Italian President overrides election results

ThERat

ThERat

Deity
Joined
Nov 29, 2004
Messages
11,503
Location
City of one angel
Honestly, I wouldn't have thought that the EU makes their intentions that clear. The pro-EU president simply denies the new government to be the selection of the finance minister who is anti EU and hence, prevents a new government to form.

I reckon he has made a huge mistake as it will play in the hands of those who are tired of the IMF, the bureaucracy of the EU and Germany/France dictating other nations what to do. If there should be new elections, the result might be much worse for those pro-EU people.

I am not fan of Lega Nord, but to deny the people a government that has the majority of the votes is pretty stunning to me. I think it is time to smash this crazy construct of a monetary union.

Any thoughts? Italians?

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-44275781
 
Could be a grave mistake yes. But he president wasn't "ordered" by anyone to veto the new finance minister(as you imply). It was his own choice.
 
ThERat said:
If there should be new elections, the result might be much worse for those pro-EU people.
Click to expand...
Maybe. But maybe his calculation here is that this result is already the worst one possible, and that new elections can't make the situation worse? I'm not saying I support the president's actions (I don't) just trying to see it from his point of view
 
Italy has had like 30 Governments in like 10 years
It is notouriosuly corrupt and disfunction this isnt much of a suprise that Italian government is in another crisis
 
I'm getting sick of people getting sick of the EU and blaming Germany and France for everything.
Yes, they're most powerful countries in the union and Germany in particular has been a mostly negative influence in the past 10 years, but it's not powerful enough to dictate anything. The EU is full of countries with right-wing governments who willingly went along with the austerity idiocy and use Brussels as a scapegoat just like Republican governors who keep cutting public services and blame Washington for their own incompetence and corruption.

And do I have to remind people that the Italians keep voting for a more charismatic and smart Trump ?
Danmed Berlusconi seems to be the only damned beacon of stability there.
That's not on us, that's on the Italian voter.
Maybe Italy should just call it quits and peacefully dissolve into city states again.
 
In 2017 italian per capita GDP was finally surpassed by that of Spain. Cant fall any lower. :shake:
 
I was surprised there was no thread on the Italian mess. Seems like nobody cares about Italy anymore.

I agree the president made a mistake in not letting the folks who won the elections and formed a coalition name a finance minister of their choice. But this was not dictated by the EU at all. I'm pretty sure his action stunned Brussels.

I think he made a risky gamble and ultimately played into the populists' hand. Instead of being allowed to fail and bicker among themselves, they can now rightly claim that the establishment denied them the mandate they earned in the ballot.
 
It's obviously the EU's fault, just like everything else. For example when germany started ww2, What did the EU do? Nothing! When half of europe declared war on the other half starting WW1; What did the EU do? Nothing! When Rome was sacked; What did the EU do? Nothing! When Troy fell to the Greeks, What did the EU do? Nothing! When the Chief Og attacked his neighboring tribe led by Ug and drove them out of their caves during the Og-Ur Fire-Cave wars; What did the EU do? Nothing! When a great meteor devestated the Dinosaur Civilization; What did the EU do to help? Nothing! They didn't even have the decency to send the poor dinosaurs a message of solidarity! And don't give me any of that "But the EU wasn't formed yet" nonsense; The fact that it didn't exist yet is a mere technicality and has absolutely no bearing what-so-ever on my argument!
 
And dont forget that if EU didn't exist back then it was only because EU bureaucracy.
 
Last edited:
Broken Erika, this sort of rubbish reply is part of the reason so many people are fed up with the EU.

I think the Euro Zone has caused a lot of hardship on the southern European countries while austerity Germany enjoys the fruits of a cheap currency. I live in Singapore and with the Euro decline from $2.10 in 2007 to currently $1.50, German cars are a common sight. 15 years ago, you can forget about that. I remember traveling to Greece, Spain and Italy when I was young and those laid back countries were a lot cheaper than northern Europe. The idea that a common currency will help those countries is just weird. Yes, the Euro made them much cash richer and Germany was/is able to export a lot of their products. However, in the long run, those countries suffer a lot.
Germans of course, will cry foul and not even understand how much they profit from the low value currency.
The situation is a little similar to 1990 when Eastern Germans were given a 1:1 exchange rate for their useless currency. It boosted western Germany while Eastern Germans enjoyed a brief spell of consumerism. The result can be admired today, with East Germany being still the poor brother of West germany.

Don't misunderstand me, I am all for a united Europe, especially in the light of a crazy America. However, a Europe united by bankers and bureaucrats when the common people are worse off? No thanks. We can see the result in the current rise of extremism. Not surprising, if all the politicians care for is big money and lobbyists.
 
The EU just did a huge law pack that protect individuals against big digital corporations. It's not all bad.
 
ThERat said:
Honestly, I wouldn't have thought that the EU makes their intentions that clear. The pro-EU president simply denies the new government to be the selection of the finance minister who is anti EU and hence, prevents a new government to form.

I reckon he has made a huge mistake as it will play in the hands of those who are tired of the IMF, the bureaucracy of the EU and Germany/France dictating other nations what to do. If there should be new elections, the result might be much worse for those pro-EU people.

I am not fan of Lega Nord, but to deny the people a government that has the majority of the votes is pretty stunning to me. I think it is time to smash this crazy construct of a monetary union.


Any thoughts? Italians?

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-44275781
Click to expand...

It will very obviously backfire. Not sure why he did this, but lega nord* or not, this is the kind of thing which can only lead to more votes for the parties which were denied gov.
Didn't the italian president explain why he did this?

*which is another issue: Italy has a potential break-up situation, since forever. It also is one of only three countries without which the Eu cannot exist (the other being France and the one which shall not be named) :)
 
Last edited:
What exactly is the expected role of the President in Italy? Is his role intended to be something like the Queen of England who is basically forbidden from interfering in politics, or is the Italian President refusing to approve nominees something what while rare, is still within the expected role for him?
(Basically, is this closer to Congress declining to approve a presidential nominee [uncommon, but well within their expected authority] or the Queen refusing to accept a government from a party she disagrees with [a full on political crisis]?)
 
EnglishEdward said:
And the fact that the Italian President seems to think that he is accountable
to financial investors, rather than the electorate, is a sad sign of the times.
Click to expand...

Maybe they made him an offer he can't refuse.

Is what he's doing constitutional wrt Italy's constitution and EU rules?
 
Sure, otherwise he couldn't do it. In parlamentarian republics presidents are elected by the sovereign (the Italian people in this case), so they have real power, even if used rarely. They are supposed to provide stability over the continuous changes and shenanigans of the governments. In parlamentarian monarchies otoh the king is not elected by the sovereign so they have not power. Excepting UK where the sovereign is not the people but the queen herself, and she graciously delegates her power to the ministers. I wonder what would happen if some day the british monarch goes nuts and drcides to exercise power by himself. Is such case covered somewhere in the unwritten Constitution? maybe something like this?:

 
I have a feeling that their unwritten constitution would be re-written to have the monarch explicitly not have power if that happened.

As for Italy, maybe I'm missing something, but why not just appoint another Euroskeptic finance minister, and if rejected again just keep picking Euroskeptics until the president finally acquiesces?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Samson
  • Poll Poll
Can a Marxist revolutionary get elected president and sort out the economy?
5 6 7
Replies
120
Views
8K
Samson
Samson
Dhoomstriker
Congress, Stop Supporting Censorship! KOSA Threatens Free Speech in the US
2
Replies
23
Views
3K
Dhoomstriker
Dhoomstriker
Broken_Erika
US Debt Ceiling
7 8 9
Replies
178
Views
12K
Farm Boy
Farm Boy
A
Civ 6 Review, All DLC
Replies
3
Views
4K
Naokaukodem
Naokaukodem
gangleri2001
El Salvador makes bitcoin legal tender
2 3
Replies
53
Views
5K
Aiken_Drumn
Aiken_Drumn
Back
Top Bottom