, recognizes and promotes local autonomies; it is also unavailable to any form of supra-state and transnational merger or aggregation, of a federative or confederative nature, with other States, such as to imply definitive assignments of sovereignty to non-state bodies in violation of Article 11 ".
After that, article 139 should, in turn, be "strengthened" as follows: "The republican form, as specified by articles 1 to 12, and in particular by article 5 , cannot be subject to constitutional review ". This modification would definitively make the objective (almost never openly confessed) of today's Europeanists definitively uncontainable: namely, the confluence of Italy in the "United States of Europe".
Or, in any case, it would make it impossible – regardless of the nomen that the "little chemists" of Europeanism wanted to attribute to the "thing" – any further progress in the unification process. In fact, having reached the point where we are (that is, a few meters from the USE target), any other step forward would be without exception, and unequivocally, prohibited by the new article 5 and the new article 139. In short, we will have this way, and if not another, arrested once and for all the train of European "unification".
If then, by hypothesis, the reform should not obtain, in the second vote, the approval of two thirds of the parliamentarians – and it would therefore be necessary to resort to the confirmatory referendum provided for in article 138 of the Constitution – this would allow to achieve, however, two results. First of all, to hunt down those who want to renounce national sovereignty (betraying the current Constitution more than it has already been sensationally betrayed).
In secundis, allowing citizens to finally be able to pronounce themselves with a large popular referendum on the "hidden" question of USE. This would be a historic event, for our democracy, comparable in importance only to the referendum between the Monarchy and the Republic of 1946.
Obviously, the unanimous chorus will tell you: you will never find a majority available; it may be, but this was certainly true "before" Covid. "After" – and especially after the first post-Covid elections – I don't know. Then they will say to you: "You can't, it's a legal forcing." It can be, just as it is certain that mine is a dream. And the debate is open. But one thing is clear to all: we are, in all respects, entered a new phase in the history of our country and the world.
We realized the risk taken in recent years to definitively lose the popular freedom "given us" by the constituents in the second post-war period. Back then those risks were represented by fascism and totalitarianisms. Today, however, by more subtle forms of "subversive torsion" and "deformation" of representative democracy and state sovereignty which must be stopped at any legally lawful cost: also through the introduction of new legal "shields" (given that, today, the existing ones have proved ineffective) in the wake of the one originally conceived and written down in article 139 of the Supreme Charter.
In other words, the Italians of 1946 identified in the "republican form" the pillars of Hercules of our democracy, to never go beyond, for any reason. We – pending the complete explosion of the EU or at least a more modest, and indeed very complicated, Italexit – we would like to establish them also in the intangibility of sovereign state independence, in terms of territorial integrity and non-negotiable "autonomy" of the Italian people, as they crystallized when the Republic was founded.
In any case, even if we wanted to derubricate the aforementioned "dream" as an unacceptable "legal forcing", it is provocative enough to lead us at least to reflect on all the macroscopic errors in which we stumbled due to the "Unionist" intoxication .
It is certainly also true that forcing, more or less intense, is part of every legal tradition; and it is also true that we live in exceptional times that require exceptional initiatives. And finally, it is equally undeniable that our past, more or less recent, is literally paved with "bad intentions" in the form of far more serious, and distorting, repeated and painful legal "break-ins", each of which has been located well beyond the limits of constitutionality.
In any case, we would not make it a "state" issue. Rather, it is a question of definitive and irrevocable reaffirmation of "state" freedom and independence. Finally, let's always remember that, as that guy said, "if you don't follow your dreams someone will force you to follow his".
This is a machine translation of a post published on Scenari Economici at the URL https://scenarieconomici.it/riformiamo-larticolo-5-per-salvare-la-repubblica/ on Tue, 02 Jun 2020 07:28:32 +0000.