Still on the European summit

The EU summit is still on, at the end of the second day. It is too early to comment on it, as I do not know what the outcome will be. But I said to a friend, a former ambassador, that I see it as positive that leaders spend a good amount of time trying to get to an agreement. They have in front of them big issues, with many possible consequences, and extremely high costs. These are no simple matters, and we are living in extraordinarily exceptional times. I would be worried if they decided to run through the issues, superficially and with no real commitment. It is true that some of them do have that kind of attitude. They are the lightweights. But the key players take these matters seriously. I can only appreciate that. To call names and badmouth them is a childish approach I do not accept.   

The forthcoming EU summit

On Friday, the EU leaders will meet in Brussels. This will be the first face-to-face meeting since the beginning of the pandemic. The agenda is about money, lots of it. They must decide if they approve the Commission’s recovery proposal, its budget, and the disbursement modalities. It is indeed a delicate agenda

There are two camps. One side wants the new money to flow to each country, with little interference from either the Commission or the Council. In their views, it is up to the national governments to decide on the programmes and projects to be funded, accepting however that those funding decisions must fall within the broad framework proposed by the European Commission. Italy, France, Spain, and Portugal are within this group.

The other side, led by the Prime Minister of the Netherlands, advocates a greater oversight by the European Council. That would mean that country allocations should be endorsed by all, not just by the government concerned. It would give the Council, where the heads of State and government sit or are represented, the authority to say no a country’s allocation plan. They do not see this approach as interference. They think that the volume of money is very substantial, and it should, therefore, be used not only for recovery but also for economic and administrative reform at the national level.

As of today, it is unclear what the outcome of the summit might be. The conflicting positions show that some countries are convinced that others are not doing enough in terms of economic transparency and administrative effectiveness. They see a widening gap between development levels. And they are afraid that the richer part of Europe will be asked to keep contributing to States that are not doing their best in terms of political performance. The opposing side considers such a position as a prejudiced view. In my opinion, both groups of countries have some valid points that must be discussed. Indeed, it is time to discuss the reasons for poor performance and also some of the prevailing national prejudices that are still alive in different parts of the European Union.

Italy's immediate challenge

As we start the last week of February, the key issue in our part of the world is the outbreak of coronavirus in Northern Italy. In the last forty-eight hours the number of infected cases has grown fast. About ten towns in the Lombardy and Veneto regions have been placed under quarantine measures. Major events, such as the Venice Carnival, have been cancelled. And, above all, there is no objective information about the way the disease has spread in that part of Italy. That must be investigated as a matter of priority. Besides that, the test for the next twenty-four hours is about the progression of the infections, particularly to see if there are new cases outside the areas that have now been placed under control. Let’s hope that will not be the case.

Italy and its fragile new government

Italy has a new government. Giuseppe Conte has been successful at putting together a coalition of dissimilar personalities. It brings together populists, left wingers, centrists and technocrats. All of them have one thing in common: a profound dislike for Matteo Salvini, the extremist. It is obviously a fragile reason to pull together. But it might work. I am one of those who sees some strength in disparity. This government might want to contradict the naysayers.

Italy must reform soon

Giuseppe Conte is back as head of the new Italian government. Not a very easy task that of chairing a coalition between the 5-Star Movement and the PD (Democratic Party, a social-democrat party). They can stay in power for three years, until the end of the current Parliament. They can also fall apart soon. Nobody knows. What we know is that the new government – Conte II – has many divisive issues to deal with. The country is not in a very good shape, to put it diplomatically. It calls for serious reforms. Those reforms require consensus within the coalition, a very wise approach and lots of political courage. In addition, many people think that Matteo Salvini, the League’s leader, is a better option, that he is the one that can transform Italy. He is not, in my opinion, but what matters is the Italian voters’ views. He will be leading the opposition against this new government. In the end, if Italy does not address its problems – and I have serious doubts it will – Salvini might end up back in power again. And bring with him the image of a strong and resolute man. That would be a game changer. Certainly not a good one, in the end, but it would be too late to stop him.

Salvini will become Trump's man in Europe

The Italian people will decide what next, when called to vote for a new government. That’s how our democracies work. It is however quite clear that one of their potential choices, Matteo Salvini, is an anti-European Union, for reasons he knows better than anybody else. He is also an extremist, fully supported by the most reactionary sectors of the Italian society. Many voters might think that he represents the kind of leadership the country needs. But there are also large sectors of the public opinion that see him as the wrong type of choice, someone that can bring disaster to the country. And that disaster could happen quite soon, it is not just a question of long term.

From a European perspective, if Matteo Salvini becomes Prime Minister that is bad news. He will carry division, xenophobia and ultra-nationalism to the European debate. Consensus building will become even more difficult than it is today. He is the enemy from inside. There is no bigger enemy than the one that lives among us.

He is also the strongest ally of the EU’s outside enemies. Some analysts mention his subordination to Vladimir Putin’s money and interests. That is dangerous enough. Putin’s agenda is to destroy the European unity. But I see an additional peril. He will become President Donald Trump’s agent within the EU, in the Council meetings and every time a key decision that might contradict the American policy is on the table. President Trump is no friend of the EU. If I were asked to prioritise the outside leaders that are hostile to the common project, I would start by referring to his name as number one. And I would add that such antagonism is particularly risky, as it comes from the leader of a country that has very close ties with Europe and a strong presence in some of the EU countries, not to mention that it is the most powerful nation on earth. President Trump and his circle will be making good use of Salvini’s duplicity and radicalism.

These are indeed new challenges. They certainly require a different understanding of the old established practises.

Italy and its political clowns

It would be an exaggeration to say that Italy has become a fragile democracy. The governing coalition might be collapsing tonight or tomorrow, but the State institutions are functioning. The President has the necessary prestige and authority. The judiciary system works. And, in general terms, I think we should recognise that public service is experienced and can be competent, if left alone.

It is the political class that is in deep crisis. It has been like that since Berlusconi´s time, in the 90s. His Forza Italia was a joke, inspired by his own example and megalomania. And it created a lot of additional party clones, as time went on, including the populist 5 Star Movement. It has also opened space to the ultra nationalist movements to flourish. 

In this context, the real challenge is to see the emergence of different type of political leaders. Unfortunately, that seems to be a very remote light, at this stage. 

EU Parliament and Italy

Yesterday, Giuseppe Conte, the Italian Prime Minister addressed the EU Parliament in Strasbourg.

I do not share some of the views he expressed. However, I would assess his speech as moderate and pro-European.

The Prime Minister talked about immigration – a very central theme for his government but also for the rest of Europe. And about the need to go back to reinforced solidarity among the European States, as well as about defence matters, foreign policy and the EU at the UN. He emphasised that cooperation with North Africa and the Sahel are a priority for his government and invited the EU to be more coherent and proactive towards those two neighbouring regions. But above all, Conte reminded the MEPs that the connection between the EU institutions and the citizens is crucial. Too much emphasis on economic measures without considering the people’s views is wrong, that was basically his opening point and one of the key messages. It’s an opinion that reflects the view that there is a serious gap between the citizens and the elites. We might see that as a populist slogan, but I think it’s important to pay attention to it.

Giuseppe Conte represents a government that is politically distant from the mainstream parties that control most seats in the EU Parliament. Therefore, as many had anticipated, the responses that followed his speech were distinctly negative. The star MEPs focused their critical interventions on some of the recent decisions taken by Conte’s powerful deputies – Matteo Salvini and Luigi di Maio. These are the strong players in Conte’s government. The MEPs gave no truce to Conte on account of those two.

In my opinion, that approach was the wrong one. Conte’s statement was a constructive attempt to build a bridge. His effort should have been recognised. Nevertheless, the MEPs decided to push the Prime Minister into his usual corner, and punch him, instead of offering a helping hand and try to bring him to the centre-ground of the European preoccupations. I judge the MEPs showed little maturity. Once again, they were more concerned with theatrics and sound bites, trying to project a tough public image, than with looking for sensible action.

The Prime Minister must have gone back to Rome with a strengthened impression that key European politicians, in the EU Parliament, do not understand the political realities his country is going through. They prefer to put Italy in the dock.

That's poor political judgement.