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.

Theresa May and her negative delaying tactics

As I listened this afternoon to Theresa May’s statement at Westminster – and to the following parliamentary debate – I could only conclude that the Prime Minister has no concrete alternative plan to the existing draft Brexit Deal.

Moreover, she is not credible when she sustains that “the talks are at a crucial state”. There are no real talks taking place. And there is no plan to that in the days to come.

The Prime Minister is just trying to gain time. Not that she expects a miracle to happen in the next couple of weeks. No. Her hope is that in the end the British Parliament will approve the Deal, with some cosmetics added to it, but basically the same document that she has agreed with the EU last November.

To believe in an approval because the MPs will have their backs against the wall is a very risky bet. Also, it’s distinctly unwise. In the end, it might bring all of us closer to a No Deal Brexit. Such possible outcome would have deeply negative consequences both to the UK and the EU. Only open fools, like David Davis, Boris Johnson and Jacob Rees-Mogg, can believe that a No Deal situation is a good option for the UK.

It’s time to bring the Prime Minister back to earth and stop the delaying tactics.

As a footnote, it’s quite shocking to see that idiotic belief about the positives of a No Deal being militantly supported by some mainstream British media. For instance, by The Telegraph, the well-known right-wing daily newspaper. This media behaviour is clearly the result of a mixture of chauvinist madness with commercial opportunism – trying to sell newsprint paper to the retrograde Conservatives that constitute a good share of the British market. It’s abundantly irresponsible.

Additional notes on the Yellow Vests

In yesterday’s writing, my main point was we cannot ignore the social dissatisfaction some French citizens experience. I had particularly in mind those who live in the sprawling, huge and hastily urbanised areas that ring the most prosperous cities of France. These citizens are wrongly called “suburban people” – an expression that hardly hides the disdain the professional, city-based elites feel towards those persons. The fact is that most of them live in big agglomerations, but those are little more than sleeping areas. The rest of their lives is spent on commuting, long hours wasted in crowded public transportation systems or on congested roads. Everything is far and stressful to reach: work, schools, medical facilities, public services, even the shopping malls. The only people they know are like them, sharing the same frustrations and the same fatigue.

They also know this is a life condition that will continue forever, at best. There is very little hope in the air. The prevailing sentiment is of being trapped. Vulnerable as well. They also believe that they are just ignored by the more fortunate fellow citizens and the political actors. The elites don’t care, that’s the judgement that is often mentioned.

But there two other questions I must raise. 

First, that violence and destruction are not acceptable. There is no justification. Those who practise such acts must be punished. And we all must say no to violence, no to chaos, no any type of public rebellion. 

Second, that these rallies should cease and dialogue be given a chance. President Emmanuel Macron has launched a consultative process that is rather ambitious. It touches some very key issues. And it’s also an attempt to look at democracy and representativeness from a less formal and distant perspective. It’s important to participate in that initiative. It will also show that there is maturity there where it might seem absent for now.

Day 13 for the Yellow Vests

Today it was the 13^th Saturday with Yellow Vest demonstrators in Paris and other French cities.

It’s obvious the movement is still able to gather a good number of people. We can say so even if the total number of protesters today was smaller than in past weeks. The variety of reasons that bring the activists to the streets explains the numbers.

This is not a rally of dunces, as some would like us to see it. There are extremists in the ranks – militants from the far-right and from the far-left. They are trying to ride the social malaise. And they feel happy when they see cars burning or the State authority being challenged. But the majority of those on the streets is composed of people that face daily hardships and want to benefit from a safer economic environment. They are simple people, and they raise the key question about how to organise the society in developed nations at a time of big digital transformations, combined with international economic competition and the emergence of masses of skilled workers in other parts of the world.

Let's be positive and wise

Today's world in Brussels should be "restrain". This is a time that requires moderation, tact, discretion, prudence, circumspection, you call it whatever you deem more appropriate. I prefer “restrain”.

And I would add to it that this is no time to irritate the side that might seem very confused. It’s actually the moment to be warm about the future, because the future can only be about cooperation and mutual interests.

Italy's rare birds

To recall one’s ambassador accredited to another State is a major move. A decision that is taken at the highest level of authority. It shows that there is a serious political tension between the governments concerned. France did it today. They recalled their Ambassador to Italy. I can’t recall any similar situation in Western Europe in the last seven decades. This is certainly not good either for both countries or the EU. It takes the EU to a new and unknown type of conflict. And, unfortunately, I do not see who could try to undertake the bridging between Emmanuel Macron and the radical populists that are in charge in Rome. It is also true that one cannot accept the kind of political hostility that is coming these days from Salvini and Di Maio. That must be said in very clear terms. They are an aberration that must be denounced.

The UK deep crisis is getting worse

I see the ghost of early elections coming rapidly in the direction of Prime Minister Theresa May.

Venezuela needs a credible mediation process

There are a few crisis situations in the world that must be seen as requiring urgent attention. Venezuela is certainly one of them. And, in terms of response, mediation is the word. It is necessary to find a mediation mechanism that could be accepted by both sides, meaning the Maduro camp and the Guaidó supporters.

Nicolás Maduro has asked the Pope to lead such mediation. It is true that the Catholic Church could play a facilitating role. But the other side has not expressed the same kind of appeal. Basically, they believe that Maduro´s presidency is not legitimate and, therefore, he must go without any concession being made. That position should be helped to evolve as rapidly as possible.

The United Nations could also be approached. Yet, I think Maduro sees the UN as too close to the Western interests. In the circumstances, the UN Secretary-General should take the initiative and be in personal contact with both leaders. The UN has a lot of experienced people in the field of mediation. And it could also work closely with the Vatican and offer a join platform for negotiations. Countries in the EU should send a message about the UN’s potential.

It’s equally critical that Maduro understands that there is a way forward for him and his family. The other side must leave a gate open for a dignified solution. It’s a mistake to try to push Maduro and his camp against the wall. That would make any bridging effort fail and it could easily bring mass violence instead a negotiated solution.

The mediation agenda would be defined by the parties. That’s how it should be. But I can guess it would certainly include issues such as the shape of the political transition, who would chair it, the organization of credible elections, the role of the armed forces and the police, as well as amnesty matters.

No to public disorder

The French National Assembly is debating a new law drafted to address the issue of violence during public demonstrations. It’s known as the “anti-casseurs law”. “Casseur” is the name given to anyone who breaks or wrecks things. The new piece of legislation aims at preventing the destruction of public and private property by hooligans and other ruffians, people that take advantage of legitimate manifestations to create hell.

In France, a number of politicians and intellectuals see this new law as restricting the freedom to demonstrate. But the fact of the matter is that fringe groups are systematically taking advantage of genuine street protesters to behave destructively. That cannot be accepted. Law and order in public places must be kept. If not, we are creating the conditions for extreme-right movements to ride on chaos and gain political space. The democratic values, in France and elsewhere in our part of the world, require a firm hand when dealing with violence and looting. Anarchy, if untamed, leads to dictatorship.

Yellow vests: the key question

Everything we write and read about the root causes of the Yellow Vests movement is based on political and sociological speculation. We should be clear about it.

We know that the high cost of living, the permanent state of fatigue that comes from suburban life, the ever-increasing tax burden and the many forms of resentment against the professional politicians play an important role in the mobilisation. There is bitterness and anger towards the urban elites and the globalist crusaders. These are the key, most immediate reasons for the demonstrations.

We also know that these areas of misgivings and rebellion combine themselves into a complex social malaise.

But are we witnessing something larger and deeper than what meets the idea? Something transformative? That’s the very question that must be answered to.