[ad_1]
There is something more than a statement of circumstance, according to Matteo Salvini, a leader known for not having measured words and paying homage to traditional liturgies: "The meeting with President Mattarella – says at the exit of the Hill – was helpful to both and planned in the future Someone takes care of the past, me and the head of state have been working on the future with satisfaction of both. "
The feeling is that the meeting, required and thought of Salvini as the theater of a show against the magistrates, guilty of a" political sentence ", with the pretension of hanging out in the anti-institutional fury also the Quirinale has changed in nature. And it has become the occasion of a page change in the relationship between the league leader and the Quirinal. And also for a quick and non controversial clarification. League sources say that the head of state pointed out that an interior minister could not use certain tones and should be more careful in his statements: "I understand, President, but we are under pressure and attacked "
From this climate change, the main architect is Giancarlo Giorgetti, who returned to diplomatic work, after the overexposure phase of the media, in a role that many recalls what Gianni Letta played with Silvio Berlusconi, attenuating the intemperance and great weaver of institutional plots. It was the under-secretary of the Council Presidency, in those days, to maintain relations with Colle, recognizing the conditions for making the meeting possible, which would certainly not have been on the premise of Involve Mattarella in tension with the judiciary. This does not mean that, in front of half an hour, the head of state and the Deputy Prime Minister spoke only of immigration, security and confiscation of property and that the issue of the condemnation of the League has not even been treated. According to what emerges from a confidential and private interview, Salvini mentioned the theme, even though it was not the main subject, but not in a brutal way and not as a conflict with a sentence of the judiciary. Rather a "concern" on the basis of political agility: how can a large political force of the country contribute to the determination of national politics, as it is inscribed in the Constitution, deprived of its resources and actually risking its closure
?
Compared to protesting against a last sentence is another way of posing the problem. And indeed, this concern has found listening to the Quirinale. Listen, which does not mean understanding, sharing, support or suggestions
That means listening, even because a possible initiative, on a last sentence, certainly does not belong to the leader of the group. ;State. It is up to the head of the League to find, where appropriate, legal instruments to put forward his reasons. Or perhaps to the government, even if a legislative initiative in this area is complicated, because it would look like "ad partitum" legislation, with an unimaginable retroactive nature. This not only is not on the agenda, but it would also be hardly sustainable for the Five Stars. The question, however, is the meaning of the day, seems to be returned to a canonical institutional framework and respect for the rules. What, after the stormy weather of last week, certifies a change of climate
[ad_2]
Source link
