Plan B

As a necessary step in your journey towards rapprochement with reality, I allow myself to bring to your attention a fact that should be evident: it is extremely difficult to keep a document of minimal complexity (like a decree) secret, for the simple reason that a document similarly dozens of people must work, who must coordinate with each other and make use of the advice of dozens of other people.

I am aware that for you, accustomed for some time to consider the exercise of power as a monochrome act of what we could call aaaaabolidiga in tight Tavernese, seen as an indistinct unicum and animated by a single and well-defined will (a bit like the Germagna or aaaaCina), this is really difficult to conceive. He says: "Conte is er decree! But nun pò tenello pe 'ssè?". The level, alas, is this, and democracy must be truly very beautiful, if we manage to love it despite everything …

Still, look around you!

How difficult is it to agree with family, as a couple, or even simply with yourself !? Each human aggregation, even the one made up of a single individual, is a heap of interactions (on the limit with oneself) and of conflicts (on the limit, of disagreements ). There are distinct roles and positions, which in the end must be expressed and mediated to come to one. Then think about when, in addition to coming to one, it is also necessary to formalize it, submit it to political approval (not necessarily in formal fora), etc. How many steps! And each of these passages is a source of possible "leaks", as they are called today, especially in a world in which journalism, having clearly abdicated, for manifest inadequacy, its potential function of providing analysis and perspective (a graph like that of the previous post you will never find it in a newspaper), it is reduced to the commérage , the neighborhood gossip, the shorthand of the keyhole (who has thought wrong is ashamed!), in short: the background, and all the more in a world in which appearing (in the newspaper) rewards being.

So someone willing to say something to have a favor in a little bit is always found (and what makes the information operators scary is that instead of someone else to appear, it really does not matter, having long since totally disintermediated the relationship with readers ).

On this I would like to insert a couple of considerations.

The first is that, obviously, secrecy does not make sense to speak when violating it is advantageous. A case in school is the tacticuccia del Governicchio, which with every decree sends proofs on proofs to obtain two services for free: on social media the correction of the main material errors, and on traditional media a gigantic survey. What they do not learn from the productive categories they do not meet, they learn from the cries that (rightly) rise from the media to meet the sloppiness and involuntary (?) Sadism of certain norms.

PQM

as the jurists say, I never comment, but never ever, the drafts, and even if obviously they arrive to me, and out of consideration for my role they arrive before the others, I don't spread them. Decree is when it comes out in the Gazzetta. From that moment it is also law, immediately effective, and it is appropriate that since then, not before, the phenomena that govern us and the citizens who voted for the majority parties are confronted with reality. We do not obstruct, as some informative operators who are not very familiar with the parliamentary regulations say, but from here to asking us to work for free for the regime, I think he runs.

Everyone takes responsibility!

We have already taken the second consideration on the occasion of Brexit. As you will recall, to my request made in spring 2016 if the Commission was considering the possible macroeconomic impacts of the post-Brexit period, an official's response was that since the end of the negotiation with Cameron the Commission's technical offices had stopped studying these impacts, for the simple reason that inevitably someone from the working group would speak, and in doing so would reveal the fact that the Commission considered Brexit possible, giving an inappropriate political signal. The political rhetoric was in fact the denialist one, as usual : TINA (there is no alternative), we only have a plan A. Admitting the existence of a plan B (like Brexit), that is: considering Brexit as a possible alternative, would have the Commission weakened on the negotiation level. The moral of the story we drew at the time, and was that " bloated organizations are condemned to arrive unprepared for appointments with the SStoria ".

This is always true, and today's debate on a decree that is not there should give you enough proof.

If for a moment leave the frame (frame) in which the enemies of democracy have forced you, if for a moment you look around, and given the scale of organizations like MEF (a single ministry alone "is the province" as say in Rome) the decisional complexity of your daily life, if politely, not to do me a favor, but to yourself, you stopped thinking in terms of aaaaaaboledega and ibolitisci, you would immediately understand that things are not as in the models of those other intrinsic fascists who are neoclassical economists, models in which a single decision maker rationally chooses from a series of contingency plans, each of which has a very precise and well-known probability distribution.

Things are in a different way, they are as Rilke tells them in the notebooks of Malte Laurids Brigge that I read to you a few nights ago. The reality is "indescribably detailed".

So what?

And therefore those who speak to you of plans B at best do not know what they say.

And we also consider this debate closed here, because there is not much to replicate or comment on. A simple: "Thanks, I hadn't thought of that!", Or even "Thanks, I hadn't noticed that you've been telling us for at least four years!" it will be enough, but it is not necessary.

(… and at worst? …)