"Inappropriate amendment". On the prescription also appears a yellow

during league and 5-star movement they treat tensions in the majority on the most cherished issues to the two souls of the government, on the prescription reform a yellow also appears.

Because the pentastellati deputies quickly withdrew the amendment on the judgment of prescription of the first degree of judgment and have re-presented a substantially identical? According to the opposition – Pd and Forza Italy in the lead – the grillini would have noticed that, as it had been formulated, the proposal to amend the anti-corruption law might be out of order. And then they ran to get to the shelter.

While waiting for the leaders and Premier Conté to resolve the problem once and for all, the scheduled session of the House of Commons constitutional and justice committees has been postponed for one hour. And at the beginning of the proceedings, the President of Justice, Giulia Sarti (M5S), announced the withdrawal ofchange indicted and the presentation of four new amendments by the Rapporteurs of Grillini. He also explained that the review to determine whether the amendments should be forwarded to tomorrow or not.

In making this choice, according to the oppositions, there would be a technical-formal question. In place of the disputed amendment, another was presented with the same content, but also changing the title of the law by adding the words "Measures to combat offenses against the public administration, as well as as regards the prescription of the offense and subject to the transparency of parties and movements ".

Officially, the choice would have been made to overcome the critics of the League who would have a law ad hoc for the reform of the limitation period. However, majority sources also argue that the law is "safe" from the formal point of view. This is – as Enrico Costa (FI), Gennaro Migliore, Emanuele Fiano and Franco Vazio (Pd) claim – not to be taken into account unacceptable since "did not concern the subject dealt with in the bill". A problem that "they want to overcome" with the new amendment.

"I could not make an admissibility judgment on an amendment withdrawn," Sarti replies, claiming that she "did not know the reasons" for which the two rapporteurs had changed their minds. But the dem and the blue do not give up: "On the anti-corruption bill, a real parliamentary fraud is being consumed," said Francesco Paolo Sisto (Forza Italia), "Instead of declaring the amendment on the limitation period obvious and durable, the badessments are suspended and, in the meantime, the title of the bill in question is changed". "At what time was the amendment withdrawn?", Presses Franco Vazio (Democratic Party), "And anyway, she should have already given opinions on the admissibility, so tell us if it was ruled inadmissible".