Differentiated autonomy: between limited pre-understandings and uncertainties about the future

Only a few weeks have passed since four Italian regions, Veneto and Lombardy, Piedmont and Liguria, signed the pre-agreements on 'differentiated autonomy'. The 'pure blood' League is exulting, aiming straight, as it did, for success in the regional elections in Veneto. Vannacci can say what he wants about fascism, but differentiated autonomy is not to be touched. Hands off! At the same time, on the part of the opposition political forces, differentiated autonomy - introduced into the Constitution with the reform of Title V in 2001, promoted by the centre-left at the time - is now considered almost subversive. Let us take a disenchanted look at how things stand.

The pre-understandings concern no-lep subjects (i.e. - it must be remembered - subjects for which the prior identification of those essential levels of services, which must be guaranteed homogeneously throughout the national territory, is in principle not necessary). These pre-understandings are not, on closer inspection, entirely new. In fact, they have been derived from the pre-understandings already signed at the end of February 2018 with the Gentiloni government by Lombardy (Maroni), Veneto (Zaia) and Emilia-Romagna (Bonaccini): Civil protection (e.g. the prerogative granted to the governor to sign urgent ordinances in cases of disasters: floods, landslides, etc.); supplementary pension provision (which means supplementing the Region's pension: in some ways it is an acknowledgement to those who have made the Region great and can thus better cope with the increase in the cost of living); the Professions (each territory has its own peculiarities from the economic and productive point of view and, consequently, needs to recognise new professional figures); the Coordination of public finance in the field of health (for example, from the building point of view). It is not, therefore, a question of healthcare tout court - it is important to emphasise this - but only of a specific aspect relating to the functional organisation of the healthcare system, which should be clarified and explained. Nothing, therefore, to do with the problem of waiting lists or, more generally, with the quality and efficiency of the healthcare services provided. None of this. The fact remains, however, that an attempt is being made to implement an initiative that dates back as far as seven years. And in any case, the initiative is only the beginning of the process, the first steps. Stunted, alas.

In fact, this is only a preliminary outline of an agreement intended for the Council of Ministers; an outline that will then go through the Unified State-Regions Conference and also through Parliament to gather suggestions and indications. At the end of this process and on the basis of the indications gathered, the text of the draft pre-understanding on these four matters will be drawn up, which will have to pass through the Regional Councils and Parliament, and finally return to the Council of Ministers. Only then can the final text of the Understanding on these four subjects be drafted. In short, a tortuous path, articulated in a series of very delicate passages, convoluted and inevitably full of pitfalls, cumbersome from the point of view of the redundant institutional path. A sort of quagmire. Minister Calderoli is optimistic and maintains that the final agreement on these four competences will be signed by the end of the legislature. It would be useful for the League in the election campaign, as the signing of the pre-agreements was now for the result obtained in Veneto.

Three observations. The first observation concerns the text of the pre-agreements, or rather the texts. They have not yet been published on the Ministry's website, but one question is legitimate. Are the four texts the same, or does each region have its own text? It is not an irrelevant question because if the texts were different then one would not see the point of a 'Calderoli law', i.e. 'a general law of implementation' of differentiated regionalism (a law, moreover, declared unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court in certain key points), if then each Region can, so to speak, differentiate as it wishes. The second. On the basis of the cumbersome nature of the path indicated by the 'Calderoli law' and which must be followed, despite the constrained timetable there is no certainty that it will be completed by the end of the legislature. On the contrary, it is very likely that just the opposite will happen, i.e. the end will not be reached, given that the Prime Minister apparently intends to shorten the legislature, going to the vote before the natural expiry date of September 2027. Third observation. What about the other subjects? Civil Protection, Supplementary Pensions, Professions and Coordination of Public Finance in Health are significant competences. But they represent only 4 of the 23 negotiable subjects. And what will happen to the other 19, of course, after the definition of the lep? When and how will they be dealt with? Does it all move to the next legislature, by the indirect admission of the minister himself? Or does autonomy realistically stop here? If differentiated autonomy were limited to these phantom pre-agreement drafts - which could lead to actual agreements - it would still be very little.

Not only that, but the most important issue, that of the transfer of economic resources, is not resolved. Autonomy is undoubtedly a good thing. But the worker in Val Brembana, to take the example of the largest region that has asked for greater autonomy, Lombardy, is interested above all in the fact that the resources derived from his work remain in the territory, that is, in Val Brembana and, more generally, in Lombardy. With these four competences - not to mention the remaining 19 - how will the issue be addressed? The risk that the workers of the Brembana Valley, having voted on 22 October 2017 in favour of the consultative referendum on autonomy, will feel that they have been taken for a ride is very high indeed.