On Sunday 4th of December millions of Italians will be called to the polls to vote yes or no. The question: do you approve the following changes to the constitution - overcoming perfect bicameralism, reducing the number of MPs, reducing costs, eliminating a public entity and modifying the section concerning regions, provinces and municipalities?
I'm not going to go into the technical details, as it's all rather complicated unless you're a constitutional expert. I also won't say which way I voted (as an Italian abroad I've already voted by post).
I'm not going to go into the technical details, as it's all rather complicated unless you're a constitutional expert. I also won't say which way I voted (as an Italian abroad I've already voted by post).
What troubles me is the meaning that has been attributed to this referendum and the stakes involved.
This was (and supposedly still is) a referendum about whether to change the Italian constitution. On the one hand, the yes camp argue that these changes are necessary and that they will lead to real progress. On the other hand, the no camp argue that the constitution is not the problem and that the proposed new text is confusing and badly written.
However, this referendum is being seen by many as a test for prime minister Renzi's government. It is also seen in the context of a growing anti-establishment trend, which started with Brexit and was reinforced by the election of Donald Trump in the US presidential election. All sorts of doomsday scenarios are being painted: a no vote could destabilise the country's economy, spark another banking crisis and eventually threaten the survival of the Eurozone.
Of course, Renzi is partly to blame for this. Like Cameron with Brexit, Renzi turned the referendum into a personal matter when he announced that he would stand down if yes did not win. He later seemed to realise his mistake and backtracked, only to change his mind again: if no wins, he will resign - or so he says. Unlike other politicians, Italian politicians have a history of holding onto power till the bitter end.
According to the Financial Times, a no vote could lead to Italy leaving the euro and to the failure of up to eight Italian banks.
The Economist, meanwhile, is sending slightly mixed messages, with one article titled "Why Italy should vote no in its referendum. The country needs far-reaching reforms, just not the ones on offer". In another article the Economist warns that "the risk ((of a no vote)) is not so much instability as immobility: that months, even years, will be spent on yet more wrangling over the mechanics of politics and that Italy will not get the reforms it needs".
German finance ministre Schaueble hopes that Renzi will be successful and said that he would vote for him. The point, however, is that this is not a vote for or against Renzi.
Whatever the press and the politicians may say, however catastrophic the consequences may or may not be, the yes or no vote is not a judgement on the government and it is not about whether to leave the EU or the Eurozone. This is a referendum about the constitution. Nobody really knows what will happen. If no wins, as the polls predict, the consequences may not be as dramatic as some suggest. To cite the Economist again: "If, though, a lost referendum really were to trigger the collapse of the euro, then it would be a sign that the single currency was so fragile that its destruction was only a matter of time".
