Romma, 25 April 2024 – “I say that we should be indignant. Those in the majority have discredited the work of the government. The PD opposition did the same thing with Gentiloni’s.” The professor Veronica De Romanisprofessor of European Economics at Luiss in Rome and at Stanford University in Florence and in the bookshop with “The free meal” (Mondadori), does not mince words for the choice of Italian MEPs to oppose (to a large extent) the Stability pactto which Strasbourg gave the green light anyway.
Yet Gentiloni ironically said that Italian politics had finally given a demonstration of unity.
Veronica De Romanis
“This decision sends a very clear message, namely that we have become accustomed to not having rules. In the end, that is the point.”
And now what happens? Are further surprises possible in the Council’s vote, where unanimity is needed?
“I can’t know what will happen, given that we are now used to any surprise. I would never have expected that the majority parties, who had said that what had been signed was the best possible compromise, would then vote against it. Already this is enough to be indignant. The political class, both the government and the opposition, cannot explain the concept of cost.”
Italy is the country with the highest deficit, with the second largest public debt in the EU and the one in which MEPs abstain or vote against the Pact. Nobody here wants to pay the bill?
“Absolutely. We have become accustomed to serving free meals and to thinking of financing measures with debt because it is “good” debt so why limit it with rules? What happened in the European Parliament is very clear: our political class does not want rules and now he no longer knows how to explain that we are back in a system where there are rules. This does not protect our interests and above all it does not protect the weakest. Because increasing the debt as in recent years makes the economy more vulnerable in case of shock, it costs us (we pay 85 billion in interest: it is money that we take away from public services) and above all we finance measures such as the Superbonus which are regressive. So the poor have financed the renovation of the rich people’s homes. Not voting for them means not protecting them the weakest”.
But are the new rules better or worse than the old Stability Pact?
“I think the old pact was fine. I never liked the reform, but the rules are useful. I didn’t like the old one because of the austerity that never actually existed, nor the new one. What we saw from Renzi onwards, we have always circumvented the rules. With flexibility, with safeguard clauses, even ‘hiding’ the cut in the deficit from 2.4 to 2.04 with Conte the more you spend, the more you grow and the debt is not a problem. We have seen with the 110% that did not lead to such a dynamic economy.”
Yet according to many, the new rules are better than the old ones.
“The truth is that we don’t know. There are criteria that are the same for everyone and which do not involve us because we will go into excessive deficit procedure and in those years we will not have to respect the debt/GDP reduction of 1% per year. For the technical trajectory of each country we must wait for the decisions of the Commission, this is now impossible to judge.”
Giorgetti said that the Stability Pact does not satisfy those who believe that growth depends on the ‘LSD’ model, i.e. laxity, debt and subsidies and that the growth model that has made this country great in the post-war period is the one that passes through sacrifice, investment and I work. Isn’t that in contradiction with your majority?
“And in fact Giorgetti signed this pact. He is the one who has least to do with it. The problem is the European parliamentarians of his majority, who by abstaining contradict the government’s work. Do they distrust him? I don’t know that. Of course they do the opposite. So the question is: what do these people do in Europe?”.
