I’ll explain what Italy risks with the Quirinal Treaty. Speak Pelanda
The signing of the Quirinal Treaty would sanction "an industrial and strategic self-annexation to France, sweetened but substantial". The Subsidiary's interview with Carlo Pelanda, analyst and professor of economic geopolitics
It seems that the so-called Treaty of the Quirinale is moving forward rapidly. Even in France they call it this, in honor of Mattarella , but the more correct name is "treaty of bilateral cooperation strengthened between Italy and France". Little, almost nothing, has always been known about the agreement and the work of the working groups, but currently some drafts of the document are circulating and some newspapers have raised the alarm.
Between the parties – says Carlo Pelanda , economist, several times consultant of the Italian governments between the first and second Republic – "there is a palpable and embarrassing asymmetry: France knows what it wants, Italy doesn't ". Or rather: some Italians know it very well. The fact is that the signing would sanction "an industrial and strategic self-annexation to France, sweetened but substantial" explains Pelanda. Across the board: industry, borders, energy, defense. A mistake that Italy would pay dearly and that Draghi may not be willing to commit. The conditional, for now, remains a must.
Now we know something more about the Quirinale Treaty; what are we talking about?
Leaks circulated by someone who works at the Farnesina. Some drafts are more detailed, others less. The degree of secrecy surrounding this treaty is remarkable. If it weren't very real and troubling, it would seem like a joke.
Mattarella is the first defender of the treaty . There is not much to joke about.
Let's take the macro part: what sense does it make today to sign a 360-degree bilateral treaty with France in a Europe where Italy and other nations would, if anything, have the opposite interest, that of weakening the Franco-German Elysée treaty that have you been driving Europe since 1963?
The same one that was updated in Aachen in 2019 .
Just that. If two countries sign a selective treaty and create an asymmetrical situation, they further fragment the Union. There is already the Visegrád group doing it.
We need someone to take responsibility for the European initiative, one could argue.
There is a political and diplomatic culture that says just that. The thesis is not entirely unrealistic. But this is how Europe breaks up. Rather, France, Germany, Italy and Spain sign a treaty of enhanced cooperation along certain lines of EU deepening. It is another method.
Instead Macron insists. Mattarella also. They want this signature.
I wait to see what Germany will do. Maybe Scholz will say yes, only to wage underground warfare. Berlin is not at all respecting the adaptation of the Elysée Treaty made in Aachen. Especially in the most important protocols, the industrial ones. The Germans are giving Paris only a few sugars, like the cross-border brigade. A mockery.
What should be done in Europe?
Converge on the key challenges: the climate one, the geopolitical one towards China. By removing the federation from his head, a project that cannot exist.
You have seen the proofs. What impression did you get from it?
I've seen the drafts and some correspondence. The attentive eye does not escape the fact that the French technicians show that they know very well what they want, while the Italian ones are confused, they try to make counter-proposals that are weak because they lack perspective. There is a palpable and embarrassing asymmetry.
The worst case scenario?
That of sanctioning an industrial and strategic self-annexation to France. Sweetened but substantial. And then there is a political knot. Can such a treaty be signed without discussing it in Parliament? Surely the Chambers must ratify it, otherwise it will not enter into force.
What if we come to more recent years?
In 1993 the strategy changed, at least as far as we are concerned. The French objective became that of conquering Italy directly, economically and financially, also to counter the German excessive power.
How do you think Draghi do you think and what do you want to do?
I can't know, mine is just a bet. I don't think Draghi wants to sign that treaty. It will take time. At the G20 we saw his modus operandi: the proponents of decarbonisation in 2060 wanted ten more years to do it their way, Draghi did not turn a blind eye and put the "mid-century" curve in the agreement.
Mid-century is 2050, but it is also something else, the time it takes to agree on other levers. I would be very surprised if the pragmatic Draghi made Italy an askar of France. Above all, not taking into account relations with Germany, which are more important to us.
Could Draghi oppose Macron with a clear refusal?
No, because there is the French blackmail on the Italian debt. The ECB president has power essentially based on his reputation, and Christine Lagarde has little. But on the formal level it has the power of the calendar.
Translation?
On October 28, Lagarde said that Pepp's one-off purchases program will end in March 2022. A serious central banker would simultaneously announce the activation of a program under study by the ECB called App (Asset purchase program) to continue part of the purchases. , in order to avoid a shock for the most indebted countries. This lack of announcement cost us the passage of the spread from 100 to 130, an instant mini-crisis of confidence in the Italian debt. Just at the moment when Draghi and Franco communicate a golden scenario for Italy and the premier is preparing to chair the G20.
A technical error by Lagarde.
Intentions cannot be tried. But I have a doubt and coincidences in politics do not exist.
What would the US say if Italy signed the treaty?
Washington must focus its attention on other theaters and would well see a convergence of Italy and France for the presidium of Africa, where Niger is the true southern border of the EU. But it should be a military agreement under the NATO umbrella. Nothing else.
In 1993 you were advisor to the Foreign Minister Andreatta. What do you remember?
A draft bilateral Italy-France treaty arrived on my table. There was a detailed list of companies and banks that could be merged.
We are still at the same point. It is the past that does not pass.
Only then Andreatta said: let's not joke. The United States were much stronger, we in Ciampi's time had a greater weight, the French had other problems and were unable to lunge. Fabius tried again a few years later with Finmeccanica, thanks also to the complicity of some Italian elites. We managed to thwart the attempt, thanks to some counter-moves and some compromises.
Why is so little known about the Quirinal Treaty?
Palazzo Chigi has repeatedly made it clear that it is better for the press not to deal with this matter. In fact, few do.
Is it forbidden to disturb the driver?
It can also mean that Draghi intends to play alone, as his style. Who knows, maybe because he doesn't trust someone else.
In 2018 the working group was established. Sylvie Goulard, Pascal Cagni and Gilles Pécout for the French side, Paola Severino, Franco Bassanini and Marco Piantini for the Italian side. What do these names tell you?
Legions of honor. But since last August the Foreign Ministry has been dealing directly with it, where someone has filtered some information, believing that the situation is very worrying. We have to thank your initiative. However, we do not know the fundamental details.
Why does he say this?
Because the accounts don't add up. Until recently it was thought that the treaty included two or three subjects at the most, to cushion the clash with France, but this is not the case. Again: Macron's pressure has increased, and it seems proportionate to his desperation. Then there is the Germany factor: can we sign without the new government in Berlin? Finally, the "French party" in Italy, whose list is much longer than that of the legions of honor.
Therefore?
It is a difficult moment, which leads Draghi to be very cautious and reserved.
If we finally sign?
It would be a disastrous surrender. But it could also be an extreme defensive strategy.
That means?
By signing, we reassure Macron, and in the meantime let's see if he will be re-elected; then we postpone the ratification, as was the case with the Treaty of Caen. This is also a road. But it is more dangerous than the first.
(Extract from the Subsidiary's interview with Pelanda)
This is a machine translation from Italian language of a post published on Start Magazine at the URL https://www.startmag.it/economia/trattato-del-quirinale/ on Sat, 06 Nov 2021 07:28:59 +0000.