San Marino’s future within the European Union has reignited political tensions over the referendum question. On the eve of an evening event organized by the PDCS at the Festa dell’Amicizia and dedicated to the Association Agreement, Domani – Motus Liberi has challenged the framing of the debate, renewing its call for citizens to have their say before the agreement takes effect.
The party has already taken aim at the title of the event itself — “San Marino after the signing of the Agreement with the European Union: an economic model with a European outlook, featuring new infrastructure and technological innovation.” According to D-Ml, this framing treats a decision as already settled, when in fact the population should still be directly involved in making that choice.
“There is a contradiction that cannot go unnoticed in the evening event organized by the PDCS as part of the Festa dell’Amicizia and dedicated to the Association Agreement with the European Union,” the statement reads. “There is already talk of ‘after the signing,’ of a new economic model and of the opportunities that European integration is expected to bring to San Marino. But the signing has not yet taken place, and above all, a fundamental question remains open: what role will citizens play in a decision destined to have a profound impact on the Republic’s future?”
Motus Liberi then broadens the debate to include the economic strategy that should accompany the Agreement, asking why the negotiation was not, in its view, backed by a national development plan and a detailed programme for implementing the deal.
“We believe a plan is needed that clearly sets out obligations, adjustment costs, effects on the economic and financial system, the resources required, and the timeframe within which benefits could actually reach citizens and businesses,” the party states. According to D-Ml, in fact, the Agreement cannot be presented solely through the lens of economic opportunity, since it will also entail the adoption of European rules and new mechanisms of compliance and oversight.
The central point of the party’s statement, however, remains that of a popular consultation. “But the most important question remains a democratic one: where is the referendum?” Motus Liberi asks, reiterating that it has “always maintained the need for a prior, informed and genuinely free consultation, before the Agreement produces effects that would be difficult to reverse.”
The party specifically challenges the idea of holding a consultation only after an initial period of implementation. “A referendum after two or three years of implementation, as some are now suggesting, would be a fundamentally different matter: by then, the Agreement would already be woven into the country’s economic and institutional life, enormous costs would have been incurred, thousands of new rules adopted, and choices made that would be difficult to reverse. Asking citizens at that point whether they agree with the choice would risk turning the referendum into little more than an obligatory after-the-fact rubber stamp for a decision that has, in substance, already been made.”
D-Ml then raises a series of legal and political questions. “If, as the PDCS and the ruling majority claim, a repeal or confirmatory referendum on the Agreement is not currently possible because it concerns an international treaty, on what legal basis would it become possible to hold one in two years’ time without a change in the law? And if a legislative change is possible in two years, why would it not be possible now?”
The statement also invokes the 2013 referendum, with Motus Liberi asking how that consultation’s outcome is meant to be honoured if its result is still considered sufficient to legitimize the European path being pursued today. The party also brings up the case of Andorra, asking why a popular consultation on the Association Agreement is planned there, while no such process is being carried out in San Marino.
“These are questions that are anything but secondary. When it comes to democracy, there cannot be interpretations that shift depending on the political convenience of the moment,” D-Ml argues.
The statement closes with a direct challenge to the ruling majority and the PDCS: “If we are talking about democracy, participation and the future of the Republic, we cannot treat the chapter of ‘after’ as already written, relegating citizens to the role of mere spectators. Before the ‘after’ comes the right to choose. Before the ‘after’ comes democracy.”
