Salvatore Dama March 26, 2022
A front that is as heterogeneous as it is determined is taking sides against them Mario Draghi, while the President of the Council is in Brussels to attend the European Council. They range from Grillini to the radical left, from Catholics to partisans to the Lega di Matteo Salvini. Everyone is united in saying no to increasing military spending and to the fact that Italy is sending weapons thereUkraine. The two things are formally different, but they respond to the same need for defense. A need that has resurfaced in European dossiers after the Russian invasion, which arrived a few kilometers from the continental borders. Draghi, speaking in Brussels, minimizes internal controversy and goes straight. Increasing military spending to the 2 percent of GDP threshold is “a commitment made by the Italian government in 2006” and has been consistently endorsed by all the leaders who succeeded Palazzo Chigi.
SuperMario sends a message to the grillini, who do not want to betray the 2018 election program steeped in ideological pacifism: “Let’s not lose ourselves in memories, now it’s time to arm yourself” than Italy and Europe. “The calculations will be made later, with one’s own conscience and with the voters, but now is not the right time.” Yes, but there’s a mine to defuse that’s in danger of exploding in the Senate. A majority meeting with the government is scheduled for Monday or Tuesday to prepare for the defendant’s arrival in the courtroom at Palazzo Madama Decree of Ukraine, which provides for the shipment of arms to Kyiv and the refugee reception plan. The real knot is 2%, which is also the mandatory condition if you want to stay in NATO. An agenda on this subject was adopted unanimously in the Chamber. But in the Senate there is a risk of not surviving the resistance of the Cinquestelle. “We have to find a compromise,” suggests Lazio President Nicola Zingaretti, revealing the Democratic Party’s change of course. This initially offended his allies, but now fears the effects of the Grillina Stings.
the “Compromise” it lies in the development of a broader agenda that takes into account support for families and businesses affected by price increases due to conflict; the topic of energy selfsufficiency; the refugee issue; and finally, hidden and watered down, the military spending argument. Sufficiently camouflaged to avoid getting the 5s and their leader Giuseppe Conte, who was threatening a government crisis over the issue of rearmament, in trouble. A trick that may not be enough. For there is also the opposition of the Brothers of Italy, who have lodged in the Senate a document similar to that adopted by the majority in the House of Representatives, in an attempt to crush the Draghian coalition. At the moment, “we, as a majority, have not presented an agenda that increases military spending, contrary to what happened in the chamber, explains the M5s caucus Castellone, “we will make our assessments, but for now the line is this not to coordinate the opposition’s agenda”.
It’s better to give money to families and companies than to buy weapons, says Minister of Agriculture Stefano Patuanelli. “An Italian would not understand why he should spend 10 billion to increase military spending,” said Interior Undersecretary Carlo Sibilia. But it’s not just the Grillini. The left wing of the Democratic Party is also questioning Secretary Enrico Letta’s proDraghi line. Laura Boldrini, for example, has already said no to sending arms to Ukraine and increasing military spending. The national secretary of the Italian Left, Nicola Fratoianni, goes in the same direction. And the partisans of the Anpi. Finally, there is the Catholic world. In fibrillation after the Holy Father’s condemnation to rearmament. Words underscored by Lega Nord leader Matteo Salvini (“Francis is a light in the dark) and heavily reprinted by the newspaper Avvenire: “Thank God the Pope says openly and frankly that it’s a shame . If we Italians really had ten to twelve billion euros at our disposal,” writes director Marco Tarquinio, “wouldn’t it be better to put them straight into health, school and family with children?”.