Only a few hours after the referendum results were announced I tried to think about possible scenarios following the "yes" to questions on the water. Has anyone tried to follow me in my reasoning. I apologize to everyone for the time I did lose by reading useless comments. Yeah, because in reality the headlines have confirmed that many had suspected for some time: the victory in the referendum is a slap in the face of Berlusconi. Stop.
And the referendum questions? Who cares, you want to slap the taste of the Prime Minister? But then the rules were repealed right or wrong? We express ourselves on this little, perhaps in many (voters and promoters) do not even know what they voted for, but the flavor of slapping the President is worth some sacrifice. In short, is the attitude of her husband (Italian citizen) that to spite his wife (Berlusconi) ...
Perhaps it is a reasoning somewhat 'pessimistic and perhaps the voters have consciously met its objective to hit the President and to repeal certain rules (the water) is too burdensome for citizens, especially those who live in conditions of poverty. It is known, to the aqueducts in private hands, ugly and evil by definition, does not protect the rights of citizens. And then the profit on the water supply: a blasphemy! Water is an essential right and nobody can be deprived and that's why his administration should remain in the hands of public bodies that will never ever allow the water to make a profit or, worse, to detach the user to those that, for one reason or another are unable to pay.
How to comment since the articles appeared on the June 14 Journal of Southern us? On the front page, just below the title on "slap on Berlusconi" (actually unimaginative and taken in almost all national newspapers), another article captures my attention: "Emiliano-Vendola, defaulting on the dispute." This is a group of 84 families evicted that, for non-payment, you are seen to suspend the service from FPA.
If the story was not dramatic, it would be smiling. On the same page displayed an article that highlights the referendum victory, namely the role of the public, only one able to guarantee inalienable right which is water and one that emphasizes the action as "absurd" AQP (this definition Mayor Emiliano) to suspend payment to a group of families who legitimately occupy a complex owned by the municipality evicted.
According to the article, the non-payment arises from a dispute initiated by more than legitimate stakeholders, but "the FPA has ordered the separation on the day of the referendum public water" (exact words of the mayor Emiliano, which PD representative supported the referendum).
I wonder if this news had emerged a few days earlier and had the right emphasis in the outcome of the referendum would change anything?
Even more surprising is the response that gives the Mayor Emiliano Vendola ".... We, as a public shareholder .... We have a lot of sensitivity to the poorest, but we also have a duty to quit the bad habit of arrears ... the prerogative of the richest bands, but also some public entities. " But it is the same Vendola Secretary of SEL is the brother or reactionary? But it is the president of the Puglia region capable of winning over the people with arguments lucid and coherent or incoherent is a liberal socialist who will wrap the words?
Perhaps it is not clear to the President of the 84 families evicted (and certainly not rich people) were without water. The fault lies with the Municipality of Bari that would have to pay and did not do it (because of litigation), accumulating a debt of 3 million euros. This is a debt between public bodies should not worry much as a champion of the Left Vendola, yet it is such as to justify in the eyes of the President of the Region, the owner of AQP, the work of the organization. But why deprive a group of citizens in the name of an inalienable property of a non-payment of a public body to another public body forever? Would not it be fairer to hit the city administration in other assets (for example, the Mayor seized the car) rather than charging an alleged breach of contract to the citizens of the City?
Vendola SEL secretary would never have justified the actions of FPA, but obviously, in this case, Vendola speaks for the owner of a waterworks Authority, which has its own rules of economic management and can not tolerate non-payment, even by "some Public Bodies ". But it is certain that the FPA does not have debts to third parties? Sure that the Irrigation Board, the Consortium Apulo Lucan, ENEL, etc.. can not claim credits from FPA. If not, it would be very serious to think that the Apulian Aqueduct, regardless of the difficulties faced by the authorities (public) that the supply of water or energy, used a different yardstick with authorities debtors.
The most arrogant among private operators ugly and bad, he could better express the ideas expressed by the current owner AQP audience: claims are alleged against me immediately, using all means (even depriving people of the inalienable rights), while for the debts you may think, especially if the suppliers fail if they are altri.In conclusion, Emiliano asking for the head manager of FPA, Vendola responds that they have acted for the best, just follow the corporate policy and implemented a healthy economic management of the organization.
Rounding out the reasoning on the virtuosity of AQP, the assessor Beloved, in another article appeared in the same edition of the Journal of the South, comes to assume that next year we may revise rates downwards. The conditional is obligatory, because, I am sure the AQP will find a way to best use the resulting treasure Utility, budget, perhaps with some pre-election promotional initiative so fashionable in Apulia.
In conclusion, it may be that the referendum has ruled that water is a public good, but the money to pay for it are always those of the citizens who continue to pay exorbitant rates and to be harassed by the body, strictly public and inefficient.
And the referendum questions? Who cares, you want to slap the taste of the Prime Minister? But then the rules were repealed right or wrong? We express ourselves on this little, perhaps in many (voters and promoters) do not even know what they voted for, but the flavor of slapping the President is worth some sacrifice. In short, is the attitude of her husband (Italian citizen) that to spite his wife (Berlusconi) ...
Perhaps it is a reasoning somewhat 'pessimistic and perhaps the voters have consciously met its objective to hit the President and to repeal certain rules (the water) is too burdensome for citizens, especially those who live in conditions of poverty. It is known, to the aqueducts in private hands, ugly and evil by definition, does not protect the rights of citizens. And then the profit on the water supply: a blasphemy! Water is an essential right and nobody can be deprived and that's why his administration should remain in the hands of public bodies that will never ever allow the water to make a profit or, worse, to detach the user to those that, for one reason or another are unable to pay.
How to comment since the articles appeared on the June 14 Journal of Southern us? On the front page, just below the title on "slap on Berlusconi" (actually unimaginative and taken in almost all national newspapers), another article captures my attention: "Emiliano-Vendola, defaulting on the dispute." This is a group of 84 families evicted that, for non-payment, you are seen to suspend the service from FPA.
If the story was not dramatic, it would be smiling. On the same page displayed an article that highlights the referendum victory, namely the role of the public, only one able to guarantee inalienable right which is water and one that emphasizes the action as "absurd" AQP (this definition Mayor Emiliano) to suspend payment to a group of families who legitimately occupy a complex owned by the municipality evicted.
According to the article, the non-payment arises from a dispute initiated by more than legitimate stakeholders, but "the FPA has ordered the separation on the day of the referendum public water" (exact words of the mayor Emiliano, which PD representative supported the referendum).
I wonder if this news had emerged a few days earlier and had the right emphasis in the outcome of the referendum would change anything?
Even more surprising is the response that gives the Mayor Emiliano Vendola ".... We, as a public shareholder .... We have a lot of sensitivity to the poorest, but we also have a duty to quit the bad habit of arrears ... the prerogative of the richest bands, but also some public entities. " But it is the same Vendola Secretary of SEL is the brother or reactionary? But it is the president of the Puglia region capable of winning over the people with arguments lucid and coherent or incoherent is a liberal socialist who will wrap the words?
Perhaps it is not clear to the President of the 84 families evicted (and certainly not rich people) were without water. The fault lies with the Municipality of Bari that would have to pay and did not do it (because of litigation), accumulating a debt of 3 million euros. This is a debt between public bodies should not worry much as a champion of the Left Vendola, yet it is such as to justify in the eyes of the President of the Region, the owner of AQP, the work of the organization. But why deprive a group of citizens in the name of an inalienable property of a non-payment of a public body to another public body forever? Would not it be fairer to hit the city administration in other assets (for example, the Mayor seized the car) rather than charging an alleged breach of contract to the citizens of the City?
Vendola SEL secretary would never have justified the actions of FPA, but obviously, in this case, Vendola speaks for the owner of a waterworks Authority, which has its own rules of economic management and can not tolerate non-payment, even by "some Public Bodies ". But it is certain that the FPA does not have debts to third parties? Sure that the Irrigation Board, the Consortium Apulo Lucan, ENEL, etc.. can not claim credits from FPA. If not, it would be very serious to think that the Apulian Aqueduct, regardless of the difficulties faced by the authorities (public) that the supply of water or energy, used a different yardstick with authorities debtors.
The most arrogant among private operators ugly and bad, he could better express the ideas expressed by the current owner AQP audience: claims are alleged against me immediately, using all means (even depriving people of the inalienable rights), while for the debts you may think, especially if the suppliers fail if they are altri.In conclusion, Emiliano asking for the head manager of FPA, Vendola responds that they have acted for the best, just follow the corporate policy and implemented a healthy economic management of the organization.
Rounding out the reasoning on the virtuosity of AQP, the assessor Beloved, in another article appeared in the same edition of the Journal of the South, comes to assume that next year we may revise rates downwards. The conditional is obligatory, because, I am sure the AQP will find a way to best use the resulting treasure Utility, budget, perhaps with some pre-election promotional initiative so fashionable in Apulia.
In conclusion, it may be that the referendum has ruled that water is a public good, but the money to pay for it are always those of the citizens who continue to pay exorbitant rates and to be harassed by the body, strictly public and inefficient.
Nessun commento:
Posta un commento