Address by President Sergio Mattarella at the London School of Economics

I am particularly grateful for the invitation extended to me by the London School of Economics, an invitation which honours me in consideration of this great academic Institution's prestigious history and of the value of the many thoughts that have originated here, often with the aim of changing our reality for the better.
I am addressing you today in the capacity of President of one of the Founding States of the European project, which was launched on the 18th of April 1951 with the signing of the Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community.

A European project that - over the years - has made valuable use of the participation of many and, of course, of the priceless contribution made by many citizens of the Country that is hosting us today, starting from Winston Churchill who, with his speech at the Zurich University in 1946, became one of the inspirers of the cause of the "United States of Europe".

A project - that of the European Union - which cannot be considered fully accomplished yet and that, in many ways, is seen to foreign eyes as having the typical connotations of "work in progress".

Today, I would like to present our vision of Europe and its future - naturally, with full respect for different opinions - which is in line with the pro-European spirit and sentiment that has continued to be at the centre of Italy's political debate and international actions for over 60 years.

This spirit has not weakened over these somewhat troubled years that have seen Europe afflicted by pestering problems, including an economic crisis that only now appears to be slowly slackening.

Persisting financial difficulties and frictions in managing the single currency in the Eurozone, the immigration emergency, with the dramatic tragedies of these past few years, and the problem of security at our borders, are all the challenges facing the European Union Countries and their citizens.

To all this we must add a latent sense of mistrust of Institutions among European public opinion, which are too often perceived as estranged and excessively focused on "bureaucratic liturgies" incomprehensible to most people.

The bewilderment that is being recently perceived also in traditionally pro-European circles is in many ways unprecedented: we must perhaps backtrack to 1954, immediately after the failure of the European Defence Community, to find an atmosphere comparable to today's. On that occasion it was Jean Monnet who gave new impetus to the vision of Europe, which he recalled in his memoirs with the following words: "Many thought it was a cataclysm but I, although very disappointed, did not think that the end of the EDC project was the end of Europe. Once again I had to explain to my friends that there are no defeats other than the ones we accept."
As we know, the Founding Countries did not accept that defeat and the common European project regained momentum at the Messina Conference.

However two points must be kept in mind: during those years the memory of the two World Wars, the consequences of which still permeated Europe's civil conscience and marked the very life of people throughout the continent, constituted a basic fact for public opinion as well as for the ruling classes. Secondly, the external pressure exerted by the then consolidated bipolar conflicting interpretations of the world almost naturally drove European Countries towards "keeping united".

The integration process therefore developed upon a virtuous dynamic that, on the basis of the intuition of the "Founding Fathers", of inevitable geopolitical needs and of the widespread support of public opinion, led the Union to address an ever-wider range of issues, thus attracting almost all the Countries in the continent.

The reinforcement of the single market - traditionally dear to the United Kingdom - is a result of these dynamics and the efforts made to achieve an even deeper level of integration in this area constitute one of the historic achievements of Britain's participation in the Union.

The free movement of people, in addition to goods and capital, increases European citizens' possibility to choose where to live and work, and to study in the place where they can create the greatest value added for the future of each individual and of our civil societies.

And it is precisely on the basis of this considerable degree of economic integration that some of the Member Countries progressively succeeded to conceive and implement a Monetary Union. Also in this case - as in the case of the free movement of people - this happened in a way that was very respectful of the sensitivities of all the States, guaranteeing anyone unwilling or unready to join the possibility of opting out.

We now roughly find ourselves at this stage of development: we have a Union that we could still well define as "work in progress", driven by the desire to go forward but also by geopolitical crises that - for the first time since the end of the Cold War - encroach on our borders, South and East.

Today we are thus faced with renewed trials, which would be inadequate and almost childish to flee, retracing our steps.

Global challenges require a response of equal dimension and our wealth of history will not suffice to compete with the economic and political giants that are asserting themselves on a global scale. Only greater integration can enable European Countries to stand up to their task in the future.

The question to ask ourselves now is therefore quite simple: how can we respond to all this, in the interest of Europeans?
The answer - as is often the case - is not as obvious as it would seem.
I will try to find a possible answer through a quick review of what happened during the past few years.
* * *

Let's talk about the financial crisis. Upon a careful analysis, it has given us the opportunity to strengthen the Union, for example through the creation of the European Financial Stabilisation Mechanism, thanks to which we are now better equipped to respond to market shocks, especially on public securities. Thanks to instruments like the Single Resolution Mechanism and the fine-tuning of mechanisms controlling the exposure and capitalisation of major credit institutions, we have made the whole European banking system sounder.
Furthermore, the European Central Bank gradually acquired an authoritative profile that was questioned by many before the crisis.

The difficult but necessary interplay between budgetary discipline and growth ultimately led the Commission to interpret the rules in a way that constitutes a concrete answer to overcoming the problem.

I am therefore confident that, on the basis of what has been built, also the difficulties of Greece - which other European Countries have encountered - may be overcome.

However all these answers arise from the need to tackle emergency situations: today, with the risks that we ran and the errors we made still fresh in our memories, we must consolidate what we have built and aim for what underlies the adoption of a Single Currency, i.e. a progressive Political Union.

The roadmap launched by President Juncker, together with the Presidents of the European Council, of the ECB and of the Eurogroup, for a new relationship delineating the next steps to be taken in order to make the governance of the Euro area more stable and the choice of a single currency irreversible, goes precisely in this direction. An ambitious path that the Countries of the Eurozone cannot opt to not take. It is a roadmap to which we are trying to contribute detailed ideas, not only because of the importance of the matter but because this enables us to highlight an aspect that is crucial for us: viewing the single currency as an important transition towards the establishment of a stronger and more credible Union.

* * *

The principle that the "crisis is the driving force of development" is finding application not only in economic and financial sectors but also in the management of the migration crisis - an epochal emergency for its scale and its dramatic consequences - in the face of which Europe is just now beginning to develop a common policy.
We must therefore question ourselves on the reasons underlying a situation that appears to be without precedents and backtrack to the refugee situation immediately after the end of World War II and to the biblical displacements of people resulting from the independence process of several Countries.

Only thus will the solutions and policies to be adopted be far-sighted.

What is at stake in the migration crisis? A lot, and this is not always adequately highlighted in public debate. The first thing that is at stake are our values, those that have enabled us, for the first time in centuries, to live in a condition of peace, liberty, democracy and social and economic development for almost 60 years. These are values that many of the migrants who knock on our doors have never had the chance to enjoy. Reception policies thus become a sort of mirror in which we find reflected the light of these same values, if they, as I strongly believe, still constitute the cornerstone of our society.

Europe is an ideal. It is a value system based on peace among its nations, on liberties and on the respect for citizens' rights. It is its being a point of reference for these values that makes it the destination of the multitudes fleeing from their Countries, the victims of wars, ethnic and religious persecutions, famines and underdevelopment. This is what makes the difference: affirming the principles of the Rule of Law has led the European continent to become the largest democratic area ever and to propagate among neighbouring Countries the goal of achieving these standards. Its capacity for inclusion is surely a more effective model for affirming the value of democracy than any unrealistic, recurrent temptation to export it by military intervention.

The migration crisis also raises questions both on the failure to solve the big problems that afflict the Countries and peoples who live not far from our borders and on our capacity to jointly give coherent answers. The most dangerous threats to our stability are now coming from the Mediterranean area, and these require a strong, cohesive Europe that speaks - and especially acts - with one voice. In the face of these challenges, Italy has had the strength to fully shoulder the mission of rescuing human lives at sea through the Mare Nostrum operation, which was launched immediately after the first, and unfortunately not the last, tragedy in Lampedusa, in October 2013. At the same time, during the Italian semester of rotating presidency of the European Union, we promoted the adoption of a common migration strategy based on dialogue and cooperation with the Countries of origin and transit of migration flows, increasing maritime patrols and the completion of the Common European Asylum System.

The financial unsustainability of Mare Nostrum and the criticisms - indeed entirely ungrounded - made by some European partners on the operation's presumed effect of attracting migration flows, determined the end of the experience. At the same time, Europe launched the Triton mission which, after a dramatic rise in migration flows and additional tragedies with several hundred lives lost, will now be allocated more adequate resources for the task it has been assigned to perform.

Triton, albeit a concrete representation of a common European effort to manage its Mediterranean borders, is the tangible proof that emergency responses do not suffice.

We need long-term decisions indicating a course of action, as for example the need to decisively strengthen cooperation with the Countries of origin and transit of migration flows. In this respect, last April's European Council meeting and the Commission's decision to draft a "European Agenda on Migration" represent a step forward.

From responding to a contingency we are finally moving on to having a long-term strategic vision. Strategy, in Europe, is often synonymous with rediscovering the values underlying the history of the European integration process, especially solidarity. Solidarity is what we are now asked to give to populations who, in the vast majority, flee extreme situations in search, as I have attempted to say, of refuge - and a better life - in a Europe that is seen as a place of solidarity and democracy.

Our great regret in this respect is the delay with which the European machine got started. Too many deaths, unfortunately, have been necessary to awaken our collective conscience!

Some of the steps taken during the last few weeks are in the right direction. We now wait for these decisions be transformed into concrete, and hopefully incisive, regulations giving European reception policies the necessary long-term perspective.
Only by striking a balance between very short-term policies and longer-term policies will the European Union be able to measure up to a phenomenon, migration, which could reach epochal dimensions, as it has done on other occasions in the history of mankind.

An incisive foreign policy on the part of the Union, capable of continuing and enhancing peace and stabilisation initiatives in Africa and in the Middle East, promoting development in these frontier areas, is the essential condition to be met.

* * *
And this is another dimension of European integration: a common foreign and security policy, to be put in place following the words of Aldo Moro: "No one is called upon to choose whether to be in Europe or in the Mediterranean, because the whole of Europe is in the Mediterranean."
This includes Atlantic Europe.

This is a fundamental dimension in which the Union is laboriously trudging through.

The threats of these last few months, terrorism and instability coming from the Southern flank and the persisting Ukrainian crisis, have plunged us back in moments of our history when one of the "deep forces" that favoured our progressive integration was precisely external pressure.

Today, especially in the Mediterranean, we find ourselves operating in a deeply unstable scenario that cannot be tackled if not through a common action.
The possible soldering of Islamic terrorism in Sub-Saharan Africa, with diffuse instability in the Middle East, configures a broad and dangerous area of crisis that requires us to join efforts in terms of foreign policy decisions, security provisions and defence strategies. We cannot think that the stabilisation of whole countries, such as Libya, or our contributing to pacify Iraq and Syria, can be successfully achieved without common, credible, and unequivocal European action.

And here we must clearly say the following: we need a strong and incisive foreign security and defence policy, with Institutions politically empowered to make an effective synthesis between the interests of the Member States and those of the European Union as a whole.

Italy has always been among the most active Countries in promoting a European Foreign and Security Policy and, more in general, a new idea of "European Defence". This is our commitment, also in view of the European Council meeting to be held in June, which follows up on the work done in the past. The goal of a more effective and cohesive security and defence policy must be achieved not through an ideological approach but pragmatically and gradually, in order to obtain a staunch consensus among all those involved.

Today Member States present smaller Defence budgets, which are poorly coordinated and exclusively laid out according to national criteria, while our Allies across the Atlantic not mistakenly hope we make more sizable investments.

In this context, the only solution lies in progressively abandoning the old paradigm of purely national defence and armaments policies, thus beginning a gradual but irreversible process to coordinate defence budgets and to develop common capabilities. Only thus will we be able to make the best use of available resources and become a Continent that fully guarantees and not merely benefits from security.

* * *

Financial crises, immigration, foreign and defence policies: I have tried to outline the themes that clearly show how single short-term visions alone, albeit indispensable, are not enough.
They become sufficient if, upon them, we build a coherent long-term vision of progressive integration. In other words, whatever the starting point, the conclusion is always the same: we need "more Europe".

However, we must avoid the tendency too often echoed in the ongoing debate on the future course of the Union, namely looking at possible evolutions only in terms of "returns" or benefits at national level.

It is a narrow vision for at least two reasons: firstly because it converts negotiations into a zero-sum game, thus hindering any agreement; secondly because what is convenient today might not be tomorrow, in the light of different political and economic conditions.

The traditional juxtaposition in Europe between inter-governmental policies and community efforts reveals to be entirely sterile.
The concept of greater integration, i.e. "more Europe", belongs to a different category: that of strategic and irreversible choices whereby courageous decisions taken today mean advantageous investments for tomorrow.
There is no doubt however that this conclusion, in order to be effective and not mere wishful thinking, needs to be configured according to the different sensitivities and situations found in the Union today.

In effect, on the one hand we have the Eurozone, which requires some rebalancing; on the other hand, a group of Countries that have chosen different forms of integration in a few sectors.

The Union must look at the needs of each Member State with respect and understanding, although nothing must stop the future integration process, should it become necessary.

In the Countries in the Eurozone for example, the reality of the crisis shows that stopping at this phase of the integration process would neither protect the single currency nor the prosperity that has come with it.
President Draghi rightly observed on this matter that, for however much was done during the crisis, it is "not commensurate with the long-term necessities of being part of a Monetary Union", thus suggesting a leap forward from "common rules" to "common institutions".

On the other hand, some of the requests put forward by non-Euro Countries, including the need to deepen the integration of the single market, especially in the service sector, and the need for better quality in European legislation and less "bureaucracy", not only cannot be ignored but must instead be debated and analysed in the interest of the Union as a whole, in the light of decisions based on coherent political solidarity.

The motto of the European Union is "united in diversity". Someone has cleverly added that Europe, by definition, is a sum of minorities. Different sensitivities must be preserved, cultivated and used to enrich the Union's capacity for initiative. Europe is not uniform nor can it conform to a single dimension, neglecting the wealth of its historical diversities. By its very nature, Europe is against a pensée unique: its capacity for a differentiated integration is a potential advantage in global competition.
 
It is within this broad dialectic discourse that we must find the force and conviction for ambitious objectives: a Europe more effective and quicker in making decisions and a Europe more democratic in controlling them; a Europe capable of respecting the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality while continuing to make progress towards an ever-closer cohesion.

Experiences limited to the simple activation of free trade areas have amply revealed their weaknesses, including in the recent past.

When a newly liberated and democratic Italy started taking its first steps forward, Alcide De Gasperi said: "In order to resist we must resort to the reconstructive and unitary forces of all of Europe. Against the encroachment of instinctive and irrational forces there is only the possibility of ultimately appealing to the needs of our common civilisation: to establish this solidarity in the reasoning and in the sentiment of liberty and justice, and instil a United Europe with the heroic spirit of liberty and sacrifice always conveyed by the decisions taken in the decisive hours of history!"
These words appear to me to be topical today.

We are all now called upon to show the same courage.