The programme of the ‘supercazzola’ involving Ukraine, nuclear power and security

The meeting begins a few minutes late because a decision needs to be made as to who should open the meeting. Elly Schlein suggests that whoever wishes to may begin. Giuseppe Conte remarks that it would be better to agree on a procedure first. Nicola Fratoianni suggests not turning the procedure into a leadership issue. Angelo Bonelli suggests starting with the agenda. Matteo Renzi is not present.

“Is Matteo coming?” asks someone.

“Matteo is an ally,” says Schlein.

“Sì, ma viene?”, insiste Conte.

“He is an ally, not part of the broad coalition,” Fratoianni clarifies.

“So, are you coming?”

“In vivavoce”.

Renzi’s phone rings. He answers on the second ring.

Renzi: Here I am. I can hear you perfectly. The advantage of being on the phone is that I’m in the meeting without actually being in the main hall.

Conte: Exactly.

Schlein: Shall we start with the programme?

Fratoianni: At last.

Bonelli: Let’s start with the things that unite us.

Renzi: That way you’ll finish sooner.

Silence.

Schlein: Public health.

Conte: Perfect.

Fratoianni: Perfect.

Bonelli: Perfect.

Renzi: Perfect.

Schlein: Minimum wage.

Conte: Perfect.

Fratoianni: Perfect.

Bonelli: Perfect.

Renzi: We’ll come back to that later.

Schlein: Leave, schools, the fight against job insecurity.

Everyone nods. Four minutes have passed and the centre-left already has a programme.

“What now?”, asks Bonelli.

“Let’s pause for a moment,” suggests Conte.

However, we need to discuss Ukraine.

Schlein picks up a sheet of paper. “I would say: full support for the Ukrainian people, victims of Russia’s criminal aggression, and a commitment from Italy and Europe to a just and secure peace.”

Conte settles into his chair.

Conte: What does ‘full support’ mean?

Schlein: Support.

Conte: A military background too?

Schlein: Giuseppe, we cannot pretend that Ukraine has not been attacked.

Conte: Let’s not pretend. Let’s write it down. Ukraine has been attacked.

Fratoianni: And Russia is the aggressor.

Bonelli: Perfect.

Schlein: Very well.

Conte: Then let’s write that enough is enough with the weapons.

Schlein: No.

Conte: So it wasn’t perfect.

The problem is that Conte can no longer pretend to have arrived at the meeting with a vague pacifist stance. The day before, 91.7 per cent of the Movement’s members voted against continuing to send arms to Ukraine, and 94.1 per cent against the European rearmament plan. This is not a mere nuance: it is a political mandate. Schlein, on the other hand, has just reiterated that the PD will continue to support the Ukrainian people who are under attack.

Fratoianni: We can say: support for Ukraine through a political and diplomatic initiative that goes beyond the logic of military escalation.

Schlein: What does she mean about weapons?

Fratoianni: It means exactly what it says.

Bonelli: I would add: by forging a new European leadership role for peace.

Conte: Excellent.

Schlein: But what if Putin attacks again?

Bonelli: Europe must respond forcefully.

Schlein: With what force?

Bonelli: With the force of international law.

Renzi, on the phone: Send him a formal warning.

Conte: Matteo, if you’re going to make jokes…

Renzi: No, no, sorry. I’d just write something simple: let’s keep supporting Kyiv.

Conte: Exactly. That’s why you’re on the phone.

This gives rise to the following approach: staunch support for the Ukrainian people, coupled with a clear break from the logic of military escalation, through a European initiative capable of combining security, diplomacy, self-determination, defence and peace.

Please proofread this.

“What does that mean?”, asks Bonelli.

“Everything,” says Fratoianni.

“So that’s fine,” concludes Schlein.

Second point: leadership.

Suddenly, everyone is calling for a return to Ukraine.

Fratoianni: The programme comes first.

Bonelli: The programme comes first, absolutely.

Renzi: Party primaries.

Conte: Why is he speaking?

Renzi: Why did you put the speakerphone on?

Schlein: Matteo, let’s get the project off the ground first.

Renzi: Of course. And then the primaries.

Conte: We must avoid making this a personal issue.

Renzi: Giuseppe, you’ve just had thousands of members vote on a programme beneath a three-metre-high poster featuring your face.

Conte: That was participation.

Renzi: Indeed, I propose participation.

Schlein: I’m not shying away from this, but we need to decide on the rules together.

Fratoianni: The leader must be the guarantor of the programme.

Bonelli: Not the boss.

Conte: That’s right.

Renzi: And who chooses him?

Fratoianni: We’ll see.

Renzi: When?

Bonelli: At the right time.

Renzi: What would that be?

Schlein: After the programme.

Renzi: And when does the programme end?

Conte: When it is finished.

Renzi: And when will it be finished?

Fratoianni: Once we’ve found the right balance.

Renzi: And when will you have found the summary?

Bonelli: After discussing the points that divide us.

Renzi: So, never.

Schlein looks at Conte. Conte looks at Schlein. Fratoianni looks at both of them. Bonelli looks at the programme. No one utters the phrase that everyone knows: the candidate will probably be either Schlein or Conte, unless the coalition finds a way to choose someone else precisely to avoid having to choose between Schlein and Conte.

It has therefore been decided to adopt a formal wording: the leadership will be identified through a democratic, participatory and consensual process, following the finalisation of the programme and capable of giving due consideration to all the views within the coalition.

“Translation?”, asks Renzi.

“Don’t be a nuisance,” replies Conte.

Third point: nuclear power.

Bonelli: No.

Fratoianni: No.

Conte: Fission is a distraction. Yes to research, yes to fusion.

Renzi: Yes.

All eyes are on Schlein.

Schlein: We must move beyond ideological ‘yes’ and ‘no’ answers.

Bonelli: Very well. So no.

Renzi: No, Elly. So yes.

Schlein: So, massive investment in renewables, energy efficiency, grids, storage, research and the assessment of future technologies.

Renzi: Nuclear power?

Schlein: Future technologies.

Bonelli: Provided it’s not nuclear.

Renzi: So, nuclear power.

Conte: Research.

Fratoianni: Research is always free.

Renzi: The power station, not quite so much.

In reality, Renzi openly maintains that nuclear power is a necessary technology; Conte now regards fission as too slow a diversion and is focusing on renewables and fusion research; Bonelli remains opposed to new power stations. The political category of ‘future technologies’ is therefore particularly useful, as it allows everyone to include the future technology they prefer and exclude the one they dislike.

The proposal is approved: technological neutrality within the framework of an ecological transition based primarily on renewables, without precluding research and whilst respecting the choices democratically expressed by citizens.

Renzi: A masterpiece. We have simultaneously opened the door to and closed the door on nuclear power.

Fourth point: Europe.

This should be straightforward.

Schlein: A federal Europe.

Renzi: Yes.

Bonelli: An autonomous Europe.

Fratoianni: Social Europe.

Conte: A Europe of peace.

Schlein: Perfect: federal, autonomous, social and peace-oriented.

Renzi: What about a common defence policy?

Bonelli: Yes to a common defence, no to rearmament.

Renzi: In other words, a common defence without increasing military capabilities.

Bonelli: We need to coordinate the existing ones more effectively.

Conte: That’s right.

Renzi: What if that’s not enough?

Fratoianni: Security cannot be reduced to the military dimension.

Renzi: I haven’t cut it back. What are we supposed to do if the tanks roll in?

Conte: Matteo, this narrative of threat serves precisely to justify a spiral of rearmament.

Schlein: However, a federal Europe must be able to protect itself.

Bonelli: Of course.

Schlein: What?

Bonelli: With a common defence.

Schlein: With what?

Fratoianni: Can we move on to immigration?

Immigration.

Conte is well prepared.

Conte: We must stop handing security issues to the right. Migration flows must be managed. We need a ministry for migration policy and integration; we must strengthen humanitarian corridors, process applications before people fall into the hands of traffickers, and demand respect for our constitutional principles. This is the position that Conte actually put forward on Nova.

Schlein nods, but adds: “Yes, provided it is clear that anyone entering Italy is entering Europe. We need regular entry channels, European solidarity and a move away from the principle that everything falls on the country of first entry.” This is the line that the PD secretary has also reiterated in recent weeks.

Bonelli: And we need to tackle the root causes of migration.

Fratoianni: Inequality, wars, climate.

Renzi: What about those arriving tomorrow morning?

Bonelli: European management.

Renzi: What?

Schlein: Moving beyond Dublin.

Renzi: When?

Conte: Matteo, you can’t turn every issue into a quiz.

Renzi: I’m just trying to understand the programme.

In summary: managing migration flows through a European policy based on solidarity, order, security and humanity, combating traffickers and irregularities, and strengthening integration, legal routes, international cooperation and shared responsibility.

“Are we in favour of stopping the landings?”, someone asks.

“We are here to govern them”.

“And what does that mean?”

“That we are neither here to favour them nor to ignore them”.

“Perfect”.

Security.

Conte: More police officers, a greater police presence in neighbourhoods.

Schlein: Yes. But prevention, inclusion, education and social policies.

Fratoianni: Be careful not to follow the right.

Bonelli: Security is also about the environment.

Renzi: If my moped gets stolen, should I call for the ecological transition?

Bonelli: Matteo.

Renzi: Sorry.

Schlein states: “Security is a right, but it cannot be reduced to repression”.

Conte: “Very good”.

Fratoianni: “Provided we do not criminalise dissent”.

Bonelli: “And provided we’re talking about climate security”.

Renzi: “We could put a police officer on an electric bike”.

The message is lost.

“Did she really fall?”, asks Fratoianni.

Schlein looks at her phone. “No. He’s hung up.”

There remains one final problem: what to say to the voters.

Conte suggests an “Alliance for the Constitution”. Schlein prefers a “progressive coalition”. Fratoianni says that “broad coalition” no longer means anything. Bonelli notes that at least “coalition” is environmentally friendly. Renzi chimes in.

Renzi: One last thing. I’m not part of the broad coalition.

Conte: We know that.

Renzi: But I’m part of the coalition.

Fratoianni: We’ll see.

Renzi: But if I’m not in the coalition, why did you call me?

Bonelli: To expand it.

Renzi: So, can I come in?

Conte: Not on the pitch.

Renzi: But what about the coalition?

Schlein: Matteo, you are an important part of a reformist movement with which we want to build a broader alternative.

Pause.

Renzi: That’s the best bit of nonsense of the day. I’m proud of you all.

And it is perhaps here that the exercise becomes more interesting than the caricature. Because the centre-left programme, if it ever comes to fruition, is unlikely to be the forum in which Schlein, Conte, Bonelli, Fratoianni and Renzi will suddenly discover they are all on the same page. The differences exist and are out in the open. On Ukraine, they are now set out in black and white. On nuclear power, their positions are almost diametrically opposed. On European defence, the shared vocabulary masks differing ideas about what ‘defence’ actually means. On immigration, they may agree on the idea of managing migration flows but immediately disagree on the next step. And on leadership, everyone says ‘the programme comes first’ – not least because the programme is the most elegant tool devised so far for avoiding having to say straight away who will lead it. This very postponement of leadership is now an explicit part of the coalition’s path: Avs insists on the programme before the ‘leader’, Schlein says the programme first, followed by an agreement or primaries, whilst Renzi considers primaries indispensable.

However, it would be a mistake to regard the ‘supercazzola’ as merely a linguistic aberration. It is, in part, the project itself. The goal is not to find a phrase that forces everyone to think the same thing, but rather a phrase within which people who think differently can coexist. Do not eliminate contradiction: manage it. Do not decide today on everything that could cause the alliance to collapse tomorrow. The programme, even before being a list of things to do, thus becomes a political home.

And perhaps this is precisely what the centre-left’s real experiment is all about. Trying to demonstrate that a coalition is not necessarily a place where everyone thinks the same way about Ukraine, nuclear power, immigration, Europe, security and even the candidate for Prime Minister. It is the place where it is decided that, despite all this, we want to be on the same side.

Then, of course, there is one detail left: governing.

Conte can no longer pretend that he arrived at the meeting with a vague pacifist stance

“Anyone who enters Italy enters Europe. We need legal entry routes and European solidarity,” is Elly Schlein’s stance

The centre-left’s experiment aims to demonstrate that a coalition is not merely a place where everyone thinks the same way

Renzi argues that nuclear power is a necessary technology, whilst Bonelli remains opposed to new power stations