Referendum FRAUD: water is NOT’ It was privatized , if you win the SI’ They will do it!
Upgrading 10 June 2011:
They are emerging EVER’ ELEMENTS OF PROOF OF FRAUD.
You can watch the video summary, or read and then delve.
1- The MONOPOLY ARE PROHIBITED FROM EUROPEAN STANDARDS
http://www.palmerini.net/blog/2011/06/07/sintesi-sul-referendu-1-perche-non-votarlo/
2- It IS CANCELED WITHOUT REASON THE PROPERTY’ PUBLIC NETWORK (Point 5 Art.23-bis) (see my answers given on this page)
3- PRIVATIZATIONS WILL ALSO BE DONE because the previous rules and the European rules provide for it and DO NOT concern WATER, BUT ALL PUBLIC SERVICES (read on)
Here is a summary of the reasons that should definitely NOT LEAD TO VOTE THIS REFERENDUM
http://www.palmerini.net/blog/2011/06/07/sintesi-sul-referendu-1-perche-non-votarlo/
———————————— TEXT 1 June WHEN I DISCOVERED THE FRAUD
There was something I did not understand about the referendum question on water. When this is usually the case and’ because there is a deception. So first I reasoned with the supporters of the Yes, and one thing was already clear right away: IF YOU WON’ WATER REMAINS IN THE HANDS OF THE POLITICIANS WHO HAVE MANAGED IT TILL TODAY. But then, ragionandoci, I realized there was something more, something SCARY.
I went to read the rules and I VERIFIED that the VICTORY IS would achieve more’ Grand Theft politicians to the detriment of the community’ local and IN FAVOR OF MULTINATIONAL AND LOBBY . The Referendum on the privatization of water (that does not exist- there is no privatization) is presented with falsehoods to say the least SCAM. and the result will be WATER PRIVATIZATION FOR REAL.
This is why not even the center right says anything, EVEN AGREE QUIETLY.
Here is a first point “unassailable”
1 – the referendum in Italy and’ repeal (THE “AND” expresses opposition’ the law)
2 – voting YES in the referendum 1 the entire article 23-bis is deleted
3 – subsection 5 of Article 23 bis states that the networks are owned’ PUBLIC
4 – if the YES wins, the OPPOSITION is expressed’ also to guarantee that NETWORKS ARE PUBLIC
If you wanted to hit the participation of society’ Private she needed to clear ONLY the letter a) of paragraph 2 which allows the full assignment to private individuals of the MANAGEMENT of http services://www.altalex.com/index.php?idnot = 42063 and possibly the letter B.
IN A VIDEO HERE IS SHOWN THE TRUTH’ READING THE LAWS
[youtube_sc url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZNQoaTcMqk width=450 rel=0 fs=1]
[youtube_sc url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNw3Szjbg2I width=450 rel=0 fs=1]
Question #1 of the Referendum is presented for a referendum to save water ownership,
INSTEAD AND HITS THE PROPERTY’ OF MUNICIPALITIES IN FAVOR OF THE SALE
It is a REFERENDUM ON ALL PUBLIC SERVICES, not just water (They are excluded only natural gas serivizi, electric energy and regional rail transport).
The rules of the European Union and the Constitution require that YOU MUST ENSURE TO ALL THE ESSENTIAL SERVICES but making sure that THERE ARE NO POLITICAL caravans . The article 23 - bis that you want to repeal CLEARLY STATES this principle.
The law raises the stakes and states that, PUR ENSURING ALL ESSENTIAL SERVICES, you have to find ways that the town can be SAVE CITIZENS with the use of the market where possible. The law today does not exclude that services can also be entrusted to social cooperatives as well as to companies. If yes wins, first everything WILL BECOME’ state, but later, imposition for European competition in services, everything will have to be put back on the market, that is, it will be sold off to multinationals .
That is the current law (to be canceled) going to strike is just THE WAY THE POLITICAL CARRIAGES HAVE TO HANDLE THINGS STILL IN A MONOPOLY REGIME, BUT ONLY UNTIL THE SALE REQUIRED BY EU
Fortunately this is prohibited by EUROPEAN STANDARDS, that's why after having STATALIZED EVERYTHING, the government will be forced to sell to the highest bidder, AND ONLY THE MULTINATIONAL COMPANIES WILL BE ABLE TO BUY , at bargain prices.
The promoters have convinced everyone that it is a referendum on the PROPERTY’ OF WATER, but it is false. This is the only distribution, Rather, you want to delete a part of the law that CLEARLY SAYS THAT ARE PUBLIC WATER NETWORKS.
If Yes wins...… THE MULTINATIONAL WILL ALSO BUY THE NETWORK AND MAKE THE PRICE YOU WANT WHILE TODAY’ FORBIDDEN
On the other hand, the law already establishes that COMPANY RENUMERATION’ PRIVATE E’ LIMITED TO THE RECOVERY OF THE INVESTMENT.
That is, today there is the principle that NO INVESTMENTS – NO PROFITS and recovered investments is ridiscute contract.
When Multinationals will buy the network, They WILL DO WHAT YOU WANT.
MUST READ MOUNTAINS READ, TREATED, RULES, REGULATIONS TO UNDERSTAND THE SCOPE OF THE REFERENDUM
Suffice it to say that the article of law that is proposed to be canceled is approximately 4 pages.
The constitutional sentence that is mentioned in the question is of 110 pages , and concerns intricate conflicts between the government and some regions on the issue of public services, including waste management. The most active regions in the constitutional dispute were CAMPANIA, LIGURIA, TUSCANY, EMILIA THE PIEDMONT, UMBRIA AND APULIA. Campania has even seen a piece of its own laws cancelled. But essentially the Court removed the government's interference in the regions, while not allowing the regions to monopolize the regional market.
To understand the scope of the question, let's take a REAL look at THE LAW trying to say the essential.
Article 23-bis THAT YOU WANT TO CANCEL IN ITSELF SAYS (READ)
Article 23-bis THAT YOU WANT TO CANCEL IN ITSELF SAYS
1. The provisions of this article govern the assignment and management of local public services of economic importance, in implementation of EU legislation and in order to promote more’ wide dissemination of the principles of competition, of freedom’ of establishment and freedom to provide services to all economic operators interested in the management of services of general interest in the local area, nonche’ of guarantee the right of all users to the universality’ and accessibility’ local public services and an essential level of performance, according to the article 117, second paragraph, letters and) e m), the Constitution, ensuring an adequate level of user protection, according to the principles of subsidiarity, proportionality’ and sincere cooperation. Nothing contained in this Article shall apply to all local public services and prevail over the relevant rules of the sector either incompatible.
———————————
They reread the parts in bold, provide the essential service: NO ONE WILL’ NEVER PRIVATE WATER AS IT IS TODAY IN CERTAIN AREAS
By reading the following point 1 (comma 1 Art.23 up) it is understood that the repeal will affect ALL LOCAL PUBLIC SERVICES except the distribution of natural gas, electricity and regional rail transport.
The point 2 establishes the rules for awarding local services which are different depending on whether the service company is private or has mixed public and private ownership (that is, municipalities with local operators).
It is also foreseen that if "due to peculiar economic, social, environmental and geomorphology of the territorial context of reference, do not allow an effective and useful recourse to the market, custody can’ be in favor of company’ wholly public capital, participated by the local authority, that has the requisites required by EU law“ that is, a company majority owned by the municipalities, provided this is justified by the situation , so that THE SERVICE IS GUARANTEED ANYWAY. Until the Constitutional Court ruling, the government could establish the criteria for managing these "exceptional" situations based on its stability plans (comma 10 lett.a) but this is’ STATE DELETED since according to the Constitution the task MATTER regions. This means that if the "Yes" votes win everything will go back to the hands of the state to the detriment of the regions and above all of the municipalities which today are the owners of the entities. This will mean that the regions that have made their citizens thirsty will no longer respond as they are forced to do today.
Caution : IS CANCELED point 5 of Article 23 bis which states
“5. Without prejudice to the property’ PUBLIC NETWORK, their management can’ be entrusted to private entities."
which means that IF THE "YES" WIN, EVEN THE AQUEDUCTS COULD BE SOLD BY THE STATE TO MULTINATIONALS LIKE ALREADY’ SOLD LOT OF PART OF ELECTRIC NETWORKS TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND LEAVING THE STATE ONLY COSTS !!!
Around Italy there are POLITICIAN CARRIAGES that survive parked inside some public service bodies which, on the other hand, ARE INTENDED TO DISAPPEAR TODAY . In fact, the point 8 of Article 23 BIS condemns them to disappear from 1 January 2012 , and from then on, service companies will have to hire staff according to QUALITY rules’ AND EFFICIENCY, not for the recommendation and policy details.
IT IS A GREAT RIPULISTI CASTE OF THE REFERENDUM SPORTS DISCUSSION
Remember the recent episode of Report on hiring at the transport company of the municipality of Rome?
With the current law those mechanisms are destined to disappear because from 1 January and the tenders regulated by European laws for a transparent company will prevent hiring “policies”.
INSTEAD IF THE "YES" WINS THESE CARROADS WILL BE SAFE IN DEBATE OF EUROPEAN LAWS – STILL PARASITISM – BUT LATER THEY WILL BE FORCED TO SELL THE PIPES ( THAT IS NOT TODAY’ possible) A PLACE TO PUT THE NETWORK (THE STATE HAS NOT MONEY). WILL THE MULTINATIONAL COMPANIES WHICH WILL BE SOLD THE COMPANY’ AND PROBABLY TUBES, BUT WILL BUY ALL WITH POLITICIANS IN: IF I WIN have settled LIFETIME !
But what if he wins the referendum, that is, once ALL PUBLIC SERVICES BECOME STATE?
The European Union will certainly be forced to open an INFRINGEMENT proceeding against Italy.
Maybe Italy will pay’ one MEGA FINE, but then in the end Italy will be forced to obey EUROPEAN RULES or to LEAVE EUROPE. That is, the State will be’ forced to sell all you will have’ taken by municipalities (good companies and bad ).
But you know that these auctions , being of all public services, OF COURSE WILL BE MADE IN STYLE ENEL, ALITALIA etc., that is to say that will buy all the MULTINATIONAL
While today the well-administered COMMON owners are GOOD COMPANY’ that corporations can not buy WHY’ EFFICIENT AND TOO EXPENSIVE (some are worth billions), when the Government sells THE ENTIRE NATIONALIZED NETWORK IN ONE SINGLE STRIKE, they will buy
ONLY THE MULTINATIONAL !!!
if Yes wins it will be advantageous for multinationals
You do not have doubts that the government WILL’ FORCED TO SELL ALL, otherwise we should EXIT EUROPE. Also because hundreds of billions of investments are required , that the Italian State has not.
This means that the referendum serves expropriating MUNICIPALITIES VIRTUOSI, and this will allow’ GOVERNMENT TO HAVE A CASE OF COMMON THESE DAMAGES, but it will allow multinationals to ENTER MARKETS WHICH ARE TODAY EXCLUDED DUE TO THE PRESENCE OF GOOD COMPANIES’ PROPERTY’ MUNICIPAL, that is, OF THE CITIZENS.
Quite the contrary OF WHAT THEY SAY THE COMMITTEES FOR YOU’
The confirmation of the real purpose of the Referendum on’ water , nationalize ALL, that is, give it into the hands of politicians , it is also written on the website of the Committee promoting the referendum , the “Yes” committee , who writes ( http://www.referendumacqua.it/chi-siamo.html )
“We are citizens, free women and men who have been fighting for public water management for years, participatory and democratic."
So they want public water management, which has nothing to do with PROPERTIES’ OF WATER. BUT TODAY THE PIPES ARE PUBLIC , AND IT'S’ THE REFERENDUM THAT MAKES THEM BE SOLD THE DELETING point 5 dell’art.23-bis
Then he writes “”we have defended water from speculators, from the market and from interests.”
So the goal is to defend water from the market, but not from the interests of the politicians who until now have managed it by stealing and squandering it, reducing it to a sieve.
"We fight against the logic of the market" so the goal is not water, but the market,
“We want to decide on the water.”
We who? municipalities, committees, or STATE AS SARA’ IF I WIN YOU’
“We can do it on water also thanks to the three referendums for the re-publicisation of water services.”
Here: this is the objective declared CLEAR and clear: MAKE STATE (“republish”) water services.
This means PUT THEM IN THE HANDS OF POLITICIANS IN ROME , THE SAME THAT THEY MANAGED TO 50 years, the same ones who held the south dry, who then made arrangements with the camorra, maybe the same politicians who run the Naples rubbish ?
Are we joking ? I spit in the face to those who have reduced the Italian water supply to a sieve, that have forced entire countries to ration water for decades.
Then there are other realities as well, how companies in PRIVATE PROPERTY’ MUNICIPAL efficient that there are in the Venezie. Here at least the prices are decent, the water is good. sure, There are in these virtuous bodies also some politicians who eat there, but with the current rules in the future, if they go wrong, they WILL BE FORCED TO COMPETITIVENESS, and will not cost taxpayers nothing .
BUT IF YOU WON, even PRIVATE companies owned by municipalities in northern Italy WILL BE PUT INTO THE HANDS OF ROME POLITICIANS, ALL STATE, that state which reduced Napoli to a landfill.
they say : “There are many of us and with everyone's help we can get our water back.”
But why , they STOLEN the water ? Someone wants to steal the water ? Or is the truth that Europe is forcing us to CUT OFF POLITICAL BANDS and they are opposing it??
Yet : MAYBE THAT AFTER MAKING THIS STATE ENTERPRISES NORTH STATE THE SELL’ TO MAKE CASH FOR MULTINATIONAL ? MAYBE THE OBJECTIVE E’ JUST WHAT THE PEOPLE Bluff ?
Let's see the questions to figure it out and go on the site http://www.acquabenecomune.org
Meanwhile, we begin by noting that the drafters of the questions are ALL SOUTH except 1
extenders:
Gaetano Azzariti (professor of constitutional law University of Rome La Sapienza)
Gianni Ferrara (emeritus of constitutional law University of Rome La Sapienza)
Alberto Lucarelli (professor of public law University of Naples Federico II)
Ugo Mattei (professor of civil law at the University of Turin)
Luca Nivarra (professor of civil law at the University of Palermo)
Stefano Rodotà (emeritus of civil law University of Rome La Sapienza)
The site leads one to think that they want to "sell" water, But what does this mean ?
You MUST PAY THE BILLS ?
It is no coincidence that with the NATIONALIZATION of distribution those who do not pay the bill will be allowed to CONTINUE NOT PAYING IT ?
Let's move on to the technical analysis of the first question
Methods of awarding and managing local public services of economic importance. Repeal
“Do you want the art to be repealed?. 23 to (Local public services of economic importance) Decree Law 25 June 2008 n.112 “Urgent provisions for economic development, simplification, the competitiveness, the stabilization of public finance and tax equalization” convert, with amendments, into law 6 August 2008, n.133, as amended by Article 30, comma 26 the law 23 July 2009, 99 laying “Provisions for the development and internationalization of businesses, as well as in the field of energy” and by article 15 of the law decree 25 September 2009, n.135, laying down “Urgent provisions for the implementation of community obligations and for the execution of sentences of the Court of Justice of the European Community” convert, with amendments, into law 20 November 2009, n.166, in the version following the judgment of 325 2010 Constitutional Court?»
Meanwhile, let's go get the law here http://www.altalex.com/index.php?idnot=42063 and we read that the purpose of the law is (art.1 lett.a)
“a public administration net debt target equal to 2,5 percent of GDP in 2008 E, Consequently, Al 2 percent in 2009, 1 percent in 2010 and at 0,1 percent in 2011 nonche’ to maintain the ratio of government debt to GDP by no values ​​above 103,9 percent in 2008, Al 102,7 percent in 2009, Al 100,4 percent in 2010 ed al 97,2 percent in 2011;” that is, we wanted to straighten out the accounts, while letter b says that the law aims to restart the economy also through "interventions aimed at guaranteeing competitive conditions’ for the simplification and acceleration of administrative and judicial procedures affecting the purchasing power of families and the cost of living" , that is, we want to increase the competition that otherwise the welfare sideshows would bring us to the brink.
This is the goal of the law, MUST SEE IF YOU GET AND HOW .
The law is to foster Broadband (Internet short, art.2), le Start Up (new businesses in short, art.3 ) then investment systems for advanced innovation(Art.4.1) especially for South (art 4.1 added bis), then fight against inflation (art.5 ), BANK OF SOUTHERN (Art.6 TER) and so on we talk about energy, VAT on hydrocarbons, Case , TAV, EXPO, Instruction, riceca etc.
In the video, the analysis of article 23 that you want to delete: it establishes public ownership of the networks, It provides the service to all, obliges the transparency and the efficiency of the parasitic classes of political parked, and yet it puts a lot of brakes on the arrival of multinationals precisely in public services.
CERTAIN THAT THERE ARE MANY QUESTIONS ON THE REAL PURPOSE OF THIS REFERENDUM
In summary:
The question asks you to delete an entire article (il 23-up) of 4 ( quattro! ) pages of a law that aligns with Europe and that affects ALMOST ALL PUBLIC SERVICES (water, trash, local transport etc.)
As opposed to what they do believe the promoters in this article and YOU WANT TO DELETE’ established:
– that the property of E networks’ PUBLIC
– that the service is guaranteed to everyone
– that it must ensure transparency in assignments (and not the Camorra)
– that the company’ multinationals have great limits in entering
– that the gains of the company’ must BE RESTRICTED INVESTMENT FOR RECOVERY
Basically IF YOU WIN THE REFERENDUM
– They are preserved and BARONIE THE CASTE THE POLICIES parked in institutions
– They say no to property’ the public network
– we create the conditions for SELL ALL TO MULTINATIONAL
In my opinion the Referendum NOT’ TO VOTE, because voting NO can help achieve a quorum.
Articles on NO
http://www.acqualiberatutti.it/
http://www.giornalettismo.com/archives/73348/no-gestione-sovietica-dellacqua/
http://www.adnkronos.com/IGN/Sostenibilita/Risorse/Acqua-per-non-bloccare-il-processo-di-riforma-nasce-il-comitato-per-il-no-sul-referendum_312006552289.html
Sandi Stark
16 June 2011 @ 19:48
Sorry but the “bullshits” to say so. Meanwhile, I put words in my mouth and thoughts that I did not express, in the most perfect Italiot style that is lost in the rhetoric schools of the Roman Senate, and lives on in the TV talk show; I do not like.
second, make deliberate confusion between venetici, the Venetian antique and modern Venetian, and not only… reasons in terms of DNA, alias race wanting “venetizzare” Slovenian. Do not say you're not a bit’ fascist. And do not say you do not know that venetici were the inhabitants of Lusezia, and therefore should “venetizzare” also Austria and probably half of Europe.
Yet, the “deportation” Rovinj is a nonsense, it is the internment of part of the civilian population in Warna, in 1915, and that episode told by “left” It has been widely exploited by right. I have often responded by showing photos and online books in the field of Warna, where he died of the people but of Spanish, no other.
Whether they are right or left, Italians are always nationalists, and if now appears a Venetian nazionalistmo that uses the same tone and the same reasoning, as I said… I do not like it. Anyway you're free to be, God forbid.
Making the pump, the Arena of Pola as a symptom of Italianity is a legacy of the worst fascism, QED. Italy's alleged Roman inheritance is an invention of a failed writer of the late 19th century, to package the Italian nationalists arguments to justify their colonialism. The late empire was more like a multinational: soldiers “barbarians” and emperors or Slavic or German strain.
I will say more, since you accuse me of talking shit, I accuse you of crap, with the fact that Istria has always been Venetian. The Pazin County belonged to the SS for just over a century, for the rest of the time belonged to the Grand Duchy of Carniola, and such a happening for Ciceria and several other areas. On to the Mirna valley lions I am closed and the defensive walls are impressive. This meant that there were hostile people in the surrounding villages, or at least that the SS was more “Dominant” what else. If you said that part of Istria belonged to the Serenissima, you would be more credible, but I repeat that you copied the history paper from the right side of the classroom.
Citing Pirina not make a great figure, It is a much-discussed historical, “caught” more than once foul for excessive zeal. I do not think it was in bad faith, I understood and also for reasons I'm not saying.
Anyhow “membership” historical is another fascist criterion. More serious would be the cultural criterion, but perhaps you know it all “neoromanzi” put together, including Istrian linguistic groups that had nothing to do with the Venetian, I was never a majority in Istria, Except during Fascism and if you want I explain you why.
Only in closing say things that I approve, Istria belongs to the Istrians. Leave them alone, is a multiethnic and multilingual people, It has been a lifetime that people from outside reach out to them and tell them what nationality they are.
Sandi Stark
12 June 2011 @ 12:07
Bravo Palmerini, you managed to make me doubt at the last moment the referendum question on water. But cabbage that is why I give up the referendum, I will abstain on privatization and proudly I will vote against such failure, probably against government nuclear intentions.
Colgo l\’occasione per dire che il tuo \"indipendentismo veneto\" \"di destra\", so similar to Italian nationalism, I do not like it at all. Volition transfer the Istrian and Dalmatian from ratorica fascist and Italian nationalist, a new right-wing rhetoric Venetian, che pretende di dipingerli come \"veneti perseguitati dagli slavi\" o per lo meno \"perseguitati dal comunismo\", It is a reinterpretation indipendentistica made with glasses blacks of neo fascism, come la \"vicinanza\" with some historical ideological discussed, suggests.
I ask you a question: se gli stalinisti titini ammazzarono molti più sloveni e croati piuttosto che \"romanzofoni\" (let's say for the moment), as shown by the mass graves that open almost once a month in Slovenia and Croatia, come è sostenibile la teoria della \"strage etnica\" rather than political, perfectly in line with the Stalinist pogroms? These are, supported by the Italian Stalinists such as Napolitano it has definitely deployed for the “ethnic massacre”, in an incredible nationalistic union between the Italian right and left.
Question number two: \"Che differenza c\’è tra il revanscismo neo fascista basato sulla lingua come \"fattore di appartenenza\" national Italian, compared to identical claims in Venetian national salsa?
Question number 3: come si concilia la retorica della Serenissima \"stato illuminato e tollerante\", con l\’ignoranza della complessità linguistica e forse anche etnica di zone come l\’Istria, they saw and see the coexistence of 8-9 gruppi linguistici diversi dove l\’elemento \"non romanzo\" It has always been majoritarian, except that on the occasion of fake census 1921, when the Venetian speakers, Istrian-Venetian, istrioto, istro-yellow, furono tutti raggruppati come \"italiani\"?
Do you realize that playing with the fire of linguistic nationalism in mixed land marked by the blood fatally it brings only death and destruction? What then?
Loris Palmerini
14 June 2011 @ 11:27
“Colgo l\’occasione per dire che il tuo \”indipendentismo veneto\” \”di destra\”, so similar to Italian nationalism.”
No right nor left, They speak with the canons of the Venetian Republic.
Regarding the Istrian and Dalmatian question, this ancient part of the Veneto population (older than that of the mainland) was under the Italian Government only 20 years or so and call it “Italian” in the modern sense seems to me a bullshit, if anything, it is Italian because they are not the Venetians.
It was a genocide of various origins and complex, on the other hand already started by the Austrians that for example in 1910 (memory) they deported the entire town of Rovinj.
What is certain is that between Austrians, Slavs and Italians all in those lands have brought destruction and death.
“if the Titoite Stalinists killed far more Slovenes and Croats than ”romanzofoni\” (let's say for the moment), as shown by the mass graves that open almost once a month in Slovenia and Croatia, come è sostenibile la teoria della \”strage etnica\” rather than political, perfectly in line with the Stalinist pogroms”
The Slovenes themselves are veneti DNA, They are not Slavic origin as shown by archaeological finds and the same language very similar to the Venetic Venetic engravings. so I could not tell how to distinguish it in the Venetians bodies from those Veneto , but certainly your conception of communism is wrong if you think it odd that the Communists did ethnic massacres: just remember the Ukraini. It was Marx's own theory that some ethnic peoples, as legal to land and self-sufficient, could not be “high” to socialism and then they went place, simply eliminated.
This is why in the book I wrote on the question “The Republic unborn” I talked about ethnic cleansing policy
“These are, supported by the Italian Stalinists such as Napolitano has definitely deployed for the "ethnic slaughter", in an incredible combination between right and nationalist Italian left.”
The combination of Italian communists and Tito, and funding from the Italian Government to Titus, I advise you to watch videos of Marco Pirina on Youtube, but if you can give more of the elements documented, a piece I'll gladly public.
In the light of Italian conduct mass murderer and war crimes before and after the war, I wonder how can you still see in fascism and communism two very different philosophies and not simply 2 declinations of a same philosophy undemocratic. I coined the term in FascioComunismo 1996
Question number two: \”Che differenza c\’è tra il revanscismo neo fascista basato sulla lingua come \”fattore di appartenenza\” national Italian, compared to identical claims in Venetian national salsa?
3000 years of history and a totally different practice: Italy = rubarei, venezie = civilization’
Question number 3: come si concilia la retorica della Serenissima \”stato illuminato e tollerante\”, con l\’ignoranza della complessità linguistica e forse anche etnica di zone come l\’Istria, they saw and see the coexistence of 8-9 gruppi linguistici diversi dove l\’elemento \”non romanzo\” It has always been majoritarian, except that on the occasion of fake census 1921, when the Venetian speakers, Istrian-Venetian, istrioto, istro-yellow, furono tutti raggruppati come \”italiani\”?
You say bullshit. If you can explain to me with the Slavic culture the reason for the Arena in Pula, or absolutely Venetian architecture, i quadri, paintings, lions etc. etc.……. it is the walls of Istria and Dalmatia that show you that it has always been Venetian.
Do you realize that playing with the fire of linguistic nationalism in mixed land marked by the blood fatally it brings only death and destruction? What then?
This is what Italy and the nineteenth-century states do. Venice has never practiced forced assimilation.
In any case, the issue must be seen under a completely different eye: of those who are legally the Venezie? Who are the owners of Istria and Dalmatia unless the people as their own self-government as foreseen by the Treaties ?
Regarding the Lombardo-Veneto, watched my pages on illegal invasion of it internationally invalid.
anna and.
11 June 2011 @ 15:40
me what upsets me is that such important issues there is not one say that one was able to speak freely. upsets me that a discussion so “technique” has not had the opportunity to be clarified in the appropriate fora and that you will find confirmation (and on luck!) only these moments net work. scomvolge me that neither prestigiacomo, nor anyone else has had the correct, transparency, the serenity ,but above all the honesty of asking the question either for or against. the silence of these referendums speaks more than any discussion and I will not go into the exquisitely “legislative” I will vote 4 is pure logic, by instinct, to snuff, how the government has reached out at the slightest opportunity to make its silence heard makes me think that there is no trust and I do not want to believe there is a water committee that has been dealing with the issue for a long time and with so much commitment came this far to support the yes if it were a shot in the foot. I want to trust and entrust to the water committees to which I address the support for the civil commitment that they have shown.
Loris Palmerini
12 June 2011 @ 02:20
I did not question people's committee. But how to explain that the rules on privatization will definitely reintroduced? AT THE END YOU ASK TO CANCEL THE ONLY WARRANTY OF PUBLIC NETWORKS !!!
Loris Palmerini
12 June 2011 @ 02:29
Article 9 establishes that , as is’ normal for a company’ Sicilian works in Friuli, E’ normal for a company’ European (German, English etc.) jobs in Italy, Why’ EUROPE AND’ unit.
So you invent and slander as they always do the multinationals against those who reveal their games.
Privatization will be made the same cause’ European requirement, then what is deleted with the SI’ E’ only the property’ public of today's networks in the hands of common.
Daniele
11 June 2011 @ 15:23
I wanted to thank you for the article you wrote, I was informed on time and I realized that. . . actually the quorum must be close if the disinformers have started to work!
I wanted to dedicate this good piece of a vintage Bennato to you! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLU0wFtrppo
As for the specific and complex issue, Mica do not think that we can controbattrere dint of messages. But I challenge you’ to come to me to remove my comments on question No. 1 WHO http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_155836424485260&ap=1
About phenomenon. . what do you think of subsection 9? the one in there’ there is’ scritto che possono partecipare all’affidamento dei servizi SOLO le società quotate in borsa? conosci per caso qualche comune quotato in borsa? 😀
Ciao Bandone!
Francesco
10 June 2011 @ 15:22
Ma per favore!! Cito solo un esempio delle tante castronerie scritte sul referendum in questo blog: l\’art. 23 che si abrogherebbe votando SI al referendum dice: \"Ferma restando la proprieta’ pubblica delle reti, la loro gestione puo’ essere affidata a soggetti privati\". Dice \"Ferma restando la proprietà pubblica delle reti\" because networks have ALWAYS been public, già dalla legge Galli del \’94 (and maybe even before)! Quindi non sarà abrogando l\’art. 23 of the Ronchi decree that the networks can become private!
Loris Palmerini
12 June 2011 @ 02:27
As explained, PRIVATIZATION WILL BE MADE THE SAME for the European treaties.
flaabde
9 June 2011 @ 14:45
THIS IS A CLEAR VIDEO IN RESPONSE TO ALL THE LIES ABOUT REFERENDUM WHICH MOVE IN NETWORK:
http://ilpuntotv.blogspot.com/2011/06/il-punto-speciale-referendum-i-4.html#comment-form
Loris Palmerini
9 June 2011 @ 20:09
DO NOT RESPOND TO QUESTIONS : WHY IS ASKED TO CANCEL THE PROPERTY’ PUBLIC NETWORK , and if it is’ TRUE THAT EUROPE BANS MONOPOLIES. it is not’ HONEST
Loris Palmerini
13 June 2011 @ 16:29
There is nothing but the usual propaganda without content
Daniele
9 June 2011 @ 11:34
E\’ unbelievable, the bullshit that one dose is sipped reading this blog. Probably it was paid by Berlusconi. The truth is that voting Yes restores the situation as before, with all its pros and cons, ma di certo non si dà l\\\’acqua in mano ai privati. The state is forced to provide (Also through municipal) a low-cost and efficient service, service that now with this law the government wants to delegate to private because he knows he should invest several million (perhaps billions) in water supply infrastructure. IL GOVERNO NON PUO\\\’ SELL THE WATER SUPPLY TO NONE. CLEAR??
Loris Palmerini
9 June 2011 @ 13:19
A technique of debunking’ that of not responding on the subject but of accusing those who reveal the intrigues of being paid to do so.
DOES NOT WORK
Loris Palmerini
9 June 2011 @ 20:10
THE ONLY LAW THAT RECOGNIZES THE OWNERSHIP’ PUBLIC NETWORK AND’ THE CURRENT, DIFFICULT THAT BERLUSCONI HAVE AN INTEREST THAT REMAINS. The discrediting of who reveals the scams, It is the technique of multinational, debunking
Daniele
9 June 2011 @ 11:34
E’ unbelievable, the bullshit that one dose is sipped reading this blog. Probably it was paid by Berlusconi. The truth is that voting Yes restores the situation as before, with all its pros and cons, but water is certainly not given to private individuals. The state is forced to provide (Also through municipal) a low-cost and efficient service, service that now with this law the government wants to delegate to private because he knows he should invest several million (perhaps billions) in water supply infrastructure. THE GOVERNMENT CAN NOT ’ SELL THE WATER SUPPLY TO NONE. CLEAR??
marco manara
9 June 2011 @ 10:56
art 23 it does not say that the water is public but it says (shortly): The provision of local public services management is, ordinarily:
A) in favor of employers or society’
b) to companies’ a mixed public participation …and private
Without prejudice to the property’ PUBLIC NETWORK, their management can’ be entrusted to private parties.
etc. etc, then it says that public networks can be operated by private, so if you want that networks are managed by private vote no, If you want to be managed by the common rate is.
art 23 also it does not say that ARE public networks, but only “while remaining public can be given to private”, because there are other articles that said the networks are public and they are not repealed.
For clarification: L’art. 821 ff. Civil Code establishes the state property of the networks and aqueduct assets, that they are not so it 'sellable, or transferable, or transferable on during the transfer of assets, any mergers, acquisitions and whatnot.
This article is not touched by referendum, therefore the aqueduct remains public, but only art 23 which says that the aqueduct can be given in concession. Moreover, if, after voting in a referendum against privatization, the government even sold the aqueduct (against the law) start a riot.
Mr. Palmerini made a hole in the water (I do not know whether in good or bad faith, but given the history of the PDL, I would not be surprised if he did it to ensure that people do not go to vote and the law remains as it is)
Cynthia Tricarico
8 June 2011 @ 12:14
she is the REAL CROOK!!!
and if the DECREE IS WE WANT TO REPEAL VOTE YES!!!
at this point I doubt she has read the law and the decree!!!
read here …
http://www.lastampa.it/_web/cmstp/tmplrubriche/ambiente/grubrica.asp?ID_blog=51&ID_articolo=1186&ID_sezione=76&sezione=Ambiente
and before SPREAD FALSE DOCUMENTS NEWS YES BETTER!!!
Loris Palmerini
8 June 2011 @ 15:54
But it puts a newspaper article of MULTINATIONAL to counter a truth SHOWN BY. This technique of insult and’ the debunkers
David Rossi
8 June 2011 @ 11:57
As I see so much misinformation around, but you beat them to the vast!!! Citi only what makes you comfortable!!! But how much do they pay you to mention only the first part of the paragraph 5 without saying that, Thanks to this paragraph, it would be possible for any private buy water resources and make the price?! Why not say ALL?! FOOL!!!
Loris Palmerini
8 June 2011 @ 15:56
I mention all items. and you do not answer WHY IS ASKED TO CANCEL THE PROPERTY’ PUBLIC NETWORK.
If you just wanted to clear the privatization was necessary to delete ONLY the point 2 dell’art.23-bis. Insults without evidence and inferences are the methods to destroy the people who wake up.
max
8 June 2011 @ 08:38
Sir she should be TERMINATED for FALSITY’ who writes.
The repeal of Article 23 does not take away the public ownership of water, Furthermore -as MISREPRESENTED WRITES- the European Union says nowhere (and confirmation after specific question) that a public tender CAN ONLY ATTEND PRIVATE ENTITIES.
I understand that to have visibility nowadays it is necessary to say something different but LYING or DISINFORMING I do not think it is the right way to have + visit.
I say to all visitors of INFORM THE LIES and not drink of this gentleman.
Loris Palmerini
8 June 2011 @ 16:03
He sees, I publish the comments of people like you because they show how easy it is to take the piss out of people by the rulers.
Meanwhile, she confused the property’ OF WATER (that no one has questioned NE’ HE CAN DO IT) , ranging from simple distribution
Article 23-bis provides for many principles. Are you voto SI’ delete the. – As for the nuclear voting yes’ It says he does not want.
The point 5 of art-23bis says that THE NETWORKS ARE PUBLIC, and in another point and’ wrote that WILL PUBLIC.
It lei vote’ vote AGAINST these principles, ie THE STATE WILL’ SELL NETWORKS (something that today can not’ FARE)
Also I have not said that “EU says not anywhere (and confirmation after specific question) that a public tender CAN ONLY ATTEND PRIVATE ENTITIES.” She still confuses. I said (and say Article 101-106 TFEU ​​and 14 TEU and Protocol 26) that public services must be guaranteed to everyone BUT YOU MUST DO THE RACES WHERE POSSIBLE. This does not require that they are ONLY COMPANY’ PRIVATE a garaggiare, but the company’ public must be under the market , ie SPA. You have to keep that is distinct management “Policy” from the management “practice”, which it is the source of our politicians and the Camorra caravans. She confuses. reads well
Alex-G
7 June 2011 @ 14:07
Loris Law l’ I read it… but it does NOT establish the principle of public property, ONLY THE REAFFIRMS… OK having said that it is only right that you put in doubt, it takes forever debate (possibly not the’ low last week before voting, as unfortunately it made by the media and institutions) and comparison especially if the issues are very controversial. then that's fine even your provocative article, after which you have to go further and * ALL tell it like it is *, not just one part.
L’ basic error, contrary to the principle in your article is in the confusion of the meaning and COMMON HERITAGE PUBLIC GOODS, the terms are NOT equivalent: the first implies the second, but not viceversa.
A PUBLIC GOOD can be sold and how! Maybe they are beyond the measures Tremonti, the ardor of this government to SELL public assets to raise cash, according to the definition of GOOD PUBLIC nothing prohibits the sale of public facilities whatever they are (barracks, palaces, of state property, PUBLIC are goods and has established a SPA for their sale to private)
A COMMON GOOD, that has a value closer and binding, according to its definition it may NOT be alienated in any way, so it is THE DEFINITION OF THIS LACK in the laws that regulate the water services (and not only) the real problem …
A problem that would be solved at the root ONLY adopting a law like this
http://www.forumcivico.it/proposta-legge-iniziativa-popolare-per-acqua-pubblica-373.html
you introduce ex novo (not being yet) the principle of the COMMON GOOD * * that goes beyond what the public.
CMQ without controversy grudges I do not want to convince you to give a vote rather than another, only replicate data that are NOT provided, However, I thank you for the possibility that you give us to legitimately exercise the right of reply, It not always granted.
Loris Palmerini
8 June 2011 @ 16:12
Alex-G
The 23-bis article provides many principles. If you vote YES 'erase them. - As for the nuclear voting yes' it is said that you do not want them.
The point 5 art-23a says NETWORKS ARE PUBLIC, and even in another part of the 23-bis and 'PUBLIC WILL wrote that even after the staging of private IF THERE WILL’
If the vote is' vote AGAINST these principles, CONFIRMING THAT YOU DO NOT WANT THE PROPERTY’ PUBLIC . This , being referenda, repeal, how to BECOME nuclear’ CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE also for the laws of the past.
At least it will create’ the legal vacuum that THE STATE WILL 'SELL NETWORKS (something that today can not 'do)
Concerning “COMMONS”, this category does not exist LAW, E’ only one “slogan” of those who are telling you to vote for water and instead VOTE FOR ALL PUBLIC SERVICES (It seems very dishonest).
E’ true that public goods can be sold (they do not exist “COMMONS” currently) but look at that Article 23-bis that is requested to be deleted AFFIRMS THE OWNERSHIP’ PUBLIC NETWORK ie their MERCHANTABILITY NOT’
I do not know the definition of LEGAL AND LEGAL “COMMONS” and the bill shows that there is.
the referendum does not speak of this, but to repeal Article 23 bis , instead WARRANT THE PROPERTY’ PUBLIC NETWORK and other LIMITS OF MULTINATIONAL CONCOCORRENZA
THANK YOU THAT HELP ME TO MAKE CLEAR: I DO NOT subtract MI
Andrea
7 June 2011 @ 12:34
His speech does not hold: repealing art. 23-bis of Law 133/2008 (who comnvertito the dl 112/2008), the main source in the field of local public services becomes Legislative Decree 267/2000, in particular to the article 113 (previously repealed right from the dl 112/2008), that subsection 2 states that: \"Gli enti locali non possono cedere la proprietà degli impianti, delle reti e delle altre dotazioni destinati all’esercizio dei servizi pubblici\". Thus the concerns of this gentleman, which derive from the alleged cancellation of public ownership of the service networks, They are imaginative and non-existent: IF YOU WON, the service networks will remain in public hands, and no alleged multinational will buy them at bargain prices. Then it is absolutely false to say that with the YES everything will return to the state to the detriment of the municipalities: just the d lgs 267/2000, art 113, clearly states that the property belongs to the LOCAL AUTHORITIES, category to which municipalities belong. And what does duque, that the referendum will want to nationalize water service? It is GIA ’ of the state. It is not true that none of the points claims: I repeat, l\’art 112 the d lgs 267/2000 guarantees both public ownership of the networks, whether the service is provided to all, sia la trasparenza nell\’affidamento della gestione.
Loris Palmerini
8 June 2011 @ 17:20
Meanwhile thank you because it gives me the opportunity to further prove that behind the referendum lies a pitfall VERY DANGEROUS determined by not understanding the question.
First REFERENDUM REPEALI, NO OFFERS
This referendum to abrogate, I have written here http://www.palmerini.net/blog/2011/06/07/sintesi-sul-referendu-1-perche-non-votarlo/
If an ABROGATIVE referendum SAYS YES to the repeal of certain things, I go through the principles.
Indeed voting yes’ QUESTION ABOUT NUCLEAR, it says NO to the fact that the face of the nuclear.
By voting YES’ al referendum 1 will vote no to the principles contained. Among these principles is that of PROPERTY’ PUBLIC NETWORK
This principle VARRA’ FOR THE FUTURE AND THE PAST, as for the question of nuclear power if it wins the SI, THE “No” nuclear will’ for at least 10 years .
A law is not repealed back in place because the abrogating law is repealed: ONLY TO DETERMINE THE EMPTY repeal
Regarding the
“YES everything will return to the state to the detriment of the municipalities: just the d lgs 267/2000, art 113, clearly states that the property belongs to the LOCAL AUTHORITIES, category to which municipalities belong. ”
precisely the cancellation of the possibility of management by the municipalities of the calls for tenders (Article 23-bin count 2 E 3) DETERMINE THEIR EXCLUSION FROM PROPERTY’ and everything will pass into the hands of the state. That after having rescheduled the will DEBTS’ forced to sell everything to the market because no money to plug the holes in the networks.
“And what does duque, that the referendum will want to nationalize water service? Esso è GIA\’ dello stato.”
ALT: the societies’ and networks TODAY ARE COMMON non-state. How much money they are taken away from municipalities with the nationalization ?
” It is not true that none of the points claims: I repeat, l’art 112 the d lgs 267/2000 guarantees both public ownership of the networks, whether the service is provided to all, and transparency in the management assignment.”
These principles are now in the Treaty of Lisbon ART.14, 101-106 of the TUEF, as well as the OBLIGATION OF COMPETITIONS where possible .
Then she shows that even those who are’ attentive and’ been deceived, and RESTERA’ CANCELED ONLY THE PROPERTY’ NETWORK, but it will be made OTHERWISE partial privatizzzioni.
Loris Palmerini
9 June 2011 @ 12:07
In the meantime, thanks for the in-depth analysis, but unfortunately his vision does not hold, And I explain.
She says “L’art 23 It does not say that water is public ” , It is said that NETWORK’ PUBLIC.
Water by itself CANNOT’ BE PUBLIC OR PRIVATE. Indeed the law itself to the point 1 says SERVICES ARE GUARANTEED TO ACCESS AND UNIVERSAL.
the big one “bale” of the “privatization of water” E’ been used in a fraudulent way to hide ANOTHER OPERATION, and we get us below.
In the norm and’ clearly written that the access of universality’ to services is guaranteed (point 1).This comes from the European treaties art.101-106 TFEU and Protocol 26 that at the same time PROHIBIT MONOPOLIES
Water CANNOT’ be privatized, but if YOU MUST PAY THE BILLS, then you need to make calls , even if only for the distribution of it.
The monopolies in the field of Public services are prohibited by the Treaties article 14 TFEU, even if it is given discretionary’ states to offer the service.
On this I wrote a whole page http://www.palmerini.net/blog/2011/06/07/le-norme-europee-impediscono-i-monopoli-la-concorrenza-verra-reintrodotta/
IF YOU HAVE TO PAY THE BILL, WHERE POSSIBLE being economic services then you have to make the EU calls for tender for service, while guaranteeing everyone the even where NOT ECONOMICALLY AFFORDABLE service.
The law also states that “the networks are public” (Point 5) and at the same time it is necessary to make the calls for WHERE CAN IMPOSE THE EUROPEAN
She says: “The provision of local public services management is, ordinarily:
A) in favor of employers or society '
b) to companies' participation in mixed public and private ...
”
And why not also cites paragraph 3 the repealed law establishing THE COMPLETE MANAGEMENT PUBLIC WHERE NOT’ POSSIBLE TO RACE ?
From this it is clear that if only privatization was to be hit, ONLY THE POINT had to be canceled 2 dell’art.23-bis, not even the property’ PUBLIC (punto5) and public management (punto.3)
She reports : “Notwithstanding the properties' public networks, their management can 'be entrusted to private parties.” (Point 5)
Review and “then it says that public networks can be operated by private, so if you want that networks are managed by private vote no, If you want to be managed by the common rate it is.”
THIS IS’ what organizers said, but the referendum and’ repeal, EXPRESSES opposition’ PRINCIPLES TO EXPRESS.
By deleting the entire Article 23, the principles IT CONTAINS are deleted and AGAINST is expressed’ TO THEM, then:
1 – it is said “No” partial or total privatization
2 – it is said “No” the local service management (inconsistent)
3 – it is said “No” to the property’ PUBLIC NETWORK (inconsistent)
4 – it is said “No” no limits to the multinationals who are forced to leave the tubes (very contradictory, if anything went RISE LIMITS)
5 – it is said “No” guarantee the universal service (inconsistent)
The thing is’ that the only point highlighted by the organizers, The point 1 WILL’ FORCIBLY reintroduced for European standards
Immediately after the referendum (a few years at most) Europe will impose the REINTRODUCTION of privatizations, because they are prohibited monopolies in the Lisbon Treaty.
So in fact the SI delete ONLY THE PROPERTY’ PUBLIC NETWORK AND MUNICIPAL MANAGEMENT
Will stay’ Valid only that the so EXPRESSES opposition’ to the property’ PUBLIC.
DENYING THE PRINCIPLE referendum also repeals the previous standards.
She says: “L’art 23 also it does not say that ARE public networks, but only "while remaining public can be given to private", because there are other articles that said the networks are public and they are not repealed.” “For clarification: L’art. 821 ff. Civil Code establishes the state property of the networks and aqueduct assets, that they are not so it 'sellable, or transferable, or transferable on during the transfer of assets, any mergers, acquisitions and whatnot. This article is not touched by referendum, then the aqueduct remains public, but the art is only cleared 23 which it says that the water supply may be leased. ”
THIS RULE’ INTERESTING, BUT IF YOU WON’ the government could say THAT NO LONGER’ VALUE, Here because
THE ABROGATION OF A PRINCIPLE FOR REFERENDUM ELIMINATES IT FROM LAW.
As for nuclear , if he wins the “Yup” It says NO to nuclear power, in each form ,although it predicted from past or future standards.
if he wins the “Yup” to the first question about water ( but it is ALL PUBLIC SERVICES) They say NO to the principles contained therein EVEN FOR THE PAST AND THE FUTURE. E’ the referendum beauty.
So SAYING “and'” the principle of the cancellation “the networks are public” if you say “Yup” TOTAL impossible today to PRIVATIZATION
And this also applies to the norm passed : THE CONTRARY IS TELLING PROPOSERS
“Moreover, If after voting in a referendum against the privatization of the government would sell even the aqueduct (against the law) start a riot.”
This theory of the uprising and’ just a theory. That's my guess as to what will happen’ really rather:
– The Government will create’ a unique agency for services, and we will put’ in ALL, including tubes, roads, tram, etc. In so doing will bear’ all the real estate value of the company’ municipal, and the related statements of service companies, including those in red and full of Camorra.
– having topped the debts of companies FAILED with the values ​​of the companies will create SANE’ a map of the pieces “good” and pieces “fix”, e are’ that it takes a lot of money , that there are no.
– the government will soon be recalled from Europe, that if it decides to do the job MUST MAKE CALLS.
– the government will do’ pretend to oppose, but then will’ open infringement for the violation of the treaties by imposing tenders to perform the services or TO EXIT FROM EUROPE
– la gente think’ “sons of bitches of europe” not understanding that the referendum was a fraud.
– then the banks will say that ITALY'S ACCOUNTS ARE CATASTROFIC and that the balance sheet needs to be cleared
– the government (probably left at that point, because it will guarantee’ STABILITY’ Policy) they are’ the money to do the jobs no (blame previous governments, tell ) and will ask malinquore’ the intervention of private individuals, but ITALIAN, then those who bought ENEL, TELECOM etc.
– without’ stew, the state will cash’ circa 50 billion, free’ Budgets to be placed, But Italians are left with only the bankrupt companies and IN LIABILITIES charged state
Conclusion : DRAINAGE OF COMMUNITY’ LOCAL IN FAVOR OF MULTINATIONAL, PEST, OF camorras, LOSS OF PROPERTY’ PUBLIC”
She says “Mr. Palmerini has drawn a blank (I do not know whether in good or bad faith, but given the precedents of the PDL I would not surprise me if he had to make sure that people do not go to vote, and the law remains as it is)”
What previous PDL (never been a member of a party represented in institutions)?
I still would hope to be wrong, but sees ALL THIS AND’ GIA’ SUCCESS WITH TELECOM AND OTHER ENTERPRISES
If law and’ yet I must explain this feast :
– why you and’ presented the referendum as “they privatized the water” when SHE SAYS THE SAME PROPERTY’ PUBLIC NETWORK AND’ GUARANTEED EVEN FROM PREVIOUS RULES
– how come we do not even talk about WASTE, TRANSPORT, Strada ECCC
– what is the final result of the referendum given that privatizations will be reintroduced from Europe because they are imposed by the treaties?
– what is the purpose of the referendum that wants to cancel EVERYTHING instead of just the point 2 ?
– why do not we talk about what will happen’ if the failed companies will become state “who will pay ?”
– who paid all the posters , play, adhesives etc., and an organization HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF EURO?
I hope I am wrong, but she truly believes that the CASTA who managed Italy for 50 years now has become SANTA ?
It HAS IDEA OF HOW MANY PARASITES WANT TO SAVE YOUR ASS AT THE COST OF DOING BANKRUPTCY ?
She argues that the same properties’ PUBLIC NETWORK AND’ established by the Civil Code.
Then I can’ explain why you and’ convinced the people THAT THEY HAVE PRIVATIZED the water ?
Loris Palmerini
9 June 2011 @ 13:25
The law requires that you cite privatization, SEE HERE http://whitetraces.wordpress.com/2011/06/08/acqua-dubbi-e-consapevolezza-ma-il-trucco-c%E2%80%99e/
Flavio C.
7 June 2011 @ 11:12
Out of the controversy but going to the sources:
law 133/2008 Art.23 up http://www.parlamento.it/parlam/leggi/08133l.htm
comma 5. Without prejudice to the public ownership of the networks, their management may be entrusted to private parties.
Subject should be light a bulb: public ownership of the networks is evidently enshrined in a previous law…
In fact, the public ownership of water is sanctioned by the Galli law (36/1994) http://www.gruppo183.org/public/file/leggegalli3694.pdf (there is no link to the site of the parliament because there are only laws from 96 on..)
Capo I – General principles
1. Protection and use of water resources
1. All surface water and groundwater, although it is not extracted from the subsoil, they are public and constitute a resource which is safeguarded and used according to criteria of solidarity .
Therefore the ownership of the water will remain as it is in any case, no possession
Today the water is distributed by institutions / municipal companies and the prices are determined politically.
What the article 23a is expected to be able to rely entirely private companies the management of distribution services and facilities, or the total of the water network management: by plants aqueducts up at home.
And this (in my opinion) the important.
We will not have a liberalized such as electricity where the distribution network will remain public (ownership and possession) and "rented" by individuals that distribute energy on this network, but the entire municipality will be assigned to a single private manager and from that point on there will be no more competition, as was done for the motorway network.
If the prices will soar or the service will be poor it will not be possible to go to the competition because there will be no competition. , at least until the next city where the race will not be us to choose but the community leaders.
Privatization as a monopoly (how would) it is only harmful and does not benefit the citizens.
Loris Palmerini
8 June 2011 @ 17:55
First of all thanks demand and links.
THE “it being understood” point 5 Art.23-up e’ because it can not’ be questioned the property’ according to the law itself.
DELETING THIS POINT BUT NOT’ MORE’ STOP!
THE REFERENDUM’ repeal : REFUSING THE PRINCIPLE EXPRESSED, It does not express a concept (it is not’ propositive)
If you delete this point 5 EXPRESSES opposition’ to the property’ PUBLIC, and also to private management, but the second dovra’ be reintroduced by virtue’ artt.101-106 and article 14 of the TFEU , veda http://www.palmerini.net/blog/2011/06/07/le-norme-europee-impediscono-i-monopoli-la-concorrenza-verra-reintrodotta/
L’ expression “sovereign” the people that is expressed against the will PROPERTY NETWORK’ EVEN THE PAST applied not only to the future. It still will’ the “sorry” to say “you see, They are opposed to the property’ Public networks.”
But they do not and’ given the problem that it is proposed to delete ALL art-23BIS and not just the point 2 making privatizations ?
She says “public ownership of water is sanctioned by the Galli law (36/1994) http://www.gruppo183.org/public/file/leggegalli3694.pdf ”
But in fact no one has ever questioned it EVEN THE ART. 23BIS THAT PROPOSES TO DELETE.
NO ONE HAS EVER PRIVATIZED WATER NEVER’ CAN HE’ DO AS A FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHT. From this it shows that the propaganda that says “privatize water” there is already a colossal mystification, much more’ we talk about ALL SERVICES, also transport , roads, garbage etc. NOT JUST WATER
Regarding the 23-bis we talk about NETWORKS AND SERVICES .
Today, Article 23 BIS says that THE NETWORKS ARE PUBLIC and this in the Galli law it seems to me that THERE IS NO’ WRITTEN.
So with the SI’ the referendum is POTENTIALLY CONTAINED IN THE RIGHT OF THE STATE TO SELL NETWORKS, but now can not’
Therefore the ownership of the water will remain as it is in any case (Human rights), possession of the networks no se win’ yes, and privatization can expect to reinsert European requirement
“Today the water is distributed by institutions / municipal companies and the prices are determined politically.”
This fact is now banned in the European standards
“What the article 23a is expected to be able to rely entirely private companies the management of distribution services and facilities, or the total of the water network management: by plants aqueducts way home.”
Yup, BUT ONLY WHERE THE CONDITIONS ARE CRITICAL, because UNIVERSAL ACCESS IS GUARANTEED (European principle)
IF THE COMMON GOOD FA where it is easy to do, potra’ remain common as long as give in IL 40% cashing money (MUNICIPALITIES ARE TODAY bankrupt)
but’ Article 23 BIS establishes that even the innovations of the networks brought by the private do not give him the right to the NETWORK!!
The private today , YOU ENTER, He is obliged to do the work, recover the investment THE NECESSARY TIME, and then must leave the management LEAVING THE NETWORKS TO THE PUBLIC, WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE OTHER CONSTRAINTS TO PRIVATE DATA FROM ART-23BIS
“We will not have a liberalized such as electricity where the distribution network will remain public (ownership and possession) and "rented" by individuals that distribute energy on this network, but the entire municipality will be assigned to a single private manager and from that point on there will be no more competition, as was done for the motorway network.”
ABSOLUTELY WRONG: Read about this policy, He says that networks remain public after the private management . THE YES’ DELETE THIS ONE AND ALLOWS THE SALE!
“If the prices will soar or the service will be poor it will not be possible to go to the competition because there will be no competition. , at least until the next city where the race will not be us to choose but the community leaders.”
MISTAKEN: the European call for tenders expected to be established before prices and services and, if not respected contrato YOU ​​GOES TO NEW CONTRACT AND THE IMMEDIATE COMPENSATION. I have no confidence that the political class knows how to do this nemmno, ie control, LESS REASON NOT WILL BE ABLE TO MAKE THE DIRECT MANAGEMENT. 50 years show that depending on the area the public WORKS (as in liberal Venezie) or NOT WORK (how and especially in regions ASSISTENZIATE).
“Privatization as a monopoly (how would) it is only harmful and does not benefit the citizens.”
But the fact’ that you ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT PRIVATIZATION. Article 23 BIS does not FORCE PRIVATIZATIONS AT ANY COST
Article 23 BIS says that WHERE POSSIBLE , They will make the races, BUT THE COMPANY CURRENT’ PUBLIC may participate if at least avrenno 40% PROPERTY’ given to individuals. That municipalities may sell or the GIVE 40% ITS CITIZENS and the end of the problem, They will continue to work as before
Thank you
Marzia
7 June 2011 @ 10:52
Your article shows that you are fruity or rather with water in your throat….you are inventing everything to misinform and do not run the referendum, You see that the local elections have not taught you anything. The slander and lies do not pay more…Go and read the story “luck to the baby”…You can teach you a lot!
Loris Palmerini
8 June 2011 @ 17:57
Known and proven by the many pages of the site are not right or the left and reveal fraud and scams to the people about 15 years.
Danilo
7 June 2011 @ 00:51
Palmerini excuse me if I would have all nonsense.. the only way to analyze a referendum is to read the article of the law that is repealed.. easy article 23 bis approved 5 August! in the scent only from porcattroia tremonti… http://documenti.camera.it/leg16/dossier/Testi/ac0519_0.htm
http://documenti.camera.it/leg16/dossier/Testi/ac0519_0.htm
Loris Palmerini
8 June 2011 @ 17:58
Are you kidding me ? The video shows you the law and comments? I hope you have not seen the video or you're a debunker
giuseppe
7 June 2011 @ 00:26
art. 23, comma 5: Without prejudice to the property’ PUBLIC NETWORK, their management can’ be entrusted to private parties.
So if the above paragraph abrigato 5, management cannot be entrusted to private individuals!
Loris Palmerini
8 June 2011 @ 17:59
Therein lies the scam.
IN THEORY, because you're right, but privatizzioni WILL TAXES because they are under the Articles 101.106 of the Lisbon Treaty etc., ie from the EUROPEAN UNION
see here http://www.palmerini.net/blog/2011/06/07/le-norme-europee-impediscono-i-monopoli-la-concorrenza-verra-reintrodotta/
andreas
6 June 2011 @ 22:28
5. Without prejudice to the public ownership of the networks, their management may be entrusted to private parties.
You are a donkey and double agent! This is the paragraph 5 the law, What do you think it means that the distribution is entrusted to private? Individuals would fake cards to justify the additional costs that, in truth , would not be at all justified and righteous! And who loses? We, paying a disproportionate water bill! So quit saying that crap!
Loris Palmerini
8 June 2011 @ 18:07
Your reaction shows that you're bursting head.
I emphasize that the management “can he'” be entrusted to private, AND IN PART TO BE FOR EUROPEAN STANDARD http://www.palmerini.net/blog/2011/06/07/le-norme-europee-impediscono-i-monopoli-la-concorrenza-verra-reintrodotta/ BUT ONLY WHERE THIS’ possible , not where the service is guaranteed and that's it.
Tthe same law PUTS MANY POSTS and ensures that the service is universal (even by European standards) but PROPERTY’ PUBLIC NETWORK though certainly gates do not you lose out!!
Here you delete ALL , Also the property’ YOU SHOULD ONLY DELETE networks POINT 2
Unfortunately it was clear there was no point to anything the referendum WHY’ The point 2 STEMS FROM EUROPEAN STANDARDS-
Can you connect the dots ? They take off 5 things with Article 23 BIS, MA 3 you lose out the FORCE FOR EUROPEAN, What have you taken away ? THE PROPERTY’ PUBLIC NETWORK.
Alex-G
6 June 2011 @ 16:22
Mistake:
subsection 5 dell’ Article 23Bis DOES NOT establish public ownership of networks which is GIA’ STABILITY regardless of all this law 133/2008, otherwise before this law the ownership of the networks and the “water well” NOT itself would never be public… What obviously FALSE. In fact, this paragraph simply “reaffirms a principle already present in our legal system” which you can tell from the text that begins with the words: “it being understood”, which means that this principle was preessistente but is repeated in order to avoid misinterpretations of’ Article 23 and paragraph 5) therefore it only works INTERPRETATIVE and CONFIRMATIVE of an already established principle! If you remove the paragraph remains the principle and if the service can NOT be entrusted to private for any reason… It can not even be sold. That said porposta the repeal of these items NOT alone but was preceded by 6-7 years a “popular law” :
http://www.acquabenecomunetoscana.it/leggepopolareacqua/
that it is intended to replace the existing legislation to 133/2008, then it is also wrong to state that the organizing committee intends to return exactly to the previous 8certamente deleterious legislation) in the field; The proposed law aims to counter the fact “political caravans” intoducendo transparency rules, POPULAR and participation in management control.
with the 133/2008 the political bandwagon would exist anyway because as has already happened when the companies that participate in the tenders for custody are formed, often also enters a public partner also minority not to lose the’ opportunity to stay within the management company; where control remains 100% Private you have only the establishment of a PRIVATE bandwagon… that as in the case of Aprilia / Acqualatina it does more damage because of hail coem the basic laws of’ economics teach us without competition and transparency in the PRIVATE finziona worse of the public and not the competition is formed with each RACE 30 years among a handful of companies (sometimes with mutual cross-shareholdings) ; unlike the case of’ Milan aqueduct in which the units are 100% held by the public, shows that is not true in the absolute’ PUBLIC equation = bandwagon.
Loris Palmerini
7 June 2011 @ 02:09
sorry, read law at least. subsection 5 says the property’ PUBLIC, its cancellation establishes a principle for the future and also the past , because it's’ a referendum. Then referendums often do not care, but they will be able to do the filth that they want
Swami
6 June 2011 @ 14:17
E’ just trying to avoid that people go to vote, They not come now for a few days to be confusing to people and do the dirty caste interests. Do not be fooled!
Fabio
6 June 2011 @ 11:55
It is not true that repealing this law becomes all salable: authentic pre-existing laws. This whole tirade is just propaganda!
Marco
5 June 2011 @ 08:26
I apologize for the broken link: https://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=215944551771010
Marco
5 June 2011 @ 08:23
We report this Tuesday meeting in Milan with the main water companies, just to do a Q&A with blogs and the internet groups: https://www.facebook.com/event…
Francesco
4 June 2011 @ 19:58
Shame on you for writing something so wrong and misleading causing misinformation!! You do not write it unless you know… If you had actually read the Judgment of the Constitutional Court 17/11/2010 n. 325, 1° would know very well that is long 61 pages, 2° own paragraph 7 his wonderful 23 bis was repealed because: <The holding region, in the first place, subsection 7 dell’art. 23-to, which provides that 'The regions and local authorities,
Within their respective powers and in agreement with the Unified Conference referred to in Article 8 of Legislative Decree
28 August 1997, n. 281, and subsequent amendments, can be defined, in accordance with the sectoral rules, basins
Race for the different services, so as to allow the exploitation of economies of scale and scope and facilitate a
greater efficiency and effectiveness in the performance of services, and the integration of services to weak demand in the
framework more profitable services, ensuring the achievement of efficient minimum size at plant level for
more subjects operators and coverage of universal service obligations'.
For the applicant, that provision, "Under a purely facoltizzante appearance ', binds the regions and local authorities to
make their own decisions relating to the tender areas - corresponding to operating areas of public services -
"In consultation with the Joint Conference", in violation of Articles. 117, fourth subparagraph, E 118, first and second paragraphs,
Cost.
The Region complains that the regulation of the exercise dimension of public services falls within its legislative power
and that influencing the exercise of this power and the administrative choices it expresses is the power itself,
both the principle of subsidiarity , as there are no "no reason for the centralization of those choices". This injury is not
affected by the fact that the Joint Conference is an expressive body of autonomies, because the agreement with the
Conference also necessarily requires the agreement with the State, which is itself part of the conference and why
it would in any case of a conditioning of the Region selections from other regions and local authorities, that
they have no power to be exercised in relation to the territory of a specific region.> therefore there was an evident attempt to centralize and standardize decisions, however independent, of all regions. Prima di scrivere un post si informi e non critichi gente seria come Professori Universitari che insegnano e non \"leggono\" as she does the right. I hope this comment gets to be published, and I urge if it were still needed to vote for 4 SI al referendum per non consegnare al mercato la vendita di un bene indispensabile come l\’Acqua!
Francesco
Francesco
4 June 2011 @ 19:58
Shame on you for writing something so wrong and misleading causing misinformation!! You do not write it unless you know… If you had actually read the Judgment of the Constitutional Court 17/11/2010 n. 325, 1° would know very well that is long 61 pages, 2° own paragraph 7 his wonderful 23 bis was repealed because: therefore there was an evident attempt to centralize and standardize decisions, however independent, of all regions. Before writing a post is to inform and not serious people criticize as University Professor teaching and not “they read” as she does the right. I hope this comment gets to be published, and I urge if it were still needed to vote for 4 YES to the referendum in order not to hand over the sale of an indispensable commodity such as water to the market!
Francesco
Luca Bovio
4 June 2011 @ 18:28
If we let the private, what benefits we? If we let private individuals in more than they already are, and if we allow that their rates are not tied to investments in upgrading / improvement of water supply, why we should give them the water network that we have built and maintained (often ill) with our money?
What it allows individuals to not improve the water network, but raise prices anyway? I was answered (somewhere else) that the state will watch . Perfect. So you might as well vigilant about himself: It is certainly more effective (even in inefficiency)
Michele
4 June 2011 @ 14:16
MISTAKEN, Directive requiring (wrongly in my opinion, cmq now not centra), the privatization of public services, he says that, each member state, You can say what is and what is not an essential public service (therefore in which any private individuals can enter or not and in what quantity ).
Giorgio
4 June 2011 @ 11:45
I am assuming that it is as you say I would like to make a few comments:1)If winning is everything remains as before the water do not touch it because no one know if our politicians if l have yet been taken and why you can nn fare.2)Nuclear and legitimized impediment for you is minor stuff as advice not to vote not to reach by the quorum? having said that I'm sorry if you doubt your considerations
Cocosauro
3 June 2011 @ 22:37
Please do not write nonsense!
The EU asks member states to determine which public services are economically relevant and which are not, and then he asks to liberalize those economically relevant! It says nothing about whether water should be “economically relevant”! Even the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says that water is a common good and a fundamental right, how could the EU go against it? 😀
Please correct or delete the post, misinformation right now does enormous damage!
THE 12 and the 13 June everyone to vote 4 Yup! 😀
Cocosauro
3 June 2011 @ 22:33
The EU asks member states to determine which public services are economically relevant and which are not, and then he asks to liberalize those economically relevant. It says nothing about whether water should be “economically relevant”! Among other things, it is also in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that water is a common good and a fundamental right! L’UE non si permetterebbe mai 😀 Correggi o elimina il post 😉
Per favore non fare disinformazione, le balle in questo momento fanno un danno enorme!
Ciao
Cocosauro
Plitz Ese
3 June 2011 @ 16:50
you are saying one shit after another, I hope you denounce for false ideology;
you are saying one shit after another. you are saying one shit after another, I am beginning to think that you are interested x personal economic issues.
Franco Minzi
3 June 2011 @ 13:08
I think you did not do what a lot of clarity.
you are saying one shit after another.
if you want better explained. Thank you!
claude Andreini
3 June 2011 @ 11:09
Notwithstanding the properties' public networks, their management can 'be entrusted to private parties. "
Basically, the private operator spends money that come later reimbursed from state coffers to modernize the network (the promises are so 20yo). Therefore DO NOT SPEND NOTHING. and then, He applies the rates you want, with controls that wants. Obviously putting in command the people who want. How did the bad Brambilla, the fascist Alemano…etc.
Colossal error even with nuclear power? But where put lescorie? Nel tuo giardino o nell\’orto del \"negro\" After that he must flee and disembark in Lampedusa?
But how did you get from Silvio say such bullshit?
claude Andreini
3 June 2011 @ 11:08
Notwithstanding the properties' public networks, their management can 'be entrusted to private parties. "
Basically, the private operator spends money that come later reimbursed from state coffers to modernize the network (the promises are so 20yo). Therefore DO NOT SPEND NOTHING. and then, He applies the rates you want, with controls that wants. Obviously putting in command the people who want. How did the bad Brambilla, the fascist Alemano…etc.
Colossal error even with nuclear power? But where put lescorie? you are saying one shit after another “negro” After that he must flee and disembark in Lampedusa?
But how did you get from Silvio say such bullshit?
Franco Minzi
3 June 2011 @ 10:57
not just on the water
Also on nuclear power we are making a colossal mistake
(It follows next intervention…)
Marcello Frigeri
2 June 2011 @ 19:41
palmerini, but go to bed, you and your articles scam. you do not know what you say. By voting YES will not statalizza water service, which is\’ GIA\\\’ public (even know that?). Is if you vote NO, instead, si permette ai privati NON la privatizzazione dell\\\’acqua (which would remain a public good), but to be able to take over the management of the service. In short words: chi ha scritto l\\\’articolo o è un ignorante o un tizio in malafede
Marcello Frigeri
2 June 2011 @ 19:40
palmerini, but go to bed, you and your articles scam. you do not know what you say. By voting YES will not statalizza water service, which is’ GIA ’ public (even know that?). Is if you vote NO, instead, private individuals are NOT allowed to privatize water (which would remain a public good), but to be able to take over the management of the service. In short words: who wrote the article or is an ignoramus or a bad faith guy
Marcello Frigeri
2 June 2011 @ 19:40
palmerini, but go to bed, you and your articles scam. you do not know what you say. By voting YES will not statalizza water service, which is’ GIA’ public (even know that?). Is if you vote NO, instead, private individuals are NOT allowed to privatize water (which would remain a public good), but to be able to take over the management of the service. In short words: who wrote the article is either an ignoramus or a bad faith guy
Paolo
2 June 2011 @ 18:35
e a parigi allora come mai l\’acqua è pubblica? sono usciti dall\’europa? you're a masked raccontaballe privatizzatore, or simply a misinformed person. avoids making the messiah least.. le multinazionali in italia GIA\’ There are! WAKE UP! see Latin, see termoli, Behind there are always VEOLIA and SUEZ! WAKE UP! VOTIAMO SI\’ AI REFERENDUM
Loris Palmerini
8 June 2011 @ 15:14
They are sure not to PARIS simply have not begun to manage the distribution with a company’ Public AFTER ASKING I CALLS. They are imposed by art.101-106 TFEU. I am convinced that they made the calls because otherwise the French companies may not lavorara in Italy, the current LAW THAT WANTS US TO ABROGATE says so. WAKE YOU TAKE AROUND.
Dario
2 June 2011 @ 17:48
Politicians are always the same, and probably do it on purpose, They never fail to explain clearly how things are, and obviously the game is good for all sides, as more parasites on red chairs talking…
from what I understand… IF YOU WON… everything could be sold off by the state to multinational, with everything that ensues, and so far we, but if he wins the NO, remains as before… and frankly in many places, I do not think the service can still be called efficient… In summary: this makes me think that whoever will take the reins of command, he won't be able to improve anything…
what difference does it sell everything to multinationals (inefficient) or leave everything in the hands of para-state companies (with the usual recommended duty) ????
Joshua Dunamis
2 June 2011 @ 15:30
Sorry, it being understood that the national political imprint is questioned everywhere by any European policies, I'm article is itself “Misrepresentation” perhaps in good faith. Which means that the water remains in the hands of the politicians? E’ a meaningless phrase. All that is “public” It is in the hands of “politicians”. the “Democracy” would just choose which “politicians” They should represent the people who elect them. In short, It deletes this article providing the potential to private management of public water. The constitution therefore provides for 10 years you will not be able (could) more make a law that gives private individuals the public water management. This is the meaning of the Referendum in general in Italy. That is a rule for abbrogare 10 So it became untouchable. Abbrogando this article 23 remains under the old law and any changes to the previous law to this you want abbrogare, It can not predict for 10 years decisions that go against the decision and the direction of the event (if it happens ) repeal referendum action. That is, if the YES wins, it will not be possible (could) create any law (For 10 years) which provides for the management of public to private entities aqueducts. I hope I did a little’ clarity.
Pier Luigi
2 June 2011 @ 17:56
You have written several times “abbrogare” and therefore there is a careless mistake. You can write whatever, even the most enlightened of this world, but if you make mistakes of this kind risk of not being taken seriously. Sincerely P.L.
Sergio Accornero
8 June 2011 @ 11:01
if just a grammatical error to invalidate an article, thou do not you write “exceptional”. it is a serious mistake!
;–)