Napolitano’s speeches don’t have to be understood but interpreted, when possible. His warnings are often inscrutable and too late. In Naples, together with some obvious things, he said some things that are not to be underestimated. That “Padania” does not exist is true. Even Bossi knows that. A Lombard-Veneto State however, is not a grotesque thing, in fact it has already existed in the past as the Republic of Venice existed for a thousand years and could in the future come back into existence. If there were a secession referendum put in place by the Region of Veneto, the vast majority would vote “yes”. And then? After the plebiscite would there be the bombing of Veneto, as has happened for Libya, or would Maroni militarise it like the Val di Susa? It’s evident that these are impossible reactions. Veneto, simply, would go on its own way. To avoid that, threats are not useful, but it’s necessary that this political class gets out of our hair as soon as possible. The politicians are the true instigators of secession.
”Within the environment of the Constitution and the laws, there’s no space for a democratic route to secession.” And so? The Constitution and the laws of various countries have never prevented the happening of bloody secessions, as in the Balkans, or soft ones like the agreed separation of the Czech Republic and Slovakia. It’s necessary to intervene in time on the root causes that lead to divisions, not to condemn the effects. Why have we arrived at this point? On whose shoulders do the political responsibilities rest? “In 1943-44 the newly reborn Italian State, in the face of an attempt at armed separatist organisation, did not hesitate to intervene in a manner that was rather heavy, with the detention of Finocchiaro Aprile.” These threatening words, to whom are they addressed? They have not been said casually. But we are not in 1943 and I doubt that it is possible, for example, to block the self-determination of the South Tyrol. If this were to happen, would we declare war against Austria?
‘In the era of globalisation Padania would be obliged to stomp “the world scene by competing then with China, India, Brazil, the United States and with Russia… “’ Thus does the unity of Italy have the aim of competing economically in a globalised world? If Lenin were to hear that, or even just Mazzini …The world is going in a different direction from the contrary (and centralist) one that Napolitano is insisting on. Nations are decentralising the management of the territory more and more, even the application of the laws. In the United States, for example, the leading economic world power, every State has its own laws: it’s possible to have the death penalty in one State, while in the neighbouring State it’s not applicable. Holland has more or less the dimensions of Lombardy-Veneto and it competes in a distinguished way on the world stage with State bonds ranked as triple A, meanwhile, Italy, united from Mont Blanc to Cape Passero, is slide towards default.
The Unification of Italy came about with a ferocious war of occupation of the South by the Savoy army with a million dead and millions of emigrants. The coffers of the Bourbons, a legitimate State, were transferred to Turin. The mafias developed after the Unification. Why did Napolitano not bring that to mind? The annexation of the South came about in the blood of the patriots called brigands. It’s History. Perhaps it’s better to remember it if we truly want to look forward.