Now even the Economist has arrived to say that voting No in the referendum on constitutional changes would not only cause no earthquake in the markets, but it would be even wiser. The reasoning is unclear. In fact, the Economist argues that Italy urgently needs to make structural reforms in the functioning of the economy and institutions (justice and the public administration are mentioned) and that starting from the Constitution was a waste of time. But have the bald commentators of the Economist ever wondered why reforms are so difficult in Italy? Could it be that the problem lies in the weakness and instability of governments that in the current institutional system do not find the strength to get truly incisive reforms approved and then resist the thousand pressures that try to boycott them in the application phase?
Do the London geniuses say that after the victory of the NO, a caretaker government would be created that would make real reforms? Perhaps they are thinking of a government supported by the Carabinieri and the Armed Forces, because our experiences of technical governments show that in the emergency it was only possible to pass through a tax increase or a cut in pension benefits (Monti government) but then it was not possible to find parliamentary majorities to pass structural reforms (from work to justice to simplification).
But beyond the extravaganzas in London, what is impressive is the chorus of commentators and politicians who are trying to argue that basically the victory of NO would not lead to upheavals and would not increase the risk of financial and economic crisis. The wisdom of President Mattarella would be able to find a buffer solution while waiting to return to the polls and get the people to express themselves. Even the Economist piece is part of this trend which ranges from commentators such as Stefano Folli and Antonio Polito, to professors such as Michele Ainis and Gianfranco Pasquino, to politicians such as Bersani and Berlusconi. Everyone argues that the government can remain in office until the natural expiry of the legislature in 2018 and that therefore there would be no risk of an increase in market distrust following the greater uncertainty about the future of our country. But this is the latest attempt to confuse public opinion after those made on the merits of the reform which have proved to be completely unfounded, and often in such evident bad faith as to leave even the most naive voters dismayed.
Now, in an attempt to deny that the December 4 referendum represents a fundamental stage in the long and tiring process of recovery of our country, all the "do-gooders" fall into an evident contradiction. If the markets, but also individual savers, expect Italy to continue along the path of reforms in order to create a more favorable environment for those who want to invest and take risks, how can one imagine that a government beaten by the people on one of the fundamental issues of his programme, can he find the strength to present an incisive reform on any subject in Parliament without being snubbed by parliamentarians of all stripes? The reforms do not bring immediate consensus since at the beginning only those who are damaged by them make themselves heard, while those who should benefit from them wait to see the effects before making a decision. Which party would be willing to assume the burden of supporting a "technical" government in the run-up to the elections?
For other economists, especially Keynesians, the problem of Italy's retreat over the last thirty years does not lie so much in our institutional shortcomings which have led to the dissipation of public money and the formation of Monopolies which have undermined the efficiency of our economy, but the responsibility must be sought in European bonds and in joining the Euro. In this case, voting No means contesting the economic policy of the last few governments, thus taking the first step to free oneself from Europe, and therefore being able to regain that sovereignty that we gave up too hastily. But perhaps these gentlemen do not remember how difficult it was for Italy to live with high inflation and high public debt. They do not remember that after the devaluation of the lira in 1992 we were still grappling with double-digit inflation and with interest rates so high as to discourage any investment, for which Prodi was forced to do everything possible to join the Euro in order not to leave drift the country.
We are faced with specious reasoning if not gross falsifications of history and logic. In reality, the reform is moderate and balanced. Do not foresee any overwhelming power of politicians and soon we will return to holding elections with a renewed constitutional and electoral system. Let's not forget, incidentally, that if elections haven't been held so far, it was because after the ruling of the Consulta, we didn't have an electoral system. Without approval of the new Constitution, it is obvious that a period of political uncertainty will open which would frighten economic operators, starting with small Italian savers, and above all would create a favorable terrain to pave the way for the grillina adventure. With all due respect to all those who think that there would be no negative consequences.
