While in Europe there would seem to be a certain attempt to isolate Italy with respect to the decisions relevant to the future of the Union and of the individual Members, especially on the purely economic level, and this is nothing new, the hypothesis of feeling approved, and in definitively, the proposal for a directive on so-called "green" houses which, if once they seemed to be the stuff of the rich, now, in all probability, risk becoming a reality common to the majority of the associates, going to weigh on everyone's domestic economy .

And, even if the risk of not being able to sell or lease buildings with low energy efficiency would seem to have been thwarted, it remains nevertheless up to the States to decide whether or not to impose sanctions to the detriment of those who fail, even if only due to their own personal economic incapacity, to comply to the new legislation within the times and deadlines set.

Let's be clear: we all know that, being able, and this is the "conditio sine qua non", everyone would like to fulfil, but to be out of place, and completely detached from the contingent reality, would appear to be the timing of the European institutions, which would seem, in their need to pursue an intransigent perfectionism, even if it is very useful, to neglect both the difficulties currently existing, on the existential level, in various Member States, and consequent to the economic crisis that began in the pandemic period and then degenerated due to the consequent and added vicissitudes, both the different condition economy of the citizens of the various member countries. In short. If it is true, as it would appear to be true, that the goal to be pursued is to "decarbonise" the European real estate system, in its entirety by 2050 to meet the need to cause a significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and therefore bills, and even if we want to make sure that starting from the year 2030 all new private buildings are zero-emissions and public ones even from the year 2027 with the consequent obligation to have a specific energy performance certificate However, the question would seem to impose itself in all its practical consistency: how many will be able to fulfill?

All the practical difficulties that have already emerged in terms of feasibility and perhaps in the narrow terms of any perception of concessions with 110%, could very likely recur, and perhaps to a greater extent when applying the brand new regulatory provisions in everyday life. The situation in Italy is unique compared to the remaining Member States, and should be considered and treated as such: ours is the oldest real estate heritage in the whole of Europe and probably also the most characteristic if we pause to consider the historical centers existing in the real villages.

Is it correct, and/or really useful, to succeed in erasing (perhaps) our uniqueness? Instead of an obligation to adapt the existing one, wouldn't it perhaps be more appropriate to decide to extend these unprecedented energy efficiency obligations only to newly built buildings? Will it be possible, in terms of certainty, to guarantee the generality of taxpayers, workers, families and retirees who certainly cannot boast excellent incomes, the possibility of benefiting purely and simply, without limitations of any kind, from structural government incentives?

Uncertainty frightens Italian families who are already having a hard time, due to rising prices, even for basic necessities, to survive a daily life that has become almost unsustainable. The European institutions, at least this is the feeling they seem to be able to derive from it, cannot expect to pass on the huge costs of an energy transition that is already difficult in its conception, let alone in its concrete application, on families. We cannot think of European citizens only in terms of their economic potential because in doing so we risk, with good likelihood, producing a social crisis that could lead most countries to follow the path already taken by Great Britain.

In other words: if you want a strong and stable Europe on a social level even before a political one, since the second aspect is a direct consequence of the first, then it would be necessary for that same Europe, and its members that are stronger on an economic level, to start putting in practice the primary values of solidarity and cohesion, because their strength, it should be said, could dissolve like snow in the sun when a "disconnection" occurs in the unitary relationship between them and between them and the more disadvantaged.

A Europe at different speeds cannot exist, just as an Italy cannot exist internally with different engines of development, indeed already existing, and which risk being even more "differential" if the reform on the " differentiated autonomy. Every reform, both at European and internal level, must be thought out and proposed by calculating the consequences on a concrete level and from all points of view.

What will be the effects on the market? Will it be possible, given the very short times, to find materials and raw materials? And the workforce: who will take on the responsibility and the task of training it for the purpose? Will it be possible to do it in good time? It is certainly not necessary to bother Lapalisse to understand that there will be an important, as devastating, in terms of consequences, impoverishment in the value of the various properties.

What we are experiencing does not seem to be a European Union on a citizen's scale and probably, within its institutions, which some could define as soulless due to their obsequious observance of cumbersome procedures, it would be necessary to redefine the terms of comparison.

In a Europe of peoples that wants to call itself and be such, citizens must be able to deal directly with the centers of power and decide. It is probably pure and simple utopia, but then how can we combine the existing diversities? How do you pursue unity in diversity? How are we ever going to do it if there doesn't seem to be any compatibility between what Europe would like to impose on us very narrowly and our real estate assets? Is it so difficult to understand that certain reforms, to be completed in terms of realism, need a social path characterized above all by human and economic stability and serenity?

There cannot be only duties, there are also rights, such as those relating to being supported in the contingent moment that is already so difficult to face and manage on the level of the country's social stability.

The voice of the Italians in Europe must arrive loud and clear: from time to time because it is necessary to rethink the timing of energy planning and not only in the strict terms of its feasibility. The priority must return and be the European citizen and his well-being in the Union assembly. Everything else can probably wait.

To the Meloni government, if it wants, and we hope it wants, the task of promoting a brand new European constituent assembly that brings the citizen to a level of protagonism. The Europe of states has shown all its limits, and it is time to change pace.

Giuseppina Di Salvatore – Lawyer, Nuoro

© Riproduzione riservata