Address by President Sergio Mattarella at the 41st edition of the The European House - Ambrosetti Forum in Villa d'Este

I address a cordial greeting to the moderator, the speakers and to the participants in the Ambrosetti Forum. Your debate has opportunely focused on the "agenda for Europe".
I believe this agenda will reveal to be all the more effective depending on how much it avoids limiting its scope to a list of emergency interventions.

The emergency logic is making Europe weaker, its citizens more insecure and is producing diffidence among Member Countries. On the contrary, what is needed is an adequate long-term policy and being aware that we share a common fate. Fear must be defeated and shared interests must once again form the basis for the continent's strategy. Crises must not paralyse us. Europe, as Jean Monnet used to say, developed during times of crisis and it was through crises that enlightened statesmen were able to perceive and pursue growth objectives.

Europe is in the middle of a historic transition similar to the ones indicated by Monnet. Allow me to refer to two crucial issues on which we now see that Europe's action lacks effectiveness.

We see it in the lack of economic governance these past few years.
We see it in the terrifying tragedies of refugees and migrants, which are becoming ever-more frequent.

As for the first issue, the lack of governance increases disparities within the Union, hinders the capacity to promote growth and prevents Europe from playing a role in global crises, as it recently happened in the wake of the events in Chinese stock exchanges.

There is a line linking our powerlessness to individual egoisms. They prevent the European Union from playing an authoritative and incisive balancing role in the global scenario. They hinder the capacity to define, within the Continent, an economic policy focused on the stability of public finances, but at the same time capable of optimising the potentials, resources and human capital that Europe disposes of, thus narrowing territorial and social disequilibria.

We have avoided Greece exiting the Eurozone, we implemented the European Stability Mechanism, we have put in place a banking Union: this shows that we are capable of reacting when we are on the brink of rupture. It is a positive signal but it is not sufficient.

Turning now to the second issue, the one of immigration, delusively closing barriers and inertias are dramatically repudiating the values of our civilisation. Heart breaking images - like the ones of little Aylan - are in conflict with these values and are in contrast with our very idea of humanity. Emotion sometimes pierces the wall of indifference, although we are far from perceiving the epochal nature and the magnitude of the migration phenomenon. We still have a long way to go in developing common policies and in standing up to the challenge. The spectre that we sometimes see looming is a Europe of fear, of barriers, of vetoes. It is an ex-post rear-guard Europe that, by behaving thus, fuels nationalisms and populisms.

Apart from sharing the same timeframe, what else do the two crises, the economic and migration crises, have in common?

One thing is sure: it will be impossible to overcome these crises according to the recipes of the past. I surely do not have to remind the participants in this Forum that the horizon that businessmen and economic and financial agents are looking at, and that they need, now extends well beyond national confines. Businessmen and economic and financial agents are the necessary interlocutors of national States, although these - the national States - are no longer the necessary, or at least decisive, interlocutors of businessmen and agents.

This very same asymmetry, disproportion and inadequacy of national States is what marks their relationship with the migration phenomenon.

It is also for these reasons that, despite the critical spirit with which we look at the limits of today's Europe, I feel more pro-European now than ever. Along with the idealistic reasons and admiration for the savviness, courage and historical vision of the founders, what is happening now increasingly highlights the need for ever-more integration, not only through homogeneous policies but necessarily also through adequate common institutions.

It is an illusion to think that the end of the Euro, or its weakening, can give back to the national States their lost sovereignty: it is history that makes some of these elements anachronistic.

Without the Union all European countries would become poorer with the return of zestless national markets stopping at national borders: the economy would pay an even higher price with the loss not only of production and commercial potential, but above all of those intangible goods that have become the connective tissue of our societies and of our civil model, starting from European citizenship. European policies - both those on the single labour market laid down in the Treaties and those for the energy and infrastructure markets, telecommunications, space policies and regional cohesion - are part of our everyday life and we could no longer do without them. As a matter of fact, we should increase them.

At the same time it is an illusion to think that suspending the Schengen rules or giving life to a Tier 1 and Tier 2 system could guarantee the security of the part of Europe that now feels under threat. Any attempt to close borders is inevitably revealing to be an illusion in the light of the magnitude of migration flows.

It is a phenomenon of unprecedented dimensions and the perspective for the future is ever-larger migration flows for which there is no strategic solution. This is why, these past few days, some of the Founding Members have called upon the whole European Union to undertake common and effective action.

These two aspects of the crisis are pressing us into taking quick action. It is not possible to take shortcuts and think of leaving the problem solving to the next ruling class, because the future is already here.

This is what makes Europe a historically set course. We have to manifest the same willingness shown when the European Union unhesitatingly opened its doors to Eastern Europe, giving priority, above all other considerations, to the idealistic reason of reuniting the Continent. This time the historically idealistic reason coincides with convenience, with the interest of the European Union and of all its Member Countries.
We must be aware of the fact that the goals achieved are not guaranteed for ever. Historically, democracy and welfare societies were realised within the national States. Today we can only defend them at continental level. In a narrower space, they would risk perishing.

As for the Euro, we need to go from common rules to common institutions. President Mario Draghi was very effective in synthesising this goal, which I fully agree with. The single currency held a promise that has not yet been realised: political union. The single currency was not a starting point but rather a necessary stage to go through in order to usher in a new phase of the integration process. It was meant to lead to developing instruments for common economic policy initiatives.

The crisis has cast light on the incompleteness of the Euro system and must therefore induce us to urgently make up for lost time. Of course, the delays accumulated have made this process all the more complicated. However, I repeat, it is not possible to give it up. Processes cannot be frozen indefinitely because they deteriorate and lose ground.

This has given rise to an opportune debate throughout the continent on the governance of the Euro area, which in substance involves the whole architecture of the European Union. It is not my task to go into the merit of a debate that is open to governments and parliaments.

However, I think I can say that we are faced with the compelling need of greater integration, of a more participatory and democratic governance of the Euro area. Economic policies cannot be exclusively entrusted to strictly inter-governmental contexts and, even less so, to meetings between two or three leaders. In order to regulate them we need to establish an EU institution, in the form that may be considered the most appropriate. Any table on the Eurozone must also be supported by democratic parliamentary consensus. The single European currency and the valuable role played by the Central European Bank cannot be sufficient.

Turning back to the migration phenomenon, it is necessary to look further into the future. We hope that the upcoming extraordinary meeting on immigration in mid-September will reveal to be a good starting point in order to then proceed to the November meeting in La Valletta, which is expected to link the issue of immigration to strengthening cooperation with the Countries that originate migration flows. It is necessary to interlink serious and forward-looking policies at the appropriate international level, with the primary aim of tackling the immediate and remote causes of migration phenomena, making flows more manageable, possibly integrating job seekers and job holders, and making our cities safer. The seriousness of these policies must be based on collaboration with the poorer Countries and on investments facilitating their growth and removing the unliveable conditions that drive their citizens to face any danger in their attempt to reach Europe; a space of wellbeing, peace and certainty of rights. They must also obviously be based on agreements aimed at putting an end to human trafficking and clamping down on traffickers.
I hope that we are finally on the road towards a common regulation of the right of asylum. To override the old Dublin Convention with new and updated common rules is a necessary step forward.

The alternative is not between surrendering to being invaded and allegedly defending the "European Fortress". The alternative is between a Europe which forges its own destiny and a Europe that undergoes events without knowing how to manage them.

The world is moving on the legs of millions of women, men and children: a defenceless army marching in the pursuit of deliverance. How can we object to their reasons? Are they, the fugitives from violence and death, the enemy? Or does not our enemy rather lie in the wars and in the variously funded international terrorisms, which are what we need to fight with determination, primarily on the grounds of culture and liberty?

The North-South axis is key to the European agenda. We should not think that the eastern border is the most sensitive for Europe.

A common European policy - capable of establishing peace-oriented economic relations in the Mediterranean - is also our best possible weapon against terrorism.

Daesh is putting all North African Countries under pressure and evidently aims to take hold of the most run-down suburbs of European cities. The best antidote that we can find is to dry up the repositories of hatred, promote cooperation, prove that democracies are more credible and appealing because they offer opportunities of life, development and the protection of rights instead of death and destruction.

In this global challenge, it is our duty to modernise our Country and make it better. A priority is undoubtedly the supremacy of legality, fighting all forms of corruption, and waging an uncompromising war on all forms of mafia-style crime.

Also in this case, our wish is not only moral but very concrete. Illegality and corruption not only pollute civil coexistence but harm society, the economy and also the quality of democracy.

Public opinion has rightly become acutely sensitive to this problem. I am not at all saying that corruption and illegality are a prevalently Italian evil although I do hope that our crime detection instruments will always stay alert.

When we leave our Country, we become aware of people's appreciation of our history, our culture, our creativity. Institutions have the duty to be at the service of Italian quality and of its development. The Milan Expo, which was just mentioned by our moderator, Enrico Letta, was proof of this. The figures relative to these past few months show that a new leap forward in Italy's development is feasible. We must all promptly grasp all new opportunities.

The future of Italy is very closely intertwined with the destiny of Europe. Europe's agenda is our agenda, starting with the need to strike a balance between budgetary discipline and prospects of economic and social growth. Economic stability cannot only concern the currency and the finance sector, where much progress has been made, but must also involve growth and employment.

We, as a Country, have a weighty public debt which should nonetheless be considered alongside the Italians' large amount of private savings, which help us to unashamedly participate in the European debate.

Managing our public debt requires responsible choices and the confidence of markets, of other Countries and of our fellow citizens. When we have been called to make sacrifices, even painful, we have always braved them.
With the same firmness and energy we must now act to orient Europe's whole political system and institutions to make strategic investments in research, innovation and sustainability.

The problem of employment involves all of Europe; it cannot be ranked last among the economic variables.

In conclusion, more Europe does not mean more constraints and more red tape. More Europe means being aware that this is the dimension of global challenges.

We intend to commit in favour of this strategy. We feel this to be our duty, also as a Founding Member of the European Union. All the Countries have a crucial role and responsibility in this epochal transition. I think that the Founding Members which, over 60 years ago, did not surrender at the failure of the European Defence Community, now too have the particular responsibility of contributing to opening a new season to relaunch the European Union.