The controversy between the Regions regarding the so-called constitutional (il)legitimacy of the Calderoli Law has not shown any signs of abating in recent times. The terrain of the political clash on this point would seem to present itself in an ambivalent manner, essentially articulated on two fronts that could be defined as competing: the abrogative referendum, for which the process was carried out in the sense of collecting signatures and which was requested by five Regional Councils, namely those of Puglia, Sardinia, Emilia-Romagna, Tuscany and Campania; an appeal to the Constitutional Court to request the examination of the constitutionality of the law since it was potentially enacted in violation of our Constitution. Well. The circumstance, namely the existence and persistence of opposing positions, could also lead to attributing (pardon the pun) the practical implementation of the so-called "differentiated autonomy" to the usual dynamics that animate the clash between political forces. However, the difference in views could also express a quid pluris that could also have its impact on the legal level to be in some way significant, perhaps, of what would seem to present itself (the doubtful formula imposes itself) as evidence. The very fact of the lack of unity of views and intentions in order to a reform that will certainly have a strong impact not only on the geography of the country, but also, and above all, on its legal-administrative-financial regulation, posing itself as potentially suitable to give life to a multi-speed country with different levels of development and use of essential public services, if considered carefully, could (the conditional still seems appropriate) already, from now on, perhaps propose itself as significant of a fundamental aspect: that, to be clear, relating to the current probable absolute unsuitability of the Reform to express itself effectively on the application level to not present itself as representative, at present, and as it should be, of a common interest shared by the country Italy in its entirety. Even more so when one wishes to consider that the well-known Constitutional Laws number 1 of 1999 and number 3 of 2001, by increasing the autonomy and powers of the Regions with ordinary statutes by introducing an increase in matters with concurrent competence between State and Region, could well have determined a corresponding reduction, so to speak, and if we wished to define it that way, of the autonomy of the Regions with Special Statutes, such as Sardinia, especially when one wishes to consider such autonomy as damaging even on a detailed and general financial level.
More simply and as highlighted by several sources: the Calderoli reform would seem to introduce a financing process for the ordinary statute Regions very similar to that already foreseen for the special statute regions. And, on this specific aspect, it would most likely be, with good verisimilitude, too reductive to believe that it is possible to remedy this only by introducing (constitutional law no. 2 of 2001) the possibility for the Special Statute Regions to adopt so-called "statutory laws", i.e. government laws. Saying it differently and simply: if the management of five special statute regions already seems to be extremely complex in practice, since they are all characterized by different functions and resources, how would the situation of the country emerge on an administrative and financial level when, following the Calderoli Law and the requests of the ordinary statute Regions, the latter, almost like the model of Special Statute regions (which are such for specific reasons known to all), acquired different and differentiated functions and resources?
To date, if the Regions of Sardinia and Puglia have decided to appeal to the Constitutional Court, other Regions, such as Lombardy, have conversely decided to oppose these appeals. The Presidents of the Regions of Lombardy and Veneto, Fontana and Zaia, are ardent supporters of the Calderoli reform, and for them it would be inconceivable to be prevented from what they believe to be a legitimate path. Alessandra Todde, President of the Region of Sardinia, instead, wanted to reiterate that Sardinia will continue to oppose differentiated autonomy for all the reasons set out on several occasions. In essence, the underlying idea would seem to be that the full and complete implementation of the Calderoli reform on differentiated autonomy would increase inequalities and would give rise to as many different Italies as there are regions into which Italy itself is divided, all paradoxically weaker and more fragile, including, in the long run, those regions that, instead, strongly support the reform itself. The very existence of such opposing positions could suggest the need to reflect further on the necessity and opportunity, at least at the current level, of the Reformation.
Giuseppina Di Salvatore – Lawyer, Nuoro
