I am very satisfied with the results of this European Council meeting. The key issues that Italy has been raising in the last months are now a reality.

I am talking about migration and the matter of focusing Europe’s attention on migration and the external dimension, which is something that was unthinkable a few months ago but is now basically shared by everyone.

I am also talking about the fact that, with regard to the economy, when we discussed how to address the issue of European competitiveness, we had asked for a level playing field, also for countries with less fiscal space, i.e., full flexibility in using existing funds. Today, this is very present in the Commission’s proposals. I would like to remind you that, for Italy, this means approximately EUR 300 billion between Cohesion Funds and the National Recovery and Resilience Plan (‘NRRP’) that can be better spent and focused on the priorities.

I am very happy with the consensus we have managed to get from all the European Council regarding how we are addressing the relationship with Tunisia and I would like to draw your attention to the external relations section in the Council Conclusions: this means strategic partnership; this means not simply addressing the migration issue but addressing the issue of a different relationship between Europe and countries in North Africa. The Conclusions state that what we are doing in Tunisia can act as a model, and this is precisely where we would like to arrive with regard to the European Union’s relations with North African countries. 

In the revision of the multiannual budget, the Commission proposing to use up to EUR 15 billion for the external dimension means that we have managed to convince them on what is an ‘all-Italian’ approach. I remember the first European Council meetings I attended, when it was said that it would probably be better not to address this issue because there would never be consensus; clearly, we have managed to build consensus.

This is also the case for other matters that are important to me and on which, today, there is broad consensus: I am thinking of the European Council’s support for the African Union’s presence in the G20; I am thinking of the demographic issue, which has finally been mentioned in a European Council document. As you know, we are very focused on the demographic issue, the issue of the birth rate, and I have often asked myself why the European Union, which has a programme on many things, actually does not address one of the most important structural issues it faces, which is precisely the issue of the birth rate, as is also the case for artificial intelligence. As you will remember from the G7 and the European Council, I am continuing to raise the issue of governing a process that risks overwhelming us, and this is also included in today’s Council Conclusions. I therefore believe that Italy has played a leading role at this European Council meeting. I believe anyone who has followed the Council’s work will be able to confirm this, so I am satisfied with the work we have done.

[Courtesy translation]

QUESTIONS

Question: President Meloni, are you disappointed by Poland’s and Hungary’s stance on the migrant issue? 

President Meloni: No, I am not disappointed by Poland’s and Hungary’s stance. I am never disappointed with those who defend their own national interests, and the choice by Poland and Hungary does not regard my priority when it comes to immigration, which is the external dimension, but rather the internal dimension, i.e., the migration and asylum pact. This is precisely the point. From the outset, I have tried to explain that, if we look for solutions for managing the problem of migrants once they arrive to Europe, then we will never have unanimous consensus because our geographies are different, because our needs are different, because the situations are different, because the politics is different. The only way to address the issue all together is to work on the external dimension, and this is where we have managed to make a complete breakthrough in this debate, in relation to which I invite you to ask anyone who knows about the dynamics here.
With regard to what has happened with Poland and Hungary, we already knew about this because it had already happened on the migration and asylum pact. I understand their position, which in this case is different from ours, because we are all defending our national interests, but also because we have different needs from a geographical point of view. The point is that what we are working on - starting with Tunisia, so the external dimension - involves all European Council countries. There is unanimous consensus among all 27 members on this. I therefore believe we must continue to work on this, because everyone understands that the only way is to seek a win-win solution. 

[Courtesy translation]

Question: With regard to immigration, could there also be a risk in this sense, i.e., Hungary and Poland perhaps blocking the greater funds requested by the European Commission?

President Meloni: Not if they are resources allocated to the external dimension, precisely because what I’m saying is that there is consensus from everyone on this. Obviously, should it be believed that these resources are to be spent on understanding how to manage more migrants coming to Europe, then there would not even be my consensus, let alone that of Poland and Hungary. If, on the other hand, we use those resources to help Africa have an alternative in relation to the migration issue, which sometimes, actually almost always, is migration out of necessity, i.e., people who think they have no choice, if we offer them that choice, then we will solve several problems. This is not only about our problem of continuing to manage migration flows, that we are no longer able to manage, but it is also about a different approach with [this] continent (I shall insist on saying this and I have raised this matter, which had not been discussed before): Africa is not a poor continent; Africa is a continent that has many resources that it can live off if we give them a hand at this stage. Also on this, I have been met with a lot of interest and a lot of consensus. Among other things we have interests that may converge, and here I wish to mention the energy issue, as indeed I often have before. They are potentially huge producers of energy, above all clean energy. We have an energy supply problem. Italy is interested because it can be the gateway for this energy. Investments, jobs, training, legal migration when needed, but also fighting illegal flows. We were met with unanimous consensus on this, so we will continue to work, because these things must then be worked on, on a daily basis. We are also continuing to work to finally address this issue in a structural way: this is not a one-minute ad and it is not about solving your own problems by offloading them to your neighbour, because I do not agree with this either. This is why I think that the matter of the migration and asylum pact is secondary in this debate, because we will never find a solution that suits everyone anyway. It is not the perfect solution for us either: it is better than the previous rules, but it is not what I asked for. I am not asking for relocations, they are not my priority. I am asking that, together, we stop illegal migration upstream and do so through a strategic partnership with African countries, which is also useful for Africa and that, inter alia, gives Europe back the ability to play a foreign policy role, as a global player, as a key player, which is perhaps something that was missing in recent years and that we are now paying the price for, because Europe’s absence has been filled by others, who perhaps do not have the same solidarity-based interests as we do. 

[Courtesy translation]

Question: President Meloni, as has been recognised to a certain extent, somewhat of a mediation role has been played by Italy, by you, but how can those who still don’t agree be brought to a common position in the coming days, to reach a united position?

President Meloni: Look, this is certainly something on which we have a role to play. Although I perfectly understand the positions of Poland and Hungary, as I said, I have an excellent relationship with them, I nevertheless tried to mediate as much as I could, with the consent of all the other 25; we are continuing to work on this. I’ll be in Warsaw next Wednesday, for example. So, this is something that must continue to be worked on, but, I shall say it again, it is very difficult. What is the mediation about? The issue being raised by Poland and Hungary is not strange, because, as you know, Poland and Hungary are probably the two nations in Europe that are taking in, that are looking after, the most Ukrainian refugees. They are doing this with resources from the Commission that are certainly not sufficient, which is why, when we get the result that if relocations are not accepted (which is possible as they are on a voluntary basis), there is nevertheless the need to contribute to a fund for the external dimension, some say “excuse me, we cannot pay twice”. This is a serious matter, and mediation is possible. However, I believe it was more the method [used] for the choice, the fact that the migration and asylum pact was decided by majority, rather than the substance of the matter, because with regard to the substance of the Council Conclusions, which focused on the external dimension - I shall it again – we were all in agreement. Work is continuing on this and we can certainly play an important role but, I shall say it again, the easiest mediation of all, the one we used to mediate also with nations in relation to whom, historically, we had polar opposite positions on migration (I am thinking of the Netherlands), is this, and this is the only way to solve the problem for everyone: to address primary movements because, otherwise, it becomes impossible to address the secondary movements. No one is left alone and everyone is working on a problem to resolve everyone’s difficulties. This is what we are doing and I am proud because, objectively speaking, such an approach had never existed before in the European Union. 

[Courtesy translation]

[Inaudible question]

President Meloni: No, it doesn’t come out ‘bruised’ because the Pact is not under discussion. It was not discussed at the European Council meeting; the Pact has already been discussed, so it is not a matter to be discussed again. The position of Poland and Hungary was to express their disagreement on this matter, because it had already been agreed on, so the Pact will not be discussed again. I shall it again, for us it improves the rules, but I don’t believe we have resolved the immigration problem with the migration and asylum pact. I think that, for us, it improves the rules but I am still of the opinion that the issue must be addressed from a different point of view. This is what I am working on and this is what I have found consensus from everyone on, and so it is a win-win. We just need to be very concrete and that is what we are trying to do.

[Courtesy translation]

[Inaudible question]

President Meloni: No, it was not on the agenda of this Council meeting and wasn’t discussed. As you know, we are working on this on a daily basis. We’ll see in the coming hours. I don’t think you should ever speak too much about things like this beforehand. You first look for solutions and then you talk about the solutions, but we are continuing to work on this.

[Courtesy translation]

Question: Did your colleagues ask you to ratify the ESM?

President Meloni: No, I was not asked. 

[Courtesy translation]

Question: With regard to the NRRP, on the other hand, to what extent is the situation worsening? The Commission has still not given the green light for the third instalment and too much time is being taken for the objectives for the fourth instalment; those objectives include the matter of nursery schools – you spoke about the birth rate earlier, so Italy is instead failing to meet one of the Commission’s deadlines.

President Meloni: Thank you for your optimism, I do not share your point of view. Well, yes, you ask rather pessimistic questions compared with how I see things. The situation is not worsening with regard to the third instalment, our work is continuing, as you will have also seen in this morning’s communication from the Commission. So, let’s say that the spoilers, trying to undermine the very patient work we are doing, are not hitting their target, in the rather bizarre reconstructions I read every so often in the papers about this matter. I must say that we are working well on the third instalment, on the fourth instalment, which is clearly lengthy work, but it is at the start, it is ongoing, so I won’t go into individual details because I would otherwise risk causing a lot of confusion but, look, I am much more optimistic than you are. With regard to the ESM, I was not asked about this, so it is clearly possible that my colleagues do not pay the same amount of attention to this as the debate in Italy does. 

[Courtesy translation]

Question: President Meloni, this morning you attended a working breakfast with Chancellor Scholz, President Macron and a dozen other leaders to discuss enlargement.

President Meloni: The issue of enlargement. Look, at that meeting I said that, in my view, the right word is not ‘enlargement’, but ‘reunification’. As you well know, I have always said that I do not consider the European Union to be a club; I do not think we are the ones who should decide who can be part of Europe and who is not part of it. It is history that decides who is part of the European Union and who is not part of it. Today, there are European nations asking to be part of the European Union and we must create the conditions for this to be able to happen. We are certainly discussing the issue of whether this requires us to adjust how the budget, our choices and probably also our organisation work, i.e., the rules on how the EU works, but I believe it will be much more difficult to solve this problem as other nations get closer and there are more and more of us, if we think we can deal with ‘minute’ matters regarding citizens’ daily lives.
I believe that, as Europe reunites, the issue is not about changing the rules, but rather changing the priorities. Europe must work to affirm the only principle that is in the Treaties but has never actually been asserted, and that is the principle of subsidiarity. What does this mean? This means working based on concentric circles: Brussels should not do something that Rome can do better, and Rome should not do something alone that Brussels is needed for. Priorities are therefore what we need to define. I have said this to you many times, the European Union was born as an economic coal and steel community, i.e., it was created to form an interconnection for strategy on raw materials and energy supplies. Today, we find ourselves most exposed on precisely raw materials and energy supplies, but we do know how to cook insects. I’d say that we need to get back to the priorities of a great global political player, and those priorities are foreign policy, defending borders, the issue of defence, the single market, and not ‘micro’ issues that we have often dealt with, because it will be increasingly difficult to do so if others join too. This is the view that I brought to this morning’s meeting, but this will of course be a very long discussion, especially when we get into the details.

[Courtesy translation]

[Inaudible question]

President Meloni: Look, I am always very much in favour of citizens’ engagement, I am always very much in favour of democracy, but I would like to say again that this discussion has only just got underway and will be lengthy, so I would avoid asking, let’s call them ‘slogan’ questions. I would wait and see during the discussion what actual positions can be built, also with majorities.

[Courtesy translation]

[Inaudible question]

President Meloni: Look, as I was saying to the colleague earlier, as you know, I am putting a lot of effort into this, I am working on it and will continue to do so. One must always be cautious on things like this. First you get the results and then you comment on them, because otherwise, in a desperate attempt to make a statement or make headlines (not to be controversial, I am also saying this for me), we can actually make it harder to get the results. So I am ready and willing and I see only ready and willing people on both sides. We are working and will see what happens over the coming days.

[Courtesy translation]

Question: What does the move of Hungary and Poland mean now for the asylum reforms, especially Austria and Italy were hoping for more progress?

President Meloni: The progress will be there and the only progress that we can do together is to take care of the external dimension. We will never solve this problem if we think that each one of us can move the problem to another, and we understand it and we all agree on it, also Hungary and Poland. That is what Italy brought to this Council, trying to understand and to find a way that can help us all to solve this problem. So, Hungary and Poland didn’t agree with the migration pact, which is about the internal dimension, and we will never find consensus on the internal dimension, for every one of us has different necessities. The only one thing on which we can find consensus is to work together on the external dimension and I think that we are doing big steps ahead on that, with resources, with what we are doing with Tunisia for example. In the Conclusions, we write that Tunisia is a sample, also for other partnerships that we can build with other nations and that is exactly my point of view, and the Austrian one, and the Hungarian one, and the Polish one, and the German one, and the French one. We are working all together to defend our borders and to solve the problem with Africa with a strategic partnership.