#hastatosalvini (sixth addendum to the heurist logic manual)
(… there are times when I am proud of you, and this is one of them. I celebrate them with a happy heart, also because they relieve me from the thankless job of sowing hatred … )
(… for tourists of the debate: the heuristic logic in this blog has been explored on several occasions: the last one was this , where you can also find a summary of the previous episodes. If you have just arrived, I think it's worth the effort to have a look at it: it will sharpen the katana of your dialectic …)
Ferdyfox left a new comment on your " Good Friday " post:
I believe that, among the various things that Conte said tonight, there is one of an impressive logical fallacy (ex multis): the fact that "Salvini and Meloni weaken the government's negotiating position at the European tables".
Let's put ourselves in Conte's shoes and imagine that he really doesn't want to use MES , since at Easter we are all better, as at Christmas. Now, as we all know here and how it has been properly explained, by virtue of Law 234/12 Conte would have the possibility of receiving a very strong negotiating mandate with Leuropa. Since, in his opinion, the Government will never ask for the intervention of the ESM … So why don't Conte go to the courtroom to ask for an address in this sense? An act of address which would be voted by a very large majority? You could very well go to the tables saying: "guys, do you know it's there? 90% of my Parliament, which therefore represents 90% of Italian citizens, refuses even to think of the ESM as a possible crisis management tool, which do you do? ".
But no, Conte today told us that he would very much like not to use the ESM and instead adopt the Eurobonds. So, Conte always tells us: "Italians, you know, I sent yesterday to negotiate a finance minister who until the other day was in favor of the ESM (but I spoke to him well, don't worry I convinced him eh!) And to more devoid of any act of parliamentary direction in this sense … You see: Holland has sent a finance minister strongly convinced of his positions and with a very strong parliamentary mandate The result is that, unfortunately, Gualtieri has been crumbled. But it is not our fault, Italians, the fault lies with Salvini who pollutes the debate by spreading fake news! ".
But we continue to think that really Conte is convinced not to use the MES and to push for Eurobonds (good luck!). Instead of babbling about Salvini and Meloni, because he doesn't go to Parliament and says: "Guys, here we are united on one thing, we will never use the ESM in any sense and, moreover, we will repeal it … I know what to put on in its place we do not agree as much, I know, there are those who say Eurobond, those who say ECB, but on that we can perhaps find a summary together, so one thing or the other to be approved will require biblical times and we have everything time to think about it … Meanwhile we refuse and cancel the MES all together ". Because I believe that those who, at least in words, aspire to be a "statesman" in moments like this should use similar words and perform similar actions, at least when they say they want to seek "national unity" in times of difficulty. And you have national unity there, one step away, in the Parliament that represents us citizens.
The truth is, dear Count, that if your negotiating position is really weak, it is because not even your majority supports you . Because if today I went to Parliament to ask "who doesn't want the ESM like me?" "I" would answer the Lega, FdI and some 5S. PD and Italia Viva, on the other hand, hope for it, can't wait, maybe someone is already preparing the contracts for the sale of ports and airports (any reference to existing senators or interviews released is purely random). So if you're really against the ESM, go to Parliament and ask, right? Let's find out the cards, I'll make myself popcorn.
Posted by Ferdyfox in Goofynomics at 11 April 2020 01:17
(… then: this comment must be put in the right emphasis, because a large number of reading plans intersect it. I don't know the author, I don't know if and how much he is aware of the polysemy of these few lines. It seems person familiar with the matter , but I don't know at what level.
Let's start from the first point: the political-chronicle data. The urbanized jurist is supported by a quarrelsome and colorful majority. His weakness is this, and the game of closing ranks by chasing bales and talking to the external enemy leaves the time he finds, especially if he lets himself get carried away by nervousness and a humanly understandable – but institutionally avoidable tiredness.
This is a first level of reading. Then there is a second, more "karst" (adjective dear to one of you). The unionists for good (because there are) in the two years in which my institutional activity led me to talk with them about how to promote the interest of the country in European fora, always returned to me, insistently, at the same point, at the same topic. An argument imbued with that cloying provincial xenophilia which is the aesthetic dimension of heurism, as well as its dialectical dimension is the own goal: "Eh, but to support the country's interests in the negotiation we should know what they are, eh, but in Rome politics quarrels, when we called to know what to do nobody answered us … Eh, if we were a civilized country, like Holland, like Finland, where Parliament follows the upward phase of the measures and always gives a negotiating mandate to the Government before the Councils of the European Union … ". In short: Italy's failure in European negotiating venues, for them, instead of being given the political science here that we learned to analyze thanks to ' excellent work of Kevin Featherstone , was a sociological fact attributable to the category of facciamocome .
The Unionist for good, that is, tends to deny a scientifically acquired and sufficiently evident (as well as confessed ) datum: the use by a technocratic elite of the European "external constraint" to regulate Italian party politics, compressing the spaces of the political decision maker – whose address was not solicited, but rather unwelcome and circumvented – because it did not coincide with the political agenda that the transnational bureaucracies had set themselves in their interest. This figure is a sufficient explanation of why the policy was put aside (it disturbed the operators) and why the country started on a deflationary spiral (it oriented the distribution of income in an advantageous way for the operators). The explanation of the Unionist for good – whether he is a parliamentary, ministerial or European official – is based not on objective dynamics, but on anecdotes, and is summed up in the known thesis according to which the fault of the failures for the country at the Brussels tables was not mainly due to the anxiety of the negotiators to achieve personal successes, but exclusively to the sloppiness and negligence of the Italian political class, unable to internalize the rules of the Brussels game, and guilty disinterested, here in Rome, of the European legislative dynamics.
Now, this sociological explanation, needless to say, a certain coherence, a certain charm, has it. In fact, the fact that Moavero had basically lost track of it until I got there
I
(sorry, a little return to the good old days not to make Conte feel in his narcissism!), the fact that this law had been disapplied for years, and that it was resurrected by the latest arrival , with the involuntary complicity of some educated official and lover of legality, as our officials are generally, it would seem to intervene ad adjuvandum . The fact that this law " introduced post-Lisbon as a lip service on pressure from some national parliaments ":
it was unknown to 90% of politicians would seem to support, prima facie , the somewhat orthodox idea that "has been politicized" not to deal with the so-called Europe. In short, the usual thesis of the travaglisti according to which it is our fault if in those places they treat us like those cialtroni that we are. Ah, of course in these speeches "we are" is always the second person plural! But you see, this thesis, the result of the best sports bar sociology, does not hold much less a superficial scrutiny than that of certain sloppy and ideologized colleagues (and for this reason unable to guess the political potential of certain norms … ). Because in the meantime there are no "politicians" as there are no "economists", "doctors", and "Germany". A "politician" can have various orientations (and this is obvious), various specializations and various roles. Those who lived politics seriously, not like the poor Piero above, know for example that today the parliamentary dynamics are completely dominated by the government. You too know it, thanks to the tiring paideia to which I subject you in the rare fragments of time that my business leaves me. For example, how many times have I explained the story of the opinion of the rapporteur and the Government (brutal summary: the Commission cannot vote if the Government has not decided how it should vote …)? Now: if the government had really felt the desire to reinforce its positions with a serious parliamentary mandate, if the officials who in Brussels, in permanent representation or elsewhere, take care of Italian interests, had truly sincerely wished that the government had a position strong and shared with Parliament, the solution would have been at hand : the law that nobody knew would have been used by them, because it would have been useful for them to get to the negotiating tables with the same dignity as their colleagues from other countries.
The reading of Conte's baffled speech by our shrewd friend instead highlights how things really are. To have a parliamentary address to the bureaucracies – and Conte is an expression: nobody has elected him, and he replies to them, through the economist on duty lent to him by the Bank of Italy – to have a similar address, I said, the bureaucracy does not even pass for the head! They know what they have to do, or believe they know, and therefore strictly avoid taking, and even more urging, a mandate from the representatives of the sovereign people. The interest of those who administer (bureaucracies) in not receiving a mandate is, in my personal experience, much greater than the disinterest of those who represent the people in conferring it.
So what exactly are we talking about? In his being internally inconsistent, Conte's speech reflects, as is clear, the intentions of those who recommend it. It is not the first time: just as behind the defense of the false, illegal and denied idea by the ECB that the gold reserves were owned by the Bank of Italy there was obviously the impulse of the then economic adviser , behind the idea that "hastatoSalviniaindebolirminelnegoziato" I do not think there is only Casalino (who is not a fool). There will certainly be, indeed: certainly also the current economic adviser (today the administration is transparent ), and of course who manages the events in Brussels. In the folly of complaining about being weakened in what is perhaps one of the few situations in Italian history where the government could have a strong and bipartisan mandate, there is therefore a method: the fascist and anti-democratic method which is intrinsic to Unionist political philosophy. But we have talked about this many times. Today I just showed you one of the many facets of the known problem …)
(… and the summary in terms of heuristic logic? But, it could be something like: " I'm not going to Parliament to receive a mandate because it could give it to me " … )
(… "this government does not work in favor of darkness" … But are you coming to Parliament or not? Because we know how to make you come, you know, right? You don't want to keep hiding behind your colleague Perilli !? with the Minister of the Interior, come on, that insulting Parliament too much is not convenient for you. Trust an enemy, that your friends do not advise you very well, as I have already had occasion to tell you in the sacredness of the courtroom …)
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/2020/04/hastatosalvini-sesto-addendum-al.html on Sat, 11 Apr 2020 21:19:00 +0000. Some rights reserved under CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 license.