As known, on many issues the 5 Star Movement supports one thing and its opposite, without worrying too much about the principle of non-contradiction. In the economic field, the Movement says it is for economic growth and at the same time continues to chat about happy degrowth. It is for microcredit but it is against credit; above all it is against all that apparatus of institutions and financial instruments that make the disbursement of credit possible.
In the abstract he is said to be in favor of honest companies, but in fact he is almost always against companies, because he considers them all more or less dishonest, as well as instigators of those big and phantom lobbyists who populate their worst nightmares. He accuses the traditional parties of having culpably accumulated public debt for decades, but at the same time proposes to increase the public deficit to support the economy, raise the basic income and many other good things.
Their main enemies are Berlusconi and Renzi, but immediately after there is Napolitano, guilty of having sold off our sovereignty to the wishes of stepmother Europe and Mrs. Merkel. Dulcis in fundo, sometimes they even manage to call themselves pro-Europeans. In the sea of this unheard-of mess, the only unifying theme is an extreme justicialism that leads them to litter that fundamental conquest of our civilization which is the rule of law.
Such is the confusion under the 5-star sky that it happens that they attack, with the usual verbal arrogance, even provisions that welcome ideas of which they themselves are the bearers. This is the case of the so-called bail-in, which Parliament discussed last week to approve the essential step which is the Single European Resolution Fund to deal with banking crises. As you know, the new European legislation stems from the need to limit the use of public money to bail out banks.
Basically, after the enormous sums that have been spent in recent years with this objective, Europe says that it must be the bankers who pay for their mistakes – or embezzlements – and no longer the taxpayers. In sense, this provision should appeal to those who in recent years have waged "epic" battles against the alleged gifts made by all governments to banks more or less. Instead it didn't go like this. The grillini have railed against this provision using the language of another widespread demagoguery, that of certain consumerist organizations and the extreme right according to which the shareholder of a bank must never lose out, and if this happens it is the fault of the vigilance.
So the hon. Daniele Pesco stands up in the Chamber to say that a penalty for savers is a real shame. And Alessandro Di Battista, in better shape than ever: "It seems clear that yours, indeed, their only goal is a banking democracy and a Republic founded on the work of bankers... Never, never can the banks be saved by withdrawing the money that your friends, the bankers, are also stolen... if a bank is saved, the Italian State takes it, and nationalizes it, and sends your friends to jail, who have screwed God's wrath on our skin. Shame on you".
It is all too easy to point out that bankers are precisely those subjects who are penalized by the bail-in rule (the owners, i.e. the shareholders, then the subordinate bondholders, right down to the large depositors who are not protected by the guarantee fund) and that therefore the norm accomplishes exactly what, in his rhetorical ardor, Di Battista accuses others of never wanting to do. Too easy to point out this contradiction, but perhaps useless. It is more useful to note that, in this speech and in others in an even more explicit way (for example in a speech by deputy Villarosa), the path of nationalization is indicated as the way to deal with banking crises and protect savers.
That this involves the use of taxpayers' money never crosses the minds of our brilliant 5S deputies. Just as it does not occur to them that this is the way in which the banks have saved themselves and socialized their losses since the 1936s until yesterday. It may even be that the good old world was better, that of the banking law of 5, that of Stringher and Menichella, the one in which the imperative was to avoid a bank crisis at all costs. But what does the XNUMX Star Movement have to do with all this?
We don't know and we don't understand it, but in the meantime we take note of it and say what is true: the M5S fought strenuously in Parliament to prevent the passage of a law aimed at preventing the use of taxpayers' money to save banks in crisis . If it weren't so impromptu, we could give this gimmick a name: Occupy Main Street instead of Occupy Wall Street. Tomorrow they will deny or argue otherwise. But tomorrow is another day.
