First listen to citizens on the referendum, then plan how to implement the agreement with the European Union.
Fabio Righi (D-ML) spoke today, Monday 9 November, before the Foreign Affairs Committee, challenging the path followed up to the signing of the deal. He clarified that Domani Motus Liberi is not opposed to greater European integration, but maintains that the negotiation should have been guided by a plan for San Marino’s economic future.
He is now calling for priorities, costs and resources to be defined, alongside an information campaign that would allow the public to make an informed decision.
“On these issues we must not resort to easy political exploitation, but be precise, precisely because the matter is complex and positions are inevitably complex too. This is not an issue that can simply be settled with a yes or a no, and I am pleased that this point emerged today in several speeches.
Far be it from us to have built a political position at the last second. I say this with documentary support: the first time my political movement spoke about the European Union dates back to March 2018, shortly after its formation.
Even then, our key points were dialogue and involvement, the need for concrete and verifiable objectives, and the protection of San Marino’s interests.
This position was confirmed in May 2019, when we asked for an immediate suspension of the negotiating process because, in our view, priority should have been given to a preliminary strategic agreement with Italy, which would have helped shape the negotiations with the EU along certain lines: protection of legislative sovereignty, assessment of economic and administrative impacts, and a referendum.
I say this to avoid any misunderstanding and to counter the easy exploitation that has gone on for far too long.
I want to make one point absolutely clear: is Domani Motus Liberi against greater integration of San Marino into the European continent? No, absolutely not. We have always stressed, however, that such paths cannot be based on purely ideological principles.
It has always been said that this is not a political or ideological agreement, but fundamentally a technical and economic one. Therefore, the reasoning, assessments and analyses must be equally technical and economic in nature.
I listened carefully to the previous speeches, starting with the remarks made by my colleague Baciocchi of the PSD, and I must say that evidently we were not entirely wrong to hold these positions from the very beginning.
Today we are being told that perhaps we are not sufficiently ready to implement the agreement, that we must figure out what to actually do within Europe, because evidently until now no one thought about it within the framework of an overall plan. Others have asked whether we have a public administration, a political class and officials adequately prepared.
Call it professional bias if you like, but all these questions, raised only after the agreement has been signed, are exactly what we have always objected to. These issues should have been resolved back during the negotiation phase. Without having resolved them, the question is: who set the boundaries of the negotiation? On what basis was it conducted, if there was no clear idea of what our country’s position within the European context should be?
There is no doubt that our life, including our future, lies within the European continent, because geographically no one is going to move us elsewhere.
The issue is not about finding an alternative. Commissioner Renzi said that anyone who supports something different must provide an alternative, but we are not supporting something different.
What we are saying is that these things must be done with full awareness, because we are the political representatives of the Republic of San Marino, and before anyone else, we must have a clear idea of where we want to lead the country.
This has also become clear in practice: it is not as if Italy suddenly woke up at the last minute and randomly asked for a clarification on banking supervision to be included. Evidently we were not clear, and we still are not clear today, even among ourselves, about what we actually want. Is there an active, close political discussion under way to understand how we envision the banking sector?
Perhaps behind closed doors, in some corner of the government coalition, but there does not seem to be a real debate on the matter.
Is there an open debate on what we would like to do for future economic development within the framework of the agreement? We have been asking for this for years.
During the previous legislature, in our experience of government, one of the very first points was: we need to imagine what San Marino wants to become ten years from now, and we need to do it all together, because that vision should have guided the negotiations with the European Union.
Are we satisfied with what has been achieved? Ideologically, we can say yes, because greater integration can bring opportunities. Technically, can we say yes? No, because from our point of view this is not the way to carry out an initiative that you yourselves are now admitting will completely transform the country’s identity and structure.
Imagine if my political movement were against policies that follow the rules and put the country first: we have proven this in practice. Imagine if we were against openness, meritocracy and attracting investment.
The problem is that, until recently, the goal seemed to be simply getting the signature, while we kept saying that the agreement is a tool: if minds, intentions and approaches do not change, it will serve no purpose.
The previous speeches suggest that from now on we must think about economic development, attracting investment, young people, meritocracy and cutting red tape. But not before now?
Over the more than twelve years since the negotiations began, shouldn’t we have been thinking about these things, demanding that the political class focus exclusively on the country’s interests, instead of being dragged into the scandals that have hit us and continue to do so? Some are still ongoing.
Think of the political class that escorted multinationals and development opportunities across the border on the basis of false information and fabricated accounts. If the mindset of that political class does not change, do you really think we will have a future in Europe simply because we signed the agreement on 19 October? The problem is that the people are the same, and the approach is the same.
Domani Motus Liberi is not the only one talking about the need for forward-looking thinking on economic development. The latest report by the International Monetary Fund also highlighted several aspects that need to be considered.
When we said that the public administration kept hiring indiscriminately, without planning and for purely electoral and political purposes, were we wrong?
Today an IMF report tells us exactly that.
Also during a meeting we had — and I don’t think I’m revealing anything confidential — when the recent wave of indiscriminate hiring was mentioned, we were told: it will all be linked to the European Union. No, none of it is, because there is no implementation plan.
To sum up: today we are faced with a signature that has already been made, so we will now have to talk about ratification and the path it will take. Are we satisfied with how we got here?
No, because we would have managed the negotiation in a completely different way, which does not mean not negotiating with the European Union at all. There are different ways of approaching a negotiating table. Above all, we criticize the lack of national planning for economic development that could have guided the negotiation. From now on, we are bound by the framework of a signed agreement, which we will have to implement according to the rules it sets out.
Before that, though, I would like to raise another point that finally someone else is beginning to stress as well: the implementation process cannot begin without having listened to — or by pretending it doesn’t exist — the demand coming from the population. What is being asked for is not simply a dialogue in which the reasons and the methods are explained: people are asking for direct involvement through a referendum.
It is not only Domani Motus Liberi saying this. Repubblica Futura itself — which can be accused of many things, but certainly not of being euroskeptic or having issues with the European Union — carried out a survey showing that more than 60%, 62-63%, want a referendum.
You often refer back to the referendum of previous years, the one on accession, which certainly was not about joining, and you consider it valid because, as you say, the people expressed their will. Well, go back and look at the question: it asked, as an outcome, for a confirmatory referendum, initiated by the Council, on ratification.
It cannot be pretended that this request does not exist.
This is not a matter of being for or against the agreement, but of respecting the country’s democratic rules and the principle, enshrined in the Declaration of Citizens’ Rights, that sovereignty — even within our representative democracy — always resides with the people. If they ask to exercise it directly, they must be listened to and respected.
We fully agree that any referendum must be an informed one. We are in favour of holding a referendum, but we are not saying it should take place tomorrow morning, without an adequate process to further clarify the doubts that still remain. This is a matter to be addressed beforehand, not afterwards.
The other key point — something that was not done earlier, a major failing of the political class, but which can still be done now — is to consciously plan the implementation of the agreement, identifying as priorities the sectors where we believe the greatest opportunities lie. We have clear ideas: for example, economic development linked to new technologies, new economic models and the banking sector.
These are the issues that need to be explored in depth.
Do you really think that in Europe we will keep doing banking the way we have done so far, with physical branches? We must not forget that many issues could already have been resolved: there was talk of the failure to recognize cards and payment systems, but solutions have existed for years, with new tools and payment methods. We need to reflect on the fact that someone deliberately blocked those paths.
This leads me to say that one of the first necessary reforms remains a reform of people, not merely a technical and economic one.
Then there are the implementation costs: we need to understand how much they amount to, where they lie, and where the resources will come from. Here too, planning is needed, because the IMF tells us that maintaining debt stability is good, but if we use it for current spending we will get nowhere without proper investment planning.
None of this will come from signing a piece of paper: it will come from a change in mindset among those who govern the country.”
