ROMA (ITALPRESS) – Concerning the referendum on Justice “the date has not yet been fixed” and will vote “presumably in the second half of March”. Thus, in an interview with Corriere della Sera, Minister Carlo Nordio, who adds: “We are convinced that the more we inform voters about the content and importance of this reform, the more we bring them to the polls, and with positive results.” Even if the face to face with the Am still not there. “It’s the Anm that said no – emphasizes Nordio –. I asked for a comparison ‘one to one’. First he refused President Parodi. Then Secretary Maruotti and then all the others. First, saying that they didn’t want to throw her into politics. Then, as they had participated in debates with politicians have corrected the shooting: saying it’s okay to discuss it with other politicians, but not with government representatives. If they are not coming, they are afraid of confrontation with me.”.
“The Anm – adds the Minister – formed a committee for the No, and this was by itself a political act. However, he rejected a confrontation with me, with the motivation that he does not want to attribute to you a political meaning, and this is already a contradiction. I assume, and I hope that by coherence it does not compare with any other party member, otherwise it would mean that it fears a public debate with the Minister of Justice. On my own I have already said that I am ready, even tomorrow”.
Meanwhile, a Nordio book on the referendum is about to come out: “I answer to all the objections that have been made to me in Parliament on the reform and which I have not answered,” the Minister explains, that to the question if it is not to diminish the Parliament to answer in a book instead of in the classroom, it clarifies: “I would have responded, but the debate would be reopened and it would have gone to the Greek limes. And there would be no time for the other reform, on the premiership. But above all the next Csm on deadline would be re-elected with the old criteria. This is what terrifies, not the separation of careers, but the draw”. And to the question if you are writing the implementing decrees, he answers: “Yes. It will take time, even to establish the basket from which to extract the lay members. But we’ll be ready. It would be absurd to vote for a new Csm with the old rules.” “In line with the reform – he adds – we are open to all contributions, including the Am”.
The Minister Nordio says he does not fear a dilation of the pre-referendum times: “Dilation depends on a technical reason – he says –. Stefano Ceccanti explained this very well. The current rule on the referendum can be interpreted differently, and we intend to avoid uncertainties, appeals and polemics. Because we want the climate not to be exacerbated, and the comparison is carried out peacefully and rationally.” The Quirinale emphasizes, “it is always our most authoritative interlocutor, especially when it comes to such delicate topics. But in this case our considerations have been motivated by the novelty of the initiative to collect signatures of private citizens”.
Then, with regard to the fifteen “volenterosis” which have filed a new referendary question, he says: “It was an unexpected initiative because the question is very simple: a yes or no to a reform, without possibility of modifications. And because he was asked by us, and the Cassation declared it admissible, he did not see the reason.” To the question whether he suspects an occult political direction, he answers: “I don’t know. I only know that the initiative is superfluous. The question cannot be changed.” “The digital revolution – adds – is not done in a blink of an eye, and we are compressed within extremely narrow times, arranged by the previous government, to access the contributions of the Pnrr. But after the first difficulties we are in the direction of arrival”. And when the inconvenience ends, he says, “We are already in place in the civil process. In the criminal case before March, the criticality on the precautionary measures will be resolved, and by June the question of interceptions. Perfectly in line with the objectives imposed by the Pnrr”. Then, on the observation if it would not be appropriate to lower the tones, he comments: “They gave me the piduist, the mobster, the demolitor of the Constitution. As long as the policy does, I accept it, before entering the classroom I do autogenous training to prevent the pressure from squeezing at 200, but if they do it magistrates do not. So Barbera, Vassalli and Cassese are all piduists? The reform does not distort the Constitution and at least is punitive, but it is the logical consequence of the criminal process wanted by Vassalli. To give you a political meaning is absolutely improper, and dangerous especially for judiciary. For this reason I hope an open debate, and, as far as possible, within the limits of reasonableness.”.
– photo Ipa Agency –
(ITALPRESS).
