Fabio Righi (D-ML) once again puts the referendum on the Association Agreement with the European Union at the centre of the debate. In his address to the Foreign Affairs Committee, the councillor reiterated that his party will introduce a bill for a council-initiated referendum immediately after the signing, also citing a survey showing that more than 52% of San Marino citizens would be in favour of such a consultation.
Righi also voiced strong concerns over the provisional entry into force of the agreement, the level of preparedness of the Public Administration, and the way San Marino intends to approach the transposition of the EU acquis. He was equally critical of proposals to introduce fast-track legislative tools, arguing that “the solution to this kind of implementation is not less political — it is more political.”
Below is the full text of Fabio Righi’s (D-ML) remarks, unedited.
“Regarding the Secretary’s remarks, there are a few points I would like to draw attention to. I won’t reopen the broader debate on the Agreement itself, because given everything that has happened in recent months, we are now heading towards the signing — so I won’t revisit the negotiation process or how, from our point of view, it should have been handled differently. We have been given a timeline, between the end of September and mid-October. It disappoints me and my political force that, within this Committee and within our institutional chambers, a strong message coming from the population continues to be disregarded — a message that comes even before the issue of provisional entry into force: the referendum. This is an issue we must address, because if you speak to the population, the message today is clear. I therefore reaffirm the position my party has held from the very beginning: we have already said it, and we will propose a bill for a council-initiated referendum immediately after the signing. We have said this in every possible way by now. We cannot ignore the fact that, up to this point, beyond the bureaucratic niceties over how the questions should be worded, the population has repeatedly stressed this need. There is also a survey conducted by our colleagues from RF, and today I found myself largely in agreement with their remarks, because the same concerns we have voiced for some time are finally emerging elsewhere too. No one could possibly claim that party is against an agreement with the European Union. And yet, a survey from that very party tells us that more than 52% of the country wants a referendum. From our point of view, this shouldn’t even be up for debate, because it cannot be an option — it must be a democratic duty to ensure that, in such a small country, the population above all has its say. I say this because we link this issue to respect for a democratic principle. Otherwise, have the courage to abolish the referendum as an institution altogether, because if it isn’t used on an issue like this one, then I don’t know what it would ever be used for. Yet I don’t hear this issue being addressed in this chamber, and I believe it is a matter that will require attention and that you will have to engage with. I move to the second point: provisional entry into force. Here too, allow me to say that it is being presented as a great success, while we continue to express very strong concern. Over time, this aspect too has been dismissed as a minor technicality, but the negotiation has changed shape: it used to be exclusive — meaning a signature would trigger entry into force — and it has now become something different. It is true that we have had other agreements in the past that awaited ratification, but even so, it is no small matter to begin implementing an agreement like this one, which will only become final once all 27 member states have ratified it. This too has been largely glossed over. Implementing this Agreement doesn’t mean passing two laws: we are talking about more than 7,000 measures, millions in investment, staffing increases within the Public Administration, and a great many things that — should there be a stumble tomorrow — would certainly not come at zero cost. So the fact that this is being presented so casually gives us a whole series of concerns. Moving on to further points. Regarding the various pieces of legislation reportedly being drafted, a huge number of areas have been touched upon: from the environment to labour, from residency to statistics, from competition to consumer protection, to workplace safety, and then there’s everything else. We have always firmly believed — and I reaffirm this now — that this kind of work, namely figuring out how to reshape our legal system, should have been done beforehand. Here, from our point of view, there is a question of political responsibility, because we are not saying this only now: we said it during the last legislature too, when we were in government, because that kind of reasoning and analysis should and could have guided the negotiation. We cannot think about it only now, because when you negotiate, the scope of what you negotiate reflects where you want to end up. Today, judging from some of the remarks made, it seems we are still trying to imagine what things should or shouldn’t look like. That is not the right approach to a negotiation. Anyone could tell you that. Fine, that’s how it went, but it needs to be clear, because this too is an issue. Today, on top of this, we are being told that a whole series of texts are being drafted, some already written, on which once again there has been no consultation whatsoever. We are only learning today the list of areas under work and the related legislation. I believe this too deserves some reflection. In a normal world, or at least in the way we would have handled it, before putting pen to paper and before instructing the offices to do so — given that legislative power rests with the Grand and General Council (Consiglio Grande e Generale) and therefore with the political forces that make it up — a political debate should have been opened on how to design that legislation, and therefore on how to redesign our legal system, which, by your own admission, will change profoundly. Instead, today we are told: don’t worry, because at some point, as a favour, you might be given some material to discuss. But that is the bare minimum. I believe it must be done. There are other points worth touching on. The time has clearly come to step outside the dynamics of the media campaign surrounding the Agreement, as shown even by statements made by members of government. This too has been said by other councillors, not just by me. Someone claims that nothing will change in the world of work. The problem is that this wasn’t said by some random passer-by: it was said by the Minister of Labour, the Secretary of State for Labour. So I have the impression, once again, that far too many things have been said far too simplistically over these past months, in an effort to persuade everyone and bring them along this path. But now we have more or less arrived at the crux of the matter. I say this to reaffirm, even more forcefully, the concern that exists today, because living in this country, which is small, one can feel firsthand every day the issue of the Public Administration’s lack of preparedness, and the fact that some people — including senior officials — believe we are not currently equipped to handle this. This is an enormous problem, and in relation to it we had even proposed, during council proceedings, a motion — rejected without a second thought — which called for a defined path, with set timeframes, to reason through the implementation of the Agreement. You have now brought us to this point, so we will have to reason through it. Clearly, the referendum issue needs to be addressed first, and then we’ll see how things unfold, whether it happens or not, because from our standpoint it must happen. But the issue of implementation is not secondary either. As things stand, we could embark on this path without even knowing whether we will need to amend our Declaration of Rights. Perhaps you know the answer, but then let’s discuss it, because on our side we do not know, and you’ll understand that these are all matters that deserve careful examination. Even in the remarks made before mine, I heard some passages that give me goosebumps: now we’re supposed to imagine that where there used to be the memorandum with the Bank of Italy, there is now the “clarifying addendum.” This too will be an issue we need to bring to the attention of the political forces: what kind of supervision do we want? Why do we want it? How do we want it? These are all open questions. This worries me further because, among other things, I had been told in no uncertain terms that the relationship with the Bank of Italy and with the Italian side was no longer necessary, and yet today it once again becomes the central focus of the political debate. So I believe there will certainly be an enormous and never-ending amount of work to do, but it is worrying that, in the face of all this, there appears to be either no framework at all, or a framework that has already been sealed — one that you are aware of, but that we have not been informed about. I come to my final point, and then I’ll move towards a conclusion: what, from my point of view and from ours, are the outrageous statements I heard today in this chamber. Faced with the kind of work that may await us in implementing the Agreement, there is talk of solutions that do not strengthen our institutions, do not strengthen political dialogue, and do not strengthen democratic dialogue — but instead cut it short for the sake of convenience. This too is no small matter, and I invite you to reflect on it, because with regard to what lies ahead for our institutions, the answer should not be to silence debate or cut down on moments of discussion. Perhaps instead we should start thinking about professionalising the political role, for example. Because I have heard it said that there are things that might not concern us, but we are the institutions of this country, we are this country’s Parliament, within a representative democracy. Everything that passes through this country’s laws concerns us, and it is not right to delegate matters to the civil service through an omnibus law. We therefore need to ask ourselves how to put our institutions in a position to stay on top of everything that comes up for discussion, even at a bureaucratic level, rather than thinking up regulations that cut short debate and dialogue, or amendments like the ones you have partly put before us. We must have the courage to say this too: the situation we are about to face calls for serious reflection on institutional reform. Can we continue to think about the country’s interests as members of Parliament, of the Grand and General Council, essentially in our spare time? This only further reinforces the position of a government that all too often drifts into serious excesses, one that doesn’t even maintain a proper relationship with its own majority. This should lead all of us to deep reflection. The prospect of an amendment being drafted to introduce fast-track tools does not convince me: the solution to this kind of implementation is not less political — it is more political. Not accelerated procedures. From our point of view, the procedures should remain as they are, but there needs to be deeper political work, of debate and discussion, including outside institutional settings, as happens everywhere else in the world, so as to arrive prepared — and faster — once inside those institutional settings. Because if debate and discussion take place around the political table, rather than in the way you have accustomed us to of late — when amendments arrive at the very last second, or pages upon pages of them arrive, as happened no later than twenty-four hours ago, when we found ourselves holding three pages of amendments at the very opening of the discussion on that item — then things could work differently. Instead, what is your solution? A guillotine on discussion time. You must understand that there is something deeply unhealthy in all this, and it worries me, it continues to worry us profoundly. I invite you once again, in a spirit of implementation, to begin reasoning through this properly — to identify priorities, pathways, topics, subject areas, and a shared strategy for tackling these issues. Today, the opposition knows nothing about any of this, and in a democratic country, I think something doesn’t add up.”
