«We don’t want to silence the opposition». This is how Michele Muratori (Libera) defended the amendment to the so-called “tagliola” (guillotine clause) during the article-by-article examination of the bill on “Amendments to the Regulations of the Grand and General Council” (Consiglio Grande e Generale). At the heart of the debate is Article 7: the majority is proposing to drop the reference to a “second day” and instead set a limit of 25 hours of effective proceedings, calculated from the conclusion of the general debate and the start of the article-by-article examination.
According to Muratori, the amendment significantly softens the original proposal and is primarily aimed at preventing the examination of complex measures — starting with the budget law — from dragging on close to year’s end, with the risk of falling into provisional budget management.
Below is the full statement by Michele Muratori (Libera):
Michele Muratori (Libera): We have presented an amendment to Article 7 which, aside from a few wording improvements, contains one substantive change: we propose eliminating the phrase “second day”. After extensive informal discussion with the opposition groups, it was decided that a compromise should be reached on this point. The “second day” was indeed a rather strict deadline, and what has been called the “guillotine” has been significantly softened by introducing a limit of twenty-five hours from the end of the general debate and the start of the article-by-article examination. The rationale behind both the original proposal and the subsequent amendment is to avoid — as often happens during the examination of finance bills, since this article mainly concerns a complex piece of legislation like the budget law — the risk of ending up in provisional budget management. In recent years, we have often come dangerously close to the Christmas holidays because the examination of the articles dragged on for too long. I would also like to refute the opposition’s interpretation: we do not want to take away their right to speak. During the examination of the last budget laws, we majority councillors completely refrained from intervening on the various amendments — both those from the opposition and those presented by the Government and the majority — precisely so as not to further prolong the examination of the law and its articles. Seen from another angle, this tool protects not only the majority but also the opposition, allowing for a proper legislative process and restoring dignity to a bill that should represent the year’s central piece of legislation. Many times we have witnessed a genuine negotiation between majority and opposition: on the second day, they would meet to bargain over which amendments to push forward and which to reject. We would like to restore dignity to the bill, even if that means partially narrowing the timeframe.
