
Italy Rejects Reforms, Matteo Renzi Announces Resignation - znpy
http://www.wsj.com/articles/italy-votes-no-in-referendum-projections-indicate-1480891355
======
petercooper
Doesn't a "no" result maintain the status quo in this case? While populist
parties may have been campaigning for "no", is a vote for "keep things as they
are" actually a sign of a shift in Italian politics generally?

~~~
kriive
Short answer: yes and no. People wanted to say no to Renzi's politics without
a clear reason. The focus shifted from the actual consitituion reform to
Renzi's presidency, and he can blame himself.

People felt that Renzi didn't have the right to be the president. People
thought that Renzi was a liar, that the constitutional reform was only a way
for himself to get more power. So many people voted accordingly to their
feelings, not basing their vote on what they tought about the reform. Italy's
vote is the result of an irrational hate directed to the establishment. People
thought they were "saving" the Constitution. Not joking. In Italy people don't
know how many articles are there, when the constitution was written and in
which situation it was written. And then they pretend to "save" it.

Sorry for my english. Oh, and that's the opinion from a "yes" voter.

~~~
Overtonwindow
Thank you for this explanation!

------
raverbashing
This has less to do with the EU than people think (or news want to make you
believe).

~~~
gotofritz
This has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the EU, despite what Le Pen, Farage and
the media, for different reasons, would have us believe.

------
werwes
what does the "five star movement" believe in? is it anything like the
American anti-establishment movement?

~~~
licnep
So, the five star movement was originally born as a "green-party" kind of
movement, the 5 stars representing: public water, sustainable transport,
sustainable development, right to Internet access, and modernity.

The movement was entirely born on the web, and refused to appear on
traditional media like television and newspapers, as they believe traditional
media to be undemocratic and corrupted. The focus of the movement is
participatory democracy, so they coded an online platform where citizens can
propose laws, discuss, and vote on them. These proposals are then brought to
the parliament by the elected members of the movement. These are not career
politicians, they are common citizens elected on the online platform based on
their CV's. It's probably one of the first big experiments in direct
democracy.

So, to answer your question, they "believe in" what the majority of citizens
believe in. The only constant is they believe in the democratic power of the
web.

I think it can be called anti-establishment as it was born from strong
negative feelings against the current establishment, and it refuses alliances
with any existing political party. It gathers people across the political
spectrum, who are unhappy with the status-quo. It's a very interesting
experiment, testament to the disruptive power of the web, as the managed to
get ~30% with no presence on traditional media and no campaign financing.

------
gotofritz
This is big news covered everywhere; why link to a paywalled source instead of
a free one??

