For Italia Viva “unilateral choice” and “sensational own goal”. For Action, Iv is to blame: “Renzi doesn’t want to liquidate it”
The farewell now seems final. Action and Italia Viva separate their paths and say goodbye to the single centrist party project. A divorce that takes place between mutual accusations. “A unilateral choice” by Carlo Calenda and “a sensational own goal”, they say from Italia Viva. And Action replies that everything has been upended by the fact that “Renzi, who has returned to the helm of Italia Viva for a few months, has no intention of liquidating it in a new party”.
That things were compromised had been clear for days. Accusations, fiery statements, vitriolic exchanges. Many via social media. Then yesterday the attempt at composition with the meeting of the political committee. But the confrontation does not lead to the closing of a deal. As to why, the versions of Calenda and Renzi diverge. For the first, the leader of IV tried to “cheat” him by not giving the go-ahead for the dissolution of Italia Viva. For the second, Calenda had already decided to break even before attempting a recomposition in yesterday’s meeting.
“The arguments used” to arrive at the break “appear alibi” and the Renzians put the events of the last few hours in sequence to highlight how, from their point of view, it was Calenda who put pretexts on the table to screw everything up. Like the request never to be Leopolda again. “Leopolda, Riformista, background, showgirls, alleged conflicts of interest are just attempts to fuel a controversy which we will not follow up on”.
“It was a unilateral choice by Calenda”, Iv told Adnkronos. “We were ready to work until the end and we were doing it while Calenda came out saying that the single party was dead”. From Iv they remember the passages of the last hours. “Yesterday at the meeting there was agreement on everything except on two points: the question of money with our proposal, which we believe is acceptable, to divide all expenses in half and then Leopolda’s point which is frankly unacceptable. We parted, after the meeting, with the agreement to keep the tone low and then Calenda goes out and shoots zero This morning on social networks the same “while Matteo Renzi, it is emphasized, replied” with soothing tones.
So we arrive at the Senate floor this morning. “We listened to Calenda and then he left in a hurry. We stayed in the courtroom all together discussing how to put the document back together and fix it and while we were doing it Calenda made those statements…”. The suspicion, the Renzians argue, is that the leader of Action had already decided to break and for one reason: the fear of losing the congress if Luigi Marattin ran as candidate. “There is suspicion. He says that IV does not melt? But if we said that on October 30 Italia Viva whoever wins the congress will melt. There is an expiration date like yogurt …”.
But why dissolve Iv after the congress and not before? “Because if something went wrong during the congressional process, what did we do? Were we left without a party? But the decision to dissolve Italia Viva was made, put in black and white in the document”, argue the Renzians.
In the parts of Calenda they think the opposite way. It was Italia Viva who broke: “The stop derives from the choice of Italia Viva not to vote on a document yesterday which they had declared to have already been read and shared”, reads a note from Action. “Behind all this there is only one fact: Renzi, who has returned to the helm of Italia Viva for a few months, has no intention of liquidating it in a new party. A legitimate choice but in contrast with the promises made to the voters”.
Therefore, “after months of back and forth we simply took note of it. In a climate deliberately poisoned by personal insults from Renzi and almost all the exponents of Italia Viva to Carlo Calenda”.
The roads at this point really seem divided by now. They say from Iv: “The construction of an alternative proposal to populists and sovereignists is now more difficult but more urgent. In the coming months we will respect the friends of Action by seeking any form of collaboration without responding to the controversies of some of their leaders”.