Negotiations still on the high seas for the Consulta. Bipartisan agreement is sought

It also failed the thirteenth ballot for the election of the judge who will have to replace Silvana Sciarra at Constitutional Courta position that has been vacant for over a year, as well as the fourth ballot for the replacement of three other judges, called to take over from President Augusto Barbera and his deputies Franco Modugno and Giulio Prosperetti, whose mandate ended in December.

The failure to reach an agreement on the joint session caused yet another black smoke in Parliament shortlist of four names that majority and opposition, until yesterday, they seemed to be close to signing. And instead, after contacts and discussions also at the level of party leaders, the stop comes, which makes the road increasingly difficult to guarantee the plenum at the hearing of the Council on January 20th, the last useful date for the decision on the admissibility or otherwise of the referendums to repeal autonomy, the Jobs Act and the law on citizenship.

To attempt the election of the four missing judges at the last minute, Parliament could be convened again on Thursday, so as to have the ‘technical’ times for completing the official formalities and arriving at the 20th with the Council at full ranks. The decision should be made tomorrow at the Montecitorio group leaders’ conference, but the chances are low. Meanwhile, the parties are trying to rewind the threads of a skein that has become tangled again between last night and today, complete with the usual ‘passing the buck’ about responsibilities: for the opposition the problems are to be found in the centre-right and, in particular, within Forza Italy which, according to minority parliamentarians, is not yet ready to indicate its name.

For the majority, on the contrary, the cause of the impasse would be found in the opposition and, specifically, in the Pd house, which would have vetoed the name of the ‘technical’ judge, as it was considered “too close to FI”. Which would have called everything into question, causing the agreement to fall through. None of this, “we have not placed any veto”, is the dem’s reply. At the moment, therefore, there are two fixed points: the name in FdI share, which remains that of Francesco Saverio Marini, legal advisor to Palazzo Chigi and ‘father’ of the reform on the premiership, and the name in the Democratic Party, i.e. the constitutionalist Massimo Luciani. We would instead sail on the high seas for the names in the FI quota and for the ‘technician’, to be chosen with bipartisan agreement.

Forza Italia unhesitatingly denies the existence of internal problems (or with allies) regarding its candidate. And this is where the opposition’s ‘reconstructions’ come into play: the Azzurri cannot find a solution on the name to vote for, say parliamentary sources from the Democratic Party. Avs and several minority deputies also held the same opinion. The Azzurri – the names of the team ‘reluctantly’ set aside deputy minister Sisto and senator Zanettin (there would be doubts in the majority and in the government about electing parliamentarians to the Council) – they would be evaluating other options.

Among these is the name of Andrea Di Porto, university professor at Sapienza. Among the hypotheses that follow one another among the Palaces, the name of the magistrate also appears Augusta Ianniniwith a curriculum of respect and known to most for being the wife of Rai journalist Bruno Vespa. But also by Roberto Cassinelli, lawyer and former parliamentarian.

Forza Italia denies problems: “We are ready, we have our names and we are just waiting for the secretary to tell us who to vote for”, explains in Transatlantico the leader of the Italian group in the Senate Maurizio Gasparri, who attributes the problem to an error contained in a article published yesterday: “It was written that the name of the ‘technical’ candidate”, i.e. the fourth judge to be elected who, due to an agreement on the method reached weeks ago should have been a third name, “was instead given for ‘close’ to FI, nothing could be further from reality”, he assures. It is about thestate attorney general Gabriella Palmieri Sandullilast night in pole position compared to the other name that was circulating, Valeria Mastroiacovo, president of the Catholic jurists. Both names, according to some parliamentarians, would however also have been taken into consideration as possible candidates for the Azzurri, but no confirmation has been received from the FI parliamentarians.

The leader of the FI group in the Chamber, Paolo Barelli, announced in the morning that the road was still all uphill: “I’m not sure that the balance will still be found today”, he says even before the Parliament session. Later he adds: “The issue is the fourth name, which must also be agreed with the opposition.” And the president of the Dem deputies, Chiara Braga, confirms: “The conditions for an overall agreement are not yet ripe”.

For the Italian Giorgio Mulè “there seems to be an agreement on three names” with the opposition, “work is underway on the shared name. It’s a bit like the history of the musketeers: there are Athos, Porthos, Aramis and D’Artagnan is missing. As far as I know we are close to reaching an agreement.” But the risk, barring surprises, is currently far from settled, which risks postponing the new vote in Parliament to next week, thus handing the decision on the referendum to a reduced-ranking Council.