January 28, 2007

Council of Ministers. Liberalizations.

Here is this weeks summary of the Council of Ministers, published on YouTube.

Text:
"The first important decision has been the one called "refinancing of the Afghanistan mission" but that is made up in reality of a series of measures taken to enable the Italian military serving all over the world under the auspices of the United Nations to do their duty.
Another decision relates to the liberalization of our country: we have set out a number of measures, ranging from the recharging of mobile phones to the reform of important institutions like the Bank of Italy, Consob and Isvap.
We have also approved the first steps in the reform of the so-called "Authorities": up until now too often the interested parties have been controlling themselves, it is clear that if the right hand controls the left hand and there's the same head, the right hand will always see things the same way as the left hand. Now certain organisms will be in charge of controls and others of management.
Even as regards the infrastructure measures have been taken. We have corrected the code regarding contracts with two activating decrees. This morning at the CIPE we have set out the new directive that regulates motorway conventions to give more certainty to consumers. We have made further investments to complete works like the Mestre bypass and the Asti-Cuneo.
We have also approved a series of interventions relating to schools by opening the door to private foundations.
There have been other measures, from the simplest like the liberalization of activities that favour competitiveness and the free market, thus of competition: they are measures that are of interest to the consumer as prices will go down and products and services will be improved.
They are decisions taken in a way that is shared by everyone. Only in relation to the refinancing of the missions abroad were there three stands by government groupings namely the Italian Communists, the Greens and Rifondazione Comunista who opposed but were figuratively absent. Thus we had unanimous agreement even though it was an impoverished unanimity.
They asked before doing this that in Parliament there should be greater attention given to this particular topic.
Italy is in this world and when there are international obligations we can't stop half way but we have to address them in such a way that they can serve peace and solidarity.
This is the spirit and the commitment that we took upon ourselves: we are a Government, an institution, a State that is credible because we keep the commitments we have agreed to."

Postato da Antonio Di Pietro in Information
Commenti (0) | Scrivi | Iscriviti | Invia ad un amico | Stampa

January 25, 2007

No to convicts in Parliament

Italia dei Valori, even though it is supporting the justice sector reforms proposed by the minister Mastella, it is asking the Unione to go ahead as soon as possible to abolish the "shameful" ad personam laws approved by the CdL in the previous legislature and to examine a proposed law to prevent anyone who has previous criminal convictions from being a candidate at the elections.
We ask for the abolition of the ex Cirielli, of the Pecorella law and false accounting in the balance sheet. The time frames for justice are intolerable. This is why Italia dei Valori is proposing a package of actions for shortening them and at the same time, to bring about certain necessary changes like the ineligibility of convicts.
I have asked for this measure to be put on the agenda and that Parliament may express its opinion with an explicit vote.

Postato da Antonio Di Pietro in Justice
Commenti (1) | Scrivi | Iscriviti | Invia ad un amico | Stampa

January 24, 2007

Transparency in the Council of Ministers

Starting this week I have decided to refer to the citizens the decisions taken at the meeting of the Council of Ministers with a film clip published on YouTube.

Transcript:
"Today, Friday 19 January there has been the second meeting of the Council of Ministers this new year.
Normally, the meeting of the Council of Ministers is held every Friday morning and it's a good thing that those who participate tell the citizens and the public about what has happened, what we have done, what we have decided so that there is complete transparency in the decisions that we have taken.
The functioning of the Council of Ministers is as follows: on Tuesdays or on Wednesdays, there is the so-called pre-council in which the technical structures, our cabinet offices, legislative offices, and chief administrators get together to discuss on a technical level the measures that are to be adopted at the forthcoming meeting of the Council of Ministers.
At the end of the discussion it's possible to arrive at a technical division and thus an item is inserted into the agenda classified as Type A, or if there is no agreement at a technical level it is inserted in the agenda as Type B. In the Type B agenda items there are also those measures that need political decisions.
Today there were a number of measures on the agenda of Type A: the appointment of a Prefect, of a Quaestor, of an Ambassador, of a top level director and decisions that relate to certain interministerial decrees to be activated.
Then there were measures needing political decisions: for example, we took two important decisions, one relating to agricultural policy, the other regarding the application of the Constitutional reform by the Centre Left in 2001, the so-called federalism reform including the fiscal reform.
This measure was presented by the Minister of Regional Affairs, Linda Lanzillotta; on this measure we Ministers had already been in consultation with groups and individuals and with Ms Lanzillotta in the last few weeks. It is a reform, I dare to say, worthy of Copernicus, because it sets out that from now on there is a single decision unit for the measures that are discussed to shorten the time frames, to give responsibility to people to not fragment the decisions and in the area of all this what relates to a town or city will be decided by that town or city, what relates to a Province will be decided by that Province and so on.
Today there is too much legislation about competing "competencies" and this prevents a final decision. With this reform we are intending to facilitate rapid and sure responses. It is a draft law that will go to Parliament for discussion and it will put into effect another important chapter of the Constitution.
Today we also discussed certain incentives for agriculturalists who invest in products that could be useful for the production of alternative energy, for example biomass, and so as to be able to generally relaunch productivity and quality.
I believe that these are 2 important measures.
At the CIPE {Comitato Interministeriale per la Programmazione Economica} an organism of the President of the Council, dealing with decisions relating to the economy, we had to decide about the refinancing of the Mestre by-pass and the financing of the new Asti-Cuneo concession. We put off the decision to next week because last night, the relevant Trades Unions asked us to first approve the regulation coming before these interventions and they asked for their voices to be heard so that they could express their opinions on the issue.
We are still within the time frame, because we have to decide before the end of the month and the next meeting of the Council of Ministers is 26 January and the discussion is one of the cardinal points that the Centre Left wants to use for going forward.
So there you have a glimpse on a day with the Council of Ministers, the type of decisions that are normally made and as you can see it is not only a venue for disaccord and lack of understanding, but a place of work where people try to do their duty with all the good faith possible.
In this spirit I want to keep you informed week by week about what we are deciding, so that citizens may be informed about what is happening in the "other part" of the room."

Postato da Antonio Di Pietro in Information
Commenti (0) | Scrivi | Iscriviti | Invia ad un amico | Stampa

January 22, 2007

Political foundations

Today I’ve given an interview to la Repubblica on Sposetti (Ds) and Tremonti’s (FI).proposal to have political foundations to finance the parties.

ADP: It’s a question of cleverness and self-interested thinking Not only will we of IdV vote against but we will start to ask ourselves, when we are asked to sign, where is the trick, and whether it is best to say to the current questioner “I want to see this clearly, so come back tomorrow.”

La Repubblica: The Sposetti Tremonti proposal is a surreptitious way of financing politics?
ADP: It’s another pearl that is inserted into the project that is scarcely noble and that sees all the parties across the board in agreement. Since they have to refill the coffers, they all get together to do laws that give a judicial covering to their anomalous behaviour.

La Repubblica: Is it the fact that it is a bipartisan operation what disturbs you most?
ADP: Like the pardon, it is an across the board activity, a bad operation that fortunately has been discovered, as also happened for the Fuda amendment, that cut the time limits on convictions for crimes. Behind the scenes there is a moral that is evident: apart from the arguments on TV, on the topics that relate to the survival of political personalities there is no difference between right and left. The parties find an agreement with the cunning idea to insert the regulation at the last moment in anomalous legal containers, in such a way that no one will notice.

La Repubblica: If it were to get to the vote, what would you do?ADP: We would vote against. But it will have no influence unless there is a strong protest from the citizens. Here we are risking a Bulgarian majority of 70-80 per cent. As we are a tiny party I am worried that yet again a thing like this will go unnoticed.

La Repubblica: The “Clean Hands” operation had no purpose then?
ADP: As can be clearly seen, it has been more of a hindrance than an advantage since in the end the result has been that the system has been “engineered” to get round the rules on public financing.

La Repubblica: In what way?
ADP: From the moment of the referendum, when the citizens rejected it, there has been a rush to have artificial interventions. Starting from the name. What was previously called financing, now is simply a reimbursement. Then there are the cunning points that were inserted on the way. Given that the second Republic can teach something to the first one where illegal financing was at least prosecutable as a crime. Now there’s the expedient: the parties get the State to give them money. It’s no longer illicit but it’s still immoral.

La Repubblica: What’s the basic anomaly?
ADP: Two examples: each time there’s an election, there’s a budget for expenses that covers the whole term of office even if it is interrupted before the end. It’s a cunning idea because the expense money gets summed. The expenses paid are calculated on the basis of every citizen who is eligible to vote and not on who has voted. As well as that, for each party there’s money for every group of people elected to the Houses of Parliament, to Europe and to the Regions. It’s a multiplication of the loaves and the fishes that multiplies the costs of politics by ten.

Postato da Antonio Di Pietro in Justice
Commenti (0) | Scrivi | Iscriviti | Invia ad un amico | Stampa

January 20, 2007

Incinerators

I have received a request for explanations about Italia dei Valori’s position on incinerators. In particular on the response given by the Honourable Borghesi of IdV to signor Ellis Favotto.
IDV is not in favour of incinerators. The risks for health caused by incinerators can be justifiable only in the presence of emergency situations and only for the time that is strictly necessary to overcome the emergency. In the past, in the blog I have expressed opinions on this position and I have not changed my mind. To avoid misunderstanding in the future on certain topics, in particular on incinerators, I will reply personally.

“Dear Hon. Di Pietro,
I am writing because I was “disconcerted” to put it mildly, by the response given by Hon. Borghesi (given in your name) and sent to Ellis Favotto on the topic of incinerators.
It is scandalous that you on your blog write that: “Italia dei Valori will oppose the construction of new incinerators, even with the request of the abolition of financing arranged up to now, and proposing legislative interventions in favour of reducing refuse at its origin and supporting companies committed to the sector of reusing refuse.”
And that Hon. Borghesi states that what is written on the Blog “does not count” because the IdV party “has always said it was in favour”.
I read your blog and now I sincerely ask myself about the credibility of what you write if contradictions of this “calibre” are then made.
I’m not hiding my sympathies and feelings for “your” party and for you as a person, nonetheless this statement and other recent ones (see Pedemontana Veneta, Mose, …) have been a profound delusion.
I’m telling you sincerely that I have lost trust in yourself and in “your” party.
I have supported Italia dei Valori in the National, Provincial and local elections.
I have given a big commitment in terms of information and election campaigning (done almost entirely at my own expense) because I believed in the IdV plan and programme.
The Provincial Coordinator (De Zanet) knows both myself and my wife very well.
I have accepted a commitment with the people and now I sincerely feel that I have the duty to communicate to them about this new position taken by the Party.
Clearly, I will not renew my Party membership and I’m asking the Coordinator to delete my name from the Mailing List as I’m no longer authorizing the use of my email or my mobile phone for various communications.
I am really disillusioned as I believed in the “transparency” of the party and yourself. At this point I see no difference between your party and all the others.
I’m really sorry. I had great faith in you.
Such statements are of such an unacceptable level of incongruence and incoherence and above all they show a complete lack of respect in relation to the whole Italian people on the part of the IdV party.
I hope that a denial will be forthcoming from yourself. In any case, since I am also President of the GRILLITREVISO Association, I will send a copy of everything to Beppe Grillo, Maurizio Pallante, Stefano Montanari, Gianluigi Salvador, Eduardo Rina and Walter Bianco to get their reactions. .
Greetings from engineer Pamio Maurizio. GRILLITREVISO Association”

Postato da Antonio Di Pietro in Society
Commenti (0) | Scrivi | Iscriviti | Invia ad un amico | Stampa

January 19, 2007

A Memorial Plaque for Bettino Craxi

The morality of a country is even judged by who is honoured by the dedication of a street or a square. The many expressions of consent for a memorial plaque to Bettino Craxi in Milan denotes a country with values that are ever more confused and contradictory.
Craxi died as a fugitive from justice. What should be written on a memorial for him? Bettino Craxi the corruptor? Because it is this that is the truth. Time does not eliminate the facts. The memory of a country is important.
Honest citizens would be humiliated by a recognition of Craxi. It is stated that the plaque would represent the end of an era where the magistracy commanded politics.
Nothing is more false. The magistracy has only applied the law for Craxi the citizen who was found guilty of corruption and illegal financing to the parties.
The plaque for Craxi would be a further confirmation of the disappearance of values of justice after the ad personam laws and the pardon.

Postato da Antonio Di Pietro in Justice
Commenti (0) | Scrivi | Iscriviti | Invia ad un amico | Stampa

January 16, 2007

Politics and the Internet

Repubblica.it has published an interview with me to mark its tenth anniversary.

Repubblica.it: Minister Di Pietro, how did you get the idea of a blog?
ADP: The idea of a Blog came to me because I am convinced that it is a tool for direct communication, without intermediaries, between myself and the Italian citizens. And then it gives me the opportunity to receive advice, and even criticism, that is useful to me to improve my activity. Thus it is a form of transparency and a way of relating to the electorate.

Repubblica.it: And video?
ADP: Youtube is going in the same direction: with a film clip I can communicate with the citizens, in a direct way via the Internet. It's what is important for me. Even the film clip can be commented on publicly, by those who view it

Repubblica.it: Is the Internet a privileged place for politics?
ADP: Exactly. And then it is a bit like what happened with the TV last century. We need to keep in mind that in the United States, half the population has access to Broadband. In a few years the Internet will come into all homes.

Repubblica.it: When did you start to "frequent" the Web?
ADP: I started to use the Internet a few years ago to get information, a bit like everyone else. The main reason for my interest was that actually: to get news in real time and to be able to look at different sources at the same time.

Repubblica.it: Apart from your "institutional" blog, do you use the internet for personal reasons?
ADP: I use it above all for email. I receive a really high number of emails, mainly from private citizens. And I try to reply to all. The Internet is also a political laboratory. And this is important. And this is why I follow new phenomena of aggregation and of representation with great attention. To be precise, those that are often defined as "direct democracy". It is a new way for citizens to participate in political life. With the further possibility of controlling and directing the activity of those who have been elected.

Repubblica.it: In this sense, what comment can you make on the cover of Time magazine that is dedicated to the internet user as the "person of the year"?
ADP: Very positively. It means that people return to being the centre of information and of social processes. They become active participants and not just passive. It is a step forward for the actualization of democracy.

Postato da Antonio Di Pietro in Information
Commenti (0) | Scrivi | Iscriviti | Invia ad un amico | Stampa

January 15, 2007

Livorno, Italy

Carabinieri were attacked in Livorno while they were supervising the removal of some cars double-parked in fornt of a bar. They needed moving, to make way for a fire brigade fire engine to come past. Eighty people who were waiting outside the bar beat up 3 carabinieri after throwing nuts and ball bearings at their car. They were villains, as correctly described by Pasquale Santoro, the provincial commander of the Carabinieri.
The Carabinieri risk their lives every day to protect us. They should be respected. Livorno cannot be criminalised for this episode as it is at the same level as every other Italian city. The lack of a sense of civility is unfortunately coming into our civil life. The examples of indifference towards the principles of the rule of law that come to a relevant extent from Parliament, and I'm referring to the pardon as well as to the convicted parliamentarians, convicted even for serious offences, generates the idea that in Italy everything is OK, that everything done against the institutions is permitted, without any consequences.

Postato da Antonio Di Pietro in Justice
Commenti (3) | Scrivi | Iscriviti | Invia ad un amico | Stampa

January 14, 2007

The Caserta intercepts

Today a part of the meeting at Caserta was recorded and transmitted on radio radicale without the knowledge of the people present. I have no issue with Pannella as a person. I believe, and I am also willing to put it into practice, that every meeting of the Council of Ministers should be held in a glass house, even in a public place. But the problem that remains is another one. It is not possible thatsomeone should hide and intercept the conversations of others, even of the Government, without asking permission.
During the meeting at Caserta, I posed a political problem that cannot be sorted by Pannella's usual energy. Today we discussed economic policy, but what would have happened if at that moment we had been discussing, for example, the security of the country? And how many other meetings of the Council of Ministers have been recorded? I personally am keen that there is maximum transparency, but on the condition that we decide this all together beforehand. The Radical Party , that is the one demanding the rights of freedom, is demonstrating the non-respect of the right of people to not have private conversations recorded without their knowledge.

Postato da Antonio Di Pietro in Information
Commenti (0) | Scrivi | Iscriviti | Invia ad un amico | Stampa

January 11, 2007

The public financing of publishing

The reduction of public expenditure and the elimination of waste are two of the topics on which Italia dei Valori has been concentrating since the beginning of this term of office. Among the costs borne by the State is the financing to newspapers whether or not they are controlled by political parties. I don't believe that the State should turn itself into a publishing house and make up for the lack of readers, and therefore of copies sold, by providing finance of millions of Euro to hundreds of publications.
There's discussion about liberalisation and the free market, but if journalists live partly thanks to State contributions, is it still possible and legitimate to talk of free information? The newspapers must have a single point of reference: the reader. If the reader appreciates the contents, the sales will be sufficient to support the newspaper.
Otherwise it will have to close. Assistance to the publishing industry is not only a waste but also an indirect way of conditioning political publishing by the State. Italia dei Valori will be proposing a reduction in the financing of the publishing industry with the complete cut of funding to publications without any real social value and to all the party political publications. Funding to these can come from the financing that is already allowed for the parties.

Postato da Antonio Di Pietro in Information
Commenti (0) | Scrivi | Iscriviti | Invia ad un amico | Stampa

January 09, 2007

Transparent Contracting

The progress of the forthcoming reform of the Code of Procedures for Tenders that I want, is discussed in the article in Il Sole 24 ore of 5 January 2007, which is attached. The new Code aims to introduce more transparency, the reduction of the number of cases in which private negotiations are admitted and more vigilant monitoring of the big contracts, including also a monitoring of the financial flows connected to the execution of the work.
In the future, it will be possible to monitor all the companies involved, starting from the general contractor.
The Antimafia agreements that already exist in the Code will be made more effective to foresee and prevent attempts at mafia infiltration. Furthermore, the company that has already been accepted as a contractor will not be able to acquire further work unless a further invitation to tender is published.
It is expected that the reform will be approved by the end of January. More stringent monitoring and greater transparency will give scope for the public administration to make savings and will facilitate adherence to the time scales established for the work done.

Postato da Antonio Di Pietro in Information
Commenti (0) | Scrivi | Iscriviti | Invia ad un amico | Stampa

January 05, 2007

Morality

Today I have talked about morality to il Corriere della Sera. I’m publishing my statements here.
If Mastella says that I am moral ballast, he’s right. I am honoured. It means that I am holding firm those who are in the majority coalition and want to do immoral things. My position is not that of supreme moralizer.
I am only a politician that has received a mandate. But I am beginning to realize that I am always alone when it is a question of defending morality.

It’s an issue that has not yet been tackled as it ought to be, not during the Berlusconi government nor with this centre left government. The fact that morality is still discussed, in fact, is the proof that it has not been resolved. Our majority is divided between those that want to tackle it and those that don’t.
It’s enough to look at Prodi’s statements about the pardon. First he said that it is a law that he didn’t hold with. Then that he would do it again. A schizophrenia dictated by internal contradictions.
The crux is not Clemente Mastella. He is just one who is used to lightly riding over pin pricks of consensus to get political gain. In his defence of the Fuda comma, on the time limits for accounting crimes, his attempt has been to ingratiate himself with Fuda and the myriads of local administrators called by the Accounting Court to give back what they have wasted through negligence or lack of preparation.
Mastella is counting on making election moneyboxes. A commercialization of politics that I leave to those that practise it. I have asked Prodi to arrange as soon as possible a programming meeting on the themes of justice and morality to decide what is to be done and above all how to do it.
As regards the Fuda comma I point out that it was I who asked for the intervention of the magistracy. Because it is not a political act: we find ourselves with falsehood in public acts. At the Council of Ministers held before the deposition of the maxi-amendment that comma was not there. Thus it was inserted after the approval.
And only a government official could have done something like that. The political person behind the move is to be discovered after that. Anyway I want the name of the public official who has betrayed Parliament and the Government.
And I want them to be sent away immediately. I have prevented the acknowledgement of defeat that they wanted to do with that comma. The premier agrees with me and demonstrated this by eliminating the comma at the last Council of Ministers. He made a decision in the field that does him honour. But the problem is with Mastella.
If he says that the Fuda time limit is right he is in opposition to the Premier and the Council of Ministers. He is offending them by suggesting that they are all being blackmailed by me. But it is he that is always positioning himself in blackmailing terms.
Let him leave the majority if he is not happy. Because I intend to stay and to stay vigilant in relation to morality.

Postato da Antonio Di Pietro in Justice
Commenti (3) | Scrivi | Iscriviti | Invia ad un amico | Stampa

January 04, 2007

The new election law

I’m publishing the interview I gave today to il Corriere della Sera about the election law.

CdS: Antonio Di Pietro, have you listened to the words of President Napolitano on the election law? He invites everyone to patiently look for an agreement.
ADP: But we all think this. However there’s another problem.

CdS: That is?
ADP: That if one believes a return to the majority system is the panacea for all ills, that’s a big mistake.

CdS: The President of the Republic says: Look for an agreement on the election mechanisms that make it more straightforward and safer to form a majority that is called to govern the country. That’s like saying: what has been done so far has not worked.
ADP: As it has been conceived, the majority system only eliminates the small parties, but it doesn’t allow the voters to identify in the bigger parties the candidate they want to send into Parliament. It is evident that up till now, the new system has produced aberrations. Thus I am in favour of reforming the election law – but not in favour of a referendum. I want a law that guarantees governability and fair representation.

CdS: That is?
ADP: I’m proposing a Germany-type chancellorship. For example, we in Italia dei Valori believe that it is possible to find a system to put together a just representation of diverse interests and governability, and at the same time follow the German model. Perhaps with a threshold at 5 per cent to avoid thousands of tiny parties. Or even the model we use here for the Regions.

CdS: Are you convinced about proportional representation?
ADP: I think that the ominous effects of the proportional system of once upon a time are visible for all to see. It produced the division into lots of the First Republic. But I believe that we are becoming aware of the negative consequences of the Italian majority system: only 10 people establish who goes to Parliament… This is why the thing that interests me most as a party is to start a dialogue on the election law with the parties of the opposition.

CdS: Casini has said: let’s write the rules of the game together.ADP: Yes. And he has proposed the German model that I believe in. I’d say that there is a basis on which we could work together.

Postato da Antonio Di Pietro in Politics
Commenti (0) | Scrivi | Iscriviti | Invia ad un amico | Stampa

January 01, 2007

Who was responsible for the regulation regarding accounting crimes?

In the last meeting of the Council of Ministers the regulation reducing the time limit for accounting crimes committed by public employees was removed.
The person who fraudulently inserted the regulation in the Finance law is certainly someone who abused the trust placed on them.
It’s necessary that Romano Prodi, or the President of the Lower House, Bertinotti, immediately starts an internal inquiry to find out:
- who inserted the false comma in the maxi-amendment after approval by the Executive
- the person who demanded that this was done
- the reasons behind this request

It is an enquiry that should be done and it could have criminal implications, since it cannot be excluded that there are the conditions for material and ideological falsehood.
For these reasons, Italia dei Valori will make a statement to the Rome Prosecutors’ Office.

A sincere wish for a good 2007.

Postato da Antonio Di Pietro in Justice
Commenti (0) | Scrivi | Iscriviti | Invia ad un amico | Stampa