Letters
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR •
The practice of presenting a minor reform as the reform of the century
Who wrote to the editor-in-chief, Claudio Cerasa
26 SEP 26
Translated by AI
(Photo: Ansa)
To the Editor – Today’s parade of electoral vanity must include a bill by the PD (principal sponsors Marco Sarracino and Elly Schlein) on the ‘right to remain in Italy’. Tabled in the Chamber of Deputies last June, it aims to stem the exodus of our young people abroad. Among the eight measures envisaged for this purpose, one stands out: a net three-year increase of 200 euros a month in pay for those under 35 on permanent contracts. But that is not the point. The point is that the funding is to be secured by ‘taxing the excess profits of companies with annual revenues exceeding 50 million euros’ [sic!]. Not through any cuts to public spending, of course. Then they complain when people call them the ‘tax party’.
Michele Magno
* * *
To the Editor – One might well wonder how much longer the ‘speculation over appointments’ at the ECB will continue, given the planned departures – some announced in advance, others not – of Lagarde, Schnabel and Lane (the latter, in fact, is leaving in May, upon the natural expiry of his term). It should not be acceptable for an institution of the ECB’s stature – which, within the EU, enjoys autonomy and independence on a par with the highest state bodies – to have leaders who are ‘in limbo’, with one foot in and one foot out, whilst the ‘revolving door’ is in full swing. This applies in particular to President Lagarde. The issue of successive incompatibilities is not even touched upon, whilst, once the intention to bring the term of office to an early end has been raised, the correct course of action would be to implement this plan without undue delay. This delay offers a favourable opportunity for certain countries to put forward succession proposals. It is, on the other hand, remarkable that Italy is being excluded from this informal list of candidates, given that it would, in fact, have all the prerequisites and conditions to put forward its own candidate. But perhaps, for now, it is preferable to stay out of the fray.
Angelo De Mattia
* * *
To the Editor – The education decree encapsulates the Meloni government’s ideology: not to reform, but to set things in stone. Reality will be the one to thaw us out, and we’ll creak quite a bit!
Francesco Cisternino
By now we should be familiar with the ‘Melonism’ algorithm: turning a minor reform into the reform of the century, simply for the sake of hearing the Left say ‘no’ to everything the Left has always supported, and simply for the sake of hearing the opposition say ‘no’ to causes it is hard not to support (the burqa in schools). Electoral games.
* * *
To the Editor – Even the children of Italian parents are not born speaking Italian. They learn the language through the educational processes of primary school – the very same processes that can enable the children of foreign parents to become Italian speakers too. I am not arguing that the situations are identical, but many of the starting (and ending) conditions are the same. I remain convinced that the government’s decree lacks common sense, because prudent administrative handling of critical cases would have sufficed, without the rigidity of a legal provision which, moreover, ends up resembling an obstacle course.
Giuliano Cazzola
I see another problem. The 2010 circular explicitly allowed for exceptions to the well-known percentage, based on the ‘adequate language skills’ of individual groups of pupils. Today, under the new law – as it has been presented – if there is a foreign national who speaks Italian but does not hold Italian citizenship and has not attended two years of nursery school, they may be counted as a foreign national. The issue does exist, but the Ministry of Education, to whom we put the question, has assured us that the matter will be resolved administratively, through implementing circulars, because this interpretation, according to the Minister, would be consistent with the purpose of the legislation.
* * *
To the Editor – Are we really sure – and I mean honestly sure – that the 30 per cent limit on foreign pupils per class is the real problem facing Italian schools? On closer inspection, we would discover that the problems stem from the classroom and then knock on the door of families, where young people should be taught how to live. School, in fact, comes after the family: that is where true education begins – or should begin – and is something that, in the classroom, should ideally be integrated, enriched and brought to the fore. Are these reactionary, nostalgic or, to use current terminology, ‘old-fashioned’ views? The truth is that the real and dramatic ‘30 per cent’ is the proportion of pupils who complete compulsory education with genuine reading, writing and comprehension skills. The problem is not ‘ghetto’ classes for immigrants, but the gradual ghettoisation of the cultural quality of our education system, from the teaching staff right down to the grassroots.
Francesco De Leonardis
* * *
To the Editor – In Parliament, a political battle can be decided even before a vote takes place, simply by determining what can be put to a vote and what cannot. This is what happened in the Chamber of Deputies regarding citizenship. On 25 February, in the Constitutional Affairs Committee, the PD asked to separate its proposals from the Lega’s text, of which Igor Iezzi was the lead signatory. Simona Bonafè explained that these were different matters: on the one hand, proposals aimed at broadening access to citizenship; on the other, the Lega’s proposal, which focused on cases where citizenship is barred or revoked. Iezzi declared himself in full agreement. The request had its own logic. But it produced a political effect very different from what had been envisaged. The examination in fact continued solely on the Iezzi proposal, and the scope of the debate became very narrow: restrictions on the acquisition of citizenship and revocation. The Chamber’s own documentation describes the content of the proposal in this way. This is where the paradox arises. The opposition parties tabled amendments on ius soli and ius scholae. Those amendments could have placed Forza Italia, in particular, in a politically awkward position, given that Antonio Tajani’s party had backed its own proposal to broaden access to citizenship through the education system. But that vote will not take place: the opposition’s amendments on ius soli and ius scholae were declared inadmissible because they fell outside the scope of the bill. The result is almost perfect in its irony. The PD had called for the two issues to be separated in order to better defend its own cause. However, it has ended up helping to erect the procedural barrier that now prevents the opposition from using that very cause to put the majority under pressure. This applies in particular to Forza Italia, which will not be forced to vote against something similar to what it itself is proposing. “Words are important,” as Nanni Moretti used to say. In Parliament, they are sometimes even more so: because they determine not only what is said, but even what can be voted on.
Luca Maffei