“After this agreement, San Marino will be better off.” That is the firm conviction of Manuel Ciavatta (Pdcs), who spoke yesterday in the Foreign Affairs Committee during the debate on the Association Agreement with the European Union, as reported by Askanews.
The Christian Democrat councillor dismissed criticism from those who argue that the costs and benefits of the agreement have not been properly assessed. “If we are still stuck on this narrative, we are truly living in a fairy tale, and I won’t accept it,” he said, recalling the work carried out by successive governments and technical experts over more than a decade of negotiations.
Ciavatta then turned to the concrete issues Parliament will have to tackle, starting with the real estate market and the purchase of second homes by non-residents. On this front, he believes it is possible to introduce rules to protect residents of San Marino while still respecting the principle of non-discrimination toward EU citizens.
On the matter of a referendum, he reiterated that the majority does not fear a popular vote once the effects of the agreement become visible. He insisted on the need to explain to citizens that European integration will bring costs and challenges, but will also give the country greater opportunities and international standing.
Below is his speech in full.
Manuel Ciavatta (PDCS):
I would like to share some thoughts on this debate, which today contains a significant element setting it apart from previous discussions.
While some of today’s remarks are almost identical to those made one or two years ago, what has changed is that San Marino and Andorra have now signed the Association Agreement, meaning we have truly entered the implementation phase.
This means that, starting today, we are required to put into practice, within the agreed timeframes, everything we have already negotiated across the various sectors.
These are timelines that San Marino and Andorra negotiated with the European Union — in some respects similarly, in others differently.
A colleague spoke earlier about the insurance sector: within the banking and financial framework, insurance is perhaps the area where we can most easily align with European regulations.
We can move quickly, notifying which elements of the banking and financial sector we are postponing, and which ones we want to move forward with immediately — insurance being a case in point.
The technical scope of the agreement is indeed vast, touching on a great many areas of our economy.
It is a technical and economic agreement, but it also carries extremely important political dimensions, the first of which is integration itself — not accession, but integration.
Another interesting aspect concerns the purchase of second homes by non-residents, an issue that worries citizens just as much as immigration does.
There are clear elements we can define: for those who wish to come and live in San Marino, we have a limit of roughly two to three hundred residence permits per year, to give an order of magnitude.
We can also draft specific legislation regarding the purchase of homes by non-residents.
I believe this is one of the things we should change as soon as possible compared to the current situation — without discriminating against European Union citizens, but limiting purchases by those who do not reside in San Marino.
This protects both us and our residents. These are measures we can take, and we have a reasonable amount of time to legislate on them as Parliament.
The key issue is that Parliament will have to work diligently to meet these deadlines.
These are not overnight deadlines: for some matters we have a year, for others two. There is time for implementation.
We must not delay, but use that time wisely to calibrate our legislation to both European requirements and our actual opportunities. That is the work to be done today.
Regarding the referendum, we have always said that in due course, once the effects of the implemented agreement begin to show, we will not fear it, because we know that San Marino’s situation will improve.
We are certain of this — otherwise we would not have negotiated in this way.
Despite claims that no one has thought things through, looked closely, or carried out assessments, this very council has clearly evaluated that the agreement will bring positive effects and help San Marino grow, not set it back.
Of course, it will come at a cost in terms of resources, but overall it will be a worthwhile cost.
We are not self-destructive, nor have the successive governments been. Spreading this message is short-sighted and inaccurate.
One cannot claim that no assessments were made when negotiations lasted for years.
Did all the technical staff from the various Secretariats of State and departments, who negotiated annex by annex — twenty-five in total, covering different areas — really fail to carry out overall assessments of the benefits for the country?
If we are still stuck on this narrative, we are truly living in a fairy tale, and I won’t accept it.
It is unacceptable to suggest that those who carried this agreement forward for ten to twelve years, through changing governments and political forces — some of which are now in opposition yet support the same choice — failed to carry out assessments.
Of course, we don’t know whether it will cost ten or twenty, or bring thirty or forty in return, but we do know it will benefit the country, and we must tell citizens so.
After this agreement, San Marino will be better off — though not in the way people used to say, “things were good once,” when rules were being bent or ignored.
On this point, I agree with Councillor Zeppa.
Things will improve because the regulations we have negotiated, and which we will bring before this chamber, will improve the country’s situation, its transparency toward the outside world and international bodies, and will be recognised as such.
We will no longer be an international anomaly because of our size, but a state able to engage with others on equal footing, with the same sovereignty and standing, however small we may be.
We will not be able to draft legislation directly as the European Parliament does, since we are not a member state, but neither will we simply be subject to decisions made elsewhere, learning of them only after the fact.
We will be able to take part in discussion tables, presenting our position and the concerns that certain regulations might raise for our country.
This has real value. We cannot claim that being present or absent makes no difference — if we say that, we are either lying or we simply do not understand.
I may have gotten a little heated, but this seems to me the bare minimum of reasonableness: if we don’t speak to citizens in these terms, we are deceiving them.
I understand that part of the population is calling for a referendum and does not trust this process.
Europe today is weak — we cannot deny that — but does that mean we can do without an agreement with the European Union?
Even if it is weak, staying outside of it means being cut off from the world.
We must first help ourselves, here in this chamber, and then help citizens understand that this agreement is not without its difficulties, but that it brings us an advantage.
San Marino will be in a better position than it has been in the past.
Since we always have Saint Marinus looking over us in this chamber, I believe that even he — who first came here as a hermit — would, in a situation like the one we face today, be convinced that San Marino cannot remain alone on the mountain, but that from this mountain, in dialogue with the rest of the world, it should truly become a source of light for others as well.
This is something we too can achieve, however small we may be.
