Florence
(… I apologize for the delay in publishing the #goofy12 videos: there are technical-cultural problems that have not yet been fully managed, but we will be able to get to the bottom of them …)
From the unhealthy scents of Xloaca (it sounds Aztec, but we understand each other) I learn that according to the eminent economist the solution is simple and within reach: the EU must become a state. To those like us who have been following (or rather: preceding) the debate on the European Union for years, on its genesis (perhaps the lowest moment of subordination of the European peoples), on its evolution, on its prospects, to those who have discussed these themes with scholars like Luciano Canfora or Giandomenico Maione, with analysts like Roger Bootle or Jens Nordvig, with politicians like Laszlo Andor or Frits Bolkestein, these words cannot help but sound naive, the expression of an amateurish "optimism of the will" totally ignorant of the obvious reasons that preclude the establishment of a European State, but above all obvious logical reasons that disavow its rationality.
Today a European State would only serve to save from its unsustainability the institution that we have given ourselves by telling ourselves that it would naturally lead us to the European State: the single currency. For reasons that are sufficiently understandable ex ante , and summarized ex post in this article of mine (and in many others, of course), this institution is taking us away from the political objective we set ourselves by adopting it. Kind of a catch-22. Given that that objective is intrinsically ademocratic (the creation of a State regardless of a demos can only be ademocratic, it is a banal semantic fact) moving away from it is in itself more good than bad. But at the same time the fact that the objective which is unattainable because it is absurd, and absurd because it is unattainable, by definition will not be achieved should not reassure us too much. As we have said a thousand times, long, long before certain recent dynamics acted as a magnifying glass, in the convulsive attempts to create the "demos that doesn't exist" through propaganda, the evil plant of totalitarianism, of the denial of debate, germinates of violent squad propaganda, the one that proceeds from the delegitimization, with the accusation of "disinformation", of every critical voice. And then, naturally, let it not displease those who resent the hegemony of the economic in the dynamics of social bodies, the ultra vires pursuit of an economically irrational plan can only leave dead and wounded, more or less metaphorical, on its unsteady path. And this is the real political fact. Not #Weimarinflation, as the idiots repeat, but austerity led to Nazism, as scientific studies show.
We always return to the usual point: the act of distrust in the market consisting in inhibiting the adjustment of external imbalances through relative prices logically implies the use of an adjustment through quantities: this is austerity, the cut (devaluation) of the wage made inevitable, before or after a crisis, by the absence of a less traumatic adjustment, that through the maneuver of the nominal exchange rate. But the eminent economist pretends not to know this: he spoke to us in the classroom about the irreversibility of projects, thinking it would shock us, and we smiled under our breath thinking about the political sustainability of that project, and therefore about the (short) political future of that eminent economist. As long as there is the euro, i.e. austerity, the right will find itself faced with endless prairies: the piddini call them " political costs of austerity ". Strange how a cost for the PD seen by the League resembles an opportunity! We smile with compassion at those who, against all evidence, against the results of accurate scientific studies, continue to tell us the tale of the great central prairies, of the Italians' yearning for moderation. This is not what the polls say, because this is not what we read in the most important international scientific journals!
So now they are worried.
This is shown by the disjointed utterances from which we started, which if they are not (and could also be) the symptom of a miserable ignorance of the facts (including the results of scientific research), are the attempt to pre-constitute a self-absolving narrative. When things get bad, the blame will have been on the ox people who did not want, oh human ingratitude!, the European State that makes the heavy money sustainable (or rather, boasted as such…), not on those who wanted to lead it towards this absurd objective with the truncheon of the euro, that is, of austerity.
This can be seen from the “coloured” articles which make bruising and tight-lipped irony about the event in Florence.
But those who have the slightest familiarity with the Debate can also see it from other weak signals, such as the regrouping of dwarves and dancers of various kinds, waste from a past from which we thought we had purged ourselves: from the watchmakers of the public debt, to the "memmeta" comedians ” (the MeMMT: if you don't know or don't remember what it is you don't lose anything), to the various humanity in “in”, “ini”, but above all “oni” with which we had fun at the time. If these Kindersoldat risk (or at least reappear) it is clear that turbulence is expected!
Polls say that if the EPP left the center-left, the center-right would have a majority in the European Parliament in the next elections. This intellectual exercise, however, is rather futile, for at least two reasons: first, the European Parliament counts the right thing; second, its majorities are the result of two sets of considerations: political and national. Yes, by a strange paradox (which is not such, as we know here) the institution in which the nations were supposed to dissolve has empowered them and become their hostage.
(… I arrive in Florence… )
(… I leave from Florence …)
A radical political misalignment between the leadership (the Führer ) of the nation more nation than the others, Germany, currently in the hands of the social democrats, and the presidency of the European Commission is therefore inconceivable; or, if you want, conversely, to have a real change in the EU, we will have to wait for the AfD to become a majority in Germany. We are not that far from this goal: in current polls AfD is second in Germany, and RN (Le Pen) first in France. He says "but today the electorate is liquid!". I answer: it may be, but the riverbed is traced (by our adversaries), and this fluid flows to the right (see the article on the "political costs of austerity" cited above). Thus, the rise of ID from sixth to third place in the lineup of parliamentary groups in Brussels, or perhaps to second, would already be a step in the right direction, and a possible failure to reverse the front due to the not very unlikely failure of the EPP, which in the presence of a social democratic Germany would probably prefer to act as a crutch for the PD (the social democrats), it would however be a positive fact, an element of clarity, because it would greatly embarrass the various national "popular" groups, whose voters might think that if they had wanted to be led by the PD, they would have voted directly for him, that is, for "cultivated" meat, for euthanasia, for the electric car, etc.
They got into the sack by themselves.
Identifying the European Union with the euro, i.e. with the adjustment of income (in short: with austerity), has inevitably brought out and is making clear for everyone the "main contradiction", which here and now is not the one between right and left, between capital and labour, but that between more or less Europe, understood, obviously, as the European Union, that is, that between more or less austerity. There is no escaping the economic logic: if you vote for Europe, you vote for austerity and die, or you impose austerity on others and make them die (cit.)!
So for us it's just a matter of time. The angry identity reaction of the more Europeanist left on green, on immigration, on cosmetic rights, helps us, because it helps all voters to see the EU for what it is: a threat.
A threat to citizens, and a threat to Europe.
How beautiful and comforting it was to note that in all the speeches heard in Florence a careful distinction was made between Europe and the European Union, between a cultural and civilizational fact and the most uncivilized and destabilizing of conceivable institutions! How much hope it gave us to see that so many European leaders accurately and rationally distinguish two concepts that scoundrels here confuse with malicious intent!
Maybe von der Leyen will have a majority in the next Parliament (avoiding this is up to us), but whoever guarantees it to her will not be able to escape the stigma of having kept alive the symbol of all the most absurd and hateful things the EU has produced in the its not long history: from the flight forward on environmental issues, a desperate and disorganized reaction of a German capitalism shocked at having been called by the USA to pay the price for its arrogance, to the missing text messages between Ursula and Pfizer, a case of school of capture of the regulator, which has had many disastrous consequences on the lives of many people.
And even if that were the case, if Ursula also prevailed, if this time too she found nine DECISIVE votes, well, it's better this way!
As Céline said?
Pour que dans le cerveau d'un couillon the thought would take a tour, the fact that he arrives beaucoup de choices et de bien cruelles.
A perfect alignment of the stars, which sees a European Parliament with a patriotic majority and patriotic national governments in each member country (and therefore a European Commission made up of patriots) is not imminent, perhaps not possible, and probably not even necessary.
Of course, there is an intrinsic contradiction in a coalition of parties that unite in the name of national interest to access the union institutions. In the opposition this contradiction is less visible, in the majority it would probably become more evident: the interest of the South, it can be argued, diverges from that of the North, and it is one thing to claim the national interest when you cannot do it anyway, another thing when you can do it, but against that of your allies. However, this contradiction is more apparent than real, and those of us who emphasize it are certainly rather uninformed. Meanwhile, North and South in this phase of globalism's failure have one interest in common, and that is to regain control of what happens at home. Then, whether we know it, understand it, admit it or not, we are much further north than many others, simply because we are net contributors, and because we have carried out our reforms (Germany and France are two examples of countries that they still have to do them, at the cost, if they don't realize it, of stumbling on the mountain of dust hidden under the carpet). So, in other words: it would be risky to assume that a comparison with our allies necessarily sees us in a disadvantaged position.
The EU will never become a state. As we saw today in Florence, everyone (including those who have been heavily subsidized by it) stinks of this barbaric domination. The solution to its contradictions cannot therefore be yet another escape forward. The history of the next few years has yet to be written: they will lend you the pencil with which to write it on June 9th.
Make good use of it.
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/2023/12/firenze.html on Sun, 03 Dec 2023 16:57:00 +0000. Some rights reserved under CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 license.