At the carrier of the Venetian: let me speak about the referendum and Morosin

distinguished director,
I ask me the space to intervene regarding your articles on the rejected referendum for the independence of Veneto and on what is replicated of the proposing party, Independence Veneta, by Morosin.

I first ask to be recognized for the author of the discovery that the new statute of the Veneto Region expressly prohibits the consultative referendum for issues concerning international subjects. In fact, the VS chronicler has mistakenly attributed this impediment to the evaluation commission wanted by Zaia, But it wasn't like that at all. The Commission had on the contrary assessed that the article 27 of the Statute allowed the consultative referendum. Unfortunately he had noticed that in the expression “on measures or proposals for measures under the competence of the Council” there was the constraint of competence, namely “matter” constitutional, which is not of the Region.

as it is known, Foreign policy issues do not include the competences of a regional council, international etc., expressly reserved for the state. Then the Veneto Region, can indirect an advisory referendum , but only for the subjects attributed, For example hunting, or already set up in new homes, Tourism etc., Certainly not for foreign policy and the independence of Veneto.
not enough, in the article 27 The constraints of regional repeal referendums are extended to the regional consultative referendums, listed in the article 26. I do not repeat what already explained in my blog (vedi http://www.palmerini.net/blog/lo-statuto-del-veneto-vieta-il-referendum-consultivo-sullindipendenza/ ), But I conclude that there is no escape: The referendum cannot be organized by the Region.

THE 13 September, Live at the Veneta Rete, I made this statutory impediment to the presence of Cantarutti of Venetian independence public, already part of the Commission, who has shown, exactly, to know nothing. If the councilors have postponed the provision a few days later, And why, at least some, they had received my email with the explanations. Now the first commission has done nothing but ascertain the validity of the legal evidences I raised. End of the history of the regional consultative referendum for independence.

It amazes me that Morosin insists and you seem to know nothing, Because at the end of September I spoke to her personally!

But you can see that it struggles to digest international matter. In the article of 21 December Morosin speaks of the constituent of the Venetian Republic, speaks of the Venetian nation, But he believes that they are the residents of the Veneto, confusing the concept of “people Venetian” with that of residents, while it is quite evident that many residents of Friuli-Venezia-Giulia are also Venetian, which in the majority speak Veneto and have always been Venetian, Rather, To be precise, Italy have been annexed to Italy “Veneto” in 1866 and therefore they have an international legal right to be consulted together with the Venetians.

But even the residents of Veneto are not all Venetian, And they cannot be declared them of imperial as all belonging to the “people Venetian”, It is a violation of international law like that all Italians declare them. Everyone is what it is, And it is necessary to start from the international concept of people to then define the territory of the Venetians on the map.

Loris Palmerini
President of the Government of the Venetian People
(Self -determined institution pursuant to art.2 L.N.340/1971 and LN.881/1977)

If we identify the Venetian people like those who speak Veneto, Since the Venetian language is also spoken in all region bordering the Veneto Region (Basically all territories of the former Venetian recording) It is clear that it is incorrect to call the only residents in the Veneto Region Venetian. Even if we say that the Venetians are those of the lands of the Republic (regardless of the language) Then many other territories of the regions bordering the Veneto must also vote, from Bergamo and Udine. If we then talk about the Veneto attached in 1866, It is clear that it is not that of today and that Italy cannot be defined as the Venetians in international law denying the right to international self -determination.

In short, a people must be identified for its characters, who are linguistic, historical, but also legal, not for belonging to a geographical region determined by another people.

For more, Italy itself, with sentence in cassation in 2011, he even sentenced that the “people Venetian” cited by the Statute is without the right of self -determination and that the expression “people Venetian” refers to Italian residents without specificity, and therefore without referendum right.

How and before Morosin I say that the Venetian people rightly have the right to self -determine themselves, and that would be a denial “grant” such a right, But it is not clear why Morosin asks a body of the Italian state (The Veneto region) to grant him a referendum, affirming and recognizing as well as immanent that “dependence” that would like to deny, and also when the body administers one part only of the Venetian people.

At the same time it is precisely Morosin who in fact denies the right of self -determination to the Veneto people, because otherwise he would recognize as sovereigns those institutions that the Venetian people have self -determined in 1999 through an autopoietic constituent self -determination, right that falls precisely in the international law of every people to self -determine their own institutions. On the other hand, it is well strange that he does not recognize validity to those institutions that the judiciary has instead recognized legitimate, first denouncing them as subversive and then recognizing them not constituting crime with the storage of the complaint.

The fact is that any referendum of consultation of the Venetians, To have value, should be organized by a representative body of the Venetian people alone as what I represent, and should consult all the Venetians in complete freedom, that is, in actual self -government. Otherwise each referendum will however be disabled in the eyes of the International Court, As the referendum of the 1866, that was, exactly, organized by Italy (and not from the Venetians), In a territory not his own, Even deciding who and how he voted, and making Italian soldiers vote ! I repeat, in 1866 perhaps only the Italian soldiers voted.

Now the lawyer. Morosin insists on passing the omelette for whole eggs. Yet he is the first manager of confusing the Venetians (the Venetian people) with the residents of the Veneto Region and therefore denying existence to the Venetian people.

When Morosin says that the right to self -determination of the Venetian people is not pre -established but overcostal, then because it asks that the region is to indirect a referendum? He cannot ask that the Region climbers the same system for which it exists!

While if we start from the fact that the right of self -determination and self -government is of the Venetian people both because it is pre -existing, and both because it is also recognized by Italy since 1971, then we must say that the “people Venetian” from Bergamo to Udine, as it has always been united, can exercise this right.

On the other hand, it is certain that a region cannot represent a people internationally, A ruling of the Constitutional Court of the 2007, which caught the Sardinia Region who tried to declare himself representative of the Sardinian people, And it was rejected precisely because the body of the state bound in the purposes and functions.

In short, the rock for which the referendum was rejected returns, THE “material” o skills that was said at the beginning.

I believe Morosin must finally decide if he wants to be a regional councilor, then respecting the statute, or if he wants to be part of a process of international self -determination of the Veneto people, In this case, not passing through Italian institutions but asking them to adapt and take off as required by international law. However, he gives up the evidence: Even the second referendum proposed by his party cannot, Like the first that was “deliberative” and it was also rejected.

Even more important, We do not speak on behalf of the Veneto people saying that it will embark 240 The 300 billions of euros of Italian public debt, Why such a “Veneto” It would be an already failed state, The equivalent of today's Italy with 1 The current public debt, And it would even make regrets the current servitude.

Loris Palmerini
President of the Government of the Venetian People
Self-determined Institutions based on art.2 L.n.340/1971 and L..n.881/1977