Woven Beaded Bracelet Meanings

Scalfari says Ciampi. Why Napolitano wants

March 16, 2010

The revelations of the journalist: has been able to say "no" to Berlusconi. the evening, the Quirinale public controversy note

Attack is not direct, of course. But perhaps because of it, provokes a strong reaction of the Quirinale, even an official statement that ends up as an underscore. So the news can not pass unnoticed for two days, in totally different areas of the newspaper, he teased Republic, cautioned, covertly (not too) criticized the Quirinale.

( Click here or on image to enlarge )

The revelation of

Scalfari . The first episode is the one we tell in comic Manolo Fucecchio and is in its way a scoop. More: a revelation that a former President of the Republic , Carlo Azeglio Ciampi delivery to the authoritative pen of Eugenio Scalfari .

In its essential background on Sunday, in fact, the founder of the newspaper of Largo Fochetti revealed two episodes of conflict (which had remained secret until yesterday) between Silvio Berlusconi and the then tenant of the Hill. Curious detail. Despite the explosive content of the article: the title was a movie, "Good night and good luck." Quote Cinephile polite or concealment of controversy with the Quirinal? Judge for yourself, starting dall'incipit solemn Founder: "President Ciampi will forgive me if I mention it now because I have so far complied with the confidentiality that has no more raison d'etre to the point where came the Italian political situation" .

After this roll, there's also the spot: "The incident concerning the appointment of three judges of the Check in the amount that the Constitution reserves President of the Republic, took place in the hall of patio del Quirinale. Also present were Secretary General of the Quirinale, Gifuni and Undersecretary to the Prime Minister Gianni Letta . The topics for discussion were two: the relationship with the European Commission in Brussels, where the prime minister had to go to solve some important problems and the appointment of three judges. Out of the first argument - says Scalfari - Ciampi took out a folder from the three measures for the appointment and he informed Berlusconi names chosen by him. Berlusconi objected that he wanted to think about it and asked time to reflect and make a list of alternative names. Ciampi replied that the choice in terms of the Constitution, was attributable to its exclusive and that the signature of the Prime Minister was due to an act that served only by a notary public to certify that the signature of the Head of State was true and took place in his presence. That said, without further ado Ciampi took the pen and signed through the three documents to Berlusconi for the counter. "

Constitutional Judges. Now what happens? The story continues:" The Prime Minister stood up and angry tone said that he would never disliked not because he had signed the names of the judges but because no one could force him to undergo a selection that did not come from him, the sole source of sovereignty, since they derive from the sovereign people. Ciampi's response - still refers Scalfari - it was cold: "The documents will be sent to you in an hour at Palazzo Chigi . I've signed in your presence and in the presence of two qualified witnesses. If you do not immediately regain my back to you countersigned I will have to raise a jurisdictional dispute in the Constitutional Court. " "Hail" Berlusconi said as cold and came out of the window followed by letters. In the evening, the three went back to Ciampi acts of appointment duly countersigned.

The Gasparri Law . The reader can not escape (and in fact the article Scalfari is copied and pasted all over the Net ) that this story is told in their own time when there is controversy turned on countersignatures Napolitano. In short, it seems that Scalfari stories Ciampi, to send a message to Napolitano. But if anyone doubts arise, here is the second anecdote Ciampi (Always hearsay by the founder of the Republic) that cuts off the head of the bull: "It was - people say Scalfari - during a breakfast at the Quirinale, always the presence of Gifuni and Letta. The House voted by the Gasparri law Ciampi and receiving forwarded to the signing of promulgation. Presented, in the eyes of the head of state, and several serious grounds of unconstitutionality and mortified that pluralism is an essential requirement in a democracy, and on which, just a few months ago, Ciampi sent his message to Parliament. "E What happens at the Quirinal? Here the portrait sketched by four hands Scalfari Ciampi and remains suspended in equilibrium between farce and drama: "The breakfast had just begun - people say Scalfari - when Ciampi informed his guest of his intention to refer the bills to Parliament as the Constitution authorizes it to do with the reasons for the postponement and the points of law to be amended. Berlusconi did not wait for that court. He rose with a rush and raised his voice saying that this was a real stab in the back. Ciampi (so his story) he sat still eat, but repeated that he would have referred the law to Parliament. Another shouted that the law would still have been approved as such and returned to the Quirinal Palace. "The beats are fierce Prime Minister:" Do you realize that you're hurting and Mediaset Mediaset it is one thing I? You're hurting my thing. "Ciampi's response is no less:" What you just said is very serious. You're confessing that Mediaset is your thing, that you're pointing out to me a blatant conflict of interest. If I had a question to postpone the law, even now I have an obligation. "Berlusconi's Conclusion:" So is war between us and you that you have desired. Do not set foot in this building. "

Double answer? Yesterday, however, a note from the icy background to respond to the Quirinale Massimo Gia nnini that Napolitano wanted to reject the decree on the labor market. "Quirinale rejects the conditioning that you want to exercise through journalistic scoop ". Quirinale reply to Giannini. But perhaps even Scalfari. And maybe even to Napolitano. scalfariana But the moral is clear: there are those who signed. And there are those who - like say Vasco Rossi - says no .

from the daily act of March 16