(Adnkronos) – The European Centre for Democratic Resilience, foreseen in the recommendations on the “Shield of Democracy” approved last September by the European Parliament, is “a violation, or a risk of violation, of the national sovereignty of the individual Member States.” This was stated by Stefano Cavedagna, MEP for Fratelli d’Italia (ECR) and vice-chair of the special committee on the Shield, speaking on the Adnkronos live programme “Lavori in Corso” on the sidelines of the European Parliament plenary session.

The Centre represented a “red line” for FdI, Cavedagna explained, noting that the party would have voted in favour if the centre had not been included and that it supports many of the good practices outlined in the text. However, the institution “would foresee that someone in Brussels, it is not clear who, and according to what criteria or assessments, could one day declare, within a single country, whether it is democratic enough or not.”

The MEP recalled upcoming elections in Spain (scheduled for 29 November), France and Italy, saying he is “very afraid” of the idea that EU institutions might decide whether citizens’ choices are democratic. In his view, EU criticism of Member States “almost always” targets right-wing political forces.

Also taking part in the discussion was European Parliament Vice-President Pina Picierno (Spazio Pubblico/Renew), who countered that the Centre would be made up of representatives from all Member States and would be subject to binding parliamentary oversight, calling fears of interference “imaginary.” Cavedagna replied that the Centre “can issue warnings and even impose sanctions.”

He added that there are already adequate tools to coordinate against threats, such as NATO and consultations within the European Council, and argued that new “superstructures” would be “a cost and an interference.” Fighting autocracies by concentrating powers, he warned, risks “creating a European autocracy, paradoxically.”

The same reasoning, according to Cavedagna, applies to defence — a point raised when Picierno advocated for common defence and recalled Alcide De Gasperi’s proposed Treaty on a European Defence Community. “The idea that someone other than Italy could command an army that acts also on behalf of Italy frightens me,” he said, adding that the notion of a European army framed this way “has a bit of a Red Army flavour.”

Cavedagna clarified that his party supports “coordination among the individual armed forces” and “a defensive alliance that already exists: it is called NATO, it has existed since 1949” and “is already working to protect the security of our western borders.” The issue with a single army, he said, concerns who would be conscripted and who would command it: a European army would have a commander-in-chief who “would not respond to the needs of the Italian government or of individual Member States.”

In the exchange, Picierno noted that a similar arrangement “already exists with NATO,” where “there is a unified chain of command.” Cavedagna replied that “NATO is an alliance that includes Italy” and that there are no NATO armed forces per se, only national forces “deployed as contingents.”

The debate was prompted by a question about the scale required to respond to systemic hybrid threats. Cavedagna argued that the EU “is an international organization, it is not a macro-state as some would have us believe,” but rather “a union of twenty-seven countries that share a common destiny and a common culture.”