public or private water? A logical problem

The comment to the description of the site “for the common good”

The quotation marks are by Monia Benini who published it on the http site://www.perilbenecomune.net/index.php?p=24:6:2:119:422

The parts marked with [..] le ho tolte perché non sono giuridiche

Monia says “the so-called Ronchi decree and its subsequent amendments, or the legislation that the first referendum question proposes to repeal, è stato imposto con la motivazione ufficiale che bisognava farlo perché ce lo impone l’Europa. [..] According to Alberto Lucarelli, esperto giurista e docente di diritto pubblico europeo nelle Università di Napoli e Parigi, “gli stati membri dell’Unione e i relativi enti locali hanno piena libertà di individuare i servizi di interesse generale e i servizi di interesse economico generale che intendano gestire direttamente, ovvero non in base ai principi di competitività e concorrenza. Community law recognizes, Moreover, that the management of these two categories of services, in cui l’acqua rientra, is done through a public law entity, stranger, therefore, company law rules”

For the uninitiated Lucarelli e’ l’estensore dei quesiti sull’acqua, and it has not “could” participate in a radio and television broadcast to which he had been invited.

Lucarelli does not say an exact thing, as I have widely documented on this http page://www.palmerini.net/blog/2011/06/07/le-norme-europee-impediscono-i-monopoli-la-concorrenza-verra-reintrodotta/

Here I make a summary of what is expressed in detail on that page

L’art.14 TFUE stabilisce che “in considerazione dell’importanza dei servizi di interesse economico generale” which include public services ( e l’Unione afferma ripetutamente il diritto universale al loro accesso) “l’Unione e gli Stati membri [..] provvedono affinché tali servizi funzionino in base a principi e condizioni, especially economic and financial, that allow them to perform their duties.”

This means that you don't have to have management “economic” and based on plans “financial” which means nothing but sustainable over time.

This effectively prevents any monopoly, poiché si esce dalla gestione economica.

D’altra parte Lucarelli forse non ha notato che le “norme di protezionismo” dei servizi pubblici sono VIETATE dall’Articolo 106 TFUE (Lisbon)
“1. Gli Stati membri non emanano né mantengono, towards public enterprises and companies to which they recognize special or exclusive rights, any measure contrary to the rules of the treaties, especially to those covered by the articles 18 It gives 101 A 109 included.”

Le misure a cui si riferisce l’articolo sono in pratica quelle che stabiliscono il mercato europeo stesso, that is, the very foundations of the Union.
This does not mean that there is no discretion’ Member, especially with respect to the level of services to be guaranteed to every citizen.

But dictate that where possible (and not in the peripheral areas where the state must still perform the service) calls are made for sectors that have economic relevance (therefore all paid services including water, TRANSPORT, trash).
D’altra parte il trattato dispone che si devono “approach” among them all European legislation, and that competition is facilitated, while ensuring the service.

L’affermazione di Lucarelli “Community law does not oblige the tender.” does not correspond to reality’ some facts, suffice it to say that for example in Veneto there was a long legal diatribe even on the MOSE , opera che certamente non è di normale amministrazione, but since it was possible to make calls, there were several appeals. That the system of European calls for tenders should apply to public services will be’ evidente a breve appena l’Italia sara’ forced to fix a few of the many things that are wrong, from transport, to the aqueducts, to services in general

When Lucarelli states “Pertanto un Comune può liberamente decidere di esercitare, through a public law entity, these services on the basis of the constitutional principles of their statutes and their regulatory power.” says an incorrect thing, perché sopra queste norme e “mandatory” cioé superiori per valore del diritto, there are European treaties, then the directives, then the regulations. With the 1 DECEMBER 2009 si sono ulteriormente aggiunte sovrappa tutto questo anche le norme del Consiglio d’Europa. In fact, the’ Unione Europea si è impegna a rispettare i diritti umani, mettendosi al pari degli stati nel Consiglio d’Europa (that protects human rights).

What it is instead’ true and’ that municipalities can ACT as service subjects, purché lo facciano con societa’ owned by them’ that act under market conditions, like other subjects. For example my municipality, along with many others, It owns, E’ socio, of a company’ that, despite the obvious waste resulting from management “Policy” (until today without controls) it works quite well . This company’ per l’articolo 23-bis , entro la fine dell’anno dovrebbe definire quali sono le aree indubbiamente suscettibili di gara (therefore not peripheral and non-profitable ones), continue to manage the non-profitable ones at the expense of the municipalities, while the income part should be banned, cioé gestita secondo un contratto preciso ma deciso dagli stessi politici a cui oggi spetta l’intera gestione. Qualora a questo punto la società ricca volesse partecipare al bando di gara, dovrebbe però far entrare dei privati, selling quote, for at least the 40%. Il criterio è quello europeo di risolvere il problema del conflitto di interesse dividendo la scelta politica dalla proprieta’ dell’esecutore. C’è da notare che quel 40% of society’ sold (which in turn would probably be the 30% of the total, then the 40% of the 30%) it would be money collected by the municipalities and reused for other social services, certainly not given to multi-co. I who am a citizen of one of these municipalities could perhaps see a lowering of taxes, and this also thanks to the fact that we citizens have split the Maronis to make the differentiated, turning trash into resource. Il referendum non riguarda infatti l’acqua (that nobody has ever privatized, and will never be able’ to do it), BUT ALL THE SERVICES. Questo la dice lunga sul come si sia giocato sul piano emotivo per deviare l’aspetto razionale di tutto il discorso.

When Lucarelli says “Questo è quanto ha fatto recentemente il Comune di Parigi, dimostrando quindi tutta l’artificiosità dell’argomentazione “European requirement” in materia di privatizzazione dell’acqua.” does not say that the odds, of society’ were bought back by the municipality with a bank loan, but that the company’ di gestione è partecipata anche dai privati, although in that case it is a gigantic group of social cooperatives, user associations and others. In any case, control exists “private” in public affairs.
In addition the company’ service management, while controlled by the municipality (come nell’idea dell’art.23 bis) è una societa’ PRIVATE, not a company’ PUBLIC, but deprived of ownership’ PUBLIC. See the company's website in this regard’
http://www.eaudeparis.fr/page/qui-sommes-nous/entreprise/gouvernance?page_id=256
and also the description of the French Wikipedia http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eau_de_Paris

D’altra parte se il mercato parigino non fosse in concorrenza per la parte che si puo’ to compete (very little to tell the truth) would run counter to European standards and the principle of reciprocity’ non a caso previsto anche dall’art.23 bis. Certainly the case of Paris shows that it is possible’ also go for a company management’ with private individuals and then bring out the private sector in favor of individuals “social” but still private.

Having said all this, you can’ very well think ALSO to prohibit any type of private partnership to the management (although prohibited by treaties), ma allora a maggior ragione non si doveva cancellare TUTTO l’art.23-bis, perché il punto 5 clearly states that the property’ of networks e’ PUBLIC , with which it happens that the victory of the Yes’ would put speculators in the first place for the first time’ to buy the network!

The only point 2 è quello che permette ai privati di partecipare alla sola gestione. If you wanted to delete this option (in reality’ currently very limited and behind local political choices) he had to aim to cancel only this, leaving the PRINCIPLE OF THE PROPERTY UNCHANGED’ PUBLIC.

I imagine that those who want to maintain complete control of politics even in the management of public services trust the politicians and their historical results (but I in Naples would kick them in the ass, perché si parla di acqua ma anche di spazzatura, roads etc.)

But cancel the property’ publish networks to what it leads ?

Put another way, cancellare tutto l’art.23-bis e’ at most’ great absurdity’ for those who want the public network , perché la legge la riconosce, and delete it, for the referendum mechanism, implies DENIING THE PRINCIPLE. For example it is said “AND” to deny nuclear power, cioé si dice si dice sì per dire NO al Nuclerare (abrogative referendum).

Returning to Paris, I am convinced that it is’ made a call for service where possible, otherwise the Veolia that was previously present could not work in Italy as it does: l’art-23 bis impone infatti anche questi vincoli e pure altri contro le multinazionali, that maybe someone can’ also want to aggravate , but certainly not by taking away the property’ public network.

Monia Benini continua “il primo comune ad individuare con gara il socio privato per la società di gestione dell’acqua fu quello di Arezzo, with a center left joint, alla fine degli anni ’90, thanks to the Galli law of 1994. ”

Here it is, una legge superata dall’attuale, with assignments WITHOUT CONTORLLI where politics ruled al 100% . And which one is’ la logia che vuole cancellare l’attuale legge in favore della loro piena gestione ?

Monia says “The result? Skyrocketing rates, very low investments , certain profits for individuals, absolutely marginal role of the public on the main decisions.” . All true, but the political class in the meantime e’ changed? Who has gained among them ?

L’idea che la gestione statale sia sempre ottimale è del tutto infondata (precisely Arezzo shows that politicians also lead you to collapse), ed anche l’idea che il mercato sia sempre una merda è del tutto infondata, as the company shows’ entirely private that manages Brescia, even for the garbage that has the most tariffs’ basse d’Italia.

In the modern world the most criterion’ giusto per non farsi fregare non è “public versus private” MA “local versus global”.

That is, privatization or nationalization are not a solution if the community’ local allows waste.

Citizens need to DEVELOP CIVIC SENSE, and they start to make the separate one so that they can then claim that things are done well.

La statalizzazione non è una soluzione se c’è una comunita’ room that allows waste, and it will be’ the same if it is privatized, but then the tender notice imposed at least partially limits the total waste and bribes.

Monia says “D’altra parte la vita ai Comuni (or to consortia of municipalities) è stata resa piuttosto difficile se si considera la mole degli investimenti necessari”

Really this is’ true ONLY where there have been inefficient public management. In many areas of the country many municipalities have been alert and have no such problems, on the contrary, they pay even too high salaries to the managers of their municipalized companies (e sarebbe peggio se avessero le mani libere perché tutto “public” )

“the use of debt with private credit institutions (and the lethal SWAP sausages) è sempre più arduo, while the Cassa Depositi e Prestiti, chaired by Franco Bassanini (marito della Lanzillotta che privatizzò Acea), it fails in its statutory task. For what reason? Perché oggi anche la CDP è una società per azioni, whose 70% è detenuto dal ministero dell’Economia, mentre il rimanente è suddiviso in 66 banking foundations ,many of which are interested in the water service business). ”

Here is an ideological distortion: people are blamed on the market.
But I would like to point out that the municipalities of the North East have not lived in debt for many years with banks, for all services, about 40% of the annual budget.
That is to say that banks are present in everything, e questo proprio perché le tasse vengono sprecate da politici ladri e truffatori. We trust these?

it is not’ that the referendum aims to put everything in the hands of politicians thrown out of the European standards that impose calls ?

Faccio comunque notare che anche il comune di Parigi si è indebitato con le banche per comprare le quote che prima aveva venduto ed incassato i soldini.

“This situation prompted Riccardo Petrella (autore de Il manifesto dell’acqua) ed ex presidente dell’acquedotto pugliese, a dire che se anche il capitale sociale del gestore è pubblico, but investments are financed through loans taken out with banks, parlare di gestione pubblica del servizio è “a mystification”.”

Su questo siamo tutti d’accordo: the municipalities of today have patches in the ass, l’economia non gira per i troppi sprechi, young people are hopeless, they will be without pensions, stiamo sparendo per pagare le pensioni dei politici e dunque per risolvere tutto ciò cosa facciamo …… we gave everything in the hands of the politicians who led us to bankruptcy ? We also want to give him c… ?

Monia then makes a list of many politicians implicated in various “management” demonstrating that you can't’ trust.
Then he says some anomalous things about the market ……

Ma allora mi spiegate perché diciamo SI per cancellare la “property’ PUBLIC NETWORK” ?

I understand the reasons for “common good” and if I were a liberal I would have been silent since the property was canceled’ PUBLIC .

I am not right or left, I just believe that people in self-government, if you can’ kick politicians, does much better than they do.

Monia then says “C’è poi un secondo grandissimo bersaglio da colpire, or the definition of the management of the water service which, dal momento che l’acqua è un bene comune, non può essere considerato di rilevanza economica”

Indipendentemente dall’obbiettivo condivisibili o meno, it is not’ certainly with an abrogative referendum that this is achieved, much less if the property is even canceled’ publishes networks that are’ exactly the opposite.

Instead, a bill had to be thought of, or to the deletion of the single point 2 dell’art 23-bis.

I don't believe anymore’ to oversights, if Lucarelli has failed on the question, tell him we start again , but it does not let everyone go into the ditch by DELETING THE PROPERTY’ PUBLIC NETWORK

But unfortunately’ credo che in ogni caso l’acqua alle aziende dobbiamo fargliela pagare, and therefore such economic management actually requires management “European”, cioé priva di monopoli, and therefore he got stung and wrapped up with the speech.

On the second question I do not enter, but it seems to me that if the former wins and’ the end .

I conclude by saying that YOU MUST NOT VOTE ON THE FIRST QUESTION WHY’ THE REFERENDARY MECHANISM E’ REVERSE

Anyone who wants to understand the true scope of the question can’ read up on the site
http://www.palmerini.net/blog/2011/05/31/referendum-truffa-lacqua-non-e-stata-privatizzata-e-con-il-si-potranno-farlo/