The referendum of 8 and 9 June is many things and changes shape depending on who you look at it. It is an opportunity to strengthen a leadership (it is not known whether that of Elly Schlein or Maurizio Landini), or an event that can sink it (in this case, only that of Schlein). Or, it can be proof that the center -left “is alive and fight with us”. Or again, the testimony that, on the other hand, the wide – elongated field – is inexorably flanked. It is true that the referendum question is not heating the hearts of the electorate – at least if you look at the matter objectively – and risks becoming a ruinous boomerang for the political aims of the many political representatives.

The Jobs Act Pomo of Discordia in the Democratic Party

For the Democratic Party it is a bit of the pommel of discord, especially the four questions concerning labor law, with a full disavowal of the reform of the Jobs Act wanted by the then government of Matteo Renzi, when he was – among other things – also secretary of the party. A PD, that of Schlein with CGIL traction, who wants to clean up the growing protections and to hoist the banner of article 18 again. Operation that – to be honest – appears anachronistic almost ten years later. The Democratic Party contracts the CGIL all its labor market policy. And this can represent a nice boomerang. Also because the failure of the quorum is almost safe and all the assessments will be focused on the number of voters, yes and no. And to make booty of this political capital – whether it is little or a lot – will certainly be the CGIL and its secretary Maurizio Landini who – will be difficult to admit – hatch in his heart the ambition to become the leader nominated for the Presidency of the Council for the center -left in the next political elections (which, according to the disagreements between Giorgia Meloni and Matteo Salvini, could also take place in a year). And in fact, the Democratic Party, although it has a clear and clear line preached by the party secretariat, goes a little in a scattered order against the five questions. The Democratic Party has officially approved a favorable position on all five referendum questions, but as often happens, unity is a rather flexible concept: some exponents have already made it known that they will vote “yes” only on the question relating to citizenship and safety at work, while on the other three – those who touch the Jobs Act – will bar “no”. Among the “rebels” are the so -called “reformists” – at the time followed by Matteo Renzi – Lorenzo Guerini, Marianna Madia, Pina Picierno and Giorgio Gori. In short, an official position, but also a little do-it-yourself.

The center -left is a condominium

But in the lively view panorama, the guidelines on the five referendum questions go to compose a very colorful mosaic. Many pieces, each stuck in his own way. The Verdi-left alliance chose the easiest (and coherent) way: five “yes”. No doubt, no distinction. The 5 Star Movement focused on an intermediate formula: “Yes” to the four questions at work, while on the theme of citizenship Giuseppe Conte – although he will vote “yes” – he left freedom of vote. A position, that of the five -star leader, who says it all about the variety of sensitivity that distinguishes the pentastellato electorate on the “citizenship” issue. It comes to memory, for example, when Beppe Grillo, in January 2014, put the question relating to the crime of illegal immigration to the votes of the online grill community online. They won the “yes” for the abolition of the crime, contrary to the orientation of Grillo himself and Gianroberto Casaleggio. Another geological era. Finally, there are Action and Italy Viva. The first maintained a very calibrated (and very critical) position: “yes” to the question about citizenship and “no” to everything else. With a note about the condemnation for the very use of the referendums, which would be an unsuitable means, given the subjects so technical. Finally, Italy Viva, which follows the orientation of Calenda. In summary, among those who say yes to everything, those who do distinguish, those who think about it and those who participate with reserve, the opposition front looks more like a condominium than to a coalition: many different voices, each with its own reasons. The synthesis is missing. At least for the moment.

The center -right abstains with Meloni who does not withdraw the card

The contribution of Fratelli d’Italia to the referendum affair could not be missing and, above all, the particular position of Giorgia Meloni: I go to the seat, but I do not withdraw the card. An indirect way to invite abstention. A little orthodox choice, given the institutional role it occupies and, above all, after the President of the Republic, Sergio Mattarella, remarked the importance of an instrument such as the abrogative referendum. At least, Meloni took on an elegant position, almost he was in the opposition. A choice that highlights the will to end up in the newspapers and to earn the scene in the center of the debate, trying to steal media space from political opponents, both internal and external to its coalition. And in the facts, starting from the theme of the referendum, for Meloni begins a long season of opposition not so much to the center-left-which appears divided-as to his government partner Matteo Salvini, so much so as to emphasize a decomposed line on the referendum and get to meet Macron (the two are haunted by the same problem, a right-right-right impersonated by Salvini for the first Italian Minister and Le Pen for the President of the French Republic). Forza Italia makes it known, more soberly, that will abstain, as a clear political indication. The same thing the League of Matteo Salvini, with particular controversy against the question about citizenship.

Who will sing victory?

By trying to imagine the debate around the results of the Day After, it can be expected that the center -left and the CGIL will remark the high number of voters, despite the failure to achieve the quorum – and therefore they will highlight the need for the parliamentary debate to be opened on the issues covered by the referendum. While the center -right will archive the matter as a clear defeat of the opposition. All winning and all losers, as often happens. Objectively, it will be unlikely that someone may have the memory of this referendum after a few months. More than anything else, the feeling is that the referendum is actually a tool to preside over a media space that, otherwise, this center -left would have had difficulty conquering, taking into account the ambiguities between the various components that animate it, on different fronts (Ukrainian, Palestinian question, rearmament). Maybe this referendum can represent the starting point to more structure a center -left coalition in view of the next political elections. Whether it’s a wide or “elongated” field. The important thing is that it is not “ironed”.