Defining the procedures for transposing European rules and tackling the work awaiting San Marino after the signing of the association agreement. Matteo Rossi (PSD) supports the proposal outlined by the Secretaries of State for Internal and Foreign Affairs at the joint committee meeting on 12 October. Below is his speech in full.
“On 19 October the Republic of San Marino will sign the association agreement with the European Union, something we have been working toward for ages. I wanted to recall this at the outset, both for opposition councillors and for some in the majority. This is an extremely delicate matter for a simple reason: our constitutional system does not provide for a figure at the top of the institutional order who decides on a course of action and ensures its implementation. There is no premier or head of state with that function. We are a Republic governed by a Congress of State, in which the management of the country is distributed organically and on an equal footing, according to the various portfolios. It is therefore not easy, as we move into a completely different dimension – integrated and associated with the European Union – to put the right tools in place, decide how to transpose this new phase, and set the order of work and priorities, especially since everyone has their own. Until now, this matter has been handled by Foreign Affairs: the negotiation and the agreement fell under their remit. From now on, as I believe is well described in Article 3, it will be a matter concerning the whole country, involving Internal Affairs and various other portfolios, because it touches on businesses, labour and industry. Our colleague Savoretti was concerned about businesses asking for information. In my view, businesses know very well – perhaps better than anyone – what the benefits, challenges and limits of the agreement are. They work with it every day and are, I would say, already integrated. Periodically, the Council examines decrees transposing European directives, without which our businesses could not operate on the EU market. Those who deal with this professionally are certainly far more on top of it than we are. The real issue lies in the relationship with the administration and with whoever sets in motion the entire transposition process. I’ve heard it said that there has been no dialogue, but we deliberately convened the joint Foreign and Internal Affairs committee precisely for this purpose, and I believe important elements are emerging from it. Discussing today a law that establishes how to transpose the whole body of European regulations is a significant step forward. Three months ago, in July, we were in the Council conjuring up spectres of a failed signing, of catastrophe, of disaster for the country – as if this majority and this government were going to derail the association agreement. I feel compelled to say: make peace with your own reasoning. We were on the brink of catastrophe back then, and today, as I mentioned at the outset, on 19 October we are signing the agreement and here we are discussing how to transpose the acquis. I believe this bill represents excellent work, because it takes important aspects into account. Like Morganti, I too am reluctant to transfer powers from the Grand and General Council to the committees. I said so when we discussed the regulation, and I reaffirm it today. But there is a plain fact: the concrete need to transpose EU law clashes with the reality of a Parliament made up of non-professionals. We do politics in a professional manner, but we are not professional politicians. Transposing so many decrees, laws and rules in the required manner will demand an extremely heavy commitment from our institutions. The philosophy behind this bill is precisely this: reconciling a need with a reality. So it does not shock me that a decree might follow a faster procedure and go through committee. There will be decrees on sensitive topics that will be debated and, as already happens in the Grand and General Council, can be split off for separate discussion. There will also be technical regulations and mandatory updates that, essentially, do not change our legal system or the functioning of the administration. It’s fine to be meticulous, even to be more royalist than the king. I also understand a certain degree of apprehension, and I recognise the good faith behind it: we all feel some measure of concern facing the amount of work ahead of us. I’m not ashamed to say so, because we are heading into a completely new world. But let’s keep our feet on the ground and understand that these are manageable challenges. If, in a year’s time, we find that the work demands a different effort or commitment than we imagined, we can amend the qualified law and adjust it along the way, as we often do with legislation. I see nothing scandalous in putting in place a tool that allows us to take a step toward a world we do not yet know. Suggestions are welcome, and so are words of caution, if they help us work better and be more efficient. I understand the political dynamics – we all do, because we are in politics. But in my view, this proposal needs to take shape and move forward as soon as possible: it must be done. It therefore has our full agreement and our support for the work carried out mainly by the Secretariats for Internal and Foreign Affairs.”
