Italian referendum

Thrugelmir

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

I thought they couldn't nationalise it due to EU regulation?

Expecting depositers to take a hair cut as was the case in Cyprus would be the most likely alternative. Is this palatable to the electorate though. Uneasy times.

Or will a political fudge be constructed yet again. If I was Cypriot, Greek or Irish my feelings towards the EU wouldn't be positive if this was the case.

TrickyTree83

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Expecting depositers to take a hair cut as was the case in Cyprus would be the most likely alternative. Is this palatable to the electorate though. Uneasy times.

Or will a political fudge be constructed yet again. If I was Cypriot, Greek or Irish my feelings towards the EU wouldn't be positive if this was the case.

Wasn't the referendum about giving the government greater power to make that haircut happen?

It seems to me that everything is against the EU's regulation on this one unless I'm misunderstanding it.

cogito

AEP's take on the matter.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/12/09/italy-nationalise-worlds-oldest-bank-fury-mounts-eu-conduct/

And he's not often wrong.

Thrugelmir

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Wasn't the referendum about giving the government greater power to make that haircut happen?

Not that I'm aware. In 70 years , Italy has had over 60 Governments. Says it all really. Like the Brexit vote , the referendum became much more. In essence a protest vote.

mwpt

Rubbish....

The_Last_Username

mwpt wrote: »

Rubbish....

Yes, that pretty much sums up the majority of your *ahem* contributions to these threads.
(Note the accent on the "con" of contribution, as it deserves in your case.)

Quasar

The Italian Referendum was mainly about changes to the upper chamber, the senate. Renzi wanted to do away with an elected senate and replace it with senators picked by the government from regional councillors.

While the regional councillors are elected, a government could pick them according to preferred parties and thus practically rig the upper chamber, which is grossly undemocratic.

I, along with the majority of my fellow Italians, voted NO, because we want to keep a senate whose members are elected by us, the people. Only a tiny minority of senators are appointed according to achievement in the letters, arts, sciences, as well as past presidents. The rest are elected by all voters that are 25 year old and over (it's 18 for the lower chamber, the equivalent of your Commons).

However, I would have approved the proposal to reduce the numbers from 300ish to 100, as long as a democratic elected upper chamber remains. For the lower chamber, I would like to see the numbers reduced to about 300 from the current 615.

The above has NOTHING. NOTHING to do with the EU and is merely an internal matter.

As for Italy having had 60 governments in 70 years, please be informed that most of these "fallen" governments consisted in what over here would be a reshuffling of the cabinet except that also the PM would have changed, appointed by the president, without much further ado. Only on certain occasions an early election has been called.

Meanwhile, Italy has remained one of the major EU economies and weathered countless prediction of disaster and catastrophe.

Incidentally, those of you who can read foreign sites, will know that abroad there isn't the sort of doom and gloom about the referendum as it's made out to be over here, as it appears to be so often the case.

Moto2

Thanks for the insight

A_Medium_Size_Jock

Quasar wrote: »

The Italian Referendum was mainly about changes to the upper chamber, the senate. Renzi wanted to do away with an elected senate and replace it with senators picked by the government from regional councillors.

While the regional councillors are elected, a government could pick them according to preferred parties and thus practically rig the upper chamber, which is grossly undemocratic.

I, along with the majority of my fellow Italians, voted NO, because we want to keep a senate whose members are elected by us, the people. Only a tiny minority of senators are appointed according to achievement in the letters, arts, sciences, as well as past presidents. The rest are elected by all voters that are 25 year old and over (it's 18 for the lower chamber, the equivalent of your Commons).

However, I would have approved the proposal to reduce the numbers from 300ish to 100, as long as a democratic elected upper chamber remains. For the lower chamber, I would like to see the numbers reduced to about 300 from the current 615.

The above has NOTHING. NOTHING to do with the EU and is merely an internal matter.

As for Italy having had 60 governments in 70 years, please be informed that most of these "fallen" governments consisted in what over here would be a reshuffling of the cabinet except that also the PM would have changed, appointed by the president, without much further ado. Only on certain occasions an early election has been called.

Meanwhile, Italy has remained one of the major EU economies and weathered countless prediction of disaster and catastrophe.

Incidentally, those of you who can read foreign sites, will know that abroad there isn't the sort of doom and gloom about the referendum as it's made out to be over here, as it appears to be so often the case.

Whilst all that may well be true it does not answer the current problem with Italian banks, does it?

http://www.ansa.it/english/news/2016/12/09/mps-bank-decree-ready-sources-say-2_02f935d6-ceb5-403f-9f26-bb0d4152efd6.html

http://www.straitstimes.com/world/europe/bid-for-new-govt-in-italy-turns-urgent-as-bank-woes-rise

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/12/10/italys-biggest-bank-huge-share-sale-stem-cash-crisis/

Quasar

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

Whilst all that may well be true it does not answer the current problem with Italian banks, does it?

http://www.ansa.it/english/news/2016/12/09/mps-bank-decree-ready-sources-say-2_02f935d6-ceb5-403f-9f26-bb0d4152efd6.html

http://www.straitstimes.com/world/europe/bid-for-new-govt-in-italy-turns-urgent-as-bank-woes-rise

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/12/10/italys-biggest-bank-huge-share-sale-stem-cash-crisis/

If you want to discuss Italian banks, by all means do so. But what I have seen is a conflation with a referendum that has no bearing on them.

Besides, I can only repeat that it is British media and sites who promote this view of impending catastrophe. None of this doom prophesying is to be had in foreign media who treat all such matters with cooler and impartial heads. Italian banks have had for a while the same problems as other countries have had, and in spite of so many in the UK salivating over their demise (and the baaaad EU's), no disaster is looming quite yet. I suggest reading some foreign media, those who can, for gaining a balanced view of things.

PS. The Italian President has now appointed a new PM, Paolo Gentiloni. No political/economic tsunamis, no disorders, no elections, no runs on the banks. Sorry the fun has been spoilt.