to not understand the implications of italian referendum

[myoriginal3]

Can someone explain?
All I can find are jumbled whisperings about Italy potentially withdrawing from the Euro.
What was the question asked in the referendum?

The referendum was officially about streamlining and giving more power to central government and I think reducing the power/amount of senators in the senate.
Officially it had nothing to do with Europe/the euro but I think a lot of people protest voted...so now the PM will probably resign soonish as he said he would if he lost.

Both my parents are left wing (vote green in the eu elections etc) and both voted opposite ways from each other. I felt like I didn't understand the issues enough to vote either way so didn't return my postal vote.

There seems to be some allusion to the fact that it's further proof of anti establishment leanings. And France has something upcoming also?
Anyone know what that's about?

YY to anti-establishment leanings, the '5 star movement' who are hard left, anti establishment and not that keen on Europe will probably end up forming a coalition government. It probably won't last long.

It could in theory through a series of events result in Italy leaving the EUR but this is quite a distant prospect at this stage. And this is not at all what this core was about.

So, the theory gies, as the prime minister has resigned, there should be early elections which could allow a political party to come into power which pulls Italy out of the EU.

However, no early elections are being called, instead a caretaker government is being formed until elections can be called. In fact today's news is that the president is trying to persuade Renzi to stay for stability.

The other key point is that according to surveys (for what they are worth), the majority of Italians want the country to stay in the EUR.

France has elections next year.

Thanks for the explanations. Haven't a tv and only internet on phone so have limited access to news

www.theguardian.com/world/2016/nov/30/italy-referendum-all-you-need-to-know-about-renzis-crunch-vote

The referendum was for internal constitutional reform. Alas Renzi stupidly made it all about him and I would say a fairly hefty chunk of Italians voted no just to get rid of him, for many of these the thought processes didn't go beyond that and many hadn't even read in any detail what the referendum was about. That said, I do know quite a few educated professionals who voted no for quite valid concerns over a few of the proposals albeit not the entirety of the reform, which they would have supported had it not been for some of the small print.

The irony here is that part of the reform was to reduce the number of MPs, thus reducing costs and limiting cronyism (many extra constituencies and roles were created in the Berlusconi years for his friends and supporters, among other things). This is something M5S have banged on about for years, so it is somewhat hypocritical of Beppe Grillo and his disciples to vote against this. That said they change their views and policies with the weather so it shouldn't be a surprise.

Italians generally are supportive of the EU, most know that any departure from either the EU or the eurozone would be an unmitigated disaster for the economy. Any people who might have had doubts about this have since had this confirmed by the UK's Brexit antics thus far.

That guardian link was very informative. Thanks all.

And I'm now trying to get my head around what's going on in the supreme court.

Yanbu . I keep heading off to buzzfeed for explanations I can understand. Or Newsround.

Supreme Court is pretty simple (ha ha - I may be misunderstanding it).

The government wants to be able to trigger Article 50 of the EU without an Act of parliament. Lots of people don't agree and want parliament to have a debate, then trigger article 50 (almost certainly).

As a result of our over-reliance on highly-paid lawyers rather than a constitution, lots of people are getting paid lots to argue about it in the Supreme Court because the government (made up largely of Lawyers and their hangers-on) and the opposition (made up largely of Lawyers and their hangers-on), didn't like the answer they got from the lower court.

The basic idea is to take as long as possible noodling around about the meaning of words so everyone keeps getting paid and nothing much actually happens. Business as usual.

Listened to some of the debate with some gobshite going on about achieving consensus. YOU WON'T ACHIEVE CONSENSUS WHILE OPINION IS DIVIDED. Muppet.

And breathe...

It's worth remembering that 5 Stelle were on Farage's side during the UK referendum.

The main reason that the No vote won in Italy was because while it may have reduced the number of MPs/senators/cronyism to a certain extent, it also would have given massive new and far-reaching power to the senate. Basically any party with a majority in the senate could have done whatever the feck they wanted and no-one would have had a say.

Nothing will now be decided until after the "Stability Pact" (budget) is passed after which probably they'll put another unelected technocrat in charge for a while while everyone else runs round like headless chickens and changes party.

While Italy continues to receive such hefty EU money (the south's schools - including my own- are virtually bankrolled by the EU- just about to drop my daughter at an after school project funded entirely by the EU and will start teaching on one myself in the NY) they won't be leaving any time soon.

Come a real election about 40% of the population will get off their arses to vote, unlike the 70%+ who voted on Sunday.

Sorry, of course I mean the lower chamber, not the senate!

The governing party could do anything, without consulting the senate.

Come a real election about 40% of the population will get off their arses to vote, unlike the 70%+ who voted on Sunday

So true! I just knew it was going the other way from the amount of people that actually bothered turning up. Many Italians are jaded by the calibre of the politicians and see no point in voting for anyone as They're all thieves". Politicians of all colours have been caught with their hands in the honey pot, I don't think there is a major party that hasn't been caught up in some kind of corruption scandal. Nobody trusts politicians, there is an overriding impression that a lot got themselves voted into office to take advantage of the parliamentary immunity from prosecution and this was certainly very evident in the Berlusconi years.