Sovereignist or no longer Sovereignist? This seems to be the very current dilemma that creeps into the faded-colored governance of the young leader of the Brothers of Italy, Giorgia Meloni, today's Prime Minister. Certainly, the results on the not at all reassuring "migration" issue referred to by the European Council are significant at least in two incontrovertible aspects: the one according to which one cannot choose to be a sovereignist with alternating currents only because one has moved from the opposition benches to the seats of the government, and therefore at the helm of a country which, while constituting a "gate" of access to the Union, in all its compositional entirety, would seem to remain, as in fact remains, solitary entangled in the stringent constraints of the Dublin Treaty ; and the further one, whereby the system of alliances at the community level would seem to impose, as in fact it imposes, criteria and mechanisms of ideological sameness whose conservation, considering carefully, and in any case, require a rigid "compromissory" contractual coherence which does not seems to admit defections and/or exceptions.
Either with us or without us: the teaching offered by Poland and Hungary does not seem able to lend itself to misunderstandings of any kind. Circumstance, the latter, which also explains why, contrary to what the secretary of the League Matteo Salvini would like to believe, at present there can never exist a European centre-right capable of influencing the structures and policies of the Euro-parliament .
The so-called EU Migration Pact remains a mirage with all due respect to Giorgia Meloni, who, although leader of the European conservatives, has failed to find the consensus of her conservative colleagues, i.e. of the Polish premier, Mateusz Morawiecki, and of the Hungarian one, Viktor Orbán. Let's be clear: expecting an accommodating attitude on the point of the frugal four would have been a useless and illusory exercise of naivety. But, likewise, to believe that the structural issue of migration can be resolved through a shared commitment "on the external dimension", as our Prime Minister seems to be convinced of doing, not only seems to be simply and purely illusory, but even very uncertain and misleading, due to the simple and decisive circumstance that the material management of arrivals requires the direct and never mediated control of the receiving State, which, otherwise, would have to "accept" the self-referential management of the flow on the basis of the needs contingents of the Third State qualifying in the restricted terms of "sender".











