Ratification, no problem, but…Italy has ratified the Constitutional treaty without any problem because the major political forces, as well as the majority of the opposition supported it. It is normal that this calm ratification did not make any waves at a European level. But the calm is just an appearance of one, as borne out by developments within the majority grouping: the foreign affairs minister has announced that Italy will use the veto with regard to EU financial perspective for 2007-13 if EU funding to the Mezzogiorno is not sufficient and one of the political parties in the parliamentary majority, the “Lega” (Northern League) has called for Italy to leave the euro and a referendum is organised on the subject. There is no reason to dramatise things, as the threat of a veto is part of the negotiation tactic and attacks on the euro have provoked some sharp reactions in the highest places (from the President of the Republic to the number two in the government, Giuliano Tremonti), as well as a vast polemic in which the advantages of the euro were highlighted. But in all the different cases, the two initiatives correspond to swings in public opinion, which are real and should be taken into account.
A healthy debate? On the subject of the euro, untruths and spurious or false assessments have taken on such a proportion that the “Lega”, supported by a minister is almost considered as healthy as it allows for a some of the truth to be told to the public. The two essential criticisms of the euro are that: it has caused significant hikes in prices (and therefore reduced purchasing power and the standard of living) and that it makes any political relaunch of the economy impossible. I will quote from the huge number of replies that from Senator Giampiero Cantoni because it's from “Forza Italia”, the party of the Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi. He has defined the initiative as “a silly season's populist initiative” and explains that: a) the euro has protected Italy from monetary speculation that regularly occurred in the past. Parmalat, Cirio type scandals etc. would have swept the Lira away; b) the euro allows for an inflation rate of around 2% and historically low interest rates, as well as imposing budgetary deficits that do not overshoot 3% of GDP. All the objectives that Italy would not have been able to attain on its own; c) abandoning the euro would involve an immediate hike in interest rates by 6 or 7 points with a parallel rise in inflation and charges on the debt (which thanks to the euro has gone from 12% to 5% of GDP). To meet this challenge, the result would be to increase taxes. All experts are aware of certain things; the important thing was to illustrate them to the public. The debate has widened to the point where actor, Roberto Benigni interjected ironically with the following quip, “Minister Maroni wants to return to the Lira? Personally, I'd like to go back to the sesterce. It was better in that era? We could conquer Gaul. Forwards! (The sesterce was of course the currency of ancient Rome. At the time of Julius Caesar it was in pure gold).
Mario Monti was astounded to the point of adopting a tone he is not known for using, “Europe, the main barrier to growth? That's pathetic, especially coming from a country like Italy, which is not in a position to give lessons on bureaucracy or competitiveness”.
A national and not a European problem. Let's get down to the second subject, the reduction of funding in support of the Mezzogiorno, planned as part of other measures for the next financial perspectives. It is normal that the Italian government fights to keep as much of this funding as possible, all the countries benefiting from it will do likewise and the Juncker compromise includes as gradual a degression as possible in this reduction. But the threat of the veto is not the most appropriate negotiating tool. Several Italian commentators have said that Italy is by far the country that has benefited most from European funding as this began at the beginning of the 1960s. Some regions have been able to take advantage of these resources and others less so. One of the most prestigious commentators wrote the following in this respect, Sergio Romano, “until the second half of the 1990s, southern regions did not define the projects justifying aid and they left them to Brussels to provide a large chunk of the money which has widely contributed to their development…the situation has gradually improved but public works continue to encounter obstacles: administrative backlogs, nepotism, mafia contamination. It is difficult to expect that the EU continues to take a problem upon itself that Italy, the sixth or seventh industrial power in the world, is unable to resolve. The problem is an Italian one and not European”. This final sentence could be applicable to several other Member States: how many of difficulties they want Europe to be responsible for are in fact national problems?
(F.R.)