This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/28/the-guardian-view-on-italys-political-standoff-time-for-a-fresh-election

The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
The Guardian view on Italy’s political standoff: time for a fresh election The Guardian view on Italy’s political standoff: time for a fresh election
(about 20 hours later)
Italy’s chances of extricating itself from a deepening political crisis were already looking bad when talks about government formation dragged on through April into May. But those chances now suddenly look thin to vanishing. In March’s general election, economic insecurity, immigration and dissatisfaction with the governing class were the dominant issues. Italian voters split into three main groups: the right led by the anti-migrant League, the anti-establishment populist Five Star movement, and a smaller centre-left. None had a majority. The first two eventually managed to cobble together an agenda for government which included both a large tax cut and a large handout to poor families, handing the prime ministership to a political neophyte, Giuseppe Conte, whom both sides clearly hoped to manipulate. Italy’s chances of extricating itself from a deepening political crisis were already looking bad when talks about government formation dragged on through April into May. But those chances now suddenly look thin to vanishing. In March’s general election, economic insecurity, immigration and dissatisfaction with the governing class were the dominant issues. Italian voters split into three main groups: the right led by the anti-migrant League, the anti-establishment populist Five Star movement, and a smaller centre-left. None had a majority. The first two eventually managed to cobble together an agenda for government which included both a large tax cut and a large handout to poor families, handing the prime ministership to a political neophyte, Giuseppe Conte, whom both sides clearly hoped to manipulate.
However, at the weekend things got far more tangled. Italy’s president Sergio Mattarella – a centre-right politician whose role is more than just that of a formal figurehead – provocatively refused to accept Mr Conte’s finance minister, Paolo Savona. He did so on the grounds that the appointment would threaten Italy’s economy and families’ savings, after the bond market reacted with alarm to the borrowing implications of the government-in-waiting’s spending plans. These, he claimed, could provoke Italy’s exit from the eurozone, which, in European law, could become Italy’s exit from the European Union altogether. However, at the weekend things got far more tangled. Italy’s president Sergio Mattarella – whose role is more than just that of a formal figurehead – provocatively refused to accept Mr Conte’s finance minister, Paolo Savona. He did so on the grounds that the appointment would threaten Italy’s economy and families’ savings, after the bond market reacted with alarm to the borrowing implications of the government-in-waiting’s spending plans. These, he claimed, could provoke Italy’s exit from the eurozone, which, in European law, could become Italy’s exit from the European Union altogether.
President Mattarella’s refusal to accept an elected government is a dangerous gamble. It ignores the anxieties that produced March’s election result and raises the stakes for Italy and Europe. Five Star reacted by demanding the president’s impeachment. The League called for fresh elections. This now seems the more likely outcome after Mr Mattarella on Monday appointed an economist, Carlo Cottarelli, to head an interim unelected government. Fresh elections are the right course. Nevertheless, they will take place in the full knowledge that the voters could easily call the president’s bluff by returning the two dominant coalition parties even more emphatically than in March. A new election, moreover, would be dominated by the question of Italy’s place in Europe. There is a real possibility that a new rightwing populist coalition government would take power with a mandate to confront the EU and its institutions.President Mattarella’s refusal to accept an elected government is a dangerous gamble. It ignores the anxieties that produced March’s election result and raises the stakes for Italy and Europe. Five Star reacted by demanding the president’s impeachment. The League called for fresh elections. This now seems the more likely outcome after Mr Mattarella on Monday appointed an economist, Carlo Cottarelli, to head an interim unelected government. Fresh elections are the right course. Nevertheless, they will take place in the full knowledge that the voters could easily call the president’s bluff by returning the two dominant coalition parties even more emphatically than in March. A new election, moreover, would be dominated by the question of Italy’s place in Europe. There is a real possibility that a new rightwing populist coalition government would take power with a mandate to confront the EU and its institutions.
If that happens, the crisis could be far more serious than Brexit for the EU. Britain was always a one-foot-in-one-foot-out member of the EU. It did not join the single currency. Euroscepticism and integrationist caution have long been deep-woven into British politics in almost all parties. Italy, by contrast, was a jump-straight-in-with-both-feet member of the EU. It was a founder member of the eurozone. The rhetoric of Italian civil society was traditionally pro-European, even when Italy flagrantly ignored EU rules and directives that it found inconvenient, as it did with the single currency. As an integral political insider and a large eurozone economy, Italy therefore possesses a far greater potential to destabilise the European project than the always more semi-detached Britain.If that happens, the crisis could be far more serious than Brexit for the EU. Britain was always a one-foot-in-one-foot-out member of the EU. It did not join the single currency. Euroscepticism and integrationist caution have long been deep-woven into British politics in almost all parties. Italy, by contrast, was a jump-straight-in-with-both-feet member of the EU. It was a founder member of the eurozone. The rhetoric of Italian civil society was traditionally pro-European, even when Italy flagrantly ignored EU rules and directives that it found inconvenient, as it did with the single currency. As an integral political insider and a large eurozone economy, Italy therefore possesses a far greater potential to destabilise the European project than the always more semi-detached Britain.
The very different revolts in Britain and Italy concerning the EU illuminate the difficulty of establishing a multi-speed European project in the face of integrationist momentum dominated by Germany and France. The creation of the eurozone, especially the austere budgetary rules that were set from the outset at German instigation, and the continuing pressures for ever greater political integration, lie behind both revolts.The very different revolts in Britain and Italy concerning the EU illuminate the difficulty of establishing a multi-speed European project in the face of integrationist momentum dominated by Germany and France. The creation of the eurozone, especially the austere budgetary rules that were set from the outset at German instigation, and the continuing pressures for ever greater political integration, lie behind both revolts.
One of the many tragedies of Brexit is that, by leaving, Britain has weakened the idea that different speeds and levels of integration should be compatible with the cooperative European project – an idea of which Britain was always the most important proponent. The crisis in Italy threatens to damage the EU more profoundly than might be the case under a more loosely knit Europe. The risks to the overly rigid EU project have seldom been more serious. This requires the frank discussion we advocated last week over Brexit. A confrontational approach towards Italy would be disastrous.One of the many tragedies of Brexit is that, by leaving, Britain has weakened the idea that different speeds and levels of integration should be compatible with the cooperative European project – an idea of which Britain was always the most important proponent. The crisis in Italy threatens to damage the EU more profoundly than might be the case under a more loosely knit Europe. The risks to the overly rigid EU project have seldom been more serious. This requires the frank discussion we advocated last week over Brexit. A confrontational approach towards Italy would be disastrous.
• This article was amended on 29 May 2018 to remove a sentence that described Sergio Mattarella as a “centre-right politician”.
ItalyItaly
OpinionOpinion
Five Star MovementFive Star Movement
The far rightThe far right
EuroEuro
(World news)(World news)
EuroEuro
(Business)(Business)
European UnionEuropean Union
editorialseditorials
Share on FacebookShare on Facebook
Share on TwitterShare on Twitter
Share via EmailShare via Email
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn
Share on PinterestShare on Pinterest
Share on Google+Share on Google+
Share on WhatsAppShare on WhatsApp
Share on MessengerShare on Messenger
Reuse this contentReuse this content