Another round, another race (the consultations on the ESM)
Since prevention is better than cure, I would like to let you know what the next steps of the "homozygous twins" bills on the ratification of the ESM will be, before passing through the House. As you know, when a bill is published, the President assigns it to a commission in the referring body. The Commission in the referent seat is also called the "merit" Commission because it is the one that analyzes the provision on the merits and reports to the Legislative Assembly (voting the mandate to the rapporteur). For ratifications, the relevant Commission is III, Foreign Affairs, even if the ratifications concern European issues (for this reason I, who am in Commission XIV in permanent replacement of Giorgetti, have been assigned to III in replacement of Angelucci to follow up close work). Given that the world is complicated, it is difficult for a bill to involve only the competences of a specific Commission. To overcome this eventuality there are two tools: the assignment to joint Commissions, and the assignment in a consultative session. In the first case, the exam is carried out by two (or more, but I've never seen it happen) "merit" commissions. In the second case, other Commissions are asked to express an opinion, which can be favorable or against, and in both cases it can be "dry", either with observations, or with conditions (favorable opinion on condition, etc.).
The Constitutional Affairs and Budget Commissions are routinely involved in verifying the constitutionality of the bill under examination and its impact on the public budget. These are the so-called "filter" Commissions, their involvement is a duty (for the reasons I have just explained) and in particular the opinion of the V (Budget) is essential to ascertain that the law in question does not impose new burdens on of the state budget. The body that ascertains these possible charges is the State General Accounting Department, a department of the MEF, and if it ascertains new charges for which there is no coverage, it gives a negative opinion pursuant to art. 81 third paragraph of the Constitution , which reads: "Every law that imports new or greater burdens provides the means to deal with them". If the law does not indicate "the means to deal with it" (the coverage) the Accounting Office gives an "81" (and the amendment or the bill dies).
Accountancy thinks in an accounting way: this is not a problem, it is a completely physiological characteristic. The problem arises when economists argue in an accounting way, but today we are not dealing with this. Returning to the subject that we are all so passionate about, we know well what consequences the ratification of the ESM would have for our economy, just as someone (who was not in Parliament at the time) knew what consequences the banking union would have .
However, in accounting terms, a ratification by the State has the cost of the ink used to sign it: zero.
Consequently, when the bill on the ratification of the ESM goes to the Budget Commission for the consultative office, it will have a positive opinion from the MEF (more exactly from the Accounting Department), for the simple reason that the latter will say that it does not foresee particular burdens for the State . We can easily imagine that information operators will make another round of headlines on the MEF "in favor of ratification". It's up to you to choose whether to come and annoy us, who inform you, or whoever misinforms you for obvious reasons of political partisanship.
I have an idea of what would be more rational to do: nothing. They whip the cream because they see you bite. If you didn't bite, they would have to invent more.
Alternatively, even if no one is thinking of approving it, the ratification of the ESM reform, it may make sense to express one's opposition to this hypothesis. But even here, of course, not on the social networks of those who explained why you should be against it: it would seem to me a particularly idiotic waste of time! Instead, go and explain it to those who, if they haven't misinformed you, at least to inform you, haven't done even a millionth of what has been done here, go and convince those you may have some doubts about, not me: there are less stupid ways to make a fool of yourself.
And now we peacefully await the next lap, aware of the fact that it's not over until it's over (and probably not even after: when you arrive in front of a wall you can climb over it, as Frank Gramuglia teaches us).
This is a machine translation of a post (in Italian) written by Alberto Bagnai and published on Goofynomics at the URL https://goofynomics.blogspot.com/2023/06/altro-giro-altra-corsa-le-consultive.html on Fri, 23 Jun 2023 16:29:00 +0000. Some rights reserved under CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 license.