Good evening to everyone.
During the Second World War,
a French admiral,
during a meeting with his officers,
because there was a very serious problem
of the notorious German U-Boot submarines,
which introduced devastation to the navy of the adversaries,
he told his officers at a meeting:
“You must boil the water of the sea,
in such a way that the U-Boot will be forced to emerge
and we can capture them “.
To which the officers pointed out,
not without some reverential fear,
Admiral:
“Yes, but exactly how can we make the sea water boil?”
And the Admiral replied:
“I deal with strategies and not with tactics”.
So, this is the prelude and the background.
Then maybe I hope
that will be more intelligible on the end of my speech,
or in case, someone, if you want to call a psychiatrist,
there is also the possibility.
Among the perversions that I recognize myself,
because I have a good level of self-awareness,
there is also that of having a deep admiration
for the Swiss Confederation
and for the democratic practices of the Swiss Confederation.
Specifically, for their form of direct democracy,
for the possibility, therefore,
that citizens can launch referendums,
not only abrogative but also proactive,
even with a constitutional value.
That is, you go to the polls
and if the “Yes” wins a question, an article of the Constitution is written.
Which is a very fascinating thing, the apotheosis of direct democracy.
Three years ago, exactly three years ago, in February 2014,
Swiss citizens went to the polls,
to decide a question of constitutional rank,
which provided for the imposition of quotas on immigration,
including immigration from the European Union.
The referendum ended with a measure victory,
about 20,000 votes,
in favor of “Yes”.
Therefore, it was written
an article, 121a, of the Swiss Constitution,
that established this principle.
Now, under normal conditions,
what is written on a Constitution
should have an operational follow-up at the level of laws.
Then it was given to the Swiss Federal Parliament
a time frame of three years to legislate.
Immediately after the outcome of the referendum consultation,
the Swiss discovered,
not without some perplexity,
that they have signed, over the decades,
dozens of bilateral agreements with the European Union,
respect which Switzerland can access the Single European Market,
however, as a counterpart, among other things must give
free movement of people.
So, on the one hand
the new article of the Constitution that talks about immigration contingents,
on the other side
all the bilateral agreements that are part, if you want,
also of the prosperity of the Confederation.
So the situation escaped quickly,
that is, there was a real national psychodrama.
On the one hand those who said:
“The Constitution is sacred, we must not touch it,
the outcome, the people are sovereign “, etc.,
and on the other side those who said:
“Look, maybe we have a problem”.
In the end, after three years of suffering, what was decided?
What has Parliament legislated?
That in case of unemployment higher than a given critical threshold,
that will be established,
in some parts of the country and compared to some professional profiles,
Swiss employers are obliged to call for an interview,
reported by the employment offices,
Swiss citizens,
that is, the so-called “natives”.
They have to examine them and they have to evaluate
if these citizens are right for them on recruitment requests.
This is not, as you may have guessed,
the outcome of that referendum consultation,
because the Swiss employer calls the indigenous,
if the indigenous does not like him, he dismisses him, thanks him,
he must not motivate because he is not well,
and proceeds to hire a non-Swiss citizen.
This is the essence of a violation of the popular will
and an article of the Constitution.
Now I’ll tell you another one,
which perhaps is a bit ‘less striking but just as curious and interesting,
always relative to a referendum.
You will know that Europol is one of the agencies of the European Union,
it is the agency of the European Union
which deals with the coordination of police activities,
which is an extremely important thing,
then the exchange of information
to prevent organized crime, terrorism, etc.
It was decided that Europol, starting next spring,
it will have to become something much more structured,
but above all something where the countries will decide by qualified majority,
but no longer unanimously, and this is important.
Since Denmark has the so-called opt out clause,
which is the one that gives the faculty to the country
to call out of agreements where unanimity is not required,
the Danish government convened a referendum in December 2015,
in which he was asked to renounce this clause
and to replace it with an “opt in” clause.
That is, the country entered into an agreement where it was voted
by qualified majority and no longer unanimously.
Even here, the population,
with a margin a little wider than what happened in Switzerland,
voted to reject this proposal.
What did this determine?
He determined, ipso facto,
that Denmark has practically since December 2015 outside of Europol.
Now, as coordination serves,
here too a feverish process began here,
by which,
we try to save the form of the referendum
and the substance of police cooperation,
because simply,
think of not being able to exchange information between countries
or do it from positions of rear, or weakened,
it is a risk that no government and no country can afford.
So even here, after about a year of feverish processing,
what was decided?
The European Parliament
just a few days ago he recommended this practice.
It was decided that, for the future,
Danish officials will sit in the Europol structure,
in the physical agency of Europol,
in a different room
from that where all the other exponents of countries are seated
who have joined qualified majority cooperation.
Whether a Danish police officer or a Danish police authority
needs to have an information exchange with Europol,
phone or send a stream of data to your Danish representatives
that are sitting in this room.
The Danish representative stands up from his room,
goes to the next room
and submits the request to European colleagues
which are fully part of Europol.
Also in this case,
you understand that the situation is quite tragicomic.
In the sense,
we have, practically, on the one hand the popular will,
on the other side,
what?
The need for cooperation and, if you want, the constraint of reality.
So how do you connect this anecdotal, which I have told you so far,
with the introduction?
That of the U-Boot, how to capture the U-Boot?
In the sense that,
I have not discovered anything resounding,
so we are not making history right now.
There is an irrepressible need, in the human being,
to reduce anxiety and the anxiogenic effect of environmental complexity.
The environmental complexity that was already there at the time of the U-Boot,
so during the Second World War,
and that in our current society is amplified exponentially.
So we are subjected
to a continuous informative, sensorial bombardment
of an irruption of the alien in our lives,
all that maybe
of high variance lives, with high variability,
and so what does it cause?
It causes insecurity and anxiety.
Sometimes it also causes economic insecurity,
which then, in turn, generates an equally powerful anxiety.
So what is the question
and the need that arises in such a context?
Finding what I call silver bullets,
that is, quick, simple, immediate solutions to complex problems.
However this is a fallacy,
because there is no silver bullet in a complex society,
but above all in a society
which by its nature is continually evolving
towards a need for cooperation and coordination.
That is we are condemned,
whether we like it or not,
to interact with those around us on various levels, at different levels of distance,
and to create a continuous negotiation with these subjects.
When things are good,
that is when the external context is favorable to us,
this cooperation does not cost us much.
In the end it is a win-win solution that we are all very satisfied with.
When the situation gets worse,
when, for example,
there is a fairly general economic problem,
when there are uncertainties, inconsistencies, etc.
and when the resources available to reach the goal fall,
here it arises in us and takes over
this profound dissatisfaction with the outcome of the negotiations.
Negotiation is seen as an increasing nuisance:
the negotiation as
unsustainable external constraint on our freedom,
on our self-determination,
on the ability to be masters of our destiny
and to regain control.
Unfortunately, at this stage,
that of great dissatisfaction,
because the lowest common denominator is not enough for us,
it gives us unsatisfactory and frustrating results,
appears in political communication,
but also in the desire to quell this anxiety,
the silver bullet.
That is the immediate solution,
as immediate as it is fallacious,
to complex problems.
What does this determine?
That anyone tries to apply such a solution,
it faces disappointments and disappointments
which can sometimes be particularly traumatic
and can generate effects of stress and frustration
that can sometimes even threaten the very essence of society,
tearing the fabric.
So what is the message that I would like to give,
hoping that it will still be an optimistic message?
Cooperation is something hard for me,
something that is also essential,
because there are no simple solutions to complex problems.
Anyone who comes to you to tell you:
“But look, it’s easy,
we can do this and we have solved the problem “,
should arouse some sort of …
it should play,
he should have an alarm ring on.
Because these are situations of real danger,
because the constraint of reality and complexity
they condemn us to cooperation
but they can be something that is as tiring as it is rewarding,
if you can bring out this speech.
In conclusion,
what I would like to say,
inspired by a quote, a quote by Graucho Marx,
is that, as you see,
it’s not that it drives me to reality and its reality bond,
but nevertheless reality is the only place where I can get a decent meal.
I like this phrase very much because,
at a time when communication tends to be hypersemplified,
however, in anxiolytic function,
and to offer free meals, which do not exist,
the meal metaphor should then help us to think
in a somewhat more in-depth and structured way.
Why give a free meal, which does not exist by definition,
not just for economists with all their fixations
and their psychotic states,
and a decent meal
you always have to aim for a decent meal.
Because this serves
to avoid particularly traumatic awakenings.
Thank you for your attention.
(Applause)
”
Be First to Comment