If these reforms are, I Vote NO!

After more than twenty years I decided to get back in the queue to the polls to use the immense power that the state has granted me through my expensive Italian citizenship: December 4'm going to vote for the constitutional referendum. I have to inform you as well because in all honesty I have no idea, but I decided to go and vote and will vote NO.
However, before explaining the humble reasons that lead an anarchist like myself to use their precious time to participate in this "democratic" ritual, should plan a full-bodied and substantial
PREMISE
I want to first start by saying that I had to plug my nose and still withstand hard to retch at the thought of being on the same side of the fence of horrifying subjects such as Massimo D'Alema, Zagrebelsky Gustavo, Beppe Grillo and Motion 5 stables all, Matteo Salvini, Renato Brunetta, Silvio Berlusconi and companionship singer (at least sing ...) for whom i have a deep, persistent and constant scorn. But you want, even if a broken clock is right twice a day, when the choice is one of the three can also happen to be on the same side of people that makes you sick.
also state that I do not give absolutely nothing "to topple" the government of the equally despised Matteo Renzi. First, because I do not see a rational reason for a defeat of the government should resign and then yes because even if that happens I do not see on the horizon any Messiah who can save the geographical expression called Italy, militarily occupied by the organization (criminal ) that bears the name of the Italian Republic. I believe that it would take to save themselves:
- Less taxes (possibly zero);
- Less state spending (possibly zero);
- Fewer laws (few, clear and concise);
- Less state employees (possibly zero);
- Less State holdings in companies (possibly zero)
in short, to sum up in two words: LESS STATE.
But carries no political formation these instances, in Italy and I must say in virtually all the rest of the world (the exceptions are always interesting, but irrelevant to the outcome), trivially because who gets to make policy makes it to increase their own power on the other, not to reduce it.
So here it is at best to float or sink.
I think Renzi represents the floating, slow sinking or rather, not for what he does, but for external forces that support him and with him all the Italian State, reduced to an immense elephant in a china shop, already dead but it mummified and kept standing outside for fear of the consequences of his fall.
Probably unaware of the Marxist government (at least D'Alema concussion to read Marx did) Movement 5 stables mean the fast sinking for lack of external support and excess internal gullibility.
In both cases salvation is and remains an individual, then 'sti cocks of very great consequence of the referendum vote policies.
The latest and premise concerns the Italian Constitution: certainly will not vote NO to safeguard the Italian Constitution. The Italian Constitution is shit. Sucks. A jumble given birth Communists and Democrats self proclaimed winners of a lost war that does not respond to three key principles that a constitution should follow: synthesis, clarity and consistency.
Fortunately Antonino Trunfio on these pages regularly makes a meticulous work of criticism of this worthless crap: just read your post, I can only declare myself in agreement on all.
I'm going to vote and will vote NO to the constitutional referendum of December 4 because I made the huge splash of reading reform and believe pejorative than the current system. VERY pejorative. We see, then,
REASONS FOR MY NO
Analyze point by point the constitutional reform would be a long job, boring and completely useless to the bottom. As noted by our Guests the very fact that the reform is so long and complicated is reason enough for a dry and firm NO. But reading it to you if you want you can find it here .
Let us instead of the two pillars of the reform, which is more than enough: the abolition of perfect bicameralism and the Senate reform.
The perfect bicameralism is the process by which the two Houses of Parliament must approve both the exact same piece of legislation before it becomes effective. Any changes made to the text of a law by a Chamber shall be approved on the other. This process is realized in a coming and going of the text between the two chambers until final approval.
All this causes delays in the legislative process.
The reform aims to change this process by ensuring that the Senate votes, only some laws, while others just need the vote of one House of Representatives. In this way, the legislative process would be much faster. You could then do a lot more laws.
Now.
Have you by any chance you had even a moment in your life I do not say sure, but also just a vague feeling that there are too few laws in Italy?
Is there?
There seems to be so?
So you think, Miss Woods, Mr. Renzi?
And the souls of the dead were your worst, in this paesuccio fucking exist tens of thousands of laws and regulations, written with parts of the body intended to defecation by overpaid bureaucrats, in obvious, persistent and total contradiction with each other , so many and messy that the same government can not even tell you not to apply them, but even to explain, for fuck's sake, the so-called "citizen" - it's time to call it by its name, and that is a subject - and your fucking vital problem and priority is to change the Constitution because they can approve even more?
NO. I say NO. And I add, moderately, FUCK.
After this peaceful criticism of the first pillar of the reform, we move to the second, hilarious, pillar: Senate reform. For a while 'I have passed off as "abolition" of the Senate, then they realized that taking the piss was really too exaggerated for minds clouded by tivvù, they are passed to the word "reform."
As mentioned in case of victory of the yes, the Senate will not vote some more laws. But it will not disappear, ever, but simply no longer be elected, but composed of councilors elected by regional councils and a little more even by the President of the Republic, perhaps because otherwise the subjects could begin to suspect that it did not serve a fucking him either. The new Senate will vote only some laws, particularly those concerning the application of European regulations (which then, as known to the bureaucrats are in parks give birth more laws, will be very few, right?) And those of local interest, but also other , whose confusissima and absurd list found in Article 10 of the reform .
Basically we try to merely copy the dysfunctional German parliamentary system, but it is at least consistent because Germany is a Federal State. Instead the Italian Republic is not only federal, but in this same constitutional reform is going to limit the autonomy of the regions, rimodificando Title V, then on the one hand you a more federal parliament, on the other hand is limited federalism. What does it mean? Sarcazzo.
Throughout this whole ordeal it is justified with the mythological "cutting the cost of politics", that when I hear the phrase I put my hand to the gun because I already know that at porn is coming soon: the new senators, in fact, will have regional advisers and perceive already the salary for that role, so they will not receive the salary of senators (but daily allowances and reimbursement miscellaneous expenses, make no mistake, yes).
Now.
Already talking about the cost reduction of parliament when the parliament itself has not only the barbers as employees, but also pays them as an executive of a multinational company, is a jack ass, but if we cut 'sti fucking costs - and them we want to cut, oh if you want to cut - it is no longer easy to start drastically reducing the number of parliamentarians? Let's use, say, twenty, ten senators and ten deputies. So maybe we know them well and know with whom blame for the filth they do. We still want to cut? Let's say these 20 do not take no salary, and live entirely on donations and finished the film. Are the "representatives of the people"? The "people" will be happy to donate a few cents to their representatives, no? NO? And if NO, fuck's sake, it is right to die of hunger!
But once we have with this clever move reduced to zero "costs of" stop policy for the benefit of talking about it and we go to see the hundreds of billions that are thrown in the toilet, because in this paesuccio the state spends billions eight hundred and tell OTTOCENTO the year of public spending, which is a number that you spell that 800 million € 000.00 and I like some suspicion that it is a tantinino exaggerated. Maybe we can do better. A limaturina. What do you say, huh? Un'accorciatina, a trim. We ask barbers House how to do, with all the money that will surely take the world's best in the field.
So even at this, let's face it, crazy shit Senate reform I say, moderately as always, NO.
And that is enough.
The rest of the reform is secondary. It also has something positive, but they are irrelevant details compared to the pillars. They could have let us vote article by article, but I wanted to go all-in, and now, as far as I'm concerned, their seven red with two black can stick it straight in the ass.
I wish to close this post here already too long, but I feel the buzz in the ears of the average piddino, who says the recurring phrase from radical chic in champagnino and hogan "yeah, but if ragionassero all so we would not do anything." Phrase that infuriates me like a Tasmanian devil in speed overdose.
Noting the average piddino that the state does less and better off you are, because you really want to do, I will make
SOME PROPOSALS FOR THE REFORM OF THE CONSTITUTION
First the good, healthy and effective constitutional reform should start with the repeal of the current Constitution: we take it, we print on a roll of toilet paper (probably serve one maxi) and use it to wipe our asses.
Then we start to put some 'of limits: we put a limit on the size of the same Constitution (for example a publishing folder), a limit to the size of the Civil Code, a limit to the size of the Penal Code, a limit to taxation and a limit to spending.
We then add perhaps that the popular initiative laws by parliament - place that should exist -nemmeno we pass and in any case the new laws, as well as international treaties, must be adopted by all and only by a referendum, with a very high quorum ( 75%) and a very high consensus (75%). Maybe we also say that instead the referendums quorum do not have just a simple majority. And we could also say that if by chance the parliamentarians - given that there must be - dare to propose a law that has already been repealed by a referendum, these are hanged or impaled in front of the parliament and their corpses left there for a few months as an incentive for colleagues to do better. Type: you have proposed a proportional electoral law after we have beaten us for years to repeal it and in the end we succeeded? ZAC! Impaled and remains there with a face like a idiot to greet your former colleagues in the morning.
Finally Condiamo all with the possibility of each community to become free and independent, and we ready our new cool fresh constitution to serve the citizens.
Happen? No, not going to happen. But do not say that we have no proposals. I do not like, I know, but we have.
Meanwhile your proposal really makes me shit, so this time I will vote and will vote NO!