«In the past few hours I have made some precise references to the less careful reactions, which will certainly remain indelible in the collective memory of our land. It is clear, however, that following the very heartfelt reactions that followed (it seemed that nothing else was expected), some of which were quite astonishing given that these are forces that had remained totally immobile for a year with respect to the BH affair, I I pose implicit questions which, in the absence of confirmation, I must make explicit. We all agree on talking about investments and jobs and we are all reasonably good: every project – like every investment – is functional to the development of Calabria. But respect for the rules, legitimacy and transparency of procedures – in a word legality – are necessary for the development of Calabria or have they suddenly become discretionary, like flags to be waved and lowered at will, based on the size of the investment or to the investor’s ability to relate? The mayor of Corigliano-Rossano writes it, Flavio Stasi, in reference to the controversy arising from the announced refusal of the multinational Baker Hughes to invest in his city after an appeal by the Municipality regarding the occupation of a quay in the city port. The Minister of Made in Italy also intervened on the matter, Adolfo Urso.
«And let it be clear – continues Stasi – that the only ones who have no responsibility in all this are the investors, whose seriousness no one discusses. I asked and repeat the question to all the champions of work and development of the last hour: should the municipal offices have given false urban planning compliance, yes or no? I often come off as unsympathetic because I’m not the “no” type, which is why you have to have the courage to say that, in order not to hinder the investment, you had to make false claims. The municipal office of Corigliano-Rossano – continues Stasi – has another approach: it raised the problem immediately, asked on dozens of occasions to overcome it, even proposed a memorandum of understanding with a plan to be shared, in order to allocate the other docks and not the ones useful to Baker Hughes. All in vain. And again, I repeat again to the same champions: Do you find it normal and acceptable that in 2024 in a Western country an authorization is given with a conference of services which has as its object something else and which was convened a month and a half before the authorization request itself?». Stasi adds: «It’s true that the administrative system is a complex thing, but let’s start from the basics: do we want to collect opinions, even subliminally, for something that has at least already been requested? Here are what I have renamed the “visionary conferences”. I understand: assuming the role of someone who defends jobs in a land of emigration is much simpler, it goes much more to the gut, than explaining that such an absurdity would make every subsequent authorization process a real joke”
