Explaining the opportunities of the Association Agreement to citizens and organizing the legislative work needed to make it operational. These were the central themes of the address given by Commissioner Ilaria Baciocchi (PSD) to the joint committee on 12 October. Her full remarks follow below.
“We are one week on from the signing of the agreement, and we can finally start thinking not only about how we got here, but about how to make it work. I think it’s right to once again recognize the work of Secretary of State Luca Beccari, especially over these past few months, which have been anything but easy. He kept a steady hand even when it seemed issues already settled might reopen, and today we have reached this point. Credit must also go to Secretary Belluzzi, because a significant part of this challenge now shifts to how the State functions, how offices are organized, and the ability of our institutions to meet the commitments we have made.
What’s interesting about this phase is that the agreement confronts us with choices we probably would have had to make regardless. Just look at the list of tasks ahead: competition, the labor market, digital services, workplace safety, consumer protection. These are all areas where San Marino already needed to act. So I see this work also as an opportunity to tackle many issues that have been left untouched, or that we’ve addressed somewhat haphazardly in recent years.
This brings me to the bill presented today. It strikes me as a very interesting proposal, especially for the idea behind it: moving away from chasing deadlines and toward actually planning legislative work. Put that way, it sounds obvious, but given how we’re used to working, it really isn’t. We often discuss measures that arrive under urgent pressure, perhaps after months of preparation, by which point there’s little room left to intervene. Here, finally, a different approach is being tried: each year the government will present the Council with a program of European rules to be transposed, indicating the instruments to be used, the responsible Secretariats, and the timeline. The Council will discuss and approve it, and work will then proceed on that basis.
I think this solution echoes the approach adopted in Italy, where there is both an annual European law and a European delegation law. They’re not exactly the same thing, since our relationship with the Union will be different, but the logic is the same: having a recurring instrument to plan and manage the ongoing alignment of our laws. We should remember that this agreement isn’t something we transpose once and then consider finished. European rules will keep changing: there will be updates, new provisions, new commitments. We need a system that works over time, regardless of who governs San Marino.
Then there’s the relationship between government and Council. I’m convinced this proposal strikes an interesting balance, because we can’t bring every single technical update before the Council. If we need to amend a table, update a standard, or transpose a provision that doesn’t change the substance of a law, we should be able to do so more simply. But when we introduce an important new area of regulation for the first time, it’s right that the Council should be able to discuss it and have its say. Even within our European obligations there are political choices to be made, and those must remain in the hands of elected politicians. So I agree with the idea of distinguishing initial transposition from later adjustments, and of giving more room to the work of committees.
This connects to the path we’re following in the Committee for Institutional Reform, where we often discuss how to make the Council more efficient and give greater value to committee work. We now have a concrete need pushing us to find solutions, some of which could also prove useful for the rest of our legislative activity. We will, however, need to watch one thing closely: speed cannot become an excuse to squeeze out political debate. We must simplify wherever we can, without turning the Council into a body that merely rubber-stamps decisions made elsewhere. It seems to me the bill tries to avoid this risk, by providing for initial transposition through ordinary law for the most significant matters.
There is also a question that concerns us as political forces: we should commit to maintaining a high level of cooperation, avoiding turning every step into a confrontation. We have an enormous and demanding task ahead of us, one that concerns the country’s future and will continue across future legislatures. If we start slowing everything down for political reasons, the problem will affect the whole of San Marino.
I’d also like to make a point about communication. We talk a great deal about the rules to be transposed, the deadlines, and the adjustments we’ve secured, but we need to explain to citizens what will actually change for a business wanting to operate in the European market, for a young person wanting to study or work abroad, and for a professional seeking recognition of their qualifications. If we present the agreement merely as a huge volume of European rules to adopt, we risk losing its meaning entirely. We need to make clear what opportunities this opens up for the Republic, not least because it will be important to maintain public support throughout a process that will take time and will inevitably encounter some difficulties.
The work presented today shows that we are not simply waiting for the signature: we are already preparing. We spent many years trying to open this door. Now that we’ve succeeded, we must also have the will to see what lies on the other side. The goal is to get there with a country that works better than it does today.”
