July 31, 2007

The Democratic Party has missed an opportunity

The Democratic Party has missed a great opportunity to be able to qualify itself as democratic, given that to be truly called “democratic”, a party must be open and pluralistic otherwise it is simply “not”, it doesn’t exist.
The formal justification for excluding me as a candidate for the position as National Secretary is simply a convenient smokescreen so as not to have under their feet, a true real competitor who would have broken the eggs in the basket, who would have been able to start a discussion about the preconstituted equilibria.
To those who have so quickly wanted to exclude my candidacy and the participation of Italia dei Valori in the process of forming the “so-called” Democratic Party I would like to reflect on the following points:

1 – I and Italia dei Valori have already supported and actively participated in the collection of signatures to start the electoral referendum, aimed at getting a majority-voting electoral system with a big reduction in the number of parties. This means that we have already demonstrated with deeds - I repeat – with deeds and not just with words – our intention to go beyond the party to which we belong.
2 – In 2005 I personally participated in the experience of the Primaries for the Unione, for which I was a candidate to represent the whole of the coalition in the Government.
3 – It is evident that – with the formation of the Democratic Party – whoever aspires to be its leader (and who achieves that) cannot do otherwise than to recognise themselves to be wholly within that party.. In that sense I declared my availability to be an integral part of the Democratic Party at the end of the formation process, which is something I have also said in writing in the declaration of intentions that were presented with my request to be considered as a candidate.
4 It is similarly evident that those who are active within Italia dei Valori who wanted to be part of the Democratic Party in formation would have had to do likewise at the moment of the formal signing up to the new party.
5 – Finally it is evident that this signing up cannot take place today simply because the Democratic Party does not yet exist formally.
6- On a formal level, my candidacy was presented within the regulations and it is not written anywhere that in that context I would have had to resign from Italia dei Valori. On the other hand, the other candidates have not stopped being signed up to the parties of origin. The membership of the original party can stop only in the moment at which the new party comes into being in accordance with the law and there can then be the transfer – even automatic – into the new structure.
7 – Still on the formal level, it is necessary to consider that I am not the legal representative. of Italia dei Valori, as I am a Minister, and thus I would not have been able to dissolve the party without first going to the Assembly. In relation to this I would point out that, as has been made known publicly for some time, we have already fixed such a meeting for the days 28, 29 and30 September. at Vasto (and we have also invited all the various leaders of the coalition parties for this reason).
8 – Finally, I would like to recall that Italia dei Valori has been a part of the coalition of the Unione right from its start, and it has signed up to its manifesto and it shares with it the responsibility of government.

The truth is unfortunately much simpler and much more bitter: the current promoters of the Democratic Party in formation want neither my presence nor the presence of Italia dei Valori.
In time and with a clear mind it’ll be necessary to reflect on the real reasons for this denial (that in fact are very serious and in certain ways are unmentionable) and draw the inevitable conclusions (even to consider the appropriateness of staying in or pulling out of a coalition that in fact is pushing us out!).
For now, one thing is certain, those who don’t want us, don’t deserve us!
Neither I nor Italia dei Valori will appeal against the decisions taken in a great hurry in the depths of the night. by a group of 6 -7 people who - without any reflection or any preparatory debate open to the public – have claimed to represent the will of all the voters of the Unione and of the possible supporters of the forthcoming Democratic Party.
Politics is certainly participation, but it is also dignity to be defended.

Postato da Antonio Di Pietro in
Commenti (24) | Scrivi | Iscriviti | Invia ad un amico | Stampa

My candidacy as the Secretary of the PD

This evening saw the presentation of 2,961 signatures supporting me as a candidate for the position of leader of the PD at the Primaries on 14 October. Italia dei Valori knows perfectly well that choosing to take part in the process leading to the formation of the Democratic Party is ‘risky’ if you look at it with the eyes of those who are attached to their own back garden. And yet we want to give, with courage, our convinced contribution to this process because it’s no longer the time of one-sided choices and of subordinating the general interest to those of specific groups.
We have to put everything in play and bet on a more wide-ranging project, that can give back some air to Italian politics, rebuilding the trust of the citizens in relation to their representatives and the institutions, through a participation space that has new methods, new content and a new form of organisation.

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

July 28, 2007

Council of Ministers. Justice: Separation of the Career

Text:

“Another Friday, another Council of Ministers, another bunch of important decisions. We decided a lot of ordinary things, among these is a framework code to correct the existing tendering framework that is the collection of rules that regulate how tendering is done. This is an enormous collection of articles and it was necessary to do a series of corrections to make it more transparent and efficient. I have dealt with this, brought it to the Council of Ministers and we approved it.
We also approved a framework law to modify another collection of rules, the one on the environment. This was done by our colleague, Pecoraro. That too was passed though there were a few reservations. From myself and others. One in particular could very soon be examined: the environmental impact procedure. For an environmental impact procedure a good 500 days are needed and for the strategic impact evaluation procedure it takes 350 days. To do a construction activity, before even placing the first stone, but what am I saying, to get an authorisation, the authorisation from the Minister of the Environment, 850 days are needed. This seems like an exaggeration. It seems to me that this should be reduced to 85 days. I have to say that on this point basically everyone agreed with me, however, at the end, it’s the law of stupidity if the law isn’t changed. Thus let’s hope that they’ll be a due rethink within the institutions, the Parliament and the Government, for this procedure that is necessary and useful to ensure the respect of the environment, the protection of the territory, but damaging because of the biblical time frame that is laid down to put it into operation.
We also tackled another important discussion in relation to the Milan metro line. I have asked for funding, I have asked for the authorisation, but there, there’s an enormous problem, dear Mayor Moratti, there’s the Minister of Culture who isn’t giving his opinion and he’s not doing this because as yet you haven’t asked for it. Or rather, at that moment, it wasn’t asked for, now you have asked for it and he’s getting things moving. At times, we get lost behind a sea of papers where once one is right and another time another is right. To listen to you it seems that both are right, but this sea of paper seems to be drowning us. Just as the Venice lagoon is going under, I’m saying that because even for the “Mose project” there’s a discussion whether or not to refinance the project. At the next CIPE, I would like to bring a financing that everyone will be against. We are already half way through the work, now it’s hot and it’s not raining, but if a flood happens to arrive, what then? Thus I’m also worried about that.
Lastly, there’s a discussion in Parliament, right now, and that’s the reason why I have to leave immediately after this recording, about the approval of the reform of the justice system. In the majority there is someone, in particular in the Rosa nel Pugno, take care , we are talking of our majority, of our coalition, who are doing amendments to the decree of Mastella, the one who always gets angry with me, but in the end, the amendments to his decree are done by the others as well, amendments that ask for the separation of the career.
The whole of the Centre Right is voting in favour, plus a part of the Centre Left. In favour of what? Of separating the career of the judge from that of public prosecutor and organise things so that the prosecutor is under the Minister…. Have you seen that already, the Minister of Justice, as soon as Forleo asked for the authorisation to use some intercepts, has asked for the documents to put her under investigation?

What will happen one tomorrow if even the judge, as well as the prosecutor become part of the ministry? I believe that the independence of the magistracy must be safeguarded for the good of the country. This is why today, I’m taking off the trappings of a Minister and I’m going in the capacity as a parliamentarian and I’m going to vote “no” against this amendment brought by the Rosa nel Pugno. That’s all.
I’ll see you after the next Council of Ministers that will be the final one before the summer, meanwhile, here, in this Ministry something will happen. I’m changing the cards, I’m mixing up the cards, that is I’m moving many Heads of Departments in the Ministry. A change every so often increases the professional capacity and reduces the temptations.“

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

July 26, 2007

Authorise the intercepts

The Centre Left must not fall into the trap set by Berlusconi and his people.

To be a champion in saying “no” to the intercepts by the Milan judges is just the attempt for the Forza Italia parliamentarians directly affected to be put on the same level as those of the Centre Left. However, it seems to me that there is a big difference; even just considering that some of those who are in the ranks of Berlusconi’s party are already under investigation. Furthermore, there’s the intention to put the Centre Left and the Centre Right in the same logic of attacking the magistrates, rather than encouraging a dutiful submission to the law and to the justice system.

The majority should avoid postponing until after the holidays the vote to authorise the use of the intercepts that have already been submitted. By straight away giving a positive agreement to the request of Gip Forleo they would avoid any dangers and they would send a signal of transparency that public opinion would accept favourably.

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

July 25, 2007

820,916 yes for the referendum

photo from Repubblica.it
820,916 reasons to reflect. A clear response. A tiny, great, step towards politics for citizens. The real palace, the one of the people, is asking for a change and it’s our duty to deliver it.
The collection of signatures has given a surprising result. A recognition of those who have believed, beyond the groupings. Italia dei Valori has had the courage to take part in the game, not to commit suicide, but to grow if it has the strength and the ability. We firmly believe in politics that is always and only at the service of the citizens, rather than used and exploited by various oligarchies.
Now, the first step has been taken, but Parliament must take notice, and if it wants to it can acknowledge this. There’s need for a reform of the electoral law that above all assures governability to the country. A reform that has to ensure: to the citizens, freedom to choose their own candidates; a drastic reduction in the number of the many tiny parties that often keep the whole system in their hands; the ineligibility of convicts to become candidates.
Either Parliament is capable of putting a credible reform into action, or the turn passes to the citizens with the referendum, as is normal in every democracy.

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

July 24, 2007

1994 - 2007: the same film script

First the Minister of Justice who intervenes on Forleo’s requirements, now the Attorney General of the Cassation Court, with a warning to the judges from the President of the Republic to watch what they are writing. It seems like a film I’ve already seen.
In 1994 as soon as we arrived at the top levels of politics, there was a coalition of the whole system to criminalize the magistrates, rather than to do a serious examination of conscience about what had happened in the relationships between politics and business.
Thirteen years later, we’ve got exactly the same issue as we had then. And once more, it seems as though it’s the magistrates who are at fault for trying to do their duty and not the politicians who are trying to take advantage of their role.
However, now as then, I have the impression that there is a clear division between the legal country, the one of the high-sounding institutions, and the real country, that country of people who want true justice, equal for everybody.

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

July 22, 2007

Italia dei Valori in favour of Forleo’s request

photo from corriere.it

Italia dei Valori will vote in Parliament in favour of the authorisation to use the telephone intercepts transmitted by the Judge of the Milan Tribunal, Clementina Forleo. If the magistracy believes that the telephone intercepts can be useful to the investigations, these must be made available to the magistrates.

I hope that the parliamentarians that are involved, that the parties from which they come, Ds and Forza Italia, do not oppose Forleo’s request. Such an attitude would be seen by the citizens as an admission of guilt. Parliamentarians are citizens who are more equal than the others, in the sense that, for their public responsibility, they need to give totally transparent account for their behaviour. It is intolerable to have one justice system that is valid for the citizens, but not for deputies and senators, who are their “hypothetical” representatives. Hypothetical because they have not been elected with direct preferences, thanks to the “pig-like” electoral law.

For the Bnl/Unipol/Rcs/Antonveneta cases it is by now evident that in the Summer of 2005, going beyond the effective responsibility of the parliamentarians concerned, there was a bipartisan plan to carve up a slice of the economy and of Italian information, outside the control of every rule of the market. This is what should be discussed and it is to be remembered that nothing would have come out without the telephone intercepts that a good chunk of the Parliament wants to be destroyed.

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

July 21, 2007

Council of Ministers: Pensions

Text:
“Last night, many Ministers together with the representatives of workers and employers were discussing the issue of pensions. Thus, this is what we talked about at this Friday’s Council of Ministers. The agreement was explained and the Council of Ministers accepted the decisions taken by the President Prodi and by the Ministers Padoa Schioppa and Damiano. The Maroni reform set out the increase of pensionable age through the so-called “scalone” {steps}. We decided to keep the increase in the pensionable age but going ahead progressively. It seems to me to be a good agreement: as jolts damage the social peace. The reform, then, gives pride of place to increasing the lowest pensions. This makes it possible to keep the financial balance of the social security system and it means we avoid sanctions from the European Union. Each one tried to “get more of the duvet” but it was found necessary to make sure there are funds for the current pensions, above all the lowest ones, and for those for our children. I believe that we have done the best that is allowed by the public finance situation, in a crisis for the last 50 years, but we need to keep in focus, as I have done, the fight against tax evasion.
There was tension: D’Alema explained that this political agreement makes it possible to keep the coalition together. If on such an important issue, it hadn’t been possible to find an agreement, the only alternative would have been for the government to resign.
The main sticking points came from the ministers Ferrero and Bonino: the responsibility of the government has been to find the agreement. There was also the CIPE meeting: we decided to provide finance for the metro line 4 in Milan, after having found the resources for the lines in Rome and the Palermo junction. Soon there’ll be the financing of the metro in Turin.
While the political chatterers are talking, here in the Ministry of Infrastructure, we try to bring home the results: in fact, we also approved contracts with Reti Ferroviarie Italiane {Italian rail network}and with Anas (road network), in which there is a list of each of the activities to be carried out. You can find these on the website of the Ministry.
In particular, there are 4 important rail projects starting, all in the South: Caserta-Foggia, Bari-Taranto, Palermo-Messina and the Palermo junction. We have set down the money for the cross-frontier networks of Brennero, Turin-Lyons, and Trieste, in accordance with our agreement a few days ago with the European Union.
Thus, we are in a position to identify the works that are a real priority, not mirages of the framework law, by investing 30,000,000,000 euro in 5 years as well as another 90,000,000,000 gathered together from residual liabilities, European funds and private financing.
Finally, in many parts of Sicily, there’s still a lack of water because the dams never get finished. I have got approval for a time limit and beyond this time any funds that have been paid out will be claimed back, to avoid the situation of wages getting paid out and work remaining unfinished.”

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

July 20, 2007

Borsellino, 15 years on

Today is the fifteenth anniversary of Paolo Borsellino’s death. I want to remember him with a letter from his brother, Salvatore.
19 July 1992 : A State Slaughter.

“For years, after the summer of 1992, I went to many Italian schools to talk about Paolo and Giovanni’s dream, to talk of hope, of the will to fight, of that dawn that I saw was near, thanks to the rebirth of the civil conscience after their sacrifice, after the long night of slaughter without guilty ones and the unending series of assassination of magistrates, police officers and journalists in a so-called civil country.
Then that dawn turned out to be a mirage, the civil conscience that unfortunately in Italy always has to be woken up by tragedy like that at Capaci or in Via D’Amelio, is once more soaked up under the weight of indifference and what seemed like the wish to ransom the State in the fight against the mafia, has once more been extinguished., buried by the wish for normalization and compromise and against the judges, at least against those who are honest and still alive. Another type of battle has started, no longer with explosives but with more underhand weapons, with the delegitimisation of the very function of the magistrates. And every side has attempted to claim the dead ones for themselves and to mystify the message.
Thus, for years I have felt day by day, growing inside myself, feelings of disillusion, of anger and, bit by bit, the hope has been substituted by the mistrust of the State, of the institutions that have not known how to gather the fruit of the sacrifice of those men, and thus I have stopped speaking to young people, convinced that it was not my right to communicate these feelings to them, above all it was not my right to do this as the brother of Paolo who right up to the last moment of his life, always kept alive within himself, and in those who were close to him, the hope, even the certainty, of a different tomorrow for his Sicily and for his country.
Then for years, I didn’t even go back to Sicily, refusing to see, at least with my eyes, the abyss into which this land had sunk even further, how all that Paolo fought against, the corruption, the clientelism, the proximity was prevailing once more, in politics, in the government of public things, how all the old really ambiguous personalities have once more surfaced, often investigated even by Paolo when he was still alive, and new persons who are even worse, given that right now, to be investigated seems to confer an aura of persecution and to almost constitute a title of merit.
My apathy comes from this, this is why I close myself into an ivory tower limiting myself to judge but without ever wanting to act, I have recently been shocked by an illuminating encounter with Gioacchino Basile, a man who has always paid for his choices in person, who inside the Palermo’s shipbuilding yard and in Fincantrieri has always conducted, practically on his own and with even the Trades Union against him, that fight against the mafia that should be the task of the State bodies, the State that rather, according to his denunciations that are backed up with evidence, wove agreements with the mafia transforming State Shareholdings into an organism for the participation and financing and power of the mafia in Sicily.
The facts given in these denunciations, that Paolo Borsellino was dealing with in the days immediately preceding his assassination, have been the subject of a “Report on mafia infiltration in the Palermo Naval Dockyards” by the Parliamentary Committee of Enquiry on the phenomenon of the mafia (headed by Hon. Mantovano) but as unfortunately often happens in Italy with the proceedings of parliamentary commissions, they have not then had developments on a parliamentary level while on a judicial level, as always happens when it’s a matter of investigations into the mafia that pass to “higher” levels, they were subject to the usual archiving.
Gioacchino Basile is convinced that the personal interest that Paolo had for this in going deeper into this thread of the enquiry and had told him about in one of their meetings in Rome in the days immediately preceding his death, is the main reason for the “necessity” to eliminate him with a speed defined “unusual” by even the Caltanissetta Prosecutor and that the disappearance of this dossier from Paolo’s bag is part of the context of the removal of his red diary.
For myself, I believe that this could have been just one of the motives within the wider context of “mafia-contracts” that Paolo himself had led me to guess was the main reason for the elimination of Giovanni Falcone together with the certainty that he was about to be appointed to the position as National Antimafia Prosecutor.
However, I believe the main motive was the agreement of non-belligerence between the State and the mafia that must have been put before him in the office of a Minister in the meetings Paolo had in Rome in the days immediately before the slaughter. An agreement to which Paolo must have been disdainfully opposed.
There’s a worrying silence about these meetings that Paolo must have noted in his diary that disappeared and the epidemic of amnesia that, after Paolo’s death, struck all those presumed participants, has made it become the last worrying State secret just like the State secrets and the omissions that fill up the enquiries into all the other State slaughters in Italy.
But the true State secret, even though I don’t believe it is any longer secret for anyone, is the scurrilous agreement of mutual help established over the years between the State and the mafia.
Starting from when votes guaranteed by the mafia allowed the Christian Democrats to govern in the rest of Italy even though this had as a consequence the abandonment of Sicily just as in the rest of the South, to the power of the mafia, the renunciation of the control of the territory, the acceptance of coexistence, together with State taxes, of taxes imposed by the mafia, the “pizzo” and the extortion.
An even more serious consequence is the renunciation by the young people of the South to hope for work, unless it is obtained by a few at the price of favours and clientelism and denied to many for the lack of development of industrialisation in relation to the rest of the country.
Following on from the “papello” that was subject to a contract between Riina and the State with the threat of taking the war also to the rest of the country (see via dei Georgofili and via Palestro), a contract method that I believe was the main cause of the need to eliminate Paolo Borsellino and to eliminate him in a hurry.
Following on finally from the identification of new political personalities after Tangentopoli had done a clean sweep of a good part of the preceding political class and the “historical” personalities.
These were agreements that made up today’s civil degradation, that allows those who have been investigated for mafia connections to govern Sicily and where at a national level, at least in the surveys, there’s a growing popular consensus towards those who have probably taken on capital coming from the mafia to create their own industrial empire and associated political party.
How can they then be called “deviated” and not in line with the very essence of this State, those “Services” that for “silence-assent” of the Head of the Government or on his explicit request have spied on magistrates considered to be and defined “enemies” in the relevant dossiers and directly convinced other magistrates to spy on their colleagues who still in the same dossiers are defined as “enemies”, “communists” and “armed wings” of the magistracy with a use of language that is not difficult to find in certain newspapers and in the decalartions of certain politicians.
Gioacchino Basile tells me that it is my right to insist that the State lets me know the truth about Paolo’s assassination, but from “this” State from which I have declined “compensation” that they wanted to offer me as Paolo’s brother, compensation that should anyway be offered to all young Sicilians and Italians for what has been taken from them, I am sure that I will only get silences.
The same silences , the same “wall of rubber” that the offspring of Generale Dalla Chiesa have had to put up with, and the relatives of the dead who died in that unending series of slaughters,
The slaughter of Portella della Ginestra, The slaughter of Piazza Fontana, The slaughter of Piazza della Loggia, The slaughter of the Italicus train, The slaughter of Ustica, The slaughter at Christmas of the 904 train, The slaughter of Pizzolungo, The slaughter of Via dei Georgofili and of Via Palestro, about which today we rarely know the perpetrators and never the brains behind the crimes and often not even the motive for the action, while in our South, thanks to the absence of the other State institutions, one after the other, all the magistrates were killed and the representatives of the security forces who had made the fight against the mafia as their own reason for living, in a tragic sequence that has no equal in any of the other countries in the so-called civilised world.
With bitterness, I ask myself how many other slaughters, how many other deaths, will we need before the State reacts in a way that is decisive and above all long-lasting, as up until now it has never been, that will lead to the defeat of mafia criminality and above all of power connected to it that is ever less hidden, until finally that scurrilous non-belligerence pact is broken, as judge Di Lello said on 20 July 1992, pieces of the State have for decades kept up with the mafia and that has allowed and continues to allow not just the decades of being on the run of the famous bosses like Riina and Provenzano but the freedom and impunity of dozens of “little bosses” who are the true rulers of Palermo and other Sicilian cities.
For my part, I am certain that I will not manage to find the truth in the few years that I have left to live, since I am already 65 years old and I am the only one to survive in a family in which my father, the brother of my father, and my brother all died aged 52. The first ones from natural causes, the latter because he was a foreign body for the State whose Institutions he respected profoundly (always the Institutions, however, not always those that represented them).
I just hope that on this anniversary I don’t have to see and hear the many hypocrites who today cry for Paolo and Giovanni, when if they were still alive they would be shunning them and accusing them in the best of cases of being “antimafia professionals” or they would even be spying on them like squalid people such as Pio Pompa as though they were “enemies” or as “the armed wing of the magistracy”.
On this occasion, I just ask to have some responses to at least some of the many questions, of the many doubts that do not allow me to have peace.
I ask Proc. Pietro Giammanco, moved away from Palermo after Paolo’s assassination, but promoted to a higher position rather than removed as he would have deserved, why he did not arrange for the bonification and the removal zone for Via D’Amelio.
And yet in the same road, at number 68, a den of the Madonia had recently been discovered and apart from the actual danger for Paolo Borsellino’s safety, the indications of real danger that came in, in those days were such that Paolo told Pippo Tricoli on 19 July: “a load of TNT has arrived in the city for me”.
Unless of course, as affirmed by Sen. Mancino, in his speech to the Lower House on 20 July, he too believed that “Borsellino was not a frequent vistor to the house of his mother” in fact he just visited about three times a week!
The same question I also put to Mario Jovine, who was at that time, the Prefect of Palermo, even though he maintains that he has already given the reply with the affirmation given at that time: “No one gave an indication of the danger of Via D’Amelio”.
An affirmation that is obviously laughable: at that time there were many indications of possible attempts on the life of Paolo Borsellino and it would have been enough to question the body guards, five of whom died with him, to find out which were the points most at risk. I ask the Procura di Caltanissetta, and in particular gip Giovanbattista Tona, the reason for the archiving of the investigations relating to the Castello Utveggio line of enquiry, and yet it was exactly from that place where telephone calls were made straight after the attack, from a clone of Borsellino’s mobile phone to dott.Contrada’s mobile, who has finally been convicted by the Court of Cassation for collusion and aiding and abetting.
I ask the same Procura di Caltanissetta, and to the same gip Giovanbattista Tona, the motives for archiving of the enquiry relating to the occult brains behind the slaughters.
For another archiving, the one relating to the happenings of the Fincantieri file I have already sent off an official request for clarification.
I ask the Procura di Caltanissetta not to archive, if he has not already done so, the investigations relating to the disappearance of Paolo’s red diary and to clear up the involvement of all the people, form the police services and others, who were involved with that.
Above all, I ask sen. Nicola Mancino, of whom I remember in the years immediately following 1992, one of his tears, forcibly squeezed out during a commemoration of Paolo in Palermo, a tear about which I was indignant to such a point that I got up and left the room, to search his memory so as to be able to tell us what he talked about in his meeting with Paolo in the days immediately preceding his death.
Or to explain to us why, after telephoning Paolo to meet up with him while he was interrogating Gaspare Mutolo, at only 48 hours form the attack, he instead had him meet up with dott. Parisi, the Police Chief and with dott. Contrada. A meeting from which Paolo left completed turned upside down to such an extent that as Mutolo said, he had in his hands two lit cigarettes at the same time. Otherwise, thanks to the disappearance of Paolo’s red diary, we will never be able to find out.
And in that metting, the key to his death and the slaughter of Via D’Amelio is surely to be found."

Salvatore Borsellino

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

July 17, 2007

Geriatric Politicians

I’m publishing a letter from Italia dei Valori’s Silvana Mura on the proposed law: "Make space for young people in politics".

"Dear Antonio,

Unfortunately Italian politics is suffering from a historic surfeit of geriatrics that does not leave space for young people and doesn’t allow them to use their talents and their enthusiasm at the service of the country.

While in the rest of Europe, Aznar, Zapatero, Blair, Cameron and many others have become great national leaders at 30 or 40 years, with us however, we have to be happy to consider 50 year olds with graying hair as relatively young. Young people of merit have to wait to be transformed into late political developers before being able to hope to be at the head of a party or with a government position.

I’ve done some research and discovered that the average age, calculated from 1945 to the present day, when one becomes Premier for the first time in Italy is 55 years. But the surprising thing is that the age goes up to 60 if we are just looking at the governments of the Second Republic.

Another example shows that in the Lower House, only 1 deputy in 630 is younger than 30 years old, while the deputies who are younger than 50 are only 16%.

It is to change this situation that I have presented two proposed laws called “Make space for young people in politics” whose main points are:

1) Age limit of 70 years. Once you are older than this you can’t have any elected position (Deputy, Senator, Mayor, President of the Province, President of the Region, Councillor at a local, provincial or regional level), nor any position in government (Premier, Minister, Deputy Minister, Undersecretary).

2) Lowering of the age limit to be elected to the Lower House and to the Senate. You can be elected as a deputy on reaching 18 years (right now you have to wait to be 25), and you can be elected to the Senate at age 30 (currently you can’t be elected until you are 40).

3) A limit of 2 consecutive terms of office. I’ve put in a clause that forbids re-election for more than 2 consecutive terms of office for an elected position. This is because it was a fundamental point in Italia dei Valori’s manifesto that considers politics to be a service and not a profession.

A law that has the consent of 55% of the Italians, as you can see by the latest Eures report on politics that was published on 12 July, and that would make it possible to have thirty year old candidates for the position of Premier, instead of two candidates born in the 1930s."

Silvana Mura

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

July 16, 2007

Council of Ministers: The Cost of Politics

Text:
"At Friday’s Council of Ministers, there’s a news item: no discussion about pensions. As you know, there’s a big discussion that is risking to see the government and the majority going up, and above all the nerves of the country, for the people who don’t manage to get to the end of the month. The President of the Council had announced a proposal defined satisfactory for all the social players and I was among those curious ones waiting for this proposal. We didn’t talk about it, but we will be obliged to do so in the coming days because the decree on the “tesoretto” is about to come to an end: the only chance to get this proposal is precisely with this decree.
As regards the Ministry of Infrastructure, we have approved the regulations for the public contracts for supplies, the tendering procedures, the services: I have presented my proposal to the Council of Ministers, who approved it, and now it has to follow the long itinerary according to the law. Thus, the car has started on its journey.
A much more important text that has the green light from the Council of Ministers is the draft law to reduce the costs of politics. It would have been possible to do a lot more, but I signed up to it as it is necessary to start somewhere. These measures, that produce nearly a thousand million euro in reduction of public expenditure, are important and necessary. In the next few days we will read so many criticisms: there is still a lot to do. However I am proud to be able to say that within the Council of Ministers I have ensured that it is it is not possible to insert exceptions in the abrogation of a series of bodies. If that had been possible each one would have inserted their own exception.
I’ll read you a few examples of the regulations that have been approved: the public bodies must give up the shares in the companies in which they have interests when these are not carrying out activities that are part of the public activity; there’s been a reduction in the number of members of the bodies of corporate governance in companies with public capital; the costs of operating assets have been reduced, like the fixed capital to avoid abuses.
We have arranged a 20-30% reduction in the institutional costs of all elected bodies: the so-called “attendance fee”. It will be forbidden to have a position, for example, for consultancy, for those people or bodies who are already carrying out a service for the State, as well as in public companies or controlling companies, by parliamentarians and all the administrators of local bodies.
I believe that the first action to be taken is to reduce the number of parliamentarians and of ministers. Anyway, a lot has been done and will be done. I’m telling you now that Italia dei Valori, together with those even in the opposition who want to help us, will present an all-encompassing measure to reduce the costs and the waste even further. We will try to get the signatures of at least a hundred parliamentarians on the right or the left apart from my signature and Alemanno’s who have been the first to sign. The intention is to demonstrate that there can even be opposing positions but on the cost of politics we should not raise ideological barriers. Those who believe this, must act. If we collect at least a hundred signatures, Parliament will have to discuss it: we will see who really wants to slash the costs of waste."

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

July 14, 2007

First meeting in Second Life

Yesterday I had my first meeting on Italia dei Valori’s island, on Second Life.
Many journalists and citizens took part and I replied to their questions. I’ve prepared a video that summarises the meeting and I invite you to have a look at it. Here is the introduction to my speech.

"Welcome to the island of Never Land, Italia dei Valori’s island. Thanks go to the journalists who are present and to the young people who are often meeting up in Never Land.

Some people think that Second Life is a virtual game for adults, or a place where you can express your opinions as at the cinema or on the TV. But it’s not like that. Second Life and the Internet in general is a place for direct communication, for direct democracy. I’m here in front of you with my avatar, my virtual other self. You see me and I see you. I’m talking to you and you can ask me questions. You have come from all parts of Italy and some have even come from abroad and some of you are sitting at home or in your offices.

In Never Land we have partly reproduced buildings from ancient Greece to give a symbolic sense of the agora, of the participation of citizens in public life.
The buildings have frescos on the inside of the walls, and before you leave the island I invite you to visit them.

On this island, there’ll be internal party meetings where people can gather without having to move from one place to another in Italy, we will hold public demonstrations, meetings with the Italian press and the foreign press, the inauguration of initiatives, and there will be areas for showing film clips, displaying informative material and gadgets like IdV T shirts.

For the last few months, visitors to Never Land, have been welcomed by avatars from the secretariats in Milan and Rome who welcome visitors and who hold informal meetings with young people from Italia dei Valori.

I would also like to remind you that all those who are heading up the IdV press office have an avatar and communicate with each other using Skype.

The Internet is a formidable tool for involving citizens in public affairs, to eliminate intermediaries, and to spread the word.

Never Land is an important step in reaching these objectives."

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

July 12, 2007

A Parliamentary Commission on Sismi

photo from repubblica.it


Let’s not play with words: Copaco {Comitato parlamentare di controllo sui servizi segreti italiani.= Parliamentary committee to control the Italian Secret Services} is one thing, the investigating Parliamentary Commission is another. Right now what is needed for the Sismi-Pollari case is a Commission and not the shield of Copaco that does not have judicial powers. The members of Copaco are limited to hearing the versions, that from time to time are supplied to them even casually. Furthermore, that body is run by people who were leaders in the former majority and there are doubts that these people used the structures of the secret services for non-institutional ends.

Independently of the wishes of the individual members there is an evident conflict of interests that goes beyond the institutional and personal respect that is due to every person. For example, the president of Copaco, Claudio Scajola, a minister in the Berlusconi government, would have to judge the behaviour of the former commander of Sismi.

As soon as possible, we must put together the investigating Parliamentary Commission to work alongside the magistracy, so as to give a political judgement on the facts that happened with the illicit spying on the magistrates. Even though, in certain cases we may be facing episodes that have no criminal relevance. The Commission must be headed up by a person who is above any possible suspicion, like for example a former Head of State.

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

July 11, 2007

Let’s not abandon our young people

I’m publishing a letter from Flavio Mobigli from Monza about assistance given to young people in supported accommodation in the City of Milan and his appeal that you can sign up to: http://www.petitiononline.com/prosammi/petition.html

“The young people under 18 years old who do not have adequate care from their families or who have suffered serious mistreatment, can be allocated a place in a community lodging for children that gives them material support and a positive educational environment.
On arriving at their 18th birthday, if serious problems in the family are ongoing, to allow the young person to finish their studies or to follow a route that will lead to their complete autonomy, there is the possibility to get a voluntary placement in a community for young adults with an administrative procedure called “administrative continuation”, until they are 21 years old.
The city of Milan has decided to no longer finance any administrative continuation project purely to save money, thus obliging hundreds of young people, with serious family problems (or even without families) to be abandoned to their own devices once they turn 18, with the likelihood to have to get by and find a job straight away and a place to live, perhaps having to interrupt their studies and thus preventing them perhaps from the chance of getting a better quality job in the future.
Often, once they have turned 18, the young men or young women who have started a difficult route in a community lodging, coping with the traumas they have lived through in a problematic and damaging family situation, do not have the maturity and the inner stability to face up to such a difficult step, all alone and without social support.
This is why it is necessary to send this petition to the city of Milan to ask them to commit to supporting, even in the future, the arrangements connected with the “administrative continuation”. It is a crying shame that a big European metropolis is disinterested in the future of its young people, not taking on a necessary duty that has always brought good results, when so many tiny towns with much more serious financial problems do not slide out of giving support and dignity to those who have already suffered at a young age so many disadvantages and so much suffering in their lives.
Let us unite our voices to ask the city of Milan for a sign of civility.”

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

July 09, 2007

Council of Ministers. False Accounting

Text:

"After the tensions of recent days, today the Council of Ministers has taken important decisions, from the viewpoint of restoring credibility to politics.
Time is needed to resolve the problems: the draft laws that have been approved must now go through Parliament, hoping that they won't be turned upside down but improved.
In particular, I'm referring to the reduction in the costs of politics. In recent months, there's been much talk about this: politics has exorbitant costs and anyway they are shameful when you think of the many citizens who don't have the money to buy bread.
We have approved a measure to rationalise the resources, with a series of actions on the number of representatives, on the money received as pay, on the benefits.
It's a good draft law, that we in Italia dei Valori are strongly in favour of and if it is approved by Parliament, it will involve my own Ministry, making it more lean. Many offices and many roles will be re-dimensioned or eliminated, and
it's right that it should happen.
Another measure relates to consumer credit. Now the market is free and absolutely everything is happening. We have decided that, for certain amounts, there must be rules and transparency, management and controls, specially in relation to the role of intermediaries.
Too many "crafty ones" take advantage of the citizens and promise them loans that then become usury. Finally, and they will say that it is my fault, and I'm proud of that, we postponed until next week, the ratification of the European
criminal code on corruption. Now I'll explain why.
At a European level, really important regulations about corruption have been established, like private corruption with penalties, even additional ones that are very heavy: the impossibility of having contracts with the Public
Administration, the sacking of unfaithful employees, the closing down of an activity.
I have got this measure postponed because certain preliminaries were missing, but I hope they will be approved next week.
I'll explain: when there's a robbery, the instrument of the robber is the gun.
The gun relates to a robbery like false accounting relates to corruption. To be able to corrupt, the entrepreneur who pays the politician or the public official must get the funds from the activity of the company. In the balance sheet,
obviously, he can't write "paying for corruption", so he has to make a false record.
With false accounting, they put aside a slush fund to use for the corruption.
In years gone by there was this crime but during the Berlusconi government, the rules were changed and with the exception of a few cases that can be demonstrated with really long trials, the crime of false accounting was
practically eliminated.
It's as though only the crime of robbery were to be punished, but no action were to be taken against someone who is discovered to be carrying weapons in front of a bank. False accounting assumes that you want to corrupt or anyway not pay taxes: this law should be approved on the condition that even falsification of accounts should be punished.
They have asked for a week to think about it. Let's hope that these days and these nights of reflection can be helpful."

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

July 07, 2007

Sismi Accused

I’m publishing the interview I gave to La Stampa on the topic of spying on the magistrates by the Secret Services.

LaStampa: Minister, let’s take a step back. Tell us about the time when the 007 were after you.
Antonio di Pietro: Well, without wanting to tar everyone with the same brush, and always thinking of the institutions, it is true that in the Secret Services there are certain media, they use certain methods, and there’s such a glow of irresponsibility, that it seems like a TV film.
And if there isn’t professional maturity, there’s the danger, given the thirst for power of some people, in fact let’s call it intoxication, well there’s the danger that they go beyond their institutional roles.

LaStampa: Spying on the magistrates….
Antonio di Pietro: Exactly. I personally have lived from this point of view, with excessive attention from some officials of GICO in the Finance Police.
Proposals that were absolute fantasy. Mountains of dossiers. Anonymous letters.
I had to suffer a lot of wrongs. And I managed to defend myself because I came from that experience that you know about. But just think of an ordinary person. You can be throttled by how they dress you up.
The Secret Services are a fundamental weapon, but really dangerous. A bit like a scalpel, indispensable for surgeons, but if you want to kill your wife it’s deadly.

LaStampa: As a Pool, you were in the sights of Sisde, right?
Antonio di Pietro: At that time, I and my colleagues have suffered everything and still more. It was discovered that some people reported to certain leaders in the institutions.
In my case, then, Bettino Craxi, to justify the knowledge and the illegitimate use of my telephone traffic, said that he had received the data from a police chief, from the Prefect Vincenzo Parisi who in the meantime had also died.

LaStampa: So basically, you the important prosecutor investigating Tangentopoli, were spied upon by all of them: Finance police, police, Sisde, and Sismi. Is there anyone missing?
Antonio di Pietro: «Craxi, with his cockiness, he admitted it openly.

LaStampa: Thinking of the present, what do you think of Sismi who once more were spying on the magistrates? Do you see this as the initiative of a thoughtless individual or do you see it as a directive from on high?
Antonio di Pietro: There’s no doubt that this “service” performed by parts of the Service (excuse the play on words), has been done at the request of someone who could ask for it. I repeat, in my case, the request came directly from Craxi. However it is still true that these are illegitimate requests.
But anyway, it’s known, when career progression is in play, or reconfirming of certain positions, these choices depend on those with power in their hands, then unrestrained ambitions are met and the buying and selling of favours takes place.

LaStampa: Excuse me, Di Pietro, so even you think that the top brass of those days are responsible. The famous Nicolò Pollari, the former director of Sismi.
But didn’t you defend him?
Antonio di Pietro: I defend the institutions. With Nicolò Pollari, as with Roberto Speciale, I say that there can’t be this dichotomy. On the one hand it is said that they have committed serious acts but at the same time they are allowed to hold really privileged positions.
This tactic has a short life. Coherence is needed. In relation to Pollari, anyway, I voted against in the Council of Ministers, when the Government imposed State Secrecy on the Abu Omar investigation.
No. The magistrates should be helped to investigate not be obstructed! And I’m not happy that they have been criminalised in front of the Constitutional Court.

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

July 05, 2007

No to mess ups with the Justice System

foto da Lastampa.it

photo from Lastampa.it

I’m publishing the letter that I have sent this morning to the President of the Council, Romano Prodi and to ministers Chiti and Mastella.

“The text of the reform measure concerning the organisation of the justice system approved by the Justice Commission of the Senate presents obvious elements of great perplexity that by noticeably altering the balance of matters as discussed by the Council of Ministers are dangerously attacking its legitimacy.
From the multiple modifications made to it in the Commission with respect to the text approved by the Council of Ministers, in fact, I want to indicate some in particular that introduce obvious violations to the constitutional canons of the independence of the magistracy.
The importance of the matters means that when faced with the positive evaluation relating to the compatibility of the measure under consideration with the Constitution already being voted on in Parliament about questions of prejudice, on the occasion of the examination of this measure in the Senate, from the Government there is the detailed reassurance, of the presentation of government amendments that correct the distortions indicated, able to supply the necessary clarifications on the effective orientation of the government and of the majority on the thorniest problems that can be seen in a coherent way with the orientation already taken on by the Council of Ministers as a collegial body.
There are three matters under examination.
The first relates to the introduction of new and unexpected constrictions to the passage of the functions (from prosecutor to judge and vice versa) for the magistrates well beyond what has been defined in the Council of Ministers, thus in reality going against the intention of introducing the turning point of unacceptable separation of the career.
As confirmation of the hardening in this way inserted what is pointed out is the new provision that even restricts the number of times in which in the whole career, it is allowed to change functions. Even this time, this is an expression simply of a wish for the accentuation of the division that comes before the separation.
It is similarly not acceptable that the organisation of the offices of the prosecutor is removed from the preventative and objective evaluation that is guaranteed by the special programme, that also allows the self-governing bodies the possibility to have a knowledgeable and in-depth examination of any problem areas that may emerge.
What is completely unacceptable is the arrangement that allows the lawyers making up the Judicial Council to give an opinion even on the matters relating to the career progression of the magistrates. In this case, it is far too obvious that there is the risk of a conflict of interests with this matter, without functional necessity for the outcome.
Without taking into account the consequent risk of a paralysis of the judicial activity, in the face of the evident need for abstention by a magistrate who has already been evaluated (positively or negatively) by a lawyer who is then in the following trials assigned to him, or simply when faced with an evaluation that will be carried out by that lawyer.
For these reasons, certainly not doubting the value of the composition of the Judicial Councils enriched with such participation it is necessary that the role of the representatives from the world of lawyers is limited to other matters within the ambit of the Judicial Councils, relating to the functions of the Judicial offices of the territory, without entering the field of evaluating the magistrates’ career progression.
As was said earlier, the reasons given make it necessary to have an immediate and strong commitment from the government that is able to offer reassurance in the only direction described, to guarantee the inviolability of fundamental civic values and insuppressible principles in the constitutional matrix.
On this basis, I am convinced that you will share in my worries and that we will find the adequate solution that is needed by the delicate matter.”
Antonio Di Pietro

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

July 04, 2007

The disappearance of Information

On Monday 25 June Italia dei Valori organised the conference “The disappearance of Information”. Others who participated with myself were Oliviero Beha, Alessandro Casarin, Peter Gomez, Katharina Kort and Paolo Nizzola.
I’m publishing the video of my speech. In the next few days I will publish the speeches of other participants.

Text:
Thank you for your willingness to listen to this cry of alarm that Italia dei Valori has decided to launch in a panorama that is incredibly in agreement, in the current political system, in the current system of power, in the wish to criticise and gag information after having criticised and tried and to a certain extent successfully to gag the magistracy.
It’s a campaign for information and mobilisation that we have launched a month ago that we are taking to the cities to the neighbourhoods, to the markets, just because in the traditional means of communication this is hardly talked about. And when it is talked about, it is to stigmatise the behaviour of the press which is publishing the records and the intercepts either of the magistrate who has conducted an investigation or who has requested the intercept, however without giving due evidence to the content of the information item.
And this is what we have to talk about: the content that frequently is not pleasing to us politicians. And this is right. Whoever is a politician, or is anyway a public figure, is obviously and naturally undergoing public verification of their trustworthiness and their correct behaviour, exactly so that their work can be evaluated.
In reality we should thank the media because they allow us to make fewer mistakes and to correct our errors. I personally, more then once, have been the subject of news items that have remarked on my ways of behaving that are not good. After taking note of these, I have tried to alter my behaviour accordingly.
I believe that none of us can throw the first stone. We can’t really think that each of us is immune from committing errors.
The problem is that when this is pointed out to you, it’s useless to complain, you need to take note.
Take note and, for example, to watch out for the friends who you ask for a loan.
This is the correct behaviour and the humility with which you must face up to the relationship between information and the public office.
This is why I believe it is necessary that free information must remain such even when it hurts. It helps us to be better at serving the interests of all.
Italia dei Valori and myself, if we had to pass a law on the telephone intercepts that prevents their publication once the acts have been deposited, we will publish them on the website and on my blog, taking on the relevant responsibility, so as to resolve the problems for the journalists.
Where do we want to end up?
We want to guarantee the right of the citizens to be informed correctly so that they can judge and make choices. It is not true that it’s possible to publish only the acts that are criminally relevant: there’s a relevance that is not criminal but political, that is even more important.
It’s necessary that the citizens get to know certain information before they vote, not afterwards.
It’s of no use to know three years later of the behaviour of the Governor of the Bank of Italy. Similarly, it’s useless to say that it’s criminally irrelevant to know that Consorte receives for a 24 hour consultancy, 50 million euro.
It’s obvious that a consultancy like that does not cost 50 million euro: that is the cost of a document that justifies an operation that is not transparent, and it is good that citizens know about this operation.
On the law on the conflict of interests there’s already an agreement across the board to legitimise, no more no less, the current situation by photographing it.
Three amendments need inserting, otherwise we will vote against it. The true conflict of interests is today inside Parliament. That is the place with the greatest percentage of people with problems with the justice system. It can be resolved with a law with a single article: convicts cannot be candidates.
Period.
Second. You have to make a choice: you can be an entrepreneur, a journalist, photographer or what you will but if you are in the government you cannot have any other interest and above all you cannot have concessions or licences for public activities. Our forefathers understood that in 1957 when there was the cathode ray tube.
Third. blind trust. Italian blind trust, as Sartori says, is useless. If I decide who takes care of the interests of my activities, and I tell him at night what to do in the day. What’s needed is a complete separation between public office and private interests.
We need to get out of the Rai-Mediaset duopoly by liberalising the radio-TV frequencies and how they are allocated on a basis of equity. And we need to take action on the fair redistribution of advertising.
Finally, we have proposed two amendments that are fundamental to the law on
intercepts: secrecy must stop from the moment an act is available to the two sides; it must not be the weakest link, the journalist, who gets any financial penalty for the violation of the law.

There are so many free journalists. We have to organise things so that they are not heroes but normal citizens doing their job, keeping us informed.

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

July 02, 2007

Council of Ministers. DPEF: solidarity and development

Text:

"As you see, I look tired and that's because we've had a really long Council of Ministers today. It started this morning at 8:30. Now that I'm talking to you it's 7:30 pm and the meeting has just finished.
We have got to the heart of the problem: we have established the amount of the "tesoretto", decided how to allocate the money and we have planned the work for the next finance law, the one that will define how to manage the country in 2008. The Council of Ministers was preceded by the CIPE {Interministerial Committee for Economic Programming}.
First of all we have taken note that much more money than expected has flowed into the coffers of the tax authorities and that we have gone beyond the parameters of the European Union, the Maastricht parameters. The first measure, using about 5,000,000,000 euro brings us back inside those parameters, to be on track with the European Union, by reducing the public debt.
We have used a further 6,500,000,000 euro in a new economic measure, after last year's measure to cover investments and this year's current spending. I believe we have done this responsibly, but you can be the judge. We have allocated this as follows:
- 2,300,000,000 for social measures
- 2,300,000,000 for development
- 1,900,000,000 for security
Specifically 1,500,000,000 will go to increase the lowest pensions starting from September; 200,000,000 will be used to cover the social security payments during the period of university studies; 200,000,000 for measures to cushion the effects of unemployment.
600,000,000 for figurative contributions and of this at least 300 for young people and 100,000,000 for the youth policies for employment; 300,000,000 for increasing the productivity wages. The increases in the lowest pensions will come forward to September of this year giving everyone straight away about 300-400 euro each.
The 2,300,000,000 for development will mostly be used by my Ministry, for Anas and railways.
I have fought to get this money for new activity, and it doesn't mean laying down more cement but it means identifying the infrastructures that are necessary for primary needs.
We have turned upside down the tendencies of the last legislature in which 9% went to the South and the rest to the North. Now the distribution will be 50% - 50% and that's fair: there's only one Italy. Then there's 1,900,000,000 for security overall: refinancing, measures to provide help and solidarity abroad, and let this be clear, this is not military spending; resources for the Fire Brigades, and the Police Forces.
Finally, we approved one of my documents: the DPEF Infrastrutture (download the document, download the attachments): I don't need 200,000,000,000 and it's no use fooling the citizens. With 32,000,000,000 in 5 years we can put in place those priority activities that relate to everyone in the country, region by region.
By even giving private entities the possibility to invest, we can create the infrastructure that is really necessary, in the way of roads and above all railways to which two thirds of the investments will go. We truly want to give
a practical alternative to the use of the car. Thus these are the measures for solidarity and development. Today has been a day of responsibility of a government that is often accused of not doing anything and about which I have had reservations, for example on the topic of justice.
Now we hope that the majority in Parliament, with the same responsibility and unanimity will know how to take this moment, to pay back and to claim back the trust of public opinion that wants facts and not words, results and not
chatter.
Today has been a day of facts and results."

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