Valentino Parlato (poster, May 21) that the federal road "is a disaster." "But if it is inevitable seem more reasonable macro-regions (referring to the proposal advanced by me in my recent book and recalled in an article in the Republic) with which the problem of the unit would be more realistic, avoiding the stew." That proposal has been rather severely criticized by Eugenio Scalfari (Republic of May 16) that the macro-regions "would inevitably be the end of the unitary state." I would not take it too away. But the fact is that federalism is not a new issue for Italy. During the Risorgimento the federalist ideas arose important currents of Italian politics. For a time the prospect of national unity remained in the background, while the prevailing idea of \u200b\u200ba confederation of Italian regional states, chaired by Vincenzo Gioberti second Roman Pontiff, or the state of Piedmont, according to Cesare Balbo. The aim of the unit was clearly subordinate to those of freedom and independence. Carlo Cattaneo was to rebut the derogatory phrase "system of the old republics," which were dissolved and replaced by new policies based on aggregations of municipalities the real engine of the Italian civil history, Confederate United States of Italy, in the form americano.Il federalism was still a pact between historical and geographical subjects concreti.Col time, the logic of balance of power favored, thanks to the great director Cavour, the hegemony of the small Piedmont, which could impose too great and the view of the Republican Party, in the conduct of the Unitary State centralizzato.Mentre triumphed over the principle of the unified state emerged, compared to the problem of the relationship between central government and regional components, that, more and more dramatic, the relationship between North and South of the country that, during the unfortunate war of brigandage, sanctioned the subordination of the net second than the first. Antonio Gramsci classist denounced the roots of subordination and pointed out that the alliance between workers and peasants of the North South solving the southern drama. Others, like Salvemini and back, while convinced of the decisive importance of the peasant movement, also developed the idea of \u200b\u200bpolitical autonomy in the South, as the constituent power of a nation state (which prefer the back of autonomy that federalism was a question of definition). There is thus a relationship between the state and the regions of the South, with the exception of Sicily, had no tradition of autonomy and distinct historical personality. It was "to give southern Italy a federal constitution" within a federal framework italiano.In other words, federalism (Salvemini) was considered "the only way to solve the southern problem." It was also then in mind the claim that autonomy would put at risk the unity of the country. The answer (back) was that the lack of autonomy "takes us back in the old model of charity thrown in the state or threat of reactionary separatism." For God's sake: the conditions of the country have radically changed since the time when these texts were written. But the threat is looming today the unity of the country certainly does not depend on proposals to evoke the autonomist instance but, paradoxically, by the way wrong and distorted in which it was Read. That application required a comprehensive and powerful economic intervention in the real South, designed to achieve a state of efficiency and competitiveness, along with that development, civil Nord.Nei comparable to those in the first post-war decades, the Democratic Republic rises to this challenge. The Case of the South in the South created a network of major infrastructure that broke the isolation constitute the basic conditions for the growth of productive activities. Sprang up, thanks to the state-owned enterprises, large plants on which they had thrust capacity to promote a wide network of production companies. And just say that so far this mancò.Bisogna there is no clear idea about the reasons for this fallimento.Sono But I am convinced that at least part of the answer lies in the passage, with the creation of regions, took place from responsibility 'technocratic' to 'political' intervention. This move was certainly necessary, but would have to occur at a high level, that could be provided by a unified political leadership of the Southern reality, giving a broad political autonomy, according to the inspirations of the great south: an essential condition for the birth of a political class capable of vision and detachment: integral vision of reality and understanding southern detachment, in the selection and administration of projects, from the temptations of personal interests and regionalization locali.La intervention, except for a few valuable experience has been a failure. The substantial financial resources entrusted to the political management have been largely regionalised dispersed according to the logic of patronage and short-sightedness, not to mention peggio.Col time, this failure is found, determining the reaction of the country, the North, on which borne the brunt of trasferimento.L 'ineffectiveness for extraordinary proved by increasing the gap between north and south of the country, which corresponds to a general increase in political dissatisfaction. This feeds the two forces divaricanti a potential separatism: that che tende a configurarsi nell'ideale, piuttosto deprimente, di un Belgio grasso (l'espressione è dello storico Omodeo) e quella che tende a dissolversi nel disordine criminale delle mafie.Dunque la minaccia del secessionismo non è ipotetica, è presente e reale e bisogna fronteggiarla. Come?La risposta del federalismo fiscale parte da una intenzione opposta a quella del federalismo storico: non devolvere a una unità superiore competenze e risorse oggi amministrate a livelli inferiori, ma il contrario. Lo dice chiaramente Luca Ridolfi nel suo notevole libro, Il sacco del Nord. Se non si vuole ingannare la gente con un federalismo fasullo il federalismo fiscale deve ridurre il flusso delle risorse diretto al Sud. Per fronteggiare la reazione delle regioni penalized, the author suggests to compensate with a tax cut. But here it tarnishes his intelligence. Reducing taxes means, net, increase the public debt burden on the economy as a whole and proportionately, the richest part. That is the North. I do not think a good part affare.A that so far have not made the accounts of fiscal federalism. If we read the figures in the parliamentary reports are accurate, the weight, especially in current circumstances, is untenable. So we are talking about nothing. Indeed, no nothing. We are talking about a dramatic crisis of governo.E then? As it faces the threat, actual and real, of secession? Criticising the proposals are good. But what response is given to that threat? I take the utmost account of the reasoning Scalfari (as always). And I'm ready, as I said explicitly, to admit that my proposal involves risk. But the worst risk is to do nothing, while radical innovation has a great occasione.Il center of my proposal, I note, is not the creation of macro-regions. Lies in their function. Lies in the pact between the North and South, in which the two main parts of Italy would finally why they unità.Scalfari rightly says that we can not consider the gap between North and South Italian in the same way as any other Europe. This gap has reached a breaking point. And then: no è la prospettiva di un patto «drammatico» e anche rischioso la risposta che un grande paese dovrebbe dare alle minacce che incombono su di lui?Quale è l'alternativa? Lo spezzatino di Valentino Parlato? Non piace a lui e neppure a me, Per capire bene che cosa significa sono andato a cercare il verbo spezzettare nel vocabolario. Ecco che cosa ho trovato: «ridurre in pezzetti, sminuzzare, sbriciolare, smozzicare, tritare, triturare, stritolare, frammentare. Vedi anche, dividere».
PS. E il PD, che dice? Francamente non capisco. La sofferta adesione del PD al federalismo fiscale è segno di convinzione o di dismay? (Let's go to the temptations of idiotic "abstain." From what?).
The European situation is very serious. In the midst of the greatest economic crisis in 80 years, European governments are preparing to cut budgets in the vain hope of redressing the balance. And 'these days the news that the International Monetary Fund calls for further measures "Greek" to Spain, while Germany itself is ready to set a good example. In Italy the PD simply say "we told you so" (what? That was cut before?) And invoke a bit 'of distributive justice without grasping the heart of the problem. This is that the cuts will screw the European economies into a downward spiral that will put even more crises in the public and private accounts. Cowardly, moreover, the alleged necessity of the cuts is used to inflict another blow to the welfare systems with the justification that Europeans would have lived "above their means." But the argument is false. Europe as a whole has always lived with their means, did not in fact a foreign debt (in fact the opposite). Spain, the leading country among those most exposed, had the government accounts "in order" up to a year ago. The welfare state has nothing to do. 
