Now the Italian delays on the Pnrr become a case in Brussels

He complains of a lack of equanimity, he considers the claims of those in Brussels who compare the Italian Pnrr with the similar plans of France and Germany to be “surreal”. They, that is, the officials of the European Commission, in turn begin to get really impatient, perhaps exhibiting a hitherto always restrained annoyance, but letting the raw essentiality of the official documents do the talking. Like that of a report drawn up two days ago by the European Parliament, and in particular of an emblematic table. He concerns the RePowerEu, the additional chapter to the national reform plans to be dedicated to the energy crisis, and on which the various member states must present their requests to the Commission in recent weeks. Well, Italy is the only one to figure, among the 15 countries examined, late with communications to Brussels. (Valentini continues in insert I)
In fact, the table lists the countries that have booked – as required by EU regulations – a further concession of subsidized loans by the Commission for national RePowers, and the exact amount requested. Then there are the countries that have preferred not to use this tool. And therefore, in a separate category, only Italy: which is, yes, among the countries that have expressed their intention to resort to new loans, but which has not specified how much it needs to finance its Plan. And in fact, marked in red, there is the wording: “Not specified”. The same anomaly, on the other hand, reported by Valdis Dombrovskis last April 17th. A note, the one made by the vice president of the Commission during his hearing in the European Parliament, which he wanted to sound like a spur towards Palazzo Chigi. More than a month later, the Italian strangeness is still there, engraved in an official document that the Brussels assembly issued two days ago.
Fitto puts his foot down, of course. And indeed he complains about the “intellectual dishonesty” of those who, in Italy and beyond, make “improper comparisons”: the one with Germany which advanced (and obtained) its requests to amend the National Reform Plan last December, or the one with France, which completed the same procedure in mid-April, all without taking into account that the Berlin Plan is worth just 29 billion, Macron’s France Relance about 40, a trifle compared to the 190 billion promised to Italy.
And yet, even if these juxtapositions were risky, it must be said that in the past few weeks, the exponents of the right-wing government themselves offered incoherent comparisons when they complained about “the excessive request for loans by Giuseppe Conte and Mario Draghi” , urging instead to take the caution of Berlin and Paris as a model. And yet, even here, the document approved by the European Parliament and re-launched by the Commission illuminates another truth. To request a large amount of loans, for the Next Generation Eu as for the RePowerEu, were the countries that have a much higher cost of debt than that offered by Brussels. And therefore it is easy to understand that Germany or Denmark, whose government bonds boast a lower spread of 66 and 35 basis points respectively compared to the Brussels Eurobond, prefer to go it alone. And the fact that France and Austria, whose bond issues have a yield that fluctuates around that of the Commission, decide to hold off, also makes sense. Just as, at the opposite extreme, it is perfectly logical, because it is convenient, that Italy, with a yield on BTPs of 4.23 per cent, and therefore with a spread 116 basis points higher than the Next Generation Bond, believe a lot in those European loans.
So the calendar is there, merciless, to signal the Italian delays. Not only on the collection of the third installment – the 19 billion foreseen for the December objectives, and still suspended – but also, precisely, for the changes to the Pnrr. Fitto – who just for today, complete with a circular, asked the various ministries to communicate their respective “positions with respect to the revision hypotheses” of the Pnrr: campa Cavallo … – explained to his government colleagues that the reasons for this additional analysis they will be indicated in the six-monthly analysis on the Recovery which will arrive in Parliament next week, and this too with a certain delay. Except that the prolongation of the negotiations, and the uncertainty that surrounds them, also makes the possibilities of the government to achieve the 27 objectives scheduled for the end of June, which are worth 16 billion in European funds, “not specified”, so to speak. And so the report prepared by the offices of the European Parliament explains that “the imminent June deadlines are producing further complications”. It is explained, moreover, in a chapter entirely dedicated to Italy. Privilege that our country, in the official documents that have been circulating in the offices of Parliament and the European Commission for two days, can share with Luxembourg and Austria: but in the latter two cases, the “focus” serves to explain why the disputes have been resolved . The Italian ones, however, are still there. And after all, still speaking of good companies, Greece and Romania have to wait for a judgment from Brussels on an installment of the Recovery, in addition to Italy. These too are improper comparisons, perhaps. Nevertheless.