The national interest – the real one. Freni writes to us

When it comes to the economy (or, worse still, the financial markets), one often hears everything and its opposite. And everything is, of course, always presented, explained and expounded with the sole aim of safeguarding the ‘true’ national interest. With the very real risk, however, that in the end the national interest will become like the phoenix in ‘Così fan tutte’: everyone speaks of it, yet no one knows where it is.

Let us begin, then, by stating that in a geopolitical scenario such as the current one, characterised by increasingly fierce competition between major economic blocs, the defence of closed economic spheres or the preservation of structures established during a different era of globalisation certainly cannot serve the national interest.

In today’s market (which one may or may not like, but which is an unavoidable starting point), attempting to tackle the challenge by resorting to some unspecified form of economic and financial autarky serves only to shock the bourgeoisie. Of course, for some tastes it may even hold a certain appeal and can certainly be presented very effectively in public speeches, but it constitutes an indisputable detriment to the country.

It is therefore necessary to ask whether the national interest can (or should) be achieved through the construction of a European model that rejects any futile reference to an imaginary economic Arcadia.

But in practical terms, what are we talking about? One could certainly argue that the best overall performance of the country’s economic system is in the national interest; just as the balanced development of the financial sector and the corresponding localisation of investments – or at least part of them – is in the national interest.

But this terminology, whilst probably correct from a political point of view, suffers from a fundamental flaw: the lack of any connection to the principle of financial reality which (again, whether one likes it or not) underpins investment dynamics. Because investment is not attracted by a tweet, but only by solid prospects of return: otherwise, it would be charity, and the market is no place for charity. A set of enabling conditions is therefore necessary to allow returns to grow: a sort of fertiliser for otherwise barren soil. It is therefore in the national interest, first and foremost, to ensure coordination between the establishment of investment and the creation of the necessary (political and economic) conditions to make returns attractive.

From this perspective, continuing to view the financial market through an exclusively national lens would mean condemning the productive system to a level of fragmentation incompatible with the scale of global challenges. This is because Italy’s financial competitiveness depends on Europe’s competitiveness, and Europe’s competitiveness, in turn, depends on the ability to build a genuine single market for capital, which also involves the development of pan-European infrastructure groups. Only in this way will it be possible to broaden the investor base, increase market liquidity and facilitate Italian companies’ access to capital, with a view to building a truly continental financial infrastructure.

Financial Europe (much like political Europe), however, can only grow and become stronger if it is able to capitalise on the areas of excellence developed by individual Member States. A stronger Europe is not necessarily a more centralised one; a strong Europe is more integrated, not more uniform. The aim is to bring the best national infrastructures together into a coherent system, recognising their strategic value and preserving their specific characteristics where these contribute to the stability of the entire European system.

The aim of a union of European markets cannot be to replace centres of excellence with a uniform model, but to integrate them within a shared ecosystem capable of harnessing their experience and expertise. This is the case, for example, with the MTS platform, which is one of the most efficient and internationally recognised financial infrastructures for the European sovereign bond market and which serves as a vital hub for government financing, the functioning of the Eurosystem’s monetary policy and the overall stability of the sovereign debt market.

In short, genuine financial integration cannot be equated with administrative centralisation; on the contrary, it requires the ability to distinguish between what can be effectively managed at European level and what, due to its systemic nature, continues to require a strong degree of national responsibility.

The issue of the evolution of market infrastructure supervision falls squarely within this balance. Italy strongly supports the strengthening of European supervision, regulatory convergence and the elimination of the fragmentation that still hinders the single capital market. However, the principle of integration must not result in the creation of asymmetries between responsibilities and powers: a credible single market must be based on the principle of subsidiarity, recognising that certain infrastructures generate systemic value that transcends the individual Member State but which, precisely for this reason, requires the full involvement of national authorities who understand how they operate and share responsibility for them.

National interest and European interest, therefore, are not opposing categories. The contrast is often contrived and stems from a news-driven contingency typical of a certain political dialectic. But this inevitably leads us back to a ‘Così fan tutte’ scenario and, above all, takes us further away from any possible future. For it is in our national interest to contribute to the creation of a deep, liquid, efficient and competitive European capital market: a market capable of channelling Europe’s substantial private savings towards productive investments, of financing business growth, of strengthening the Union’s strategic autonomy and of supporting technological innovation.

To return to the initial question, therefore, the national interest today lies in a capital market capable of serving as the main driver of genuine economic sovereignty. Sovereignty, precisely. Not sovereignism.