There is not only the South, albeit with some differences between the Governors, to oppose the proposal di differentiated autonomy for Lombardy, Veneto and Emilia Romagna. Thirty constitutionalists are also making their voices heard for the risks of a breakdown in the country's unity.
They appealed to the President of the Republic, Sergio Mattarella, and to the Speakers of the Chamber and Senate to warn Parliament against the approval of a nefarious measure. In the same hours as the jurists' appeal was released, the undersecretary for regional affairs, Stefano Buffagni (5 Stars) said that the reform is not a government priority after all. The opposite of what the Governors of Lombardy and Veneto claim, with that of Emilia Romagna in the third row.
"We are deeply concerned for the implementation methods followed so far in the agreements on differentiated regionalism and for the risk of marginalization of the role of Parliament, a place of protection of national interests” write the constitutionalists. Among them also three Presidents emeritus of the Constitutional Court: Francesco Almirante, Francesco Paolo Casavola and Giuseppe Tesauro. The appeal calls for the role of Parliament to be guaranteed also with respect to the needs underlying a balanced and supportive development of Italian regionalism, as a guarantee of Italian unity.
Basically, any other form of autonomy cannot concern the will expressed in an agreement between the government and the Region concerned. There would be consequences on the very form of the state and on the structure of Italian regionalism. There are many subjects and economic issues in which the bill is divided.
Taxes, investments in energy, environment, mobility, school. Those who spend better – said the leader of the League, Matteo Salvini – will have more efficient services, will save and will have the money to give more to citizens. A mechanism on the basis of which the competences attributed to the Regions - added Minister Erika Stefani - are managed with resources equal to the historical cost: 100 put the State, 100 will put the Region. It seems easy, but the tipping point and equilibrium will be the standard needs to be identified, however, within five years.
Is it plausible to wait for these needs in such a long time? In a globalized economy where the needs of citizens change and grow at a dizzying pace? And when and if they arrive, what will happen to the many development ideas for the South that the government itself claims to have implemented? Money in this part of Italy will always be less and the citizens will notice it. In short, differentiated regionalism as it was conceived contains cases that are not good for the South that has paid and is paying the costs of a long crisis and this year's recession.
The Economist Gianfranco Viesti, in his latest book “Towards the secession of the rich?” he argues that the goal of the reform for the North is to obtain greater public resources than those currently spent by the state on their behalf. The formula would be that of the shares of tax revenue that would be withheld in Lombardy, Veneto, Emilia. A multiplier effect to the detriment of the Southern Regions which would see funding drop heavily.
The tax residues in the hands of the North would be nothing more than the subtraction of public spending that takes place in a territory. Thus, if the result is negative, the population of that region will receive less in public spending than it pays in taxes. Pretty clear isn't it? How do we put it, then, with those matters now in the hands of the Governors, with state transfers for the benefit of the major criticalities of the South so well described in dozens of studies and socio-economic analyses?
The point returns to the structure of the state. To its territorial articulation, to the local and national powers of representation. To the ability to govern processes, also opening up to healthy self-criticism, where the primary needs of environmental protection, infrastructure, sustainability, cultural and civil growth have been neglected. The 30 constitutionalists point out that parliamentarians, as representatives of the nation, must be called to intervene on the reform project with substantial amendments. They have the opportunity to play their role in the general interest. They have all the tools to do well and not divide the country. The role of the Parliament, in article 116 of the Constitution, is aimed at protecting unitary instances in the face of autonomic requests made by the Regions which can actually be detrimental to these unitary instances. For this reason, parliamentary approval cannot be merely formal. The provision of the law in article 116 of the Constitution – the jurists recall in their document – is intended to guarantee that the autonomy negotiated by the requesting Regions fits harmoniously into the overall legal system of the Republic. But perhaps we are dealing with something more than an appeal to the President of the Republic and the two houses of Parliament.
