Arithmetic is (not) an opinion
(… in the previous post I invited you to observe whether even under the posts of the elected representatives of the left there are decerebrated howling at the cry of "nonvivotopiuuuuuuuuu" assorted by the peremptory injunction "drop the Governmenth!" Among the various comments, I point out one who wants to be intelligent. Evaluate yourself if he succeeds or not… )
serietvgratis left a new comment on your post " Will you give me a hand? ":
I did not remember that Piddì was in the Meloni government. A subtle difference
Published by serietvgratis on Goofynomics on 6 May 2023, 11:00 pm
Dear friend, thank you for your remark. This opening comment of yours allows me to reiterate a factual truth which, in its obviousness, allows us to reiterate a point which (unfortunately) will come in handy next year. The "subtle difference" you speak of was indeed very subtle. Assessing how thin it was is not difficult. Just go to the Senate website, where you can find this useful diagram :
whose message, at the time clarified over and over again by the patient Borghi, is that without FdI, Lega, Misto and two senators for life, Draghi could still have counted on 194 senators. Now, since 320 divided by two equals 160, when also:
- we were out;
- the mixed group (which was largely in favor of him, except for some folkloristic cases) and the life senators had been against him;
However, Draghi would have had 33 more votes than the absolute majority (161) in the Senate. In other words, he would have found his support in the same majority that von der Leyen has in the European Parliament: the majority called, precisely, "Ursula".
It would have been another matter if FI had also left. In that case, and again with the heroic hypothesis that senators for life and the mixed group were against Draghi, the votes in favor of the government would have dropped by 47 units from 194 to 147, under the absolute majority: end of the Ursula majority.
It follows that asking us to bring down the government was idiotic at best, smart at worst (which I personally find more plausible). Our exit would not have caused anything to fall, for a mere arithmetical fact, and such a gesture would have simply strengthened the "ursulting" or, if you prefer, "nazarene" agenda of the Government, giving Draghi the green light on what was his real goal: the assault on our homes, a goal that Europe has been pursuing for some time in an absolutely bipartisan key, as repeatedly mentioned here. It's no coincidence that the Democratic Party had sent its pontieri, illo tempore , to make sure that people like me voted against Draghi (this was their expectation). And of course the advice of an enemy, however persuasive to listen to and pleasant to carry out, is better not to follow them.
By not following them, we were able to confront FI with the contradiction that it would have been, for a Libbbberal party with four "b"s, to endorse an attack on private property, and we were thus able to castrate the Draghin (Draghi-Marattin) enabling law by emasculating its cunning surreptitious reform of the cadastre, gathering in the Commission the majority that we did not have in the classroom :
(the tweet is here , for those who want to immerse themselves in those days: one of the few useful exercises that social networks allow).
If the Government could have fallen, it should have fallen then, after going under Commission on such a flag measure! And in fact, a few days before, the climate was this .
I forestall the objection: "You could have waged a similar battle – as well as those, if they are of interest, against jus culturae and similar bullshit "of the left" – even by giving external support to FI!" The interview linked above should make it clear enough why this wouldn't work, but I want to make it clear: I know it sounds strange, but the majority, if they have the numbers, don't listen to the opposition. There is no "right" or "wrong": there are numbers. If even with us in Forza Italia, in that political climate, he had a certain perplexed reluctance to support one of his historic battles (it's not a criticism: they are parliamentary acts and interviews released in the media), imagine how many hesitations he would have had to listen to us if we , remained outside, we had unanimously been pointed out by all the media, including theirs, as enemies of the homeland, bearers of a sacrilegious skepticism towards the thaumaturgical virtues of yet another technician sent to search our pockets, people who, by virtue of their abominable behavior they had lost the dignity of interlocutors!
The experience made inside has taught me that, unfortunately, sometimes you have to be inside to try, I don't say change "er monno", but at least to contain "rubbish". What was called the "centre-right government" at the time was an embankment – imperfect! – against garbage. He went through a lot, I know: but not all.
So, I repeat: the "government cadiiiiii!", the "oppofinzioneeeeh!", were either fools, or paid (in the sense of trolls). And personally I lean towards the second hypothesis, in my naive Enlightenment humanism which leads me to delude myself that rationality prevails in man.
Positively: asking Schlein today to bring down the government would make as much sense as asking Salvini yesterday (I mean: from 2020 onwards). Yes, it's exactly the same thing because just as Schlein is today in opposition to the center-right majority, we were yesterday to that Ursula (and the only way to be concretely, I know it seems strange, was to hug her to suffocate her in the cradle ). If nobody asks Schlein today, from her position of numerical inferiority, to bring down the government, there are two cases: either those "on the left" are less stupid, or more endowed with "STEM skills", than those "on the right" , or those who don't ask Schlein today are the same ones who asked Salvini yesterday. And since we pinched several of these latter cases already at the time, I continue to think that people like "serietvgratis", here in his opening comment, are anything but stupid: they come here to do a job, that to confuse your ideas.
Then maybe I'm wrong, but if I have to choose a baseline scenario, I choose the one that most conforms to a minimum of rationality and to the information I had and still have.
I hope I haven't bored you too much: we know the "technical" themes and they remain the same (I'll come back to them in the next post). It seems to me that these more "political" issues of parliamentary equilibrium continue to escape many, too many of us too (also thanks to the work of the many trolls), and yet it is on these methodological issues that we must agree: to figuring out where we want to go was twelve years old, we have less than a year to try and get there, and figuring out how to do it becomes relatively urgent.
Happy Sunday!
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/2023/05/laritmetica-non-e-unopinione.html on Sun, 07 May 2023 09:43:00 +0000. Some rights reserved under CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 license.