The psychological mechanisms Power activates in people’s minds are fairly clear by now, and leaders, especially those surrounded by a tight circle of loyalists unable to criticize, are highly prone to straying off course.

Meloni wants to turn the European elections into a referendum on her performance, but electing the European Parliament is another matter entirely. The performance of a government and the work done by a group of MEPs, especially within a group like the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR), have very little in common. First, because the ECR’s role in the next European institutional setup is unclear, and as things stand, the EPP, S&D, and Renew coalition is likely to remain dominant. Second, no other head of state or government has personally put themselves forward in this European election, except for the Croatian prime minister, as Pagella Politica noted. This can only mean one thing: total political disdain for the EU Parliament.

One crucial point to note is Meloni’s choice not to build a solid party. Without her, FDI is nothing; her name has become even larger in the logo, for instance. The party is still full of questionable figures, and the European election lists are uninspiring. At this point, it would be interesting to ask Italians if they know the party’s symbol—the flame of the Italian Social Movement.

But let’s be clear: Italians have repeatedly shown a sort of aversion to those who set themselves up as saviors of the nation and demand plebiscites. Recent cases are proof of this. It’s obviously too early to say if this is the beginning of the end.

One thing is noteworthy. Unlike Renzi and Salvini, Meloni is characterized by strong ideological consistency. FDI is a party of the so-called social right, shaped by the generation of the ‘70s clashes. The “Fiuggi turning point” is long past, and although the party no longer takes part in neo-fascist “Presente!” celebrations, the ideological continuity is evident. The moderate shift hasn’t happened—just look at the inclusion of pro-life movements in family counseling centers.

Despite this, FDI lacks an establishment that could guide the party through tough times, as seen in the various Pozzolo, Del Mastro, and Donzelli cases. Not to mention the constant gaffes from her brother-in-law Lollobrigida and the Santanchè case.

On a European level, the party—or rather Giorgia—struggles to build a network of relationships capable of wielding real power. So far, the only results have been conferences and events here and there alongside Orbán’s network. For example, in Subiaco, Lollobrigida’s stronghold, the Conservative Values Charter was signed: a sort of document for the Europe of Nations and the safeguarding of Christian values. As far as I know, the Pope hasn’t signed it.

In short, all the conditions for the beginning of the end are in place: Italians who love the leader until they overstep, a party entirely bent on the leader, and the absence of real European allies (if Von der Leyen is a friend, then pizza was invented in Milan). We’ll see how it goes.

Yes, as you might have guessed from the title, we’re talking about Mario Draghi. Not about him personally, but about what he represents.

An important disclaimer: maximum respect for the former Prime Minister, a man with unparalleled competence in Europe and an institutional demeanor that stirs a certain nostalgia for the First Republic, at least for me.

Currently, he’s in the spotlight as he’s being proposed by several sources as the next President of the European Council or the European Commission. Draghi is drafting the “Report on the Future of European Competitiveness,” which he’ll present in June. On Tuesday, he gave a sneak peek.

Quoting his exact words: “We must achieve a transformation of the European economy; we need to be able to rely on a decarbonized, reliable energy system, integrated European defense, domestic production in the most innovative sectors, and a leading position in technology production.” In other words, this is about securing our future.

It’s clear that Draghi understands innovative and radical solutions. First, the “bazooka,” and now his proposals for the EU’s transformation.

But one thing needs to be made clear: technocrats should stick to their expertise, and politicians should stick to politics.

By this, I mean that Draghi shouldn’t serve as President of the European Council or the Commission, even though he has the credentials as a former prime minister, because he’s never been a candidate and never will be.

Politics is “blood and guts”, as Rino Formica once said, and to hold key positions, you need to put yourself out there and face the electorate. I understand that names are often floated due to a lack of alternatives or to prevent certain people from rising, and perhaps that’s the case here. But using technocrats in this way reflects poorly on the political standard.

And it’s obvious that no one wants to put themselves on the line at this moment. Take the case of Von der Leyen, the official Spitzenkandidat of the EPP. Certainly, the President has her share of faults, but as soon as she announced her candidacy, she was overwhelmed with scandals and controversies (search for PfizerGate and PieperGate if you’re interested). Needless to say, her reappointment currently seems uncertain.

All of Draghi’s proposed solutions are broadly acceptable. And the blame for his expected candidacy doesn’t lie with him but with those who propose him or who see technocrats as the answer when politics can’t find one. The trend of discrediting politics in favor of technocracy is unpleasant, and we’re bombarded by it daily.

To have a coherent vision for the future and make decisions in that direction, you need an underlying ideology, which should be clear but, above all, voted on (even indirectly). In short, one must choose a side. Hiding behind the veil of technocracy will only distance citizens from politics or, conversely, give greater visibility to those with clear ideas, even if those ideas are overly backward-looking.

Now, we all agree that technically, the Presidents of the Commission or Council aren’t elected by citizens but appointed (to vastly simplify the process). Still, in my humble opinion, political legitimacy and party affiliation are necessary.

At this point, I can’t help but wonder: who do you think Draghi would vote for?

I hope you enjoyed this newsletter; see you next time!

I decided to start a newsletter because I realized I read a lot, think a lot, but don’t put all these thoughts in order.

Also, I'm a bit annoyed because in the place where I used to work, I wrote an article, and they didn’t end up publishing it (it was on a different topic). So I thought, I’ll open a Substack and publish it myself. They say, “if you want something done right, do it yourself.”

But this saying may not apply to the topic I’d like to discuss today, which is the United States of Europe list. As anyone who knows me is aware, this newsletter will focus on politics, which is one of the topics closest to my heart. It’s one of the hot topics of the moment.

I don't think the liberal coalition will achieve much success. Additionally, talking about a United States of Europe right now doesn’t make sense.

Currently, the list includes the following parties: Bonino’s +Europa, the Socialist Party, the Radicals, the Liberal Democrats (Libdem), Volt, and Renzi’s Italia Viva. Notably (and self-imposed) excluded, at the time of writing, is Calenda. Due to some incompatibility with Renzi and a supposed electoral agreement with certain former post-neo Christian Democrats from the South, like Cuffaro and Mastella, he wants to keep his distance.

This isn't a good sign; as things stand, the two centrist lists are barely reaching the 4% threshold. Running divided in the European elections is basically political suicide. But that's not all. Pizzarotti, who leads a faction of +Europa, seems very skeptical of any agreement with the “magician of Rignano” and is reportedly pulling out. He, like Di Maio, found himself more comfortable in the center after leaving the Five Star Movement.

Then there’s the affiliation of various parties with lists essentially led by Renzi and Calenda. In both cases, there are members from Renew and the Socialists. The latter would gain much more in alliances with members of the PD than with Italia Viva or Azione.

Diamanti, one of Italy's leading spin doctors, mentioned in Formiche that Italia Viva and +Europa could attract around 10% of the liberal electorate if they choose prominent figures from civil society. Unfortunately, these forces lack prominent figures in Italy, apart from perhaps Renzi and Bonino, due to the lack of local leaders. On the left, governors and mayors will certainly lead the PD to a strong result.

Recently, a poll circulated, which turned out to be false after SWG’s official denial. I'll leave discussion of the center-right and right for the next issue.

Finally, let me explain why the United States of Europe isn’t a priority.

First, nobody in Brussels is discussing it except for Volt, so there is no strong political will behind it. Second, citizens don’t seem to care, so it lacks the power to mobilize the electorate. Third, and this is for political nerds like myself, this solution is neither feasible nor desirable, in my view, as it copies existing models that aren’t suited to Europe. The EU is a unique experiment, with a complex structure, even for those who work in European affairs like myself.

Certainly, reform is necessary, especially to prevent the EU from being paralyzed by further Eastern expansion. Talking about a federation in such a diverse Europe isn’t utopia; it’s simply wrong and counterproductive. Such a debate can’t be reduced to pro- and anti- sides, each waving their own flags—unfortunately, that’s what’s happening on other fronts.

The EU needs reform that allows it to govern and be governed more effectively at every level. Let’s innovate, not copy from those who’ve always copied from us. At this point, establishing a common defense wouldn’t be a bad idea.

For now, I’ll try to maintain a biweekly schedule. See you next time!