Never like this time, with the next onesand European elections on 8 and 9 June, the European Union is risking its political survival and its very future. Grappling with two wars in Ukraine and the Middle East and with the hegemonic ambitions of regional powers (China, Russia, Iran) the institutions of Brussels are increasingly called upon to play a leading political role in the world order. But these new challenges require a Union expanded to include the Balkans and Ukraine new reform treaties compared to Lisbon, a strategic autonomy on defense as a true European pillar of NATO and greater investments of own resources that finance the green transition and debt relief.
This, in short, is the idea Piervirgilio Dastoli, historic secretary of Altiero Spinelli and currently president of the European Movement.
Dastoli, in your latest book written with Emma Bonino “What is Europe for” you retrace the lights and shadows of Italian Europeanism. Can we say that the current government is compensating for its great distrust towards European institutions with an excess of Atlanticism and closeness to the United States?
“Of course, this is one of the aspects of the Government's current posture towards Europe. In the past there was a long phase in national politics in which anchoring in Brussels was considered an almost indispensable priority. But for at least twenty years this has no longer been the case. History is also rewritten, making Berlusconi an example of a great pro-European when, as is known, his Foreign Minister Renato Ruggiero resigned in 2002 due to disagreements on European policies. Now the Italian contribution to the European institutions will have to be measured, as the President of the Republic Sergio Mattarella himself explained a few days ago in Slovenia, on the enlargement to the Balkan countries, on a reform of the Treaty of Lisbon adapted to the new challenges and a godly policy investments with own resources and without increasing the debt of individual countries capable of financing all the environmental and economic reforms that Europe intends to carry out".
What happened in the last plenary meeting of the European Parliament with the Italian parliamentarians who abstained or voted against the reform of the Stability Pact is just the umpteenth bad impression of Italy or the symptom of how this electoral campaign for the European?
“The two things connected. We emerge massacred as a country that expresses the commissioner for economic affairs and whose government approves a text that its parliamentarians do not then vote on in Strasbourg. The abstention of the majority is incomprehensible, is an act of uncertainty that is not understood and, if anything, highlights a disconnect between the Government and political forces. But on the other hand, the opposition should also have expressed an opinion on the text and not just voted against the Italian government. The text, as Gentiloni said, could be improved but the old Maastricht rules were certainly much more burdensome, especially for high-debt countries like Italy. But, in the end, the European Parliament also has a certain responsibility as it put a text to the vote in its last plenary session without a revision clause that would allow the new institutions to make improvements.
What should this clause have included? Weren't the new provisions enough? Compared to what was established by the old Pact, the rigor is attenuated and Governments will be allowed to deviate from the net spending path of 0,3% of GDP on an annual basis and 0,6% of GDP during the monitoring period".
“The rigor is toned down, certainly. But rules could be established to undertake a path of reforms with the Union's own resources. Rigid rules cannot be imposed on budget policies (as well as on environmental regulations) without explaining how and where to find the resources for those investments necessary to achieve the objectives set without burdening the debt of individual countries. And this, among other things, is the reason for the failure of the European Council of 17 and 18 April. A package of resources in the community budget for these investments would be the only way to make the rigor acceptable. And that's what Mario Draghi also proposes."
One thing is certain. The European elections in Italy are turning into a sort of internal score-settling between the majority parties. European themes seem to be almost absent. Is it really like that?
“The so-called “owl” candidacies are the most evident example of this Italian anomaly. Tajani, Meloni, Schelin are candidates from people who we already know will not go to Strasbourg. An Italian-only anomaly which is also the result of our preference system. Of course, in 2019 there was the case of Josep Borrell, then Spanish Foreign Minister who ran and then gave up but only because he already had the role of High Representative for European Foreign and Defense Policy of the EU in his pocket".
