To Ask Remainers Their Opinion on Italy?

[A4710Rider]

Post 1 - I don't want this to be too long in one go so Remainers get bored and don't read it.

Italy now stands at both a crossroads and a precipice and the choices made in the next few months will decide whether the next phase of closer EU Integration happens OR there is an end to the European Project. Either way, the EU's coup d'etat in the Italian elections has been a watershed moment.

Because of the increasing problems brought on by economic stagnation and the failure of the Euro to social problems created by the the arrival of hundreds of thousands of migrants over recent years the Italian population has not only become skeptical of the European Union but of politics in general and has voted to take the country in a rightward direction.

Having formed a coalition and garnering over 50% of the vote The League and the 5 Star parties have been blocked from forming a Government after the Italian president vetoed the appointment of a Eurosceptic finance minister.

Sergio Materalla, who was installed as president by a previous pro EU Italian government AND who as head of state is supposed to be politically neutral said in a televised message that "the economy ministry always constitutes an immediate message of trust or alarm for financial markets and as such he could not accept a minister who may provoke Italy's exit from the Euro.

He then, without any apparent introspection, appointed as head of government a European technocrat who not only used to be a director of the IMF but is also well know for his pro EU views.

Post 2

In framing events between the faceless nature of financial markets to justify his veto of Eurosceptiscism the President has not only strengthed the hand of the nationalists but may have very well instigated the withdrawal of Italy from the Euro but the potential collapse of the EU in it's present form.

The move has provoked outrage from the two parties whose democratically elected government has been foiled before it's begun but is also being seen by many on the streets as a loss of Italian sovereignty to the EU superstate, a superstate that can essentially cancel results of national elections.

I ask you, Remainers, are you happy with the death of democracy to ensure the EU project? is it worth it?

Let's be honest. What has been said, loud and clear, to the entire population of Europe is that no political movement or coalition of parties no matter the dire social and economic situations plaguing a country will EVER be allowed to assume power if they challenge, even in the slightest, the orthodoxy of the Euro

But the president of Italy is elected (admittedly not directly, but they are elected by an elected body). Not only that, but the President's decision to not bring somebody in who would (in their opinion) destabilise Italian bond markets sounds like it matches with the general checks and balances in many democracies.

Plus the fact that this was all done in accordance with the Italian constitution.

How is this the EU's fault?

the President's decision to not bring somebody in who would (in their opinion) destabilise Italian bond markets sounds like it matches with the general checks and balances in many democracies

So you're saying economics is more important than democracy?

sounds like it matches with the general checks and balances in many democracies

Could you explain that sentence, please?

So you're saying economics is more important than democracy?

I'm not going to answer for random, but to answer your question with a question, do you think democracy is the paramount factor in decision making at a national level?

Because in the UK, once a government is elected, provided it acts within its legal boundaries, that's it. Democracy, in some ways, ends at the ballot box, because once someone has been elected into a position of power, so long as they act within the rules, the actions they take ARE democratic - because collectively, the result of the vote was to give them that power. They are held accountable if they act improperly by legal mechanisms or by being voted out next time.

Most democracies have checks and balances - no one branch of government is given all of the power - this is designed to protect against a single person or group having too much power. You could argue it is to dilute democracy, but generally all it does is slow down the popular will.

In the UK as an example, the queen can choose to not sign a parliamentary bill if she wanted to (which would almost certainly cause a constitutional crisis, but it is within her set of powers), the Lords can amend and effectively stop bills they don't agree with (but only for a maximum of one parliamentary session), In the US the president can veto bills, the Supreme Court can find them unconstitutional, the States (in concert) can change the constitution, etc.

As I understand it, and I don't deeply delve into Italian politics - so this is based purely on various takes I have read elsewhere, the Italian Presidents view was:

• The person chosen for finance minister had penned a paper where he stated that he felt Italy should create a secret plan to leave the Euro and execute it over a weekend
• He refused to state he disagreed with it.
• The parties that were elected did not get elected on a manifesto to leave the Euro.

The president felt that either
a) They should select somebody else without that baggage, as he assumed that it would cause massive disruption to government financing
b) They should stand again for re-election on a specific platform of leaving the Euro if they wanted to have him in the finance ministry.

I'm not convinced it was a wise decision, but it was within his power and he was elected. Given our somewhat complex and undemocratic political system, I would be somewhat cautious in throwing too many stones.

TheCats

In Italy, a government was elected but it was vetoed from taking power. Not really the same as your post.

A democracy needs checks and balances in place otherwise its not a democracy is it?

The person the president blocked said he planned of removing italy from the EU through the back door, his party did not campaign for exiting the EU so he was defending democracy because he wanted to remove itlay without a vote from the public.

The president would not have gotten involved if the parties involved had said vote for us we will take us out of the EU (nether party campaigned for that) And then to appoint someone who said his PLAN WAS TO REMOVE ITALY from the EU by the back door (no public vote) how is that democracy?

Random,

Thanks for your reply. Could you post me in the direction of a link for this:

The person chosen for finance minister had penned a paper where he stated that he felt Italy should create a secret plan to leave the Euro and execute it over a weekend

Thanks.

Your information about the Italian political situation is a week out of date. One might think you don't really care about what is happening in Italy but are just using it to make a political point.

The person the president blocked said he planned of removing italy from the EU through the back door

The Euro, not the EU. A major difference.

The person the president blocked said he planned of removing italy from the EU through the back door

Have you go a link for that please?

And in Italy the president is VOTED in and its his job to balance the power of elected parties as you do know Mussolini was voted into power right? So the President has the power in there consitution to block governments from doing some things aka if they want to abuse their power like this person wanted to do (as in remove italy from the EU without a vote).

Would you be complaining if a government party got into power and then tried to encact a forced deportation of muslims and the Presdent used his powers to block that?

Italian politics is notoriously volatile. It's only been a country (as opposed to city states) for about 150 years, then, after Mussolini, there were 50 coalition governments in as many years.

I don't think the EU is a major factor in this situation.

(as in remove italy from the EU without a vote)

Have you got a link for that please?

I don't think the EU is a major factor in this situation

The Italian economy is stagnant and failing, they'd be able to fix this if they weren't in the Euro.

The EU is a massive factor.

Italian debt is now the second worst in Europe after Greece and has reached 132% of GDP.

If they wanted to leave the Euro why did the groups invovled not campaign for it? Why not have it screaming from the roof tops why not have another election saying we want to remove Italy from the EU / Eurozone and then if they get elecated do that.

Not through the back door because that does not say to me democry rather we want to do somethnig that we know people might not like so we wont say thats our plan until after we get elected.

I think the democratically elected president took the measures he felt were necessary to prevent economic collapse in Italy. And, as PP said, neither party was elected on a platform of leaving the EU or the euro. So there is no evidence that this is what the Italian people want, or think they want, and looking at Brexit, it’s quite obvious that giving people what they think they want is now always in their best interests anyway.

The key to your posts is the use of democracy. What is democracy? The Encyclopidia Britanica actually has some interesting questions about democracy that show that the concept itself is full of land mines and issues. Democracy is not just populist rule. And, if it becomes that, the system opens itself up to questioning and failure.

Here are the questions. I thought then interesting:

1. What is the appropriate unit or association within which a democratic government should be established? A town or city? A country? A business corporation? A university? An international organization? All of these?

(2) Given an appropriate association—a city, for example—who among its members should enjoy full citizenship? Which persons, in other words, should constitute the dēmos? Is every member of the association entitled to participate in governing it? Assuming that children should not be allowed to participate (as most adults would agree), should the dēmos include all adults? If it includes only a subset of the adult population, how small can the subset be before the association ceases to be a democracy and becomes something else, such as an aristocracy (government by the best, aristos) or an oligarchy (government by the few, oligos)?

3. Assuming a proper association and a proper dēmos, how are citizens to govern? What political organizations or institutions will they need? Will these institutions differ between different kinds of associations—for example, a small town and a large country?

4. When citizens are divided on an issue, as they often will be, whose views should prevail, and in what circumstances? Should a majority always prevail, or should minorities sometimes be empowered to block or overcome majority rule?

(5) If a majority is ordinarily to prevail, what is to constitute a proper majority? A majority of all citizens? A majority of voters? Should a proper majority comprise not individual citizens but certain groups or associations of citizens, such as hereditary groups or territorial associations?

• not always

Not through the back door because that does not say to me democry rather we want to do somethnig that we know people might not like so we wont say thats our plan until after we get elected

You need to prove they wanted to do that through the back door I'm afraid. A link, anything?

Last two:

6. The preceding questions presuppose an adequate answer to a sixth and even more important question: Why should “the people” rule? Is democracy really better than aristocracy or monarchy? Perhaps, as Plato argues in the Republic, the best government would be led by a minority of the most highly qualified persons—an aristocracy of “philosopher-kings.” What reasons could be given to show that Plato’s view is wrong?

(7) No association could maintain a democratic government for very long if a majority of the dēmos—or a majority of the government—believed that some other form of government were better. Thus, a minimum condition for the continued existence of a democracy is that a substantial proportion of both the dēmos and the leadership believes that popular government is better than any feasible alternative. What conditions, in addition to this one, favour the continued existence of democracy? What conditions are harmful to it? Why have some democracies managed to endure, even through periods of severe crisis, while so many others have collapsed?

I think the democratically elected president took the measures he felt were necessary to prevent economic collapse in Italy

So in answer to my question - Economics is more important that Democracy. Is that what you're saying, it's OK to say it you know. It's how the EU operates.

Italian's president statement

www.thelocal.it/20180529/italy-president-sergio-matterella-statement-english

From a bit of googling, he's not specifically said that one should be developed, but he has suggested that Italy should have a plan B to leave the Euro

www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2018/06/03/business/italys-plan-b-euro-skeptic-currency-ideas-take-center-stage/#.WxZ3H1Mvwkg

It suggests an 80 page document he helped write that suggested how they would leave the Euro on a Friday night (bit of glamour)

I can't find the actual document, probably because I can't speak Italian and unfortunately News organisations are quite poor at linking to primary sources. I'm sure if I did yet more concerted googling I could find it, but as I'm not Italian I have more pressing things to worry about.