An ambiguity to discard. Is there an "Italian case" in the EU today? I believe that a certain amount of confusion has slipped into this affair. Several commentators have confused provisions, on the one hand, relating to the obligation of Member States to respect the fundamental principles of the Treaty (human rights, freedom, political pluralism, etc.), and, on the other, the fear, real or perceived, of an Italian attitude less favourable to European construction or frankly Eurosceptic. And yet, these are two fundamentally different questions: failing to respect the principles would be breaching the pact that ties Europeans among themselves; it represents an infringement that may be punished. A reluctant or even negative attitude towards the goals of Community integration , on the other hand, may well be regrettable but is obviously not prohibited. No European leader has ever claimed that Mrs. Thatcher did not have the right to take the stances she did, no European leader disputes the legitimacy of the theories of the French "sovereignists", or that of certain British Conservatives, or Mr. Bonde and his friends. No one has accused Italy of infringing the major principles nor of conduct on the part the official authorities that could raise doubts in their respect. Please let's therefore, rid ourselves of the debate on this ambiguity, and focus on the second aspect, which in itself does not involve a breach of the European pact, but that would nevertheless alter the European landscape and represent a break in Italy's traditional position. To simplify the issue: Is Italy today less pro-European than before?
A utilitarian and petty vision. It's hard to dispute that, among some representatives of the new majority, there is no enthusiasm, that's the least that can be said. Some ministers and other official people do not "feel" European construction, they do not know what it means for their country and do not understand what it signifies today: they have a utilitarian and petty vision of it. But this is not a purely Italian phenomenon. I sometimes have the impression that after the generation of the fathers of Europe, those giants in thought and generosity, there was like a void. With exceptions, for course, but on the whole the generation that entered politics when the foundations of Europe were already well established, did not understand the revolution accomplished. Now, in the new generation (the second "ab Europe condita") we are finally seeing more awareness of the European miracle; it's there for all to see, all around our Community and beyond, in the Balkans as in the Middle East, in certain areas of Africa as in Asia and Latin America, to what extent it is difficult for men to forget hate and bitterness. But among the "fifty-somethings who lead us" (to take up the expression of Mr. de Silguy, see this section in our bulletin of 18 January), what dominates is very often ignorance and incomprehension. Politicians of good faith and good will learn fairly quickly: an extended passage through Brussels or Strasbourg, a role of responsibility in European institutions, sometimes creates miracles .If it is not passion, it's at least reason that kicks in. Everyone has been able to note this on several occasions. For others, there is no miracle.
Following these general considerations, I return to the case of Italy. Certain attitudes and declarations by some Italian ministers essentially point towards a massive ignorance and disconcerting insensitivity towards Europe and its significance. To claim that citizens were wholly indifferent regarding the euro, bureaucratic affair and no more, means ignoring the largest leap in public opinion over the past decades. Italy experienced it at a time when it risked being excluded from the single currency. The man in the street understood, albeit possibly confusedly, without being able to assess all its implications, that his country risked sliding out of Europe. The man in the street had felt in those days what Minister Martino, with all his monetary science and his studies in America's best universities, had not understood and what Minister Bossi still does not understand. Both managed, together with some minor figures, to have Renato Ruggiero leave the government. They were delighted; but they have not won for that.
What is national interest? Indeed, Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi has since felt the need to reassure Italian public opinion and especially other Member States, by multiplying pro-European statements and guaranteeing that Italy would not stray from its traditional path, while remaining attentive to "national interests". This affair of "national interests" has raised no few misunderstandings. In Italy itself, some have retained from this a picture of a country that, in the past, sacrificed its interests for those of Europe. Which is wrong and especially absurd. In fact, it's to its participation in European construction that Italy owes a large part of what it has become.
The "stability culture" is something that Italy owes almost entirely to Europe and to the courageous individuals who have been able to implement it nationally, of course. I have heard of some telling examples - Treasury Ministers like Emilio Colombo, Guido Carli and others coming to Brussels to get Europe to recommend the measures needed to put a stop to traditional Italian laissez-faire and going back to Rome with documents they had largely written themselves stressing the need for whatever it happened to be, explaining to journalists and their peers in the government and Parliament that they had had to give in to the recommendations or decisions coming from Brussels. Despite appearances, they were actually acting in Italy's favour but calling it the interests of Europe. The stability culture has been won by and large today and all Economics and Finance Ministers are proud of applying it, justifying themselves to the economic world (and even to public opinion) if they stray too far from it.
Professor Monti's lesson. Commissioner Mario Monti contributed to the discussion by saying it was positive to speak openly about the national interest as long as you clearly set out the best way of serving the nation, which (in his opinion) is the Community way. Sometimes true long-term national interest is served when a country "loses" conflicts with the EU and the Commission. With hindsight, he felt it was clear that it worked in Italy's interest to have "lost" battles around IRI and EFIM since this led to way to greater privatisation and liberalisation. He repeated that it was a good thing to talk about national interest which he thought generally coincided with the Community's interest.
Ministers who discredit their country's currency. Mr Berlusconi's general statements don't go into any detail, it is true, and don't outline the Italian position on any particular dossier. We don't know, for example, what Italy's attitude will be on the Convention when it comes to defining the reform process and the EU's new institutional structure. The impression for the moment is that Berlusconi himself - and his government - are finding their feet in what is clearly a new area for them. Sceptical or disparaging comments about the euro have already been corrected both in terms of their unacceptable vulgar style and their senseless content. Ministers should be aware that the euro today is Italy's currency from all points of view and the country will get inestimable advantages from it in terms of stability and keeping inflation down. Ministers who look down on or discredit their own currency out loud are pretty unusual. The Economics Minster Giulio Tremonti started by saying that the euro was a technocrat currency but then countered Mr Bossi's criticisms of the euro and Mr Martino's refined, doctrinaire scepticism.
Four preliminary considerations. Italian opposition political leaders are calling for sceptical responses to the government's expressions of European faith. The facts will speak for themselves. For the moment, we can say:
- Other governments (particularly the Council Presidency) and the international press have tended to take Mr Berlusconi's pro-Europe statements quite seriously since the tone of his comments has changed considerably;
- Italy's President, Mr Ciampi, is seen everywhere as a credible guarantor of Italy's European position;
- European issues only played a very minor role (if any) in the elections that brought Berlusconi to power. He was voted in on other issues and the new majority clearly has the right to follow the economic and national policies it was elected on. But it's different for "Europe". As soon as the European project comes up, public opinion's favourable reflexes come into play and eurosceptic or disdainful approaches cause politicians to lose support, even among those who voted for the new majority - eurosceptic ministers should take heed of this;
- On the whole, the impact and the advantages of belonging to the EU have been confirmed. Remember the Austrian case (even though it was radically different) where the general controversy and reactions from various capitals made Austria make declarations about the fundamental principles of the European Union and pledges from the country's President and its government that went much further than anything that would otherwise have come from Vienna spontaneously. Similarly, Mr Berlusconi and some of his staff have been brought to make declarations in favour of the European project that are clearer than they would have been if they had not been trying to reassure the other Member States and the Community leaders about the basic direction Italy was going in. We wait to see what happens in practice, at the Convention and elsewhere. (F.R.).