by Mario Monti
The Italian government was able to shake off some of the mistrust with which it was received in the EU. And he would be convinced that the Union is not a hostile construct
A very important game will be played in the EU in the next two weeks. It remains to be seen whether Europe is able to face up to the challenges posed to its economy by the war in Ukraine, Chinese competitiveness and the massive support with which the American government decided, with vigor and, above all, without it to counteract decay to accelerate the green transition.
It remains to be seen whether the European response will be neutral between the different Member States or whether some will benefit at the expense of others.
Finally, we will see which governments will give themselves the most convincing strategies and the best alliances to achieve their goals, for Europe and for their own country. Establishing oneself in this hand would also help to position oneself well with the respect and credibility deserved in the industry in view of the no less important hands that will take place over the next year and a half: Mid-Term Review of 2021 -Budget 2027 , new rules on the Stability Pact, elections to the European Parliament in May 2024 and in the following months the election of the highest offices, including the Presidents of the Commission and the European Council.
The first hand envisages a Commission communication on changes to the rules on state aid to companies on 1 February and an extraordinary European Council on 9 and 10 February specifically to deal with competitiveness and productivity.
The ideas to be discussed were well outlined in President Ursula von der Leyen’s recent speech in Davos. Some of these are not very controversial, perhaps because they would take quite a long time to implement: a European sovereign wealth fund and other European funding, as happened with Next Generation Eu. The most controversial idea is to significantly relax the Commission’s discipline on state aid, which has been temporarily suspended due to the pandemic but needs to be reintroduced. The softening strongly demanded by France, which Germany joined.
Thierry Breton, Commissioner for Internal Market and Industry, seems very insistent in the Commission, while Margrethe Vestager, Commissioner for Competition and State Aids, seems to be against it. The Federal President made a positive impression in her speech in Davos, but at the same time pointed out the risks that the freedom from subsidies for one’s own companies is mainly used by the few countries whose budget allows it, above all Germany (since the suspension of the subsidy limits). total of 672 billion euros disbursed, of which 53% from Germany, 24% from France, 7% from Italy and only 16% from the other 24 Member States altogether). In addition to the strong inequality between the countries, there are also strong distortions in the internal market. Paradoxically, trying to boost European competitiveness with subsidies would shake the cornerstone of the European economy, namely the internal market.
Joint Franco-German initiatives are often essential for the progress of Europe. An Italy that wants to make an important contribution to the construction of Europe should try to exercise virtuous leadership with the two partners. But that’s not always the case.
In 2003, France and Germany – they – were the first two countries to breach the Stability Pact. The Commission proposed to the Ecofin Council to sanction them. But the sanction was not approved because Italy, then in the presidency, backed those two countries.
In 2010-2011, when Germany, with the constant support of Sarkozy’s France, which despite its impatience was determined to impose a straitjacket on the ECB, the Franco-German pairing was not favorable to the eurozone. The pair broke up in 2012 when Italy managed to win over Hollande’s France and Spain while working constructively with those two governments. Germany then became more permissive with the ECB, which helped to resolve the eurozone crisis.
And now, in the next two weeks, how should the Italian government behave? This time the choice of strategy seems simple enough to me. Never before have the Italian national interest and the common European interest met so closely as in this game. And based on what is known about the positions on the field, it doesn’t seem easy, but certainly not impossible, to enforce this strategy. If it succeeds in doing so, the Italian government would shake off a considerable part of the suspicion with which it was initially received in Europe. And he would remain convinced – good for the government and good for our country – that the EU is not a hostile construct in which they are conspiring against us.
Italy, it seems to me, should present itself as a country very concerned about building the community of which it has been one of the main protagonists; which wants to defend the concrete achievements of this construction, which is of crucial importance for our companies and those of all companies, such as the internal market; who does not want a few stronger countries to skew the institutional balance to their short-term advantage, with lasting harm to all, as is now happening to the detriment of the Commission; n loves to see the financial strength of the great press the shoulders of the not-so-great.
Without laying claim to leadership, the Italian Prime Minister would effectively appropriate it with this line. Countries that often disagree with Italy, such as Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Holland, Poland and Sweden, have already jointly expressed a clear dislike of the French and German line on state aid. (Spain seems to me closer to these six countries than to Paris and Berlin, but perhaps for political and psychological reasons it will not want to show its own direction alongside the Meloni government.)
What if Germany, or rather France, pointed out that they don’t like a gap between the three largest eurozone countries on such an issue? In this case, I think Italy could answer with warmth and frankness: But neither can we!. And feel free to suggest to France that the Quirinale Treaty is still fresh out of the ink, which was drawn up with the precise intention of creating a practice of bilateral consultation before major decisions in the EU. Bilateral consultation is all the more appropriate from the next time one of the two countries makes an important proposal.
January 21, 2023 (change January 21, 2023 | 21:33)
© REPRODUCTION RESERVED