«We could call it the “yogurt clause”, because it has an expiry date». Matteo Zeppa (Rete) uses this expression to challenge the 25-hour time limit during the examination of the articles of the bill “Amendments to the Rules of the Grand and General Council” (Consiglio Grande e Generale).
The core of the criticism concerns the scope of application of the rule. According to Zeppa, the majority continues to justify the new mechanism mainly by the need to avoid lengthy marathon sessions on the budget law, but the text does not contain any such restriction. The limit could therefore also come into play for tax reforms, measures on rights, or laws required to transpose the EU acquis.
Zeppa also defended the dialogue between majority and opposition that traditionally accompanies budget sessions, rejecting the idea that meetings on amendments can be dismissed as mere “haggling”.
Below is the full statement by Matteo Zeppa (Rete):
Matteo Zeppa (Rete): I wouldn’t call this clause a “guillotine”. We could call it a “yogurt clause”, because it has an expiry date. It’s limiting even to think that we have to argue with people who conceived a provision like this: it is extremely limiting and demeaning. But you wrote: «Should the examination of the articles of a bill extend beyond twenty-five hours from the close of the general debate». I’m thinking, for example, of the IGR reform or the law on voluntary termination of pregnancy. You verbally confine this provision to the budget law, but in reality you will be able to apply it to any bill whatsoever, because the text does not specify otherwise. I recall the current Government’s first budget law and the San Marino Mediterranea affair. We were right before Christmas, and the then-Secretary Celli asked the opposition to limit their speeches, assuring us that we would discuss the matter later, because we risked entering provisional budget management. The ritual of the budget law, which our colleague Muratori tried to belittle, is not about haggling. It means bringing forward ideas different from the Government’s. One cannot speak of haggling over articles and amendments: it’s an intellectually dishonest expression. When problems exist, they are dealt with. After two or three days of debate, meetings would be held: «Which proposals do you consider a priority? Which ones do you intend to pursue?». That wasn’t haggling — it was also listening to the Government’s assessments. This article doesn’t just serve to avoid provisional budget management, because it is applicable to all bills. You wrote it yourselves. Paradoxically, if bills requiring more than twenty-five hours of debate were to arrive in order to transpose the entire EU acquis, what would you do? Would you apply the guillotine to those too, even though it’s a systemic issue? The very wording of this amendment is limiting and demonstrates the intellectual inconsistency of whoever drafted it.
