Anyone who devotes himself to reading the report commissioned by Minister Toninelli containing the study of the costs and benefits of the Tav, having reached the end (p. 69) of the same report, can only remain dumbfounded, amazed and perhaps even suspicious of the transparency of the actions of Minister Toninelli himself and his employers Casaleggio and Di Maio.
It is not a matter of objecting to the accounts shown in the technical analysis conducted by the majority of experts, what should be noted the uselessness of such a document for the purposes of the political decision of its approval or rejection by the Parliament. It is quite clear that Minister Toninelli and his cronies have never leafed through the text of similar documents submitted to Parliament.
Not only does the player lack the dissenting opinion of the commissioner who did not sign the report final and which is demoted by Minister Toninelli to a simple technician who has his say. Which raises fears that the other technicians of the commission have been appointed by Toninelli himself so that they do not say their opinion but that of the minister giving cause, notoriously opposed to the Tav. But there is more.
It is good practice, required by the transparent policy, that such documents are preceded by the so-called terms of reference, or from the questions (not from a single question, if anything the one preferred by the client) to which the commissioners must answer. Terms of reference completely unknown to the reader or expunged from the final report, assuming they existed.
In practice, the transparency of political action requires that the commissioners draw up alternative socio-economic scenarios consistent with the various variables assumed to arrive at the final result. Therefore, it is not a question of re-discussing the various hypotheses and technicalities of the technical report or of taking or leaving the sole result offered to parliament by Minister Toninelli and his employers.
It is a question of restoring the use of cost-benefit analysis to its essential role: offer decision-makers the opportunity to choose between all equally possible socio-economic scenarios, if anything even the one desired by the assignor. Provided that this too is clearly explained in the mandate to the technicians called to answer all the questions of the terms of reference. Technicians once so hated by pentastellati, you see the cases of Bank of Italy, the general directorate of the treasury, the president of INPS. And so on and so forth.
Otherwise it will have to be evaluated as one cost-benefit analysis big hoax applied to case Tab as proposed with intellectual incompetence and impudence by Minister Toninelli and his cronies.
