A reply to the op-ed by Michele Muratori, published on 19 August 2026
In his piece published on 19 August 2026, titled “The exceptional feat of being normal,” Michele Muratori tries to paint us a future in which the Association Agreement would represent, essentially, the solution to a long list of San Marino’s problems. More market, more opportunities, more investment, more competitiveness, more research, more chances for young people, more development and, of course, no real loss of sovereignty.
The problem is not that Muratori supports the Agreement. It is perfectly legitimate to advocate for it and defend it. The problem is that Muratori is not speaking as a neutral observer. He is speaking as a politician directly involved in the very choice he is defending.
So his are political opinions, not guarantees about San Marino’s future.
But why should we believe him when he tells us that everything “could” work?
And it is exactly that word — “could” — that should give us pause.
Because Muratori is not describing something that has already happened. He is outlining what, according to his political reading, could happen if the Agreement enters into force. And between a possibility and a certainty lies an enormous difference, especially when discussing the future of a Republic.
When a politician argues that a given choice could work, the listener’s job is not to applaud the possibility. It is to ask what concrete reasons exist for it to work, what the risks are, what the costs are, and above all what would happen if things did not go as planned.
This is precisely what is missing from Muratori’s narrative.
The point is not to deny that the Agreement “could” produce positive effects. Of course it could. The point is not to turn a possibility into a certainty, an expectation into a result, and a political forecast into a guarantee.
Because if Muratori wants to argue that the Agreement could work, he is free to do so.
But then he should show the same conviction in telling us everything that could go wrong, too.
And it is precisely here that his argument becomes far less convincing.
“Being normal” does not necessarily mean being better
From the title alone, “The exceptional feat of being normal,” Muratori builds a fairly stark contrast. On one side stands European normality, associated with modernity, development and the future. On the other stands a San Marino still clinging to its own exceptionality, as if that were a condition of isolation and backwardness.
But San Marino does not have to choose between modernity and isolation.
It does not have to choose between Europe and sovereignty.
And above all, it must not accept the idea that the only way to be modern, competitive and open to Europe is necessarily to adopt the integration model set out in the Association Agreement.
The real question is not whether we want to be “normal.”
The real question is whether this specific Agreement is truly beneficial for San Marino, what obligations it entails, what costs it generates, how much room for autonomy it leaves, and what consequences it will produce in the long run.
On this point, Muratori is far less precise.
Progress in Europe is not a guarantee for San Marino
Muratori presents the recent progress of the European process as a decisive moment, almost as if it were the final consecration of a now-inevitable path.
But the fact that the European process is moving forward does not mean that the Agreement is automatically advantageous for San Marino.
A treaty may have been negotiated for years, may be backed by European institutions, and may have gone through all the required procedural steps, without any of this guaranteeing its actual effects on the Republic.
And above all, the fact that Brussels is moving forward does not answer the fundamental question that concerns the citizens of San Marino.
Is this really the best choice for San Marino?
That answer cannot be replaced simply by the fact that the diplomatic process has reached a certain stage.
Sovereignty, according to Muratori
Muratori also argues that the Agreement would “never” represent a loss of our sovereignty, but rather “the highest and most far-sighted exercise” of our independence.
That is a very strong statement. But it remains a political statement.
The Agreement provides for participation in the internal market and the gradual adoption of the EU acquis. It is therefore inevitable to ask what this integration concretely means for the Republic’s regulatory autonomy.
If San Marino will have to progressively adopt European rules, how much room will remain to decide those rules independently?
And above all, what real weight will San Marino have in shaping them?
Saying that sovereignty is not being lost is not enough. One must explain how it will continue to be exercised.
Because sovereignty does not consist merely in being able to declare oneself an independent state. It also consists in the concrete possibility of taking part in the decisions that produce the rules one will later be required to follow.
Liechtenstein and Malta are not San Marino!
Muratori then cites Liechtenstein and Malta as examples of the success of European integration.
But here too, the argument is far simpler than reality.
Liechtenstein is part of the European Economic Area. Malta is a member state of the European Union. San Marino, on the other hand, is negotiating a specific Association Agreement, with characteristics of its own that neither Liechtenstein nor Malta share.
These are not comparable situations.
And above all, a country’s economic growth cannot automatically be attributed to a single integration process without considering all the other conditions that contributed to it.
What is missing from Muratori’s argument, then, is a genuine comparison of starting conditions, of the different economic structures, of the other factors that determined those outcomes, and above all concrete proof that they are transferable to San Marino’s reality.
Saying that something worked elsewhere does not prove it will necessarily work here too. It only proves that it worked there, under completely different circumstances.
Is this a deliberate “omission” (?).
From possibilities to near-certainties
This is precisely where Muratori’s narrative becomes more optimistic than realistic.
In his piece, the Agreement could allow San Marino businesses to operate more easily in the European market, open new opportunities for the financial sector, encourage mobility, increase opportunities for universities and research, attract investment, and make San Marino more competitive.
But “could” does not mean “will.”
An international agreement can create favorable conditions. It can open up possibilities. It can remove certain obstacles.
But it does not automatically produce investment, businesses, jobs, innovation and wealth.
Because these outcomes also depend on economic policy, taxation, infrastructure, education, administrative efficiency, regulatory stability, business capacity, and the state’s ability to actually seize the opportunities that arise.
So the point is not to deny that the Agreement could have positive effects.
The point is not to turn possibilities into certainties and expectations into already-achieved results.
What Muratori doesn’t tell us
And it is precisely here that the piece loses its balance.
Muratori talks about the opportunities, but far less — if at all — about the costs.
He talks about the market, but not about the obligations. He talks about integration, but does not adequately address the mechanisms for adopting EU law. He talks about sovereignty, but does not delve into the problem of representation. He talks about the benefits for businesses, but not about the burdens of compliance. He talks about European opportunities, but not about the conditions required to access them. He talks about growth, but does not show how much of that growth would actually be attributable to the Agreement.
He talks about the future, but does not present the bill.
And above all, he does not fully address the most uncomfortable question.
What will happen when San Marino has to adopt a European rule it disagrees with?
This is one of the questions that should be at the center of public debate.
Not the slogan about “normality.”
Can skepticism simply be swept away?
Muratori calls for “sweeping away every last trace of skepticism.”
But in a serious democracy, skepticism is not swept away.
It is addressed.
It is answered with documents, with clauses, with studies, with figures, with guarantees, and with a serious analysis of the negative scenarios as well.
Because if the Agreement were truly as extraordinary as claimed, there would be no need to present doubt as backwardness or criticism as fear of change.
It would be enough simply to answer the questions.
And that is exactly what those who support the Agreement should do.
Not convince citizens that everything could work, but explain why it should work, under what conditions, at what price, and what would happen if those conditions were not met.
This is not a contest between the modern and the backward
Muratori seems to frame the choice as one in which the Agreement represents the future, Europe, development and normality, while doubts are implicitly associated with isolation, provincialism and the past.
But this is a false alternative.
One can be European without giving up the ability to choose.
One can be modern without automatically accepting every form of integration.
One can be competitive without treating every constraint as an inevitable price of progress.
And one can look to Europe without giving up one’s own identity and decision-making capacity.
Defending sovereignty does not mean fearing Europe.
It means insisting on knowing exactly what one is agreeing to, what obligations are being taken on, what benefits will be gained, what risks exist, and who will hold the power to decide tomorrow.
In the end, one question remains
Michele Muratori offers us a vision in which the Agreement could open up great opportunities for San Marino.
Could.
That is exactly the word that should accompany most of his claims.
It could work. It could bring benefits. It could encourage investment. It could create new opportunities. It could make some businesses more competitive.
But it also produces costs, obligations, constraints and consequences that are, today, being talked about far less.
And when deciding the future of a Republic, “could” is not a guarantee.
For this reason, we are not asking Michele Muratori to agree with us.
We are asking him for something much simpler.
To stop telling us only what could happen, and to tell us, with the same conviction, everything that could go wrong as well.
Because San Marino does not need to be reassured.
It needs to be informed.
It does not need to become “normal.”
It needs to be able to choose its own future with full awareness.
Do the people of San Marino really want to be “normal,” as some suggest they should be, or do they simply want to keep being who they are — Sammarinese?
The Heads of Household (I CapiFamiglia)
