The M5S rubs salt into the wounds of the reformist PD on defence

Thank you, Mr President. The only bitter piece of good news today – but truly the only one, and truly bitter – is that the ‘super-excuse’ has fallen flat: ‘we don’t have the money to do anything, and the super-bonus, and here, and there, there’s no money for anything’. Today, the money has suddenly appeared. But what for? Because when you, Minister Giorgetti, talk about 0.9 per cent of GDP being spent on arms, you… 0.9 per cent… who knows what that amounts to: 20 billion. Twenty billion spent on arms. Right? That’s what we’re talking about. In what context?

According to the documents we have, our budget bill is expected to amount to around 27 billion, of which 11 billion is to meet the European constraints that you, together with President Meloni, signed up to; one billion is for support for Ukraine; 5.4 billion is expenditure already allocated to defence; and six billion is for interest on the public debt. How much is left over? Five billion. Five. And just to extend the one-off measures we’ve implemented – such as the tax wedge cut – we need 18; so that leaves us with 13.

We want to know where he is finding these 13 billion and, above all, ask: given the current budget law, are we really asking for a 20 billion deviation to spend on weapons?

And for the well-known SAFE programme, should we be requesting 15 billion for defence systems? Meanwhile, it is a programme which, as it turns out, will cost us a further 8 billion over the next twenty years or so, because it costs us 15 billion plus interest: if all goes well, we’re looking at around 8–9 billion – that’s the masterstroke.

However, let us examine the SAFE programme, because SAFE means safety; it means being safe. SAFE is a positive word, but then let us read through the programmes: 7.2 billion for 132 Leopard tanks; 4.5 billion for an integrated air defence programme relating to missile systems; 3.2 billion for the development of sixth-generation fighter jets. This is what you are doing; this is what you are going to acquire with the SAFE programmes; and in the report accompanying these armament programmes – because we need to know what you are actually writing in the official documents – what is the purpose of all this? These platforms are equipped with technologies capable of maximising lethality and firepower. I recall when the term ‘firepower’ was used by a Prime Minister named Giuseppe Conte; he spoke of firepower whilst we were making budgetary adjustments to save businesses, to save companies, to save the health service. That was firepower. This is your firepower, and you are writing it down.

And then there’s the little trick regarding energy: let’s also allocate 0.6 per cent of GDP to energy, to tackle the energy crisis through the system of variable excise duties. These variable excise duties – we need to explain this too – how exactly are you going to reduce them? Through the increase in VAT generated by rising prices. So, essentially, prices rise, VAT revenue naturally increases, and, thanks to that accounting mechanism, excise duties are lowered; therefore, Italians end up paying for the reduction in excise duties themselves. That is the system, the accounting trick. So we have a government that is telling us that the only money being allocated in the forthcoming budget is for weapons, and that for energy they’re using an accounting trick – that’s what you’re telling us.

And you see, we are facing the largest defence budget in the history of the Italian Republic; this is what we are up against. So I really have to ask: are they actually threatening us? Because that is the crux of the matter. Is Russia really threatening us? I mean, do we think Russia is going to come and invade Italy? Minister, do you really think that? Do you think Russia’s problem is that it wants more territory? A country of that size, with those resources – could it really come and wage war on Rome? Do we really think that, and do we actually need this? What about China? Well, if you look at things objectively, you see the United States has 750 bases spread across 80 countries around the world, and do you know how many bases China has outside China? One in the Horn of Africa. So who is threatening whom? Have we ever asked ourselves whether we’re on the side of the good guys? Because that’s the point. These are the facts, these are the figures. And then who actually uses this stuff – these missile systems, this firepower, this lethality? There are people behind it all; there are young people behind it who will have to use these things, and there are young people standing behind those sights that you’re paying for today. And haven’t you asked yourselves this: that you’re investing in death? Because that’s what investing in weapons is: it’s an investment in death.

Minister, I find it difficult to believe that you, as a serious person, could consider this to be the priority at the moment – for someone like you who tries every day to balance the books – this sort of thing. I simply cannot believe it. And I cannot believe that everyone – the majority and the opposition alike – because we see each other here, every day we’re tabling amendments to find 5 million for our local area, for the clean-up of a contaminated site, for a hospital, for a school – everyone, majority and opposition alike, we’re taking our amendments to the Ministry of Economy and Finance to ask: can you find us 5 million? I have people who can’t go to hospital, and today we’re voting on 20 billion for weapons? Is no one in here actually asking themselves this question? Doesn’t anyone have the problem of seeing that, all around them, there are people who have no nurseries for their children and nowhere to go for medical tests? This is populism! It’s populism to say it’s 20 billion for weapons. I don’t think it’s populism; I think it’s the world you want to create – call us pro-Putin, pro-China, pro-Hamas, pro-whatever you like – but we don’t want a world where we have enemies! We don’t want enemies. We do not think in terms of enemies; we think in terms of people who are different from us, and say whatever you like: we do not care!

So now we must all choose which side we’re on, every single one of us, because the dividing line here must be clear: whether to invest in death or to invest in life. And it must be clear and unambiguous, the first point on the agenda: not a single euro spent on weapons, spent on death. This is no matter for compromise, because there is life and there is death. And we really must do this, and we must do it today. Those who believe this must overwhelm them by building a different world, because otherwise these people will overwhelm us all – and they will overwhelm themselves too. So, we must do it now, and we must do it immediately.