Rome, 12/04/2011 (Agence Europe) - There has never been so much controversy in Italy over the country's membership of the European Union. The crisis caused by the arrival in Lampedusa of tens of thousands of migrants from Tunisia and asylum seekers from Libya, and the European response to Rome's requests for aid, considered by the Italian authorities as inadequate, are fuelling a debate to a hitherto unknown level in Italy since the country's membership of the European Union. Also, the fact that the municipal elections of 22 May are fast approaching does not help to tone down the polemic, which the president of the Republic, Giorgio Napolitano, a convinced European, and European Commission President José Manuel Barroso - see below - are seeking to restrain.
There were further controversial statements issued on Tuesday, even though Italian ministers attending the EU Council of Ministers meeting in Luxembourg have managed to tone things down a little. Italy's Justice Minister Angelino Alfano said the EU had written an “ugly page in its history” on Monday. Roberto Maroni, Interior Minister, who asked himself on Monday whether Italy had done the right thing in joining the EU (see related article), said he appreciated the stance adopted by the Commission but reiterated that the other Union countries are not united over Italy when it comes to immigration. Foreign Affairs Minister Franco Frattini called on everyone to remain calm, recognising that, without Europe, Italy would be too small to resolve its problems alone. He did, however, deplore the fact that the EU had not acted as a political union and invited President Barroso to take the immigration dossier in hand in order to reach a European response.
On Saturday 9 April, Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, who was visiting Lampedusa, the island south of Sicily which is the closest outreach of Italian and European soil to Tunisia and Libya, had himself triggered the debate on Italy's presence in the EU, saying that reality must be looked in the face, asserting: “Either the European Union is something that is real and concrete or it is not. And if it is not, then it is better to split up again and each follow their own policies and egoism”. Berlusconi had added that the problem of immigration was a European problem and that France and Germany had no alternative but to recognise that they must act together to deal with “the human tsunami” (from the outset, Italy has always spoken in a wealth of apocalyptic images, predicting “biblical” or “historic” exoduses from North Africa and announcing the presence of terrorists blending with the desperate as they cling to their migrant craft).
On Sunday 10 April, President Napolitano had expressed emotion and concern at this language, albeit appreciated by much of the centre-right majority (and criticised by the centre and left-wing opposition). He had called on Frattini and had invited the government and ministers not to scorn Europe and, above all, not to adopt retaliatory or disparaging stances and even less to have any ideas about pulling away from the EU.
Napolitano's invitation not to deride Europe was taken up by Maroni and Frattini with polemic distinction. Maroni said it was true one should not deride Europe but, if Italy calls for assistance and receives no positive answer, then, in his view, he believes it is quite frankly better for Italy to be on its own rather than in “bad company”. He accused the EU of going out of its way to save banks or make war (Ed: in Libya), but said it hides away when it comes to showing concrete proof of solidarity with its member nations in difficulty. Frattini took up saying that he shared the feelings expressed by President Napolitano and that he, too, was a convinced European, that one should not play around with Europe but also that one should not play with Italian interests. He went on to acknowledge that they should “move forward with Europe”. The solution is not less Europe, or zero Europe, but more Europe - a Union that is not only of a monetary and economic nature but which is also political and which therefore has an immigration policy and the ability to manage dialogue with the countries of North Africa turned upside down by the “satrapy domino effect”. (Gp/transl.jl)