A few days ago the issue relating to the so-called Calderoli Reform on Differentiated Regional Autonomy came to the attention of the Constitutional Affairs Commission of the Chamber. There is little time left for competitions of European importance, and the Government or, rather, some of the different party structures that compose it, in this case Matteo Salvini's League, would seem to make an all-round commitment in order to materialise, by implementing them, in the shortest possible time, the salient points set out in its electoral programme.
Nothing in question, if only it weren't for the fact that, even today, the broad political and scientific debate would seem (the conditional is obligatory) to have not yet resolved the knots inherent to certain critical issues that cross and intersect the empirical implementation of so-called regionalism differentiated, effectively re-proposing questions (far from negligible) of a constitutional nature on which a point of understanding that can be said to be truly common and generally shared does not seem to have been reached. And still no question, if only it weren't for the fact that, probably, a reform of this size should be left, as a precaution, to the approval of the Italians through a specific referendum with a clear statement and directly perceptible in content by the generality of the members. That is, to be clearer, to the satisfaction of those on whom, at different levels, and to different extents, the effects will be reflected.
After all, the will of the Italians should always represent the landing point of every decision and/or reform coming from the Government. It would therefore not be a question of sharing or not the reasons for the Calderoli Reform based on one's political beliefs. Rather, and more simply, it is a question of considering its opportunity, both on a regulatory and social basis, precisely because of the institutionalized differentiation of the competences of the ordinary statute regions that is being built.
Even if it seems to be true, as it is in fact true, that the full implementation of the principle of "equality" passes through respect for differences, however, respect for those same differences must still guarantee the full implementation of the same equality of all citizens, ensuring the rebalancing of basic conditions. Even if we want to grant and consider everything, however, it would seem that on the initiative of the Minister for Regional Affairs and Autonomies, and on the basis of an agreement between the State and the Region concerned, according to the formulation given by article 116, paragraph 3, of the Constitution, we want to confer new powers on the Regions through a law. That is, through a "source" which, from a purely hierarchical point of view, would be on a similar level to the one to be regulated and, therefore, if carefully considered, endowed with the same normative force as the regulating source.
Saying it otherwise, a reform of such consistency and relevance would probably have had to be based in the context of a constitutional bill. Meanwhile, because, as underlined by authoritative voices, it would have been first of all appropriate and necessary to define ex ante the essential levels of services concerning civil and social rights which, pursuant to article 117, paragraph 2, letter m, of the Constitution, should , as in fact they must, be guaranteed throughout the national territory. Therefore, why does the text of the Calderoli Reform not seem to clarify the position, with respect to differentiated regionalism, of the Regions with Special Statute, which would appear to be able to conclude, in turn, agreements aimed at the acquisition of new competences in the matters indicated by the aforementioned article 116, third paragraph of the Constitution although the latter appears to refer, in its statement, only to the Regions with Ordinary Statute. Finally, because the complexity of the matter that would be the subject of reform would have all in all required a variously structured parliamentary discussion aimed at a complete and exhaustive analysis of every potential critical aspect.
Let us agree on one point in any case: questioning ourselves in the face of a reform path that promises to be particularly incisive for the near future of the Republic in its various territorial divisions, does not mean expressing ourselves in a way that is absolutely contrary to territorial autonomies which, in truth, they could undoubtedly constitute an opportunity where the entire country, understood in its different regional divisions, found itself in the social, economic and fiscal conditions to be able to implement it in an egalitarian and equal manner with the aim, precisely, of maintaining solidarity and social cohesion , economic and territorial already guaranteed by Article 5 of the Constitution in conjunction with Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution itself.
In short, the prudential principle should suggest a step back with respect to the need for reform since, even if we want to concede everything on an ideal level, the affirmation of "autonomies" does not seem to be possible unless public investments of a size such as to be suitable for guarantee the elimination of any and all diversity currently existing in the context of the various territorial areas. An intervention by the President of the Council of Ministers, Giorgia Meloni, would be interesting on this point, precisely because of the impact of the Reform on differentiated regionalism.
Giuseppina Di Salvatore
(Lawyer – Nuoro)