I pondered for a few hours before commenting on MEP Vannacci’s choice to start his own extreme right-wing movement. First of all, out of modesty in meddling in the internal affairs of a party – in this case the League – which has every right to wash its dirty linen in the family, without the owners of the buildings next door having a say.

If I have decided to do so, it is because the answer to the question ‘and now what happens in the centre-right? Does Vannacci remain in the coalition or does he stand alone?” has implications that affect the entire political picture.

The internal conditioning of the ‘Reverse World’ in the centre-right

One premise, it is quite clear that the choice to keep Vannacci and his ideas in the centre-right circle is not a painless one. How much do those ideas condition the overall profile of their political offer? How much do they penalise the other coalition partners who do not recognise themselves in the racist and patriarchal extremism of the ‘World to the Reverse’ designed by the General? I am referring to the parties of Tajani and Lupi, but also to large chunks of the Lega and Fratelli d’Italia; I am thinking of voters and militants, but also of the national and local ruling classes.

If this is the picture, it can be seen from two perspectives.

One is the utilitarian one: which scenario is worth rooting for?

In fact, it is clear that with the current electoral law (but also with the one given until now as Meloni’s favourite, a proportional one with a majority prize) if Vannacci stands alone, the united centre-left becomes the favourite coalition for the next legislature.

There is the precedent of 1996: the post-revolt League stayed out (or was kept out) of the coalition, took about 4 million votes and Romano Prodi led the united centre-left to a historic victory despite having taken 2.6 million fewer votes in the proportional part (but 700,000 more votes in the majoritarian).

If this becomes clear at the elections, as an immediate consequence there could still be a change of plans on the part of the governing forces on both electoral law and the premierate. As is always the case at the end of the legislature, the picture for the coming months will be constantly changing.

The debate these days has focused a lot on what is to be hoped for: is it better if they kick him out or is it better if they make Salvini suck it up and add a seat at the table in order to remain in the majority? Up to now (with the sole exception of the failed 1996), the centre-right has reasoned in this way and has managed its internal contradictions by making the most of the room for manoeuvre given by the advantage of being able to manage power and sub-power after victory.

In the immediate future, the choice of what to wish for depends on what one personally wishes for: those who ‘root’ for the victory of their political party will prefer the most favourable scenario.

The future scenario: what suits the political system best?

But on a structural, and therefore political level, and therefore thinking not about the next election but about the next generation, it is much more interesting to ask what suits the political system. Is it more useful whether an anti-system force like Vannacci ‘s (outside Italy there are the precedents of Le Pen, Farage and AfD) is left free to roam around sowing anti-system ideas or is it preferable to bind it in a government coalition, thereby containing it and preventing those ideas from germinating.

We are talking about Vannacci here, but the reasoning could also be applied to others: we all remember the debate -first with the League, then with the 5 stars- on the ‘Romanisation of the barbarians’.

I’m not sure I have an answer, and above all I’m not sure that the future depends only on what happens in Italy, given that a radicalisation has been underway for some time throughout Europe and beyond, with the sovereignist international being set up; this has overseas entanglements in the MAGA universe, dangerous sponsors ‘beyond the curtain’ such as Putin and Xi , and the activism of ambiguous characters such as Musk and Bannon (interesting things are coming out of the Epstein files on the latter’s movements to favour all the subjects I have mentioned).

Common agenda? Weaken the EU from within.

I am not sure I have an answer, but I think it is useful to talk about it and to do so by looking beyond the domestic walls, given what is at stake. The question of what is preferable becomes: what is useful for Italy in terms of strengthening European sovereignty? To paraphrase Carney’s masterful Davos speech, ‘if you don’t worry about how the table should be set, you’re on the menu’.