The Meloni Government seems to show its very first cracks: the measures relating to the so-called super-bonus, or building bonuses, if you prefer (the substance does not change), leave families and businesses with more than a bitter taste in their mouths, resulting in many significant on closer consideration, even declines within the government majority itself.
Let me be clear: no one was expecting miracles, and beyond the results released by the last polls, the clear and evident figure, which can be summed up in the high percentage of abstention, would seem to reflect the almost resigned attitude that seems to pervade the population, divided between the awareness of the "reasons" of the "reason" and the feeling of the motivations, certainly stringent, placed in support of the "needs" linked to the conduction of the contingent everyday life.
The opposition, albeit represented in terms of its necessity, should be better explained, above all in consideration of the discontent recently revealed by the categories involved and affected by the effects of the last mentioned measure. If for no other reason than to avoid that the sensation prevails that the need for reality, with all its contradictions, always and in any case prevails over the legitimate expectations of those who, in relying on the permanence over time of certain favorable regulatory provisions, have also started investments of considerable size.
It would be, as in fact it would seem to be, wrong, and even unconstitutional, to interrupt "tout court" the effectiveness of measures already approved and in some way juridically crystallized for having been put in place in many cases, albeit not yet completed . In other words: even if the need at the basis of the "squeeze" would seem to lie in the need to avert damage to the State budget, nevertheless, and at the same time, it cannot in any way overshadow the higher need not only to guarantee the position of those who, by virtue of a more than legitimate expectation, based on the alleged stability and permanence of legislative measures over time, have promoted substantial investments, but also that of ensuring the satisfaction of the essential needs of those who, overwhelmed by daily difficulties, do not can't even make ends meet.
And then: to which of the two requirements, the Government, in assuming the task of being diligent like the "good father of a family", should ensure prevalence? The answer can only be unidirectional and even luminous in its obviousness since every decision-making measure directly affecting the life of the associates can only be calibrated on the maintenance of both public finances and social affairs, with every imaginable consequence in terms of (inevitable) contradiction of the purposes expressible in the practical act of its application.
In this sense, the intervention of the Azzurri party can only be welcomed, which, we recall, underlined the need to make "useful changes". Moreover, if this were not the case, it is likely that the signs of the first ideological fractures existing between the majority components could emerge. And certainly the circumstance would not help the stability of an executive perhaps already in the balance. Still saying it otherwise, and transposing the meaning of the speech on the more purely political level, those who aspire to cover top government positions should probably pay their due attention to the three plans of direct and immediate intervention: the first, i.e. the internal one; the second, i.e. the one coinciding with the European side; and the third, that is, the one reflecting the doubly complex relationships with the Atlantic world and with Atlanticism proper.
In the meantime, because it will be extremely necessary, in the near future, and even beyond the latest measures, to understand what the Government intended to mean when it came to replacing the current basic income, which in any case represented for many families a lifeline, with more effective measures of social inclusion and active policies for training and integration into the world of work. Because if it is true, as it is true, that in some cases the measure would appear to have also benefited "undeserving" people (pass the expression), nevertheless the fact remains that one must be precise and concrete when want to discuss issues relating to the so-called social question, which, indeed, presents elements of complication such that it cannot be resolved with a debate on whether or not a support measure such as the basic income was and is.
There is no question on the fact that the ideal solution, advocated by the government majority, is to find employment for those who are able to work while offering, at the same time, a subsidy to those who are not in the conditions to do so. But can it actually be done? What is currently, and what will be, presumably, on the basis of a dutiful statistical projection, the possible likelihood of the success of such an intention in the light of the relationship between labor supply and demand? Can the current government, facts in hand, be said to be an expression of that "social right" ready to always and in any case guarantee the social stability of a country with measures carefully parameterized on the contingent reality? More generally, is it still time for economic liberalism, or does the horizon need to be changed, and with it attention to the market and its fluctuations?
So why, in turning our gaze towards Europe, the Euroscepticism, or purportedly, of our prime minister, Giorgia Meloni, seems to have given way to other inspirations, as the leader of the Brothers of Italy, as a woman extremely pragmatic as it has always shown itself to be, it seems up to now to have maintained an attitude of parallelism with the decisions imposed by the European Commission probably, and in some way, contradicting the ideological inspiration of the Party when it sat on the benches of the opposition. By now, regardless of the color of the various Governments, what is said in Europe, in all the Member States, including Italy, would seem to have to be done.
Finally, because on the Atlantic level, in being undoubtedly more attentive than her ally Matteo Salvini, Giorgia Meloni has been able to act with greater shrewdness, not neglecting the circumstance, at least, for which the seat of Palazzo Chigi has always been closer to those who, on a political level, showed a decision-making line compatible with that of the USA. If it is true, as it seems to be true, that the Atlanticism of his right-wing government, whether "social" or not, we will discover over time, will never be in question, however it will be interesting to understand how they will be able to survive within the same government majority these three souls that already in their nomenclature present all the ideological contradictions that characterize them. After all, it will perhaps not be superfluous to recall that a few years ago, and except for an error, Meloni voted for trust in the Monti government and then approved the Salva Italia decree in Parliament, also voting in favor of a balanced budget in the Constitution. But when it is necessary to make a virtue of necessity, probably, every decision must dutifully find its justification.
Josephine Di Salvatore
(Lawyer – Nuoro)
