Venetian here, let me state a few facts about this:
1) The referendum in Veneto was supported by the Venetian section of all major parties, across all the political spectrum.
2) In Italy five regions have a far greater degree of autonomy for historical reasons. Many Comuni (city councils) voted to leave Veneto to join nearby Trentino Alto-Adige just for this far greater autonomy. The proponents of the referendum would like to see more federalism in Italy, e.g. following the German model.
3) Italy is very divided from an economical point of view. Veneto and Lombardy may be easily compared to the richest German industrial districts, whereas the South's economy is not so different from Greece. Taxation in Italy is very high, and a lot of money gets redistributed from the rich North to the poorer South. To make a long story short each citizen from Veneto gives about 5000€ per year to each citizen in the South. Edit: see noisymemories's comment below, often the money is lost in a maze of entities and inefficiency.
I perfectly acknowledge a country should redistribute wealth, but many perceive that this redistribution is too high and unfair, and call for a less centralized Italy.
4) Italy is a young country, with 150 years of history, whereas Veneto has millenium-long story as the Serenissima Republic. The Venetian language is widespread alongside Italian, and many (again, across all political spectrum) have stronger ties to the Venetian heritage rather than to the Italian heritage.
I'd love to comment more specifically, but as one of those people from the "poorer South" - by all means, do it. Those 5000€ have historically never been actually routed to the actual regions, anyway - mainly they get lost in a maze of entities and small time orgs that disappear just after they get the money, often with the implicit acknowledgement by politicians of both places.
In exchange, I have just one request - please ask your local MPs to stop saving the ass of our corrupted politicians who foster such behavior, instead of giving them parliamentary immunity or "institutional benefit of doubt" every time some anti-corruption or anti-mafia investigation gets them. It would be a nice start.
1) Of course
2) Autonomy doesn't allow the type of independence you are looking for
3) It is very much, and for different reasons, but if your problem is redistribution of wealth on a national level, but not on a local it just means that you feel that southern Italy isn't Italy as much as Veneto is. Which isn't really a great thing in 2017
4) Rome and Naples have longer and definitely more impactful histories. we should be moving toward the future, instead of still grasping toward a few historical myths of the past (la serenissima fell on the 18th century).
It really sickens me to see people supporting segregation, separation and justify their ignorance with some historical fact that has no ties to the present.
For what I personally care, Veneto and Lombardia could become their own countries, but let's just call things with their names instead of finding silly justifications.
The reference to "la serenissima" is simply ludicrous, yet I see more and more often such things (in other countries as well).
When people are unhappy with the present (for any possible reason, like being "just average", which is not necessarily a bad thing, among one of them), they look back to the past, to some "glorious times".
However, they only look at the most successful moment[s], they never wonder how things built up, how they got lost, etc. It's much easier, because this way you can blame it on someone else, instead of rolling up your sleeves and work to create a (more) decent environment.
I am happy with my present, however I am surrounded by Venetian culture, everywhere around me, from my native Venetian language, to monuments in my city, from food and traditions to street names in the Venetian language.
Everywhere around me speaks of my Venetian heritage.
Venetian are hard-working people, after WW2 Veneto went from an underdeveloped, rural region to one of the richest regions in Italy, whose per-capita GDP compares with that of the richest German industrial districts.
Still, people always felt deeply bound to their Serenissima roots. It’s not a matter of unhappiness or hard times, it’s a matter of a millennial history that pervades the whole region and cannot be denied.
Yes, there are many problems, some of which could be solved without a Constitutional reform, some of which would need one, the redistribution being on of these.
However, given that five Regions essentially don't engage in such redistribution due to their special status, and given that it is a widespread opinion that this special status is just for historical reasons -- making very little sense today -- I think that a constitutional reform may be on the table soon.
The Veneto referendum is a good demonstration that these issues have widespread support from all the political spectrum.
I honestly doubt. The required supermajority is incredibly hard to achieve, and without it you would need a national referendum with no hope of passing.
The referendum might have had widespread _local_ support, but at the country level it's a whole different story. Why didn't Veneto get more autonomy (same as what they want to ask now) when the Lega Nord was part of the national government coalition?
It might feel empowering demanding taxes to be spent in the richer areas instead of helping poorer areas: Zaia, Governor of Veneto and member of the anti-Europe, anti-Euro, anti-italian nation Lega Nord party, promoted the referendum demanding that "taxes in Veneto should stay here, not helping Sicily".
It probably is, at first. But in an economy of different parties, who produces more needs some buyers to keep growing. If there are not enough buyers, overproduction and economical collapse will knock at the door. You can see this trend internationally: we seldom see a country be an outlier in the yearly growth. Either all countries grow, or all countries decline. It is the % that changes. We saw this during the 2008-2012 crisis in particular.
It is in the interest of the richest areas to help the poorest. By doing so not only the average quality of life of a country increases. With less economical inequalities between regions, the once poorer regions are buyers of goods of the once richer ones.
While you correctly associated Lombardia and Veneto to Germany, you forgot to mention that after the WWII, Germany went split politically and economically. When it got re-united in 1989-1991 East Germany was economically very diverse from the more developed West. Our fathers were wiser: instead of doing referendum demanding taxes to be withheld in the West, they demanded to be taxed to help the East. [source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_reunification#Cost_of_r... ] After 20 years those differences are still somewhat visible, yet they do not constitute a problem for Germany's growth and quality of life as a nation.
On the historical side it has been confirmed that 2/3 of the gold resources in Italy came from Regno delle due Sicilie [source: https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regno_delle_Due_Sicilie in Patrimonio e finanza section ]. Those lands are today's most rural parts of Italy, yet contributed the most to the wealth of Italy as a nation.
> It is in the interest of the richest areas to help the poorest.
Yes, however one still needs to decide to which extent. Italy helps the poorest areas much more than Germany or the US do. Would a federal model like Germany work better?
That's why I said that redistribution is OK in principle, but many feel that in Italy there's just too much of it.
> On the historical side it has been confirmed that 2/3 of the gold resources in Italy came from Regno delle due Sicilie
Many wrongs were commited in that age, many of which targeted the North, as well.
However, if you sum all the subsidies the South has been granted through the years (one among many: Cassa per il Mezzogiorno) that would easily offset those gold resources.
Edit: actually is more, Cassa per il Mezzogiorno was given about 140 billions, while 2/3 of Italy's gold resources are worth about 100 billions. One should also keep in mind that Cassa per il Mezzogiorno was active only between 1950 and 1984, and many other subsidies for the South were present before, during and after.
> That's why I said that redistribution is OK in principle, but many feel that in Italy there's just too much of it.
While the amount is huge, that is not event the biggest issue. What people resent is _how_ that money is spent: public construction project meant mostly to funnel money to organized crime and companies of relatives of politicians; covering the bizarre expenses of the politicians; and the never ending legion of public employees that got a job in exchange of votes (but get paid without working much or at all). If you add the fact that southern Italy is where most of tax evasion and health-related fraud occurs, the feeling for many is not that they are paying to help the poorer, but that they are sweating so that others can live a comfortable life.
While it is not a black-white situation (there are also such issues in the North, and hard working people in the South), the difference is notable.
Lombardy voted to have more control regarding immigration and safety, Veneto to change their taxes and have more control in the "residuo fiscale" (what's left of taxes after all the administration costs has been covered).
Neither is allowed by the concept of regional autonomy in Italy.
Unfortunately, just like any other "independence" request these days, it's just a move to avoid helping poorer states and drawing a thick libe between "us and them".
They have been talking about it for years, they just jumped on the latest speedwagon.
Honestly - how long more can Lombardy help the South. The freaking dogs on the street know about the Cassa Del Mezzogiorno. My father emigrated from Naples in the 60s and found a job in Lombardy, where he met my (Lombard) mother. I emigrated from Lombardy to Ireland. Not advocating emigration at all costs, but certainly governments of the last 50 years have advocated centralization and unfair redistribution of wealth to the detriment and frustration of the North. The South of Italy has so much potential (between UNESCO/POIs sites and wonderful landscape, tourism alone would get everybody employed year round), how it remained poor all these years is a mystery that goes beyond reductive punts on organized crime.
organised crime is everywhere in italy, there is a long going conversation to understand the "south situation" in italy, it has historical roots, lack of investments and political corruption on a national level that put investments into the hands of the local mafias.
Falcone (a man who knew a thing or 50 about organized crime) said that once you have taken money out of the hands of organized crime they are dead. Freeze accounts, suspend influx, cut the pipe. Without subventions to the south, the Mafia has nowhere to pick that money up.
Sorry for the late answer. What I mean is, If this is going to actually affect the money flow from North Italy to... basically the black hole which is the political and criminal ecosystem of Southern politics, well - Let's just say they got quite convincing "arguments" to make sure Zaia & Co. backtrack on their positions. And I'm not even talking about by violent means.
Unfortunately, just like any other "independence" request these days, it's just a move to avoid helping poorer states
While it’s possible that there’s some of that attitude in Catalonia, I’d point out that the other large, recent European independence movement in Scotland was emphatically not that. Brexit, comparable on some levels, is also different.
In reality, the reasons for independence/sescession movements gaining strength is complex and varies from place to place. That description seems a little reductive.
Scotland wanted to leave for economic independence (The national identity, which i respect, is always a political excuse).
Brexit "let's get back european money and put them into nhs"?How is that going not the same?Oh the rest was about the immigrants.
Catalonia is literally the same, with just more political madness to it.
The reason behind all of this is that we are living in a harsh economic era, politics failed in providing a guidance and unity (since a while) and people don't feel empathy towards other side of their countries and blame them for their country defects, as if you could just point the finger to a specific region or group of people to blame them for the economic tragedies and corruption of modern politics.
> One of the regions' main complaints is that they send much more in taxes to Rome than they get back in public spending, and want to roughly halve their contribution.
This seems to be the common denominator a lot of the independence movements in Europe and, possibly, elsewhere. The desire to keep the profits in urbanized centers while still being able to sell their stuff, without tariffs, elsewhere.
Contrary to popular misinformation, nation states are more modern than multi-nation empires -- they are in fact a product of the Enlightenment and the french revolution.
We had the former with asian and hellenistic kingdoms, Rome, etc, all the way to the 19th century.
>Let’s never forget the horrors of a disassembled Europe, filled with nationalists and xenofobes
You might only remember WWI and WWII, but Europe was shedding blood in wars for near 1000 years, for the most part because of a lack of nation states -- kingdoms, empires and feudal overlords fought for control, while masses fought to secede and establish free of control nation states that they could govern according to their preferences. That's how the modern democracies were established.
As for WWI and WWII, those were the remnants of fighting for control over the world from imperialist empires -- the opposite of humble nation states.
Britain, France, and co were colonial powers, whereas Germany and Italy were feeling left out. Those were the last bursts of those old "empires". When the colonies mostly died and the US took over uncontested primacy over global affairs from old Europe, the tensions in Europe died with the lowered stakes (and of course were revived by the US and USSR in the Cold War and tons of peripheral wars).
The nationalism started in XIX century by joining multitude of different regions into nation-states then homogenized by central administration, common educations system, military service and propagating 'natural' borders with 'natural' and 'eternal' history.
The idea of Europe as collection of semi-autonomic historical regions is complete opposite of nationalism.
Sure, because requesting less funds to be send to a central government is now "nationalist and xenophobic"
Isn't it funny how for some people "everybody I don't like is a Nazi"?
Isn't it funny how "progressives" accept backwards practices and religious crap in name of "diversity"?
Then they are "surprised" when Brexit happens, or when there is a rise in antisemitism in certain places or when women's right are curtailed. Gee I wonder why...
The biggest horrors of mankind coincide with strong power monopolies, most obvious in dictatorships in big nation states.
In other words:
- There was rarely a democratic vote on "let's just kill X" with X being a religious, ethnic or whatever group.
- There was rarely a small state committing horrible crimes of epic proportions. Partly because they don't have the means, partly because it's easier to flee small states, partly due to other reasons.
Pol Pot may not have matched Mao/Stalin/Hitler/etc's death toll but he did kill 25% of Cambodia. The Rwandan genocide wiped out more than half of the Tutsis in the country. Small states are perfectly capable of genocide.
> Let’s never forget the horrors of a disassembled Europe ...
Quite the opposite, let's never forget the horrors of attempted unification of desperate nationalities of Europe under large reichs, socialist utopias, or just the good 'ol imperial expansion.
> It’s just funny how the modern nationalist and xenofobe believe they’re “super cool and progressive”.
Something tells me people voting for these issues, didn't really care about being looking "super cool" but had other, slightly more nuanced concerns.
Also, if the goal is to convince any of them to abandon their positions, mocking them and calling them "xenophobes" will have the exact opposite effect.
You are absolutely wrong. The referendum was supported by the Venetian sections of all major parties, including PD (Partito Democratico, Italian main centre-left party).
'Super cool and progressive'? To whom do you attribute those words? Actually it's your trivialization of serious issues. It would be more constructive to examine somewhat more dispassionately why it is that so many disparate groups across Europe are concerned and unhappy with the status quo.
Umm; did they just contradict themselves?
"We remain inside the Italian nation with more autonomy while Catalonia wants to become the 29th state of the European Union. We, no. Not for now." - So, they don't want to be seen like Catalonia, yet they say "Not for now" meaning they must be seen as such. I think the whole theory of giving certain regions extra autonomy while expecting that region to forever be part of the unified country has now been completely dumped.
> I think the whole theory of giving certain regions extra autonomy while expecting that region to forever be part of the unified country has now been completely dumped.
In Italy five regions have a far greater autonomy, for historical reasons. The proponents of the referendum would want something similar for Lombardy and Veneto, and in principle for all regions.
>I think the whole theory of giving certain regions extra autonomy while expecting that region to forever be part of the unified country has now been completely dumped.
And yet, that's exactly how it works in tons of places. Germany, Switzerland, heck, the US...
(Also: forever is a long time. Nothing lasts forever. In 100 years the landscape can be totally different).
As far as I see it, they need the threat of independence so that they aren't ignored. "we aren't looking at it now, but if you don't consider our tax proposal, we'll have no choice but to look at independance more seriously"
It's not a tax proposal, and it's depressing how many people voted thinking it was one.
In Lombardy it's about a list of 23 special topics, which the Constitution says are legislated by both State and regions. The Constitution also says that regions can agree with the central government on getting exclusive legislation on some or all of these topics. There was no need even to have a referendum to start the process. And there is no money on the table, but the president of the region kept mentioning "30 billion euros" which reminds me of the NHS and the British referendum. Not coincidentally, the president is running for reelection in 6 months.
In Veneto the question was simply "would you like more autonomy" without saying what and how. After voting, the president said it's about the 23 topics plus keeping tax money in Veneto. The latter however would require amending the Constitution, which in turn requires either a 2/3 supermajority in both houses, or a simple majority plus a referendum across all of Italy. It's just not going to happen. Constitutional changes have happened in the past, through either a supermajority or a referendum, but this one has no choice of passing. Regardless, a referendum was unnecessary there too.
Both referendums were a huge waste of money, basically amounting to campaigning with public money. They were a farce just like the one in Catalunya, but they were both completely legal and independence from Italy is not on the table anywhere, with the exception of a few nutjobs (equally subdivided among both rich and poor regions).
Addendum: Lombardy played with electronic voting; votes from the opposition were needed to do the referendum, because according to the regional statute referendums need a supermajority, and one opposition party agreed to vote on the condition that voting would be electronic. The president kept boasting about how we would have known the results five minutes after closing the ballot (it takes about three hours to do manual counting), yet 10 hours after we do not even know precisely how many people have voted.
The two options are not mutually exclusive. Think of Germany: each Länder has a great degree of autonomy (similar to what this referendum is asking for Lombardy and Veneto) and still the country as a whole is one of pillars of Europe.
1) The referendum in Veneto was supported by the Venetian section of all major parties, across all the political spectrum.
2) In Italy five regions have a far greater degree of autonomy for historical reasons. Many Comuni (city councils) voted to leave Veneto to join nearby Trentino Alto-Adige just for this far greater autonomy. The proponents of the referendum would like to see more federalism in Italy, e.g. following the German model.
3) Italy is very divided from an economical point of view. Veneto and Lombardy may be easily compared to the richest German industrial districts, whereas the South's economy is not so different from Greece. Taxation in Italy is very high, and a lot of money gets redistributed from the rich North to the poorer South. To make a long story short each citizen from Veneto gives about 5000€ per year to each citizen in the South. Edit: see noisymemories's comment below, often the money is lost in a maze of entities and inefficiency.
I perfectly acknowledge a country should redistribute wealth, but many perceive that this redistribution is too high and unfair, and call for a less centralized Italy.
4) Italy is a young country, with 150 years of history, whereas Veneto has millenium-long story as the Serenissima Republic. The Venetian language is widespread alongside Italian, and many (again, across all political spectrum) have stronger ties to the Venetian heritage rather than to the Italian heritage.