The tensions between Italy and the European Commission seem to have no end. At the center of the "question and answer" of these days between Prime Minister Renzi and various exponents of the European executive - yesterday Jean-Claude Junker was also joined by the Commissioner for Economic Affairs Pierre Moscovici - are the expenses for the immigration and their impact on national public finances. In particular, Renzi showed some irritation at the different accounting treatment that the Commission seems to want to apply to the contribution of European countries to Turkey, which will be separated from national deficits, compared to that reserved for the expenditure of individual states for the management of immigrants , however, will be evaluated "case by case", without any automatism.
For Italy, for example, the green light for the so-called "security clause", about 3,6 billion euros (about 0,2 percent of GDP) to be subtracted from the calculation of the deficit for the purposes of compliance with fiscal rules European countries, it hasn't arrived yet. From the point of view of the Italian prime minister, this is an unacceptable distinction because "there cannot be class A immigrants", the Syrians who crowd the refugee camps in Turkey and "class B immigrants", the thousands of desperate Italy saves from the Mediterranean every day thanks to the tireless work of the police and Italian volunteers.
This affirmation, effective and unassailable from a political point of view, is, however, misleading: the distinction made by the European Commission does not, in fact, concern the type of migrant but the type of funding. The nature of the expenditure is one of the criteria that the Community executive follows in applying the fiscal rules.
Financial aid to Turkey (about 3 billion euros) to curb the influx of refugees into Europe was decided at the European Council last December: a measure strongly desired by Germany, grappling with a massive arrival of difficult-to-manage Syrians but agreed together with the other heads of state and government. Italy, however, before putting the money on the plate (280 million euros) wants to understand "how to understand and conceive this contribution" because there are still two open questions.
Firstly, the government in Rome would like all of the 3 billion euros, and not just a third, to come from EU funds. However, it is a request that is not easy to satisfy since, for the 2014-2020 period, most of the European budget has already been allocated. The budget, among other things, is very small (about 1 percent of European GDP) given that the total amount has been reduced by 3,5 percent with the consent of all countries. So, if the contribution must be financed by individual states, and here we come to the second point, these expenses, from the point of view of the government in Rome, should be separated from the deficit for the purposes of the Stability and Growth Pact.
On this, the Commission is perfectly in line with the Italian position, and – even in recent days – has reiterated that the national quota to help the Turkish government will have no impact on the public finances. In fact, it is a "one-off" expense, made only once and, therefore, on the basis of European tax rules, deductible from the calculation of the deficit. On the other hand, it would have been different if the decision had been made for long-lasting assistance to the refugee camps: the expenditure would not be "one-off", but "permanent" and as such would have an impact on the public accounts.
Just like the money that the member states provide to manage the immigration problem at home: these expenses cannot be considered "one-off". The difference between 'one-off' and 'permanent' costs is therefore essential to understand the Commission's position. In fact, it is difficult to include permanent expenses for welcoming migrants within the flexibility clauses which authorize "additional expenses financed as a deficit in the event of exceptional events": the immigration phenomenon we are witnessing is unfortunately not a " exceptional event".
The part that, on the other hand, could be considered "exceptional" - and therefore separable from the calculation of the deficit - is the additional part compared to the average of previous years. This is why in the case of Italy the Commission has decided to stall and has not yet pronounced itself: it wants to make an ex-post assessment of the costs incurred.
The logic underlying these European fiscal rules – approved and agreed upon by all countries - is the following: deficit-financed expenditure involving a deviation from the adjustment path must be justified (implementation of reforms, increases in public investment or the presence of exceptional) and, above all, must be temporary: the crisis of recent years has demonstrated the consequences of unsustainable national public finances on the whole area. If, on the other hand, the expenditures are permanent, then they are included in the deficit calculation. The verification is done at a technical level, with the work of the Sherpas in Brussels. This happens for all countries and Italy will hardly be treated differently. Making it a political case is completely unusual and, perhaps, even counterproductive.
