The common line taken by Meloni and Schlein on the Safe, which their allies do not like

On defence, there is a common position – albeit partial and probably unwitting – between Giorgia Meloni and Elly Schlein: the use of SAFE (Security Action for Europe), the European instrument designed to strengthen security and the European defence industry. There is often confusion between increasing military spending to meet NATO’s targets and the use of the new European defence funding mechanism. These are two related but distinct issues. And on this latter point – the use of SAFE – there is substantial agreement between the government and the PD. The party’s position, reiterated by its foreign affairs spokesperson Peppe Provenzano, is to oppose an increase in military spending to meet the new NATO targets and to support SAFE to fund investments already planned, as this ties them to joint projects and procurements, thereby forming the first core of a European defence capability.

This is, in essence, also the position of the Meloni government. Italy is, in fact, one of the 19 countries that have applied for SAFE loans totalling 14.9 billion. On 30 November 2025, the government submitted its National Investment Plan for the defence industry to Brussels (the approach is somewhat similar to that of the NRRP), which was subsequently approved by the European Commission on 26 January and, finally, on 17 February, by the Council of the European Union. (Capone continues in Insert II)

As the government stated in the Public Finance Document (DFP, approved on 22 April), “SAFE loans are consistent with the defence investment expenditure path set out in current legislation”. In practice, this means that these are not additional expenditure: the Investment Plan submitted to the European Commission comprises expenditure items and projects that comply with the requirements of the European regulation and are therefore fully eligible for funding under SAFE (with the exception of four items which, however, as the government points out, have an ‘extremely limited’ cost and can be covered by reductions in other expenditure categories). Essentially, as far as current legislation is concerned, it would simply be a matter of replacing the financing of expenditure already provided for with European loans rather than national debt.

As Defence Minister Guido Crosetto stated during the hearing, “the SAFE, as it has been set up, is not an additional instrument for financing military expenditure, but rather one for funding expenditure already provided for in the budget”. Therefore, Crosetto added, “it is an entirely technical decision as to how much of the SAFE to use as an alternative to BOTs”. However, on this point, the government has already carried out its assessment and set it out in writing: “The instrument offers certain financial advantages compared with standard sovereign issues,” states the DFP regarding the SAFE. “The loans benefit from the European Union’s high credit rating, offer very long maturities of up to 45 years, and include a 10-year grace period for the repayment of principal.”

In short, according to the Ministry of Economy and Finance’s experts, European loans are cost-effective. Moreover, the fact that Eurobonds are advantageous is evident from the fact that Italy has applied for all possible loans under the Next Generation EU programme, precisely because the interest rate is lower than that of a domestic debt issue: “The majority of the NRRP consists of loans that will have to be repaid at an interest rate that is competitive with the market,” Minister Giorgetti said some time ago. And the financing of the SAFE works exactly like that of the NRRP, because the Commission has a “unified funding approach” for the financing of all its instruments.

This means that, as regards new defence investments under current legislation, both the PD and the government are in favour of using the SAFE. And with excellent reasons, both political – for the strengthening of a common European defence core – and financial – for the savings guaranteed by the lower cost of debt. This is not, however, a trivial matter, given that both coalitions are deeply divided on this issue. The M5S and AVS on the one hand, and the Lega on the other, voted against the ReArm Europe plan in the European Parliament and are opposed to the use of the SAFE, which forms part of the strategy to strengthen European defence capabilities.

The differences between Meloni and Schlein certainly remain on the other issue, that of increased military spending. The government has committed to increasing defence spending to 3.5 per cent (+1.5 per cent for security) at the NATO summit in The Hague in 2025, although so far the old 2 per cent target has been met through the reallocation of budget items rather than new allocations (zero additional resources in 2026). Meanwhile, Schlein says she is inspired by Pedro Sánchez, who opposed the new NATO target, even though under his government Spain has doubled its military spending as a proportion of GDP (an extra 10 billion last year alone).

Therefore, if the government requests a budgetary deviation and the activation of the safeguard clause (NEC) to increase military spending, Meloni and Schlein will find themselves on opposing sides. But if a resolution were to be voted on solely concerning the use of the SAFE to fund investments already provided for in the budget, Giorgia and Elly might find themselves on the same side, defending themselves against friendly fire from Salvini and Vannacci on the right and Conte, Bonelli and Fratoianni on the left.