The risk of the AfD’s ideas being adopted in other major euro countries is real, and that is why the central bankers intervened, correspondent Katja Incoronato writes.
The recent reactions of European central bankers are a sure sign that something has changed permanently in Europe.
The most visible movement has been the top management of the German central bank, the Bundesbank, which has positioned itself with the strongest voice to oppose “anti-democratic forces”, i.e. the extreme right and especially the AfD party.
The governor of the Italian central bank speaks a little more subtly Fabio Panetta, who last week took a strong stance on immigration and the EU’s climate strategy, the Green Deal. Both are the target of strong raids by far-right parties.
The activation of central bankers started in Finland last summer. Then the CEO of the Bank of Finland Olli Rehn was missing Petteri Orpon (kok) to the new government program of the new government, which he considered threatening the independence of the European Central Bank.
All of this is absolutely extraordinary. Central bankers have generally tried their best not to comment on political developments.
The extraordinary exits show that Europe is living in extraordinary times.
Just before the strong reaction of the German central bankers, the AfD brought Germany’s exit from the EU into the discussion. The Bundesbank had to react. It is well known there what the departure of the largest EU and euro country would mean in practice. It is likely that both the EU and the euro would break up.
The risk that AfD’s ideas will be adopted in other large euro countries is real.
The first thing that comes to mind is Italy, whose deputy prime minister Matteo Salvini is known for his opposition to the EU and the euro. It is worth remembering that Salvini’s Lega party and the AfD belong to the same group in the European Parliament. Even basic Finns are not completely unfamiliar with the euro difference.
An academic specializing in monetary policy at the University of Cambridge Leah Downey directly says that the central bankers’ exits are about self-defense: populists pose a threat and therefore the central bankers have to resort to political means.