We will remember very little about this budget law, given the small number of measures it contains. However, one thing is “in the past” and has been occupying the pages of newspapers for days: it is the Bank of Italy gold affair. An enormous quantity, 2,452 tons equal to 95,493 ingots, as well as various coins, for an estimated value of around 280 billion euros, practically the entire amount of the Pnrr (Italian gold reserves are among the largest in the world after those of the American Federal Reserve and the German Bundesbank).

The reserves of each country, let us remember, are accumulated over time to provide a sort of financial “insurance” in the case of very particular emergencies, in which the economy and the value of the current currency are overwhelmed. A lifesaver. The events that have occurred in recent days are quite clear; what is less defined is the background and the real motivation why, like a bolt from the blue, all this uproar was unleashed, eventually put back together with difficulty.

FdI and the gold dossier: “There are also foreign groups inside the Bank of Italy”

Let’s start from the facts and from the amendment to the budget law presented by Fratelli d’Italia, which asks to specify that “the gold reserves managed and held by the Bank of Italy belong to the State, in the name of the Italian people”. The phrase, apparently harmless – how can it be something that affirms what already exists in reality – has raised protests from both the opposition and, and what matters most, from the European Central Bank.

A controversy that says more than it reveals

The ECB rejected an initial formulation of the amendment without identifying its purposes, given that the FdI proposal does not change the legal profile of the status of gold and the tasks of the Bank of Italy one iota, as well as having no financial effects on the state budget. Christine Lagarde’s technicians also contested the Italian initiative, given that the ECB has exclusive jurisdiction over the gold reserves of the eurozone countries and that therefore any change in the status quo could call into question the European treaties. After a series of back and forth, the Minister of Economy Giancarlo Giorgetti and the number one of the ECB found a compromise according to which the amendment remains, with the affirmation that the Bank of Italy’s gold belongs to the Italian people, but that the autonomy of the Bank of Italy will not be questioned and that, whatever happens, the European treaties will be respected to the full.

But if in the end everything remained as it was – here we are with the question – why this upheaval on the Rome-Frankfurt line? The first to ask the question were the ECB technicians; Many have asked it in our area too, but to which no one has been able to offer a univocal and convincing answer. Senator Lucio Malan, group leader of FdI and first signatory of the proposal, rejected any overly imaginative reconstruction (for example: they want the Bank of Italy’s gold to spend it for some electoral measure), explaining that it was only a matter of reaffirming a principle.

In fact, given that the capital of Bankitalia (and therefore also the gold reserves) is held by various institutional entities (banks, insurance companies, foundations, institutions and social security institutions with registered office in Italy), there is no guarantee that those reserves will not one day be claimed by these entities, which moreover have their headquarters in Italy but can also be owned by foreigners. According to Malan, it would have been a matter of reaffirming the obvious (France and Germany would have formulations similar to that requested by FdI) without ulterior motives, first of all that of selling the gold (FdI recalled that in the past the only one to air this possibility was Romano Prodi in 2007). Nothing more than a theoretical position, in homage to a sovereignist narrative typical of the European (and sometimes Eurosceptic) right.

The true purpose of the gold maneuver

However, not everyone believed in this option and among the opposition there were those who pointed out that other purposes were hidden behind the gold maneuver. The first and most immediate would have been to screen in the media the paucity of the budget, in terms of measures to stimulate growth or aid interventions for families and businesses. In fact, the issue occupied the headlines for days and monopolized the debate on the budget law. The second objective, again according to some malicious reconstructions of the opposition, would be to insert a principle (the gold of Bank of Italy belongs to the Italians) which for now does not change anything, not even a comma, but which like all principles could one day represent a prop on which to rely for a possible new forcing. To open a door, you must first open it ajar.

A rebound of journalistic reconstructions and background stories destined, for at least a while, to remain so. Each of which presents elements that make at least part of it credible and which are subject to the eternal law of whose prodestone of those that in politics represent a generally effective key to interpretation. Key that may be necessary, but not always sufficient. We’ll have to wait.

The resources issue, the hidden “tips” and the vote before Christmas: when the maneuver will be approved