I put an old article back online, including the date (I believe there are so many copies of this blog around that you can check the date comfortably) not so much to say that I said it, but to note that in the end when a population lives the politics as if it were a football match, all that happens is that you find yourself accusing the referee.
The article I wrote was here: https://keinpfusch.net/ilva-bomben-sehen-keinen-unterschied/ and dates back to about a year ago. And it was not difficult to foresee that the ILVA would become a social bomb. Simply the government has managed to pull it long for some time, but eventually the bombs that must fall on your head sooner or later arrive at you in the head.
The question now should be “but whose fault is it”?
If it were a soccer match, it would be true. If this were a sporting event that has no effect on your existence, you would be right: who cares, we talk about the referee, we insult his wife, we do the slow motion, and we interview the carnazza of some footballer.
But the problem is we’re not talking about football. We are talking about politics.
When the bombs fell on Berlin in 1945, whose fault was it? One could say that it was Hitler’s fault, but then why did the bombs fall on his head even to whom Hitler hated him?
The point is that it doesn’t matter who the culprit is: what really matters is who is called to answer.
We could say that the straw that broke the camel’s back was the promised criminal frigacy: in the beginning the idea of Calenda was reasonable. Those who had bought ILVA could not end up in jail for the damage done by their predecessors: consequently, while it reclaimed and restructured (since it is a long operation) it could not be prosecuted. It is like saying that you buy a house where the drains lose and the neighbors complain about the water. Of course, you do them again, but while the company works to fix the damage of the company before you cannot be considered guilty, you who are working to solve the problems.
I don’t think the parliamentarians who voted in parliament against legal protection are really responsible: they probably didn’t even understand what it was. The real problem is the citizen.
It is useless to go around it: that parliament has been elected. The current government has been elected. M5S was voted. It is useless to blame “the political class”: the Italians wanted this disaster. And first the Tarantini, who had voted M5S en masse.
If you want a culprit, you just have to look at yourself in the mirror.
What happened in Taranto is not Renzi and he is not Zingaretti, he does not have the face of Di Maio and does not have the face of Salvini and does not have the face of Zingaretti.
He has yours.
Instead of cheering you could reason. Instead of cheering you could really try to see clearly. But you have chosen to live politics as if it were football. And the result was not long in coming.
If you didn’t live politics as football you wouldn’t talk about Taranto. Taranto is irrelevant: the problem is steel in Italy. Calenda, who was a minister of the 80s (on the cultural level) continued to show off the list of crises he “solved”. But this was the logic of the 80s. Since companies sprouted like mushrooms and there was no need to intervene on a strategic level, then the minister was concerned with resolving crises.
But today as today, what is the iron and steel strategy of Italy?
It makes no sense to talk about Ilva or Marcegaglia or others. The point is: what is the strategy?
Suppose also that ILVA had gone to port: and then? What was the strategy? Let’s also say that in 2019 ILVA produced X tons of a certain steel. What was the strategy? What was the goal? How much was he supposed to produce in 2020? And again: would ILVA be left alone, or would it have tried to support something else to facilitate the Italian iron and steel industry? What was the strategy?
The strategy of politicians had nothing to do with the steel industry: it was about “saving jobs”. But without a strategy, you don’t get anywhere, and in this case you don’t even leave.
And what is Italy’s strategy?
If we asked Italian politicians what they are aiming for, and what Italy should be like in five years’ time, what do we get?
- Salvini will say that there will be fewer blacks. And less taxes.
- The PD will say that yes but no but also but firmly flexible even without any more.
- M5S will say that Zip War Airganon.
- Berlusconi will say something but nobody will understand because of the dentures.
In short, can you know what the strategy is? Ie, a hypothetical investor who talks to, let’s say, Calenda, what do you hear? Which with a nice written agreement with commas instead of jobs will be saved? Ok. But what is the strategy?
I mean, if a country declares that it intends to invest in doubling domestic steel production in five years, I as an investor can think of being welcome, provided I produce steel, or as long as I invest in the local stock exchange, still in the steel industry. .
BUT if he tells me he wants to give “more development and more work”, honestly he’s telling me something I don’t know what to do. What does it mean? In which sector? In which direction?
Even those who are now in the chair saying they are the best, actually have simply “saved the places”, that is, saved the status quo. But what was the strategy? The objectives? Save jobs. Ok. But what did you say to investors?
Where does the lack of strategy of the Italian political class come from? Well, it comes from the fact that the Italian citizen cannot answer the same question. And let’s be clear, I’m not saying that everyone has a different answer. This is normal: I’m fine if someone says “just industries, we do tourism” and others say “more industries but type X”, and another wants type Y. There is.
But the Italian does not want this. The Italian wants, in order:
- That the comforts he enjoys remain unchanged.
- That someone else not better defined does the X thing, without any effort for him.
- Some victories over problems that do not exist, such as offside, immigrants, seigniorage.
A similar citizen who goes to vote, what kind of political class could he create?
Let’s face it: would a politician who proposed Italy as an industrial nation that produces double the steel take more votes than one that proposes to stop the landings of immigrants?
What proposes the double steel would be inundated with controversy, among environmentalists, grillini and gretini and various cazzari. What he proposes to “beat the niggers” would be applauded.
Under these conditions, why should any company invest 4.2 billion? Would you throw 4.2 billion in a country whose government does NOT have a strategy?
Now, put yourself in the shoes of the new president:
this one just arrived. He takes in hand a 4.2 billion euro hot potato, and all he sees is that the parliament takes the word he had given (that is, that the new substitutes would not end up in prison for the faults of the previous administrations) and tears up everything . Applause, tarallucci and wine.
In practice, this lady takes charge, does not even have time to read the dossier well and is heard to say:
“Dear Mrs. Morselli, from this very moment if someone dies of cancer in Taranto, she goes to jail. And we don’t give a damn if it was the previous administration: you go to jail. And we don’t give a damn if she is reclaiming money by investing: she’s going to jail all the same. “
And let’s be clear: it wasn’t “from tomorrow” or “from next month”. It was “from today”. This lady has heard the parliament say “we welcome you! From tomorrow you can go to jail, and you don’t even know for what! Joy! “.
I do not believe that the lady had the choice, if not to send you cheerfully to that country and to say “keep the badanaglio and good luck”. You would have done it too.
So joy. ILVA returns to the hands of the state. That he will get two million losses a day, he will continue to pollute because he does not have the money to heal (and not even the technologies) and to make matters worse he does not have a strategy for Italian steel.
These are you, gentlemen. You too, who read, yes.
Because when the bombs fell on Berlin in 1945, you couldn’t get out of the bunker shouting “but I was voting against Hitler!” It did not work. The bombs also fell on you.
The government, gentlemen, is ALWAYS the government of ALL. Whoever is in power. It is not a sentence that politicians say: it is a fact. There is only one government, and it is your government, dear reader.
And if the government rains bombs, they fall on everyone’s head. Opposition included.