Crise de gouvernement en Italie: Le départ de Matteo Salvini fait des vagues en Europe – VoxEurop (français)

Après l'éclatement de la coalition droite-extrême droite en Autriche, le départ de la Ligue de Matteo Salvini du gouvernement italien prive les partis populistes européens de leur "vitrine". Mais cela ne signifie pas que les causes de leur émergence ont disparu, estime Pierre Haski dans sa chronique pour France Inter.

This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at

There is a saying that nature cannot be cheated. That’s why I don’t think that when two antagonistic parties make a coalition government only in order not to lose their positions in the early election, the reasons why Salvini is so popular among Italian voters disappear. If these parties don’t address the problems that Salvini tried to (a little bit ruthlessly) solve, they will lose in the next regular elections even more and Salvini will return as the unrestricted ruler of Italy.

1 Like

Regarding the refugee reception Salvinis position is understandable. It is unclear why all refugee ships unload in Italy. The French also do not want them, and no one criticizes them for it. However, the way Salvini wants to help the Italians is at the expense of the Eurocommunity. I mean the state deficit. In the eurozone, virtually every rule has been sacrificed for a higher moral .This has created anarchic conditions. There is no rule to be followed. “Pro-European politics” must renounce national egoism. That was far too much faith in the European ideals. The whole Euro Project fails on the reality. The question is only - in what way ?

Yes, that’s true. Populist party RN is the most popular party of all parties in France, and French civic movements of French nationalists are more active than in Italy (see e.g. the recent trial with activists who built fence on French-Italian border -

However, it is obvious that the main driving force behind migration is that most countries in the world are “failed states” that are not able to govern themselves in a way that would make their citizens content. The reason is not lack of money but simply inability of ruling classes in those countries to understand that being a ruler means not only privileges but also duties and responsibilities for citizens.

That’s why European politicians must change policies and instead of uselessly pouring money to the developing countries, educate their ruling classes about efficient governance and make citizens understand that instead of emigrating West, they need to make the change from the inside. That’s exactly what is just happening in Hong-Kong where (especially young) citizens struggle to keep Hong-Kong a place where they will want to live. They understand it very well and desperately call Western politicians to help them (remember that China and the UK have agreement that Hong-Kong should keep Western political style in Hong-Kong for 50 years from 1999). And when your PM has just went to China, what she did? Talked about “necessity of calm discussion between demonstrators and the government” in the classical appeasement style that does not bring any results - actually the only results will be millions of migrants from Hong-Kong in the West :-1:

You make a giant bow in order not to take my comment. What does Honkong have to do with the problems surrounding the EU, Germany and the euro? Merkel is neither in the postion anyone to teach, nor to save. Save yourself, for Germans it is Germany, for Czechs Czech Republic and for Europeans Europe. You are what you are, I do not know what. But you are not a Chinese.

There are multiple reasons:

  1. There are not many countries in the world today, citizens of which would be willing to massively demonstrate for Western democratic arrangement in their home countries. We should thus definitely appreciate that and show support.

  2. If the demonstratos fail, they may see migrating to West as the next best alternative for themselves. I guess you don’t want to see yet other millions of migrants in Germany, do you?!

  3. Remember that those who organized resistence against communist rule during the communist times in East Germany also found moral support and ingerence of West as more encouraging for their further effort than it might have seemed from the external viewpoint.

You may be surprised but at the moment the (banks of) “Eurocommunity” live at the expense of Czechs. The reason is that ECB still has negative interest rates (which means that Eurozone commercial banks would have to pay money if they want to store money in ECB) but the Czech National Bank has gradually increased their interest to 2% p.a. during this year (which means that it pays this interest rates to commercial banks that save money in CNB). That’s why many big Eurozone banks (especially those that also own banks in the Czech Republic (e.g. Belgian KBC, French Societe Generale, Austrian Erste, Austrian Raiffeisen, Italian Unicredit, Dutch ING, etc.) virtually transfer huge sums from their branches in Eurozone countries to their Czech branches that than save this money in CNB and thus get 2% p.a. basically for nothing. And we are talking huge sums - billions or even trillions of Euros, way beyond the real economy. See the article here:

For this reason, I do support to have a single currency in EU because it can prevent such speculations that can lead to huge profits of speculators without any effort. Of course, it requires reasonable fiscal rules (and mechanisms to ensure that they are respected by all the players) and reasonable monetary policies of ECB. It was German mistake that you exchanged the role of future ECB governor for the role of the EC president. Considering how much ECB policies affect economy, it may be even more important role than the EC president whose powers are limited by EP and decisions of national states.

In general, I think it is more important to focus on the performance and efficiency of the real economy rather than the virtual accounting operations - money should only facilitate the trade after all, not to be the value per se. In this respect, EU is falling behind the progressive countries in the world today and needs to accelerate its development (both as together as the single economic space as well as national and regional efforts). This is thus very important goal especially for countries that have been declining in recent decades - and Italy belongs to one of those. I’m not sure whether the 5-star Movement government will do any better reforms than Salvini’s League that has base in relatively prosperous north of Italy and more understands what it takes to achieve and maintain prosperity.

1 Like

Because maritime law requires captains to unload people they saved in the closest safe harbor. For most of migrants coming from Libya, and Tunisia, that would be Lampedusa, Italy.

The safest place for people in distress at sea is the next mainland .The people voluntarily went to Libya to move on from there. That they are rescued from distress at sea is their right. That will enable them to move on to Europe not .

The Czech Republic is too small for the ECB to exist at its expense. The ECB rewards debt and punishes the creditor. It’s easy to guess at what cost that is . If I buy a house for 1 million, and rent it, I get the rent from the tenant. Do I not buy and keep the million I will be punished with negative interest? Only an idiot can believe that such an action the economy helps.It’s just theft. If you give up a house to someone else ,because you rent it to ohters , you want to be compensated for that, with money. If you give up your money because you lend it, should you pay for it?

Libya is not a safe place for migrants nor anyone, thus refugees and migrants cannot be disembarked there, according to international law.

Resolution MSC.167(78) (adopted in May 2004 by the Maritime Safety Committee together with the SAR and SOLAS amendments):

  • While an assisting ship may serve as a temporary place of safety,it should be relieved of this responsibility as soon as alternative arrangements can be made. (para. 6.13)
  • Disembarkation of asylum-seekers and refugees recovered at sea, in territories where their lives and freedom would be threatened should be avoided. (para. 6.17)

Why do they go to Libya?They are free to leave Libya. They do not do it. That’s the problem Libya has with them.They want to go to Europe. But is the wish right too?