BCC: who thinks about it is …
(… you know, right ? Said affectionately, ça va sans dire, but since there are squads of good guys around, armed with certainties and a digital truncheon, better be clear from the start …)
I know that you are not passionate about the subject: it has never fascinated you, and I have not even done much to make you passionate about it, simply because talking to you here while I was dealing with it would have turned me into a target, more than I already was for the narrow circle of insiders. Unfortunately, political work is ungrateful: since you want things that others don't want you to get, even when it would be in their interest (which he will later give you a license to demonstrate), you cannot declare coram populo what you are doing, on pain of seeing you. hampered in achieving your goals. There are territorial objectives that we can talk about (example: in the Franciscan convent it rains from the roof? Let's help the Franciscans to repair the roof: that is also a political objective)! But there are system objectives that must necessarily be treated with discretion. This is generally true. To this is added the unfortunate fact that you are now victims of a reductio ad puncturinam quite equal and contrary to the reductio ad Hitlerum of those others (I am referring, of course, to our iBuoni ™ friends), and your inability (without saying offense) of lateral thinking, of which I extensively condoled myself with abundance and lots of examples at the Sapiens3 conference (we are waiting for byoblu to give us the grace to make the videos visible …), leads you to entrench yourself well inside the perimeter , screaming others what you believe they do not want you to say, while all together you bark only what you do not realize that they want you to bark.
But that's okay: all understanding is all forgiving.
But if anyone had any curiosity, I had given a brief account of the first part of this story here two years ago (from minute 35), and it is still relevant, and it would certainly be useful to align our information. But I understand your point of view: "They are just banks, enough with this economic vision, you don't understand that we are in a scientist dictatorship ( demonstration ), and the little arm, and the prick …".
A tsunami of millenarian benaltrism that overwhelms any other consideration, and is so convenient for those who want to take their wallet out of their pocket …
Amen.
I would like to share, but of course, without a minimum of in-depth analysis it is difficult for me to make you understand why, reading the resolution 7/00668 by colleague Buratti, a smile of incredulous amazement emerges irrepressibly on my lips.
I'll try.
Colleague Buratti informs us that:
"the qualification of significant intermediaries [ NdCN: they are large banking institutions – active above 30 billion – as such subject to direct supervision by the ECB. Their definition and list is here ] concretely exposes the individual BCCs to a greater severity of prudential requirements than those that would be consistent and adequate to protect them from the risks they assume as a function of their typical business based on the provision of credit for production purposes and on the financing of households; "
to then add that:
"the new micro-prudential framework generates processes and mechanisms (imagined for intermediaries of different complexity and size) that have a considerable impact on the cost and therefore the competitiveness of cooperative credit banks and produces an impact both on business models and on specific legal forms such as mutual credit cooperation "
therefore, as everyone sees (today), it becomes necessary to commit the Government to:
"to adopt initiatives to define a regulatory framework, in conjunction with the European institutions, which allows the mutual banks to increase their contribution to the recovery of the country, so that credit and consultancy support can continue to be guaranteed to businesses and families called upon to do the their part in the post-pandemic reconstruction of local economies in a perspective of socially participated and inclusive ecological and digital transition ".
Well, of course: ecological, digital, participatory and inclusive in 2018 would never have occurred to me, and these are words that if I can still avoid today, given my radical intolerance towards any liturgical language other than that of the Tridentine Mass (a liturgy that, like it or not, it makes sense …).
But I laugh because, you see, the PD comes today to tell us what it did not want to understand when, in June 2018, we tried to explain it to it in less liturgical but no less understandable words: " we want to talk about it before entering the rules of single surveillance [ and therefore before creating the Cooperative Banking Groups, which assuming significant dimensions would have brought the BCCs under single supervision ], which – in our opinion – do not sufficiently protect the specificities of the territorial banks ".
That is, I don't know, it's clear: today the PD thinks about it again (you know how they say in Rome, right?), And regrets that exactly what we told him would have happened, starting from this motion of May 2018 , and then continuing (the article I mentioned is from June, and so on fighting, holed up like a Vietcong , for months and months and months, managing to save only one part of the system, the one that he wanted to trust – and therefore save himself ).
We were trying to do what was right, but we had to do it against the opinion of those who now come to tell us that what was being done was wrong then, obviously glossing over who was doing it! Because just as the hospitals did not close by themselves ( tell Delrio ), the reform of the BCCs did not come with its own legs, but with those of the PD .
In short: poor Scajola was put on the cross for an apartment he had "without his knowledge", only to be acquitted (as usual) after an ordeal for which no one, except the victim, will pay (I therefore assume that he will sign for the referendum, and you should do it too because no one guarantees that it can't happen to you too …).
These "without their knowledge" have reformed (ie deformed) an entire country, and, as I go back to saying, they do not seem in the least willing to take their responsibilities, but rather they come in 2021 to give us a little lesson on what should be done, which is exactly what we said we were doing in 2018, and it is, among other things, the application of a general principle that I believe has not yet entered the political culture of this country (and therefore, necessarily, of any of its governments ): first it is and then it is signed!
So: no one wants to make unnecessary controversies, but even forgetting history does not help if not to repeat it, and here we must stop, once and for all, entering into agreements thinking we can change them later. It does not work like this. We can certainly ask now for all the "proportionality" (technical term for "clemency") in the world, but it will be up to the other party to decide whether to agree to it or not, because in the rules it is not written, as it was not written, that whoever exceeds the 30 billion in assets should be treated with many regards. It was enough simply to do what we said: instead of creating gigantic groups, set up institutional protection systems as in Germany, Austria and Spain.
Nobody was going to get hurt.
And then to the colleagues and allies (but only to save the country) of the PD I say: to save the country we are here, to forget how we got here, no!
I conclude by reiterating that what applies to these rules (the Banking Union rules), also applies to all the others: first you negotiate and then you sign. Tomorrow in Rome we will talk about it with regard to budgetary rules .
I wait for you.
(… ah, maybe you can ask byoblu to let go of the Sapiens3 videos … )
(… and what is the moral of the story? There are two. The first is that in politics, first it is done and then it is told, and the second is that those who do not trust cannot be saved. And then, of course, they will think again . Like the PD … )
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/2021/07/bcc-chi-ci-ripensa-e.html on Sun, 11 Jul 2021 18:09:00 +0000. Some rights reserved under CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 license.