Separate pages of the electoral programme

Environmental Sustainability

As already highlighted, not only the priority and dramatic issue of greenhouse-gas pollution, which threatens to make climate change irreversible and disastrous, but also all the other aspects relating to the protection of the environment require certain essential conditions if they are to be addressed with the necessary timeliness, effectiveness, and stability.

The first condition is the creation of planetary-level governance of the entire issue of environmental sustainability. Indeed, the interdependence at this level, both with regard to natural phenomena, particularly climatic phenomena, and with regard to individual regulatory measures conditioned by increasing globalization, makes it absolutely essential that, in the common interest of maintaining natural conditions for life on the planet that hosts us, the necessary measures be extended, coordinated, and imposed throughout the entire planet.

This means that the entire issue must fall within the competence of a supranational body, to which individual States must therefore transfer the relevant sovereignty, and from which the guidelines and measures to be implemented and coordinated in individual locations must originate.

And since we are very far from such conditions, with individualism, increasingly also national sovereignty, competitive conflict and even unfair competition, lack of foresight, and indifference to the common good and to future generations prevailing, we cannot expect today’s dominant powers, institutions, and political forces to take the initiative for such a transformation. Therefore, it is absolutely necessary that the spontaneous social movement which is emerging internationally, through demonstrations demanding immediate, timely, and effective action, acquire a global dimension, coordinate itself internally in a unified manner, and develop a structure that ensures its persistence, an institutionalized right to participation, and the formal and substantive capacity to adequately influence both political institutions and all resistant and conservative powers.

In order for the movement to acquire the capacity to indicate and demand action, and for politics to be able to implement the right measures—those that are timely, effective, coordinated, and implemented at the necessary pace—both the movement and politics must be guided by knowledge. This is another essential condition, one that is too often neglected and disparaged.

Politics has the right to determine choices, but knowledge of the conditions required to achieve them and of the consequences resulting from the measures adopted—the knowledge that guides the concrete course of action—must be recognized as essential and as falling within the competence of experts.

And when, as is the case today, the values and related goals have already been clearly determined and are urgent, as indicated by ongoing natural phenomena and clearly expressed by the direct political action of civil society through its growing demonstrations, then the political institutions need only become responsive to these demands and, without reservations or resistance, turn to the knowledge and expertise of specialists and seek the guidance of experts in order to identify the necessary, feasible, effective, and timely measures.

At present, there are international bodies dealing with environmental sustainability and, in particular, with climate change and its consequences. The UN, the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), the World Health Organization, and the World Bank are involved in these matters; but these bodies limit themselves to assessing the situation, indicating its seriousness, and providing only broad guidelines concerning the measures required. Nor is the necessary contribution provided by the personal experts of politicians in this field, since such contributions are limited and in any case subordinate and conditioned by the wishes of the politician.

The result is clearly inadequate. Indeed, politics has managed to produce only the Paris Agreement, which in practice has not been recognized by some States, including the United States, and has largely remained an unfulfilled aspiration with regard to concrete measures, which have not been determined and remain subject to resistance and delays.

It is therefore evident that warnings followed by merely general guidelines, or agreements that only identify goals, are not sufficient. What is additionally required is that, based on knowledge of all the opportunities offered by science and technology, all the concrete measures to be implemented in the various sectors be identified, and that there be bodies at every level, including the global level, with the authority to require and ensure their implementation, by formulating precise rules capable of bringing about all the necessary transformations and responding to an urgency that can no longer be neglected.

Therefore, within the civil-society movement and within public institutions, an entity—at the various levels, including the global level—must be established, composed of experts who demonstrate competence, independence, and a commitment to the common good.

Their task should be to go beyond simply identifying emergencies, take concrete initiatives to encourage political structures to act, and provide those responsible for requesting and/or adopting measures with the necessary knowledge in the various sectors and, for the purposes considered here, in the field of environmental sustainability.

This means knowledge of the situations on which action is to be taken; knowledge of all the options made possible by the current state of science and technology; knowledge of the positive and/or negative consequences resulting from the various possible courses of action; and identification of the appropriate choice, the corresponding course of action, and the necessary coordination.

Knowledge must therefore ensure the timeliness and effectiveness that are now indispensable through the optimal use of everything that scientific and technological progress has to offer.

This does not mean that politics should be entrusted to technocrats. It means that when social demonstrations and urgent needs, now widely shared and highlighted by scientists and by growing disasters, indicate precise choices of values and goals requiring action, politics should abandon resistance and turn to experts for assistance in identifying the solutions to be adopted—solutions which, even if they challenge vested interests and conservative resistance, are capable of saving the planet from ruin and which, ultimately, are in everyone’s interest, including those who resist them out of selfishness and substantial ignorance.

It is not overlooked that within Public Administration, Government, and Parliament there are experts serving in institutional capacities or as personal advisers, who are certainly useful and instrumental to the need for knowledge. However, their work is limited to specific sectors, is personal in nature, and is subject to the need to support measures that have often already been decided upon for political reasons.

Their knowledge can therefore also be utilized, but it cannot fulfill the task envisaged above, which requires a specifically established collegial body of experts.

Another extremely important condition is that, in addition to calling for, identifying, and demanding decisive political action, civil society in every part of the planet should embrace a culture of environmental sustainability and adopt, in every sector, the corresponding practices: saving resources, reuse, recycling, separate waste collection, choices concerning consumption and mobility, and every other relevant form of behavior.

Individual participation must be called for, encouraged, and supported, particularly in social environments that are less sensitive to the need for such cultural change, or that resist the costs and sacrifices associated with such participation, as is generally the case in the outskirts of cities and, similarly, in emerging countries, which rightly attribute responsibility for the climate emergency to the developed countries.

If all these conditions are met, resistance, climate-change denial, lengthy delays, excessive bureaucracy, postponements, and misguided choices can be overcome, and the necessary measures can finally be put into effect.

Naturally, substantial public and private funding will be required, which, as with many other innovations envisaged by the program, will have to be secured by activating every possible source. This subject will be addressed, also in response to the need for the enormous financing required, in the final section of the Program, under the title “Participation, Organization, Knowledge, Financing,” which reprises the indication, already given in the opening pages, of the essential elements required for the implementation of the Program.

It should already be emphasized, however, that while all these innovations will entail costs on the one hand, they will also offer significant opportunities for new productive activities, which in turn will be conditioned by the need for new educational and training content.

Therefore, new opportunities for work, the real economy, and employment must be utilized and encouraged, while, on the other hand, the timely preparation of new skills and professional qualifications must receive all the necessary attention and implementation required at every level, through innovation in culture, education, and training.

The individual sectors concerned with the application of this complex innovative action, aimed at restoring our planetary environment to conditions of sustainability and habitability, have already been briefly mentioned on several occasions in the Program. They will now be examined in greater detail, while it remains firmly established, as stated above, that the task of identifying and implementing individual measures falls to the coordinated action of experts, civil society, and politics, supported by coherent individual behavior.

Absolute priority must be given to the need to address the problem of atmospheric warming, which is causing the growing disasters associated with climate change and therefore requires the resolution of the greenhouse-gas pollution that causes it.

For this purpose, measures are required that are much more immediate, comprehensive, and coordinated than those indicated by the international agreements currently in place, which, among other things, have not been accepted by some States and are being implemented with delays and continual postponements.

These measures must be very different from what has been attempted through the ETS market for “pollution rights.” Action must be taken on a scale and at a speed capable of restoring the climate, with certainty and as promptly and immediately as possible, to stable conditions of sustainability for today’s population and for future generations.

It is therefore necessary, with due urgency and simultaneously:

1. to support the rapid scientific and technological development of energy production from all renewable and non-polluting sources, such as hydroelectric, solar, wind, marine, biomass, and waste-to-energy sources;
2. consequently, to accelerate the transition to the use of these forms of energy, replacing exhaustible and polluting energy derived from fossil fuels;
3. to support this transition through measures which, on the one hand, require it of everyone, providing for sanctions for non-compliance, and, on the other, make it economically advantageous through incentives, including tax incentives;
4. to adopt maximum energy efficiency in all productive sectors;
5. to use gas and hydrogen insofar as they can initially contribute to decarbonization;
6. in order to facilitate the necessary transfers over time and space of the energy produced, to take appropriate action also with regard to energy storage and high-voltage grids;
7. while excluding interventions that could dangerously interfere with natural balances, to support research, technological development, and implementing measures concerning all possible ways of eliminating greenhouse gases already produced (e.g. underground storage, CO₂ capture and storage, and its chemical transformation);
8. to protect forests from economic interests that tend to destroy them and to develop green areas throughout the territory, protecting land from excessive concrete development, incorporating greenery into buildings, and also encouraging citizens to create green spaces.

The effort toward the transition can certainly be supported by what has been proposed regarding the socialization of common resources useful for the production of energy and products (e.g. oil, gas, and rare earth elements), which are made available to everyone by the subsoil of the planet that hosts us. Indeed, a socialized management of such resources can be used to facilitate the gradual progress of the transition.

A particular issue also concerns the use of nuclear energy, specifically fission energy. The interdependence that has developed not only favors, in terms of economic competition, States that possess nuclear facilities, but it is certain—and has already happened—that the consequences of accidents extend far beyond the territory of those States.

It is therefore appropriate that the production of such energy also be managed at the planetary level, leaving to the expert structure described above the decision as to whether such production is appropriate, assessing its risks and economic significance in the common interest and within the overall system of transition to renewable energy; and, naturally, with a decision—either to reject or support it—that is valid for all States.

The measures now listed to address the priority problem of atmospheric warming and the resulting climate change must, naturally, be applied in all sectors responsible for the generation of greenhouse gases. The main ones are transport, mobility, industry, and agriculture.

With regard to transport and mobility, it is certainly essential that all means of transport switch to the use of energy from renewable and non-polluting sources. This concerns not only road transport, since it is well known that aircraft and ships also cause considerable pollution.

Furthermore, it is evident that, especially during the initial phase of the transition, all other measures capable of counteracting greenhouse-gas emissions must be adopted.

It will therefore be necessary to promote and make use of technological developments that serve this purpose, orient culture and consumption toward choosing less polluting means of transport, equip all cities with a network of bicycle lanes that makes it possible to abandon the car for all daily journeys, and allow these lanes to be used also by all small electric-powered vehicles, such as electric scooters and similar means of transport.

The use of such vehicles as an alternative to cars should be encouraged by creating dedicated parking areas and every other appropriate facility, such as lockers and showers in workplaces. Parking spaces for cars should also be provided, in order to prevent a shortage of parking from causing an increase in traffic.

The use of large cars in cities should be discouraged, car sharing should be promoted, and businesses should be encouraged to adopt every possible initiative that facilitates employee transportation.

Frequently used public services should be relocated to areas less congested by traffic. Remote working should be encouraged in order to substantially reduce the need for travel and transportation through the use of videoconferencing.

Every other appropriate measure capable of supporting the transition should be adopted and, naturally, cities should be equipped with non-polluting public transport systems, sufficiently extensive to meet demand and operating reliably and punctually.

In the industrial sector, it is necessary not only to transition to the use of energy from non-polluting sources, but also to adopt every technological innovation that enables each productive system to avoid generating greenhouse-gas emissions or, at the very least, to neutralize or contain them within the limits of environmental sustainability.

The idea that converting industry to non-polluting production systems is almost impossible because of the enormous costs required for restructuring is actually the result of resistance linked to individual interests and, to a considerable extent, of ignorance.

That ignorance, as stated above, must give way to Knowledge—knowledge provided by bodies with the competence to have an overview of all the possibilities already offered by science and technology and to identify them so that the transition can take place.

One example is the fact that technologies and related systems already exist that are capable of capturing polluting fumes from factories, capturing the CO₂ contained in them, and even transforming it into materials that can be used to manufacture various products.

Yet these possibilities are not discussed, nor are they being used to the extent that they could already make a significant contribution to the transition. Therefore, the solutions exist; what is needed is knowledge, social pressure, and political will.

Agriculture is also responsible for a considerable amount of greenhouse-gas production and therefore, as with industry, it is necessary not only for the means used to rely on non-polluting energy, but also for production systems to adopt all the innovations suggested by science and technology that are useful for ensuring the environmental sustainability of agricultural production with regard to greenhouse gases and also the necessary reduction in water consumption.

Of particular importance for these purposes is what is known as regenerative or syntropic agriculture. These terms indicate a new culture and a series of innovative methods for using the productivity of the land in a way that allows all its vital components to regenerate, while also obtaining richer and more natural production, with reduced use of chemical fertilizers and lower greenhouse-gas emissions.

The new form of agriculture can be a world completely different from traditional agriculture and can respond to many needs. In addition to preserving the productivity of the land, it responds more effectively to the growing need for products resulting from the growth of the world’s population and creates new and interesting entrepreneurial opportunities for the many young people who cannot find employment.

Finally, it is necessary to remember the usefulness of consumer behavior, which can cause products obtained through methods that are more respectful of environmental sustainability, and whose origin does not involve long and polluting transport, to prevail in the market.

The reduction of certain forms of consumption in the food sector can also be significant, as is certainly the case with meat, whose production is responsible for a considerable proportion of polluting gases originating from the agricultural sector.

The protection of the environment finds its most complex, significant, and urgent issue in greenhouse gases and climate change, but other sectors deserve equal attention and decisive action, guided by expert knowledge and arranged and coordinated by a supranational body in the interests of environmental sustainability.

The problem of plastic pollution of natural environments has emerged with enormous seriousness, revealing its extent and the productive sectors involved, as well as the resulting scientific and economic difficulties in solving it.

Science and technology must therefore make every possible effort to address the problem through all innovations that can make it possible to switch to the use of biodegradable products and eliminate pollution that is already occurring.

The cooperation of businesses is also necessary. They must accept and facilitate the transition, particularly in packaging, toward the use of substitute products and forms. At the same time, a new consumer culture is required, with a willingness to support the innovations that are also being demanded of consumers in terms of their habits.

The protection of biodiversity, wildlife, and flora is another important aspect of environmental sustainability. It constitutes a natural element deserving respect in its own right, but it is also important for maintaining the balance and richness provided by nature, whose degradation results in a progressive impoverishment to the detriment of the entire human community.

It is therefore particularly important to establish and respect, at the planetary level, appropriate rules governing hunting and fishing, the protection of endangered species, the protection of forests, natural parks, wooded areas, and natural greenery, which should also be supported by containing the encroachment of concrete development.

Biodiversity is also relevant in agricultural production and must be protected. It represents a wealth of products and traditions that market forces tend to abandon in pursuit of greater profit and which therefore deserve attention, guidance, and regulatory protection, as well as awareness and informed choices on the part of consumers.

The territory, in which human beings settle and with which they coexist, requires protection at the global level, through rules based on knowledge and experience designed to counter the negative aspects of human activity.

Human activity is often driven by selfishness and a lack of foresight and tends to use land according to immediate and contingent needs, neglecting the importance of its preservation and the works required to ensure that coexistence remains stable and mutually sustainable.

The territory must therefore be protected against uses that impoverish it, poison it, or disfigure it, such as construction practices that use increasing quantities of sand extracted from rivers or that cover vast areas with concrete, ignoring the consequences for river courses, the health of green areas, and often even landscapes of aesthetic importance.

As regards coexistence, there must first and foremost be a prohibition on construction and settlement not only in areas that should be preserved for collective use, such as those intended for bathing, or areas where urban-planning rules prohibit construction, but also in areas close to hazardous conditions of the territory, because of possible landslides, overflowing rivers, floods, eruptions, and similar causes of disasters.

Settlement must be prevented and, for settlements that already exist, all measures must be required that enable the natural environment not to constitute a persistent threat and a recurring cause of disasters for human life and human settlements.

It is therefore necessary that the culture that recognizes the conditions of the territory, its forces and needs, anticipates and respects their consequences, and intervenes preventively to maintain or promptly restore conditions of coexistence and mutual sustainability receive appropriate protection and implementation.

This is all the more necessary as long as the increasing turbulence of natural phenomena resulting from climate change caused by warming continues.

With regard to areas subject to progressive desertification, supranational protective action must adopt, in addition to the general fight against warming, all the measures that science and technology make possible to remedy the phenomenon and, in any event, must also promptly establish assistance programs for affected populations.

Such programs are also necessary for areas periodically affected by earthquakes, tsunamis, tornadoes, and similar destructive phenomena.

Indeed, especially for countries whose populations do not possess adequate technical and financial capabilities, action to prevent and forecast such phenomena, to contain damage, and to provide for subsequent reconstruction must have a supranational dimension.

Seas and inland waters are subject to pollution not only from plastic, as discussed above, but also from the discharge into them of variously polluted waters originating from settlements, industries, and agriculture.

Therefore, for these two essential elements of the territory as well, strict protection must be established at the supranational level through all necessary systems for treating liquid waste and enforcing prohibitions on the discharge of other types of waste.

For inland waters, protection is also required against arbitrary interventions intended to divert or block the natural course of rivers through dams. Indeed, any intervention that significantly alters the natural situation must respect the rights of all affected localities and avoid causing damage to natural features worthy of preservation.

Water, as a fundamental water resource for the survival of humanity, must also be protected at every stage.

Even the formation of groundwater reserves must receive attention so that it is not obstructed—as happens, for example, through excessive concrete development that prevents rainwater from being absorbed by the soil—and so that water can be intercepted, channeled, and delivered while ensuring its potability, with action also taken to address the numerous losses caused by the age of water-supply systems.

Water must also be protected against pollution caused by liquid or solid waste illegally discharged onto the land.

Such pollution must be combated not only by enforcing the legally established procedures for disposing of different types of waste, but also by promoting the implementation and development of every possible form of treatment, reuse, and recycling.

For this resource as well, protection requires particular urgency and specific interventions in favor of populations for whom access to sufficient water and potable water remains difficult.

The fertility of agricultural land is no less important. Its function is crucial in meeting the growing food needs of an increasing world population, while market-driven speculation often encourages forms of production that, because of their intensity, the continuous cultivation of the same products without the necessary alternation, and the use of polluting chemicals, significantly reduce fertility.

Therefore, land must also be protected in this respect, through appropriate rules established at the planetary level.

Outer space can likewise only be subject to supranational regulation.

It is extremely urgent that such regulation be introduced, because the tendency to regard the conquest of space as an activity governed by laissez-faire principles, private ownership, and free competition must not become entrenched.

We must prevent the struggles for appropriation, colonialism, and exploitation that have occurred on Earth from being reproduced in space.

There are many aspects requiring regulation, and many risks of serious consequences that could result from a race for conquest according to the rules of capitalism that have dominated on our planet.

Supranational provisions must first establish that every conquest, whoever carries it out, belongs to the Earth, and that the flag planted there must represent it. Consequently, the creation of the supranational body and its flag is urgently required.

Likewise, every element that may be of some usefulness must be regarded as a common resource and, where appropriate, managed in the interests of our entire planet.

Services that can be provided using satellites of various kinds—an activity that is driving the growth of the space economy—must also be regulated, both with regard to the number of satellites that can be accommodated and with regard to possible interference with other technologies of collective interest.

Furthermore, it must also be established that all space-related initiatives take care not to create damage or danger either to the area being explored or to the Earth.

Therefore, maximum attention must be paid to the risk of bringing and/or introducing bacteria that are unknown to those receiving them, as well as to the risk of dangerous collisions with the many objects and satellites launched into space, for which removal and recovery efforts must be made sufficiently effective.

These are the fundamental rules, but it must also be recognized that all human activity taking place in space must be governed by regulations.

This is a task that has so far received little attention and is certainly made more complex by the fact that, in addition to initiatives undertaken by States, private actors are also becoming involved in organizing space travel.

It is further complicated by the fact that the different nationalities and citizenships of those present in space make it difficult to determine which rules should apply to the various aspects of interpersonal relations.

Therefore, competent individuals and civil society should take action to determine the appropriate regulatory framework and demand its implementation from global political institutions.

Human Capital

Education and Training

For early childhood, it is necessary to ensure that all children whose parents cannot or do not wish to keep them at home have access to all the nursery schools required, whether public and/or private. The fees to be paid must be fair, including in private nurseries, and should be covered by social assistance if the total family income remains below the minimum monthly wage referred to above in connection with employment.

The competent public authorities must constantly ensure and monitor the suitability of the premises and furnishings and the proper training of staff. The purpose must not be that of temporarily housing or supervising children, but rather of fostering, through games, listening, performances, and creative activities, the development of creative imagination, the ability to relate to and cooperate with others, the discovery of common interests, moderate physical exercise and memory, self-control, and appreciation of the different forms of the senses.

Already at primary-school level, students are currently required to accept a form of discipline that becomes increasingly unpopular in subsequent stages: the obligation to perform and the consequent subjection to evaluation, which is made explicit in report cards and may ultimately lead, in secondary school, even to failure and repetition of the year.

These elements become even more unpleasant because of the official value that society attributes to the qualifications associated with the various courses of study. Many students suffer under this system, experiencing their years at school as an imposed deprivation of freedom in their lives, and they often eventually drop out.

It is therefore essential that teaching be conducted in such a way as to generate interest, participation, and initiative among students.

At least for the stages up to upper-secondary school, it would nevertheless be appropriate to consider whether it might be advisable to eliminate every form of compulsory attendance and continuous assessment, also abolishing the legal value of educational qualifications, and instead introduce a general examination at the end of the school year solely for the purpose of deciding whether the student may be admitted to the following class or course, or whether exclusion is necessary because the student’s lack of preparation or maturity is so extensive and serious that repeating the year would be advisable for the student and would also prevent a serious disruption of the entire class at the new level.

There are examples of such arrangements being implemented in Europe. Their adoption would naturally require adjustments to teaching methods, and recruitment and competitive examinations in the workplace should no longer depend on qualifications but should instead be based on concrete assessments, through interviews and written tests, conducted with reference to the work to be performed.

At all levels of education, tuition fees must also be moderate and fair, equal for everyone, and covered by social assistance when total family income is below the minimum monthly wage.

At universities, where fees are higher, assistance should extend to incomes above the aforementioned minimum, so that attendance is made possible for everyone, and should also become entirely free, regardless of family income, for those who complete the academic year with particularly meritorious results.

Conversely, for those who complete the year with particularly poor results in terms of the number of examinations passed and their outcomes, social assistance should be withdrawn, even where family income would otherwise qualify them for it.

Precisely in order to prevent dropouts and failure, it is necessary that the decision to enroll at university and the choice of degree course take place following qualified and effective guidance, capable of helping students assess their aptitudes, abilities, the content of the subjects, their difficulties, and their prospects for employment.

Restricted enrolment quotas must not exist in universities, and university education must therefore have a sufficient number of facilities and teaching staff to accommodate all demand.

Those who remain enrolled for several years without significant evidence of genuine commitment to their studies may, however, be permanently excluded.

The quality of teachers, at every level, must be ensured.

For this purpose, there must also be a sufficient number of permanent teachers, so as to avoid students having to change teachers continuously, relying on substitute teachers, or being taught by insufficiently professional staff.

At the same time, it is necessary to avoid keeping in unjustified waiting or precarious situations those who possess all the qualifications required to teach.

Furthermore, it is only right to recognize the full merit due to teaching, both because of the commitment it requires and because of the importance of the function it performs.

Such recognition must materialize in terms of remuneration, which is currently inadequate.

As for any merit-based salary increases, assessments must be entirely based on the results objectively achieved by students in terms of their education, with the possibility of a justified corrective intervention by the headteacher only in order to identify unjustified generosity in a teacher’s grading or, conversely, particular objective difficulties within the class that may have hindered the result.

As regards the content of education and training, it is important that, with appropriate differentiation and progression, throughout the educational path from primary school through lower and upper secondary school, students acquire not only knowledge but also skills and aptitudes.

Therefore, the attention devoted to modern digital means of communication and information, which are capable of developing new skills, is certainly positive, and has proved particularly useful following the restrictions on personal contact imposed by COVID-19. However, this must not lead to neglecting the fundamental importance that personal contact has in the formation of the individual, through which socialization is learned in all its aspects.

Furthermore, adapting to technological development must not cause the loss of those abilities which, as is recognized, derive from handwriting, reading books, exercising memory, studying foreign languages, reflecting on what is learned, practicing synthesis, critical thinking and imagination, as well as moving from the particular to a broader understanding of context, identifying causes, consequences, and future projections.

A willingness to work in groups should also be encouraged, as should democratic discussion of ideas, respect for ethics in relationships, respect for diversity, the ability to identify the proper relationship between individual and collective interests, and a form of secularism capable of enhancing the independence of one’s free thought from every dogma and every unconsidered form of conditioning.

These abilities, and the many others that can be identified as having emerged as characteristics of human beings, must not regress.

Delegating everything to machines and placing the filter of digital machines between human relationships—a filter that records us, advises us, and conditions us—leads to the progressive loss, through disuse, of a considerable part of the abilities that belong to human capital.

This is the case, for example, with the ability to make considered decisions, which precisely requires the rapid and interconnected use of those abilities and is lost if we continually delegate decisions to algorithms.

Indeed, in defense of these important abilities, renewed value has been given to the humanities and, in particular, to the study of the Latin language, which not only provided the structure for many modern languages—and fundamentally for Italian—but also has the effect of stimulating logical ability and the capacity to make decisions in complex situations.

In fact, certificates demonstrating knowledge of Latin are valued in the curricula of people being assessed for employment, and the call for its study to be introduced even in the first years of technical schools is gaining strength and deserves to be supported.

The same is happening with philosophy, which, when used essentially for the reasoning skills that characterize it, is already being introduced from primary school onward in order to stimulate children to reason, reflect, and think critically.

Therefore, cultivating this education, especially when students are more receptive, in primary school and lower secondary school, is essential because it creates habits and aptitudes that can constitute a valuable personal asset for the future, when the legitimate need to prepare for working life will lead education and training to prioritize specific knowledge and skills that the constant scientific and technological innovations require in the various occupations.

These required skills should be additional, not exclusive, because life is not made up solely of work and, in any case, even in the workplace, precisely because of the growing dominance of machines, personnel who possess and use those abilities that do not yet belong to machines—and which, in any event, it is desirable that human beings should not delegate to them—will increasingly be valued.

Nor can the need to educate citizens be neglected.

Students must therefore be given knowledge of all the rights, obligations, and powers that citizens have in their relations with the political community, as well as knowledge of all the structures and institutions through which citizens participate in the democratic governance of the country.

In education and training, moreover, it is crucial at every level that theoretical teaching be supported by practical experiences and exercises, useful for properly understanding concepts, assimilating them, and memorizing them through direct experience.

It is therefore essential that schools be equipped with suitable laboratories for the experiences to be acquired and that school-to-work programs, especially for students in technical and vocational schools, be carried out in terms of quantity and quality that are genuinely suited to the comprehensive education for which they are intended.

Erasmus, periods of study and guided travel abroad, are also important in fostering friendly relations among young people of different nationalities and enabling them to gain knowledge of and experience with different cultures, structures, and organizations.

For the university level, the circumstances are particular.

First of all, it is necessary to eliminate privileged positions at the highest levels and promote social justice, in economic terms, in the recognition of merit, and in opportunities for advancement, particularly for doctoral students, PhD holders, and researchers.

It is necessary to ensure that there are no longer privileged “barons” whose advantages go beyond merit in economic terms, who are able to decide at will the fate of other teachers, doctoral students, and researchers, and who may also claim authorship of research and merits that are not their own.

It is certainly equally necessary that sufficient funding be available to overcome the situation of permanent precarity imposed on people who, deservedly and often through outstanding performance, regularly carry out teaching and research activities without having secure future prospects and often even being deprived of the expected renewal of their contracts.

There is debate as to whether it is preferable to have a system based on the free choice of teachers to be appointed or rather a competitive examination system.

In either case, however, it is necessary for results to be objectively assessed by qualified and independent external evaluators, as many of those who have been excluded, as well as qualified candidates who are never appointed, have long been demanding.

Likewise, it is absolutely necessary that the assessment of the university institution, for the purposes of determining the state funding to be granted to it, be carried out by qualified external evaluators, be transparent and justified, and cover all aspects of the function that the university is required to perform, including education, training, research, links with the real economy, staff advancement managed with absolute social justice, and integration with national and international competitors.

It is also appropriate for the current disparities, whereby some universities stand out because of the level of tuition fees and the particular excellence of their education, to gradually disappear, like every other form of social inequality, progressively raising the average standard toward excellence for everyone, in the interest of all students.

In any case, the high cost of attendance must not become a source of social discrimination. Therefore, anyone with a meritorious educational record but inadequate financial resources must receive the necessary social assistance to enable them to attend.

Another disparity is unfortunately linked to the family and social environment from which a person comes. Indeed, those who come from a modest background in terms of economic activity, financial resources, and culture tend to absorb that level and manifest it in social relationships, thereby suffering a discriminatory effect and achieving less success, even when they have the same level of education and training.

A long-term response to this inequality requires that poverty be eliminated and that the general level, particularly in terms of financial and cultural resources, be raised, through appropriate political choices, to increasingly higher levels.

A more immediate response requires that young people be offered, and supported through appropriate assistance, experiences involving not only education but also relationships, travel, social contacts, cultural stimulation, and whatever else is necessary to overcome the consequences of every form of social-origin inequality. This is required by the imperative of social justice.

With regard to degree courses and research, attention to developments in science and technology is necessary, as these continually require new professions, new specializations, and new areas of research.

The response to this need must be precise, adequate, and also preventive if the university is to be, as it should, a driving force for the advancement of human capital, the real economy, and scientific progress.

It is therefore necessary that student education be brought to the highest possible level of quality; that teachers be equal to this task and carry it out with dedication; that research be supported through appropriate private and public funding, be forward-looking, draw also on the great potential of young researchers, be interconnected across all research institutions, be supported organizationally and bureaucratically, maintain a close and synergistic relationship with the real economy, and have an international outlook.

Competence Centers are certainly suited to this need.

However, care must be taken not to fall into the error of believing that adapting to technological development means that teaching and scientific research should give less importance or support to the so-called “pure” disciplines, such as mathematics, physics, chemistry, and the humanities.

These disciplines are essential because they represent the raw material whose development triggers progress in the so-called “applied” disciplines, opening up possibilities for new technological applications.

Therefore, both teaching and research must receive attention, adaptation, and support in both types of disciplines.

With regard to the connection between education, training, and businesses, in order to create personnel particularly suited to the requirements of innovation, some existing agreements between universities and companies could be expanded. These agreements provide for university professors to work within companies in order to oversee, at the company’s premises, the specialization of certain graduates in a particular innovation that the company is in the process of developing.

Another initiative that should certainly be expanded is the one undertaken by the Polytechnic University of Turin to create a metropolitan campus where students can also find services suited to their living needs and maintain direct contact with companies and the city as a whole.

However, while every synergy that supports the training required by scientific and technological development is appropriate, it must also be taken into account that there has been an evolution in the organization of business and work.

This evolution requires, especially at management levels, a body of cultural knowledge, competences, and decision-making abilities that go beyond individual areas of specialization.

Therefore, it is not enough to create excellence in a single specialization. The same individual must also acquire knowledge and competence in other fields, such as, for example, industry regulations, personnel management, data management, market knowledge, and finance.

Such knowledge and competencies must be provided by other professionals and teachers, different from those specializing in the individual’s principal field of study.

Globalization

The phenomenon of globalization was initially welcomed with a broad predominance of positive assessments, but it subsequently developed without any specific rules and, left to the guidance of the capitalist system, laissez-faire economics, markets, and speculation, it was progressively used as an opportunity for competitive struggle and unconstrained predominance, and ultimately gave rise to a series of problematic effects.

Indeed, its consequences include the relocation of companies, which has caused unemployment on the one hand and the exploitation of workers on the other; trade flows that have imported low-cost products, placing local production under pressure; dumping practices adopted not only through product prices but also through offers of tax reductions designed to attract capital, economic activities, research, and talent to the detriment of other countries.

The technological innovations that have emerged, and particularly the powerful online platforms, have weakened the barriers imposed by obsolete antitrust regulations, allowing agreements and cartels that obstruct fair competition and cause enormous inequalities.

Tax havens have increased the availability of privileged shelters for capital originating from illegal activities. New forms of economic colonialism have emerged, such as the purchase of fertile land in poor countries. Counterfeiting of branded products has become widespread, to the detriment of important branches of the economy.

Speculation has been able to move enormous amounts of capital freely, causing and exploiting fluctuations between sudden collapses and unjustified rises, capable of affecting not only individual companies but also national-level economic balances.

The gap between the few rich and the many poor has widened, and even in relations among States, free-market competition has favored the old and new holders of greater capital to the detriment of weaker countries.

Furthermore, competition has extended, with the same effects, to the major maritime, land, and air transport networks, including international networks supplying gas and crude oil.

The digital economy, strengthened by continuing scientific and technological development, has also assumed enormous importance, producing harmful effects either through arrangements leading to uncontrolled monopolies or through new conflicts among economic giants competing for dominant positions that extend their influence from the economic sphere into the political sphere.

Even the development of transfers carried out through the blockchain system and the creation of digital currencies proposed for use in trade have caused well-founded concerns, because of the advantages they offer to mafias and money-laundering operations, as well as the risk that entirely autonomous supranational digital worlds may emerge, immune to any form of control and beyond every regulatory structure.

Nor have the disputes concerning ownership of sea areas released by the melting of northern glaciers been free of competition and conflict. These areas are useful both for transport and for the wealth contained in their waters and seabeds, which hold significant deposits.

Nor, looking ahead, do future claims over the conquest of planets and their possible resources appear to be immune from such conflicts.

These consequences inevitably generated a reaction among the people, institutions, and countries that found themselves on the losing side of globalized competition.

Unfortunately, however, this reaction was characterized by a retreat toward positions that were not only unsustainable—a resistance to globalization, which is an unstoppable evolutionary outcome— but also economically negative.

Indeed, such positions create the risk of new contagious financial and economic crises and are also deeply regressive and dangerous in political and social terms.

Driven by emotional impulses exploited and amplified by populist policies, the reaction has taken the form of increasingly widespread and opposing tariffs, the erection of walls, the closure of borders, nationalism, and sovereigntism aimed at isolation, autarky, and the restriction of democratic spaces in favor of strong, centralized, and even personalized governments.

On the other hand, the countries that have been able to exploit globalization as predators, extending their economic power and dominance—comprising both old powerful countries and newly emerged countries with the capacity to exercise dominance—have themselves faced the problem of competition and conflict that has erupted among them.

This conflict among powerful countries has been conducted not only through increasingly hostile economic measures imposed against one another, but also through opposing geopolitical maneuvers for dominance and dangerous displays of threatening military power.

The entire international economic and political system has been fundamentally changed as a result of these actions and reactions.

Indeed, efforts to establish multilateral relations among countries, despite the hegemony of certain States, had found attempts at balance in regulatory systems that have now been substantially abandoned. Therefore, we have moved toward a situation of widespread conflict among all and of increasing intensity.

Thus, if allowing globalization to develop under inadequately controlled market conditions has produced, alongside undeniable improvements, significant negative and unjust effects, the reactions of both those that have been disadvantaged and the dominant countries have not eliminated the problems. On the contrary, they have aggravated them by bringing about serious political and social regression and even dangerous competition extending into the military sphere.

The result is a situation in which States are increasingly in conflict with one another, with the risk of direct conflict among major powers.

What, then, is the path to follow?

Globalization is inevitable, the result of scientific and technological progress that has made it possible to overcome every border in the fields of information, communication, transport, and the movement of people, goods, and capital.

It is a phenomenon that is fading borders and tends to point toward a human community interconnected at the planetary level.

This prospect could develop into a major form of progress, a positive development that should be encouraged: freedom of movement for people; personal growth through knowledge and comparison with cultures different from one’s own; expansion of the space in which individuals can fulfill themselves; synergies among policies and economies in order to solve problems shared by the entire human community as well as local problems; assistance to backward and/or struggling countries in overcoming obstacles and progressing; improvement of general well-being; achievement of social justice at all levels; resolution of conflicts and wars; and protection of nature through the coordinated and simultaneous adoption of sustainability measures.

But all this presupposes a culture that is emerging within civil society but that economic powers and politics have not adopted.

The time has therefore come to recognize that, precisely because of the interconnection and interdependence brought about by globalization, it is no longer possible to continue using the expansion of spaces and freedoms to fight one another according to the culture that currently prevails in the existing regulatory system—a culture that generates individualism, opposition, and selfishness.

This culture, in fact, turns the capitalist system, equipped with laissez-faire principles and facilitated by open markets, into a weapon used to obtain individual and exclusive predominance through conflict.

As a result, as already seen, it inevitably generates social injustice, economic damage and crises, and a dangerous intensification of conflicts among States.

We must become fully aware that persistence in such a system may lead to self-destruction, and that it is urgently necessary to manage the positive opportunities offered by globalization in order to develop synergies, cooperation, solidarity, and coordination from a perspective of globality and common interests.

Only this different approach, the culture underlying it, and a regulatory system consistent with it can ensure that globalization, rather than generating conflict, damage, and risks, becomes instrumental to the prospect that it initially created, thereby making it possible to solve the many serious problems that are shared and planetary in scope and to establish conditions of harmony, a stable and harmonious relaunch of the real economy, and improved well-being throughout the Planet and within individual communities.

Thus, at the economic level, if private initiative, competition, and the market are to remain active, and if their action on a global scale is to provide all the benefits of general progress that globalization is potentially capable of delivering, without the system degenerating into the harmful instrument described above, it is necessary for these components of the economic system to be subject to a fundamental rule:

Every initiative must be beneficial to those who undertake it; it must be competitive and stimulating to competition; it must not be unfair; it must not have hostile purposes or methods adopted to cause direct harm to others; it must not operate under conditions of monopoly nor, through its own strength or as a result of unlawful agreements, acquire an extent that prevents competition; it must also be positive from a perspective that looks beyond the interests of the individual to the broader collective interest, in its social as well as economic aspects; and it must allow the selective function to remain reserved for the broader conditions of the entire market concerned.

Therefore, by applying this rule to economic activity, and particularly to competition, globalization must extend everywhere the opportunity to stimulate improvement in production, encouraging lower costs, innovation, greater productivity, and better quality, as well as growth and mergers when the new scale produces improvements while remaining within permissible limits.

It must be fair, and therefore not based on the unlawful exploitation of labor—whether in poor countries, through gangmaster systems, undeclared work, or the purchase of fertile land in Africa for low-cost production; on dumping through specific reductions in prices or taxation; on concealment or deliberate relocation of the taxable base facilitated by the digital nature of an economy and/or by the apparent absence of an intermediary entity between supply and demand; on counterfeiting products; on attributing a successful brand name to one’s own products merely because they are similar and cheaper; on violations of regulations intended, and generally observed, to contain pollution; or on the use of capital derived from illegal activities.

It must not be hostile, as in the case of purchasing companies in order to close them down or break them up; short selling in order to profit from the resulting loss of value; buying and selling operations carried out with enormous amounts of capital solely for the purpose of speculating on the resulting fluctuations; hiring highly skilled personnel trained by competing companies in order to secure valuable staff and, through them, knowledge of the technologies used by competitors; or any other initiative that violates the rules of fair competition.

It must not, in any event, assume a monopolistic or dominant position that prevents competition from emerging and/or becomes the cause that drives valid and competitive companies out of the market or places entire productive sectors in crisis, even though those sectors may be essential to maintaining a balanced economic system within a country.

Naturally, globalization means that reference to the international level may justify substantial growth and mergers in response to competitive pressure from other companies operating at an international level.

At more limited internal levels, however, such growth may create dominant dimensions that are detrimental to competition from smaller companies.

In such cases, growth may be permitted if the activity in question is of a high-level nature by virtue of its characteristics, such that it does not conflict with smaller companies. Otherwise, adjustments must be adopted capable of balancing the possible negative effects on smaller businesses.

At the global level, globalization must result in an opportunity for general progress, through exchanges that are useful for integrating and expanding production, trade in goods and services, cultural integration, social progress, and respect for environmental sustainability.

It should therefore be the task of politics to intervene at every level in order to translate the fundamental rule and the operating conditions described above into institutions and binding, specific rules, which should be respected within economic competition.

But current political action does not appear to have taken on this task.

Within State borders, politics is largely powerless because it can act within its own territorial jurisdiction while capital moves within a planetary market.

On the other hand, both within national borders and within institutions operating at the international level, politics remains essentially conservative and faithful to the conflict-based rules characteristic of capitalism and the free market, conditioned by the dominant economic and financial powers, of which it is, in substance, an expression.

Once again, therefore, the need becomes evident for a grassroots movement of civil society that wants a world in which cooperation, solidarity, and common interests prevail; a movement of broad social scope that also has the essential territorial scope—that is, a planetary one.

Only such determination and willingness on the part of civil society can ensure that, at every level, national and international politics establishes the premises, rules, and institutions necessary for economic initiative, both public and private, competition, the market, and financial capital to enable globalization to become an opportunity and a factor for general progress and well-being, social justice, and environmental sustainability.

It is easy to observe that, with regard to the free movement of capital, a substantial part of the disadvantages intensified by globalization depend on the characteristics of the capitalist system, which has allowed capital to degenerate, progressively abandoning its function of financing and stabilizing the real economy in order to devote itself to purely financial speculation, creating and using increasingly sophisticated financial products and employing them aggressively in capital markets—and therefore in corporate markets—to obtain enormous profits and create bubbles that have provided no benefit to the real economy and have instead contributed to the serious crisis that still concerns us.

Thus, once again, it must be emphasized that the innovation that reverses the relationship between capital and labor and recognizes workers as the owners of the enterprise would make many of these degenerative phenomena impossible, restoring capital to its function of financing the real economy.

Indeed, relocation would no longer be possible by decision of capital alone, because it would involve the transfer of all the company’s workers.

For the same reason, incentives offered by competing countries through lower labor costs or tax reductions would no longer function.

Capital would no longer be able to engage in short selling of securities, nor in purely speculative incursions into companies that create damage, imbalances, and crises, nor carry out hostile maneuvers such as purchasing companies in order to eliminate their competition or obtain an unfair advantage by exploiting workers.

Furthermore, web-based economic activity could no longer conceal the taxable base, which would consist of the profit to be distributed among all the participants in the economic operation and would therefore also be traceable.

Likewise, the advantage gained from using capital originating from illegal activities would lose much of its significance, given that capital could be used only to finance the real economy and would be entitled only to interest.

Until this radical innovation is fully implemented, civil society must nevertheless undertake to achieve a moderated globalization, in which competition is maintained within the appropriate and positive limits described above, with rules governing both corporate behavior and capital in order to prevent misuse and negative consequences.

This moderating activity, through rules to be agreed upon, established, and enforced, can partly be carried out by the institutions of individual States with regard to their internal economic relations, but it cannot function effectively to a large extent unless it is implemented in relations among States and therefore at an international level.

This dimension can be achieved through agreements concluded among States and managed directly by the contracting parties or entrusted by them to a specific international body.

It can also be achieved through the transfer of sovereignty to supranational institutions of which individual States are members.

The current tendency of politics, however, is oriented toward sovereigntism.

As seen above, this has produced a dangerous situation characterized by individualism, essentially expressed through intensified protectionism, trade wars involving increasingly high tariffs, uncertain attempts at bilateral agreements, withdrawal from previous major international agreements, and even withdrawal from the World Trade Organization, which is the principal institution in this field, with the task of encouraging agreements, expanding their acceptance, monitoring compliance with conditions, and managing the dispute-settlement system.

This hostility toward existing rules is an incorrect and regressive reaction, capable only of aggravating the situation.

It is true that the existing system can be criticized, since it is in certain respects weak and insufficient and preserves mechanisms that do not rise above individual conflicts and remain essentially tied to maintaining the rules of the capitalist system, thereby becoming an agent or co-responsible factor in outcomes that often favor dominant States.

But it is equally evident, and can already be observed, that the regressive response not only fails to affect the system based on capitalism and laissez-faire economics, which lies at the root of these dysfunctions, but actually further aggravates the dependence of individual weak countries and intensifies the dangerous conflict between powerful and strongly emerging countries, competing with one another for predominance in areas of conquest.

The response must therefore move in the opposite direction.

Until the radical innovation that assigns ownership of companies to workers is achieved—an innovation capable, as seen above, of resolving many of the negative side effects of globalization— the capitalist system will continue to exist, and moderation must be entrusted to one or more institutions, partly composed of representatives of individual States and partly of persons who stand above individual communities and represent and safeguard the common interest of the entire Planet.

This responsibility must first of all be exercised through the issuance of the general rules described above, which determine and specify, in general terms, which behaviors are prohibited and which should be encouraged so that competition within globalization is not harmful but instead serves the harmonious and peaceful development of the economy, well-being, and social progress throughout the Planet.

As regards the specific characteristics of the economies of individual States, the component of the supranational body entrusted with general oversight must understand those conditions and cooperate so that such needs, while respecting the general rules, can be addressed through specific regulations agreed upon by all the affected geo-economic areas.

Naturally, the institution must have the power to monitor, judge, and, where necessary, sanction the conduct of individual States, and must also undertake efforts to reconcile disputes that arise.

A necessary consequence of such a system is that those entrusted with safeguarding the common interest should be elected irrespective of their citizenship or nationality and should demonstrate excellence in competence, experience, morality, and absolute independence, as well as the ability to ensure that the solutions adopted regarding the needs, interests, and disputes of individual States are always just and fair and also consistent with the interests of the Planet as a whole.

It is evident that, as long as private initiative, the market, and freedom of movement for people, capital, and goods remain in place—

elements of the economic system capable of making important positive contributions and therefore worth preserving, but also necessarily subject to innovative regulation—competition, even when moderated by the rules described above and respectful of prohibitions against hostile or unfair practices and against monopolistic or dominant positions, will nevertheless remain problematic for companies, individuals, and States that are negatively affected by competition at the domestic and/or global level.

They may have difficulty managing the stimulus of competition in an improving direction, in order to respond adequately and remain active in the market.

Similarly, competition, even when moderated, may encourage capital to move toward countries where the normal performance of the economy is more profitable or ordinary costs are lower, in order to establish economic activities there, request the production and assembly of goods, or purchase products to be sold later in the home country.

Furthermore, it is inevitable that young people and highly qualified individuals will move to countries where employment and success are more readily available, and that consumers will prefer cheaper or higher-quality products and goods from other countries over their domestic alternatives.

In these and similar cases, where competition operates without violating the rules of fairness and moderation established above, the selection resulting from market conditions will constitute a positive effect if it eliminates from the market individual economic activities that are unsustainable, unsuitable, or insignificant in scale, because such selection will eliminate unnecessary costs and encourage balance at higher levels.

Likewise, the entry of higher-quality products and goods that are more expensive, or that are not available in the area into which they are introduced, may be positive.

Naturally, this is conditional upon the market being genuinely compliant with the rules, rather than merely appearing to be so, and upon actual compliance also being verifiable through specific information concerning origin, assembly, bottling, mixing, and everything else necessary for genuine knowledge of the product, including by consumers.

Whereas, in cases of problems involving collective-level interests, the solution must be found through specific agreements designed to moderate the effects, always with the approval of the supranational body responsible for managing the rules.

This is the case, for example, with the provision of a golden rule to preserve the nationality of entities that are strategic to the economic system, or with the application of agreed tariffs to moderate the entry of cheaper goods that might place entire domestic productive sectors under severe pressure.

Naturally, since this is competition that is intended to respect sound rules, protection through tariffs must always be a measure of last resort. First, within the limits permitted by the internal economic system, there must be a positive response to the stimulus of competition.

Such a response is, moreover, the only possible solution when the problem consists of the attraction of financial and human capital toward other countries that are normally more favorable.

In such cases, if the attraction results from better conditions rather than from conditions deliberately created through unfair practices, it is not possible to adopt moderating measures against the countries that prevail, and only an improvement in the domestic conditions of the sectors concerned can counter the negative phenomenon.

The fact that the improvement of sectors and States experiencing difficulties can and should be supported through appropriate solidarity, also in the interest of common interests at increasingly broader levels, is a requirement that politics, both national and international, must address, as discussed below.

This internal response, which is necessary to support important institutions or productive sectors placed under pressure by lawful competition, or to prevent the flight abroad of financial and human capital, can only come from the support of the entire community concerned.

To avoid conflict with the rules of competition, such support must act indirectly by improving general conditions and services of particular importance to the sector concerned.

This rule prohibiting direct State aid is justified in its function of preventing unfair competition. However, in a system that seeks to eliminate the disadvantages, crises, growing polarization, and inequalities produced by the extreme conflict inherent in capitalism, the rule must also be proportionate to the principal objective that competition should serve: promoting well-being and progress for everyone.

And if that is to be its function, it follows that the prohibition must necessarily acquire flexibility when appropriate forms of solidarity are indispensable and direct aid must be provided to communities that lack the capacity to respond.

Indeed, if they are left to their inability to react, and consequently experience increasing deterioration and eventual defeat, not only would the ethical dimension of the aspiration toward generalized progress in the name of solidarity be denied, but the economic and social interests of the highest importance—which are also shared by those who manage to prevail—would ultimately be undermined by the extensive interconnection created by globalization.

Therefore, it is in the common moral and economic interest that flexibility of the rules be a criterion that can be applied whenever conditions make it indispensable.

In conclusion, State aid measures that are intended—as occurs under systems of capitalism managed by centralized power—to give their own economy a position of dominant international power are unfair and certainly deserve sanctions from those responsible for managing competition.

Likewise, all cases in which cost reductions do not derive from generally lower standards of living and costs, but from immoral and unlawful forms of deliberate labor exploitation, often involving children, must be identified, sanctioned, and eradicated, both with regard to wages and with regard to all health, social-security, and welfare regulations.

Tacit acquiescence by competition-regulating bodies that leads them not to identify and effectively oppose, openly and decisively, all these unacceptable realities is completely unacceptable.

Therefore, innovation in competition-regulatory bodies must provide guarantees on this fundamental point.

In conclusion, only when difficulties derive from fair competition is it legitimate to intervene with regard to the parties experiencing difficulty, whether to permit an improving form of selection or to introduce protections or support where necessary.

Therefore, unsustainable economic activities must be allowed to fail, while foreign capital should be permitted to enter when its activity serves to develop local potential.

Direct State aid should also be permitted when it is necessary to save an entity that is essential to the national economic system or to rescue entire economic sectors from defeat in the competitive process.

Furthermore, when the economic and social conditions of a State are themselves incapable of saving or adequately developing entire sectors, then the higher interest must prevail: ensuring that States do not become divided into predators and prey, and that every State establishes sustainable living conditions and opportunities for participation in economic production and in global well-being.

In such circumstances, this higher interest requires flexibility to permit appropriate forms of international aid, although such aid should be conditional upon its proper use so that the recipient can actually respond to conditions of economic and social hardship.

The need for flexibility becomes even greater when the rules require strict compliance with budgetary or GDP levels despite the State’s lack of financial resources.

These accounting indicators certainly have their importance, but, as has now been authoritatively noted, they no longer correspond directly to the standard of living, progress, or well-being of a community.

Indeed, well-being consists of employment, work, environmental sustainability, health, and social justice, which increasingly do not correspond to increases in production.

Furthermore, in the absence of flexibility and support measures, the community will certainly have no means of improving either its budgetary or GDP levels or its overall well-being.

The task of providing support measures is currently carried out by international institutions such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.

But these institutions too will have to be replaced or adapted.

Their creation reflected, in terms of the historical period in which they were founded and the prevailing culture of the time, the needs of capitalism and its natural tendency toward conflict, which are reflected in their statutes.

This can also be seen in the measures adopted to rescue countries in difficulty, characterized by excessive insistence on restoring budgets to levels considered acceptable by powerful countries, while remaining insensitive to the enormous restrictions and suffering imposed on the populations being saved.

The need that has now arisen to overcome individualism and conflict in favor of greater cooperation and the adjustment of particular interests to the common interest of the broader globalized community requires that within these institutions the representation of individual States—and particularly that of the economic powers that, through capitalism, dominate the Planet—should no longer remain decisive.

Such powers impose their particular interests and are always ready to reproduce conflicts, subordination, and new scenarios of dominance, even within these regulatory institutions, as well as on the international stage.

The time has therefore come for their structure, as stated above for the WTO, to become supranational and to ensure that action takes place above every particular interest and serves the common interest of a balanced general well-being.

Such balance does not mean bringing the entire Planet to the same level of civilizational development, nor total uniformity. Rather, it means that every State should be assisted, where necessary, so that it can achieve a degree of development which, with its own distinctive characteristics, ensures conditions of well-being, sustainability, and the foundations for further progress.

In conclusion, the free movement of people, human capital, goods, and capital entails competition which, even under the present economic system, must stimulate progress; it must be lawful, non-hostile, and must not constitute a monopoly or dominant position; it must always serve higher common interests, so that market selection eliminates unsustainable initiatives while also incorporating moderation, proportionality, and flexibility capable of protecting collective interests through specific agreements and, where necessary, through exemptions from the prohibition of State aid and also through international assistance.

All of this should be managed, at the international level, by institutions that do not preserve particular interests, but rather safeguard the common supranational interest and are structured specifically to perform this function.

This form of competition does not reject globalization. It is not a return to individualism, closure, or economic warfare based on aggression and tariffs.

Rather, it is economic competition capable of allowing globalization to compensate for deficiencies, stimulate qualitative improvements, create cooperation and synergy, improve the standard of living of countries in difficulty or emerging countries, and result in the harmonious growth of the entire community of the Planet.

Achieving this regulation at the planetary level is not easy, given the strength of resistance from dominant powers. But it becomes possible if the awareness prevails that conflict and long-distance dominance do not pay, whereas it is in the interest of everyone, both collectively and individually, for individual interests to be realized within the limits of and in function of the interests of the community of which one is a part.

And today, given the natural evolution toward globalization that makes us all interconnected, that community is identified with the entire Planet.

Therefore, it is the task of civil society to mobilize at the planetary level in order to extend this awareness and obtain the adoption of the necessary innovations.

**********

At this point, the proximity of the 2019 European elections, the youth demonstrations for climate action, and the widespread perception of the need for innovations capable of enabling the European Union to counter the growing wave of sovereigntism and promote economic recovery and social justice led this program to interrupt its discussion of globalization and to address, in specific terms, the issues raised by voters, with a program offering clear responses and well-defined positions—those that politics was not providing.

The program set out below recalls innovations already presented and anticipates others that will subsequently become part of the general program. It was also proposed and brought to the attention of some of the social and political forces most oriented toward change, including climate demonstrators and left-wing parties.

A Left-Wing Program for the European Elections

For parties that identify themselves as left-wing

And for movements demonstrating in the streets

The European elections to be held next May 2019 are extremely important, since the rise of sovereigntism, which is characterizing several States belonging to the European Union, places the existence of the Union at risk and, in any event, calls into question its structure and the rules that characterize it.

The existence of a united Europe has been positive in many respects and, given the current international situation, its break-up would result in regression for the individual States and the emergence of serious new economic, financial, and monetary difficulties, as well as a loss of influence in international relations and the disorientation caused by the collapse of the dream that had accompanied the progressive creation of the Union.

Therefore, the European Union must be saved. This does not, however, exclude criticism of it, nor the fact that it needs substantial changes and further development, both in its structures and in its rules and functions.

Development of the Institutions
And of Relations among the Member States

The present system is the result of poorly concealed mutual distrust. Indeed, it diminishes the significance of the votes of European voters by taking important powers concerning policy direction, the formation of the government, and the exercise of legislative authority away from Parliament and assigning them to the governing bodies of the Member States, namely the European Council and the Council of the European Union.

This has meant that reference to the common interest—that of the Union as a whole—has often failed to emerge, and that the decision-making system, characterized by conflicts among the interests of individual States, has produced measures conditioned by individual interests, with the stronger powers prevailing and without adequately responding to the needs of the Union.

Furthermore, the influence exerted by the system on Parliament has led to the belief that decisions would instead be shaped by struggles for power among the governmental offices of the individual Member States and that elections to Parliament were of little importance.

This belief has resulted in poor choices, both by political parties in drawing up candidate lists and by voters in their participation and choice of candidates.

The consequences arising from these negative aspects have finally led to the realization that, if the European Union is to be preserved and given international significance, two fundamental innovations are necessary:

1. to send to Parliament people who can demonstrate the required competences and the independent ability to pursue the general interest of the Union;
2. to reform governance so as to achieve a qualitative leap, abandon mutual distrust, and give the Union the powers necessary to move from conflict among individual interests toward cooperation in pursuit of the common interest.

These are the premises required to ensure that, in the various sectors, individual measures have genuine implementing capacity and serve the harmonious growth of the Union.

For the forthcoming elections, it is therefore desirable that political parties respond to the first of these premises by drawing up lists of candidates with the required qualities, establishing at national level alliances among parties and social movements that share common positions, choosing consistent links with European political parties and also a common candidate for President of the Commission, and providing voters with sufficient information about these elements, as well as about the principles determining the political orientation and the concrete programs.

This would enable voters to make an informed choice and encourage participation; it could also remove the conditions of negativity and disinformation that encourage populism and sovereigntism.

As regards further development, the Union should aim to broaden integration to the point of adopting a federal model. Such a model should preserve the identities and spheres of autonomy of the individual States, particularly at the executive level, while also involving a delegation of sovereignty that places the central institutions in a position to promote integration among Member States above particular interests, together with the common interest in ensuring that the progress of the Union is accompanied by convergence among the individual States toward conditions of equal progress and well-being.

The delegation of sovereignty should therefore enable the Union to intervene and legislate in every sector, through detailed and directly implementable measures or, where appropriate, through general directives.

However, it is essential that such delegation be exercised according to criteria of proportionality and flexibility—those safeguards required so that measures, structured and adapted according to the particular characteristics and conditions of the individual States, can serve the higher interest of the Union as a whole in achieving integration and the common progress of all Member States.

This is the flexibility that has so far been lacking in the rules and that has found room only in part through forced justifications.

The imposition of rigid rules that are identical for everyone has had the effect of worsening the difficulties of some countries, forcing them to make unnecessary sacrifices, keeping them in a state of non-compliance with Community regulations, creating distrust toward them, and triggering hostile reactions from the market.

These conditions have also made such countries easy prey to speculation and competition and, unfortunately, more inclined in reaction to support populist and sovereigntist policies.

If the Union does not wish to persist in these mistakes and their serious consequences, the European Union must completely change its underlying culture and modify the orientations and regulations connected with it.

Admitting a State to the Union must entail the responsibility of the Union and of the other Member States to:

1. disregard the reasons that may have led that State to conditions of disparity, difficulty, or inferiority compared with other States. Indeed, it is wrong to invoke past failings to justify a regulation of relations that obstructs necessary common progress and aggravates inequalities that are harmful to the Union as a whole;
2. eliminate, in relation to that State, any behavior within the Union that takes advantage of its difficult situation through speculative and/or unfair competition, hostile practices, or conduct that otherwise causes further damage to its economy;
3. assist it, through all the subsidies, interventions, and flexibility in the application of regulations necessary to enable it to introduce the innovations required to overcome its conditions of difficulty and inferiority and progressively, in its own interest and in that of the entire Community, achieve living conditions, stability, and progress consistent with the best conditions within the Community;
4. provide a tangible demonstration of esteem for and importance attached to all States, including new, small, or struggling members, involving them in every initiative and avoiding discriminatory attitudes that appear to distinguish among different categories of Union members.

In practical terms, this responsibility means that:

1. the various unfair competitive mechanisms that some States have introduced to attract, to the detriment of other Union members, inflows of capital, companies, and human capital—such as preferential tax treatment, fictitious recognition of residence and citizenship, or deliberately inflated fees for professionals—must be eliminated within Europe;
2. strategic economic activities, or activities that are otherwise important for maintaining economic sectors, must be prevented from becoming the prey of the stronger States, and countries with significant trade surpluses should instead increase domestic consumption;
3. even lawful competition must be prevented from resulting in structural damage to economic sectors of a country that is experiencing difficulties;
4. consequently, all existing regulations concerning the banking system, the obligations relating to the deficit-to-GDP ratio and debt-to-GDP ratio (the Fiscal Compact), the prohibition on aid to companies, and the obligation to allow other countries to participate in public tenders for works or services must be reviewed so as to provide for the exceptions and flexibility necessary to protect and assist countries experiencing disparities that result in serious difficulties;
5. in general, therefore, it should be understood—also on the basis of experience—that a country’s economic, financial, and structural difficulties can be resolved, rather than through the rigid application of austerity rules, by allowing structural innovations capable of revitalizing the real economy and increasing GDP first and foremost, and consequently by adopting regulations that, through internal mechanisms of protection, solidarity, and flexibility, enable the country to respond with an appropriate economic policy;
6. naturally, financial assistance must also be provided in terms appropriate to the needs, through grants from Union funds to support innovative projects and, where necessary, through concessional loans, preferably also financed by Community funds, and, in cases of intervention by international institutions, without the imposition of conditions that make their use impossible or unsustainable;
7. the entire Union should adopt corresponding measures when those introduced by a country in difficulty, intended to remedy the causes of its disadvantage, cannot be effective and could instead cause further damage because of a lack of uniformity.

Consider, for example, the possibility that Italy might once again limit cash payments to €100.00 in order to combat tax evasion—recovering enormous and extremely useful sums—and crime. Without uniform rules, significant economic flows would move toward other EU Member States, even though those countries, although to a lesser extent, have the same interest in combating these phenomena.

It is evident that these qualifying innovations in internal relations presuppose that countries in need of assistance and flexibility must also be willing to examine the points and causes of their disadvantage and agree with the central institutions on a concrete plan of structural measures and necessary innovations.

Such a plan should aim, on the one hand, to remove all the causes contributing to the problems and, on the other, to use assistance and flexibility to trigger, first and foremost, a significant improvement in GDP, thereby increasing the resources available for the other necessary innovations.

Such willingness and commitment must not be resisted as a loss of freedom and sovereignty, on the understanding that Union support makes these measures sustainable and functional to the progress of both the country and the Community as a whole.

It is equally evident that particular forms of assistance and flexibility should apply only to resolve situations of difficulty that existed before the introduction of the new regulations governing internal relations, or that arise subsequently from causes not attributable to poor management.

It is also evident that such measures must cease if the country becomes responsible for serious non-compliance in implementing what has been agreed with and supported by the central institutions.

With reference to the regulations currently in force and to the innovations currently being discussed at European level, the following additional observations arise from the above-mentioned requirements.

Competition within the Union should, in general, become a means of stimulating improvement for companies; it should be lawful, non-hostile, limited so as not to create monopolistic or otherwise dominant positions; even when lawful, it should not result in serious damage to productive sectors; it should be proportionate and flexible where necessary; and it should always serve the common interest of the Union as a whole by promoting greater integration and common and harmonious progress.

Within this context, the innovation to the antitrust rules requested by Germany and France, so that large companies—those normally active at global level—may acquire, through mergers and/or acquisitions, sufficient competitive capacity at that level, deserves approval, provided that it does not create problems in internal relations.

Also deserving of approval is the initiative to extend the defensive veto right (golden power) to sectors and companies of strategic importance to the economies of EU Member States, in order to prevent acquisitions from outside the Union.

The intention to move toward a more integrated banking union is also positive. In fact, both the emphasis on reducing risks and the strengthening of the Single Resolution Fund (SRF) through greater support from the European Stability Mechanism (ESM, the bailout fund) are positive.

By contrast, the bail-in, which excludes external assistance to a bank in crisis, conflicts with the need for the flexibility described above. Nevertheless, it appears to have been superseded by a recent judicial decision, although only with regard to rescue measures originating within the banking system.

As for the idea of establishing its own budget for the euro area in order to support Member States in their pursuit of convergence and competitiveness, the objective is positive and should be encouraged. However, the condition requiring the State requesting support to be fully compliant with its budget and the relevant rules—which are currently the same for all States—is not acceptable.

This condition reveals resistance to any innovation that might entail common and shared responsibility with regard both to deposits and to public debt.

Indeed, for the restructuring of unsustainable public debt, the transformation of the bailout fund into a dedicated mechanism has been proposed, which would provide support for restructuring and whose exposure would be guaranteed through insurance premiums paid by the individual Member States.

This would enable States to make structural investments without the debt incurred toward the Fund being counted toward the deficit.

The mechanism appears worthy of consideration, as an attempt to make the debts financing restructuring measures shared, and therefore neither dangerous nor relevant for deficit purposes. Yet such solidarity does not in fact exist, or is at least significantly reduced, because the mechanism also provides that the level of the premium should vary according to the risk of each individual country.

Thus, discrimination and divergence return, and in substance resistance persists—particularly on the part of Germany—to sharing the risks associated with debt positions that lie dangerously outside the established parameters.

Yet it is in the interest of the Union that these situations be brought back to conditions of harmony and stability.

If the new culture described above is adopted, and appropriate measures to remedy the causes of the difficulties are agreed between the Union and the assisted country, then within such a framework there would be no reason to fear risk-sharing, which could instead help generalize conditions of balance and confidence that are essential if markets and capital are to respond positively and contribute to an adequate recovery of the real economy.

In conclusion, it is necessary to abandon a culture of conflict and internal competition driven by national selfishness and to support the need for the interests of individual members to be achieved within the higher interest—that of the Union.

Therefore, cohesion, convergence, solidarity, and mutual trust are required.

The right of veto and the requirement for unanimity, which reflect the prevailing distrust, obstruct progress or undermine it through compromises that often result in failure to make decisions, must be abandoned.

The supranational dimension must acquire importance in both the institutional structure and the rules.

This requires, first of all, that the Commission, as the executive branch, and Parliament, as the legislative power, resume effectively carrying out the tasks within their respective competences, with responsibility for the general interests of the Union.

These tasks would certainly be facilitated by elections conducted as suggested above and should also entail a reduction in the powers of the European Council.

Indeed, the power of this body to play a decisive role in selecting and appointing Commissioners and to provide general direction for European policies effectively places the Commission under the control of its decisions.

Since the Council is composed of the highest governmental authorities of the individual Member States, those decisions cannot but be dictated primarily by the interests of each country rather than by the higher interest of the Union.

In any event, they are autonomous and independent decisions in relation to the electoral result that established the Parliament.

The European Council should therefore have essentially only consultative functions, providing the other institutions with the certainly important knowledge of the conditions and interests of the individual Member States and of the general direction that European policies should take in response to those conditions and interests.

This would allow Parliament, when approving and appointing Commissioners and defining the concrete policies consistent with its majority, to take due account of the particular characteristics and needs of the individual States.

The Council of the European Union likewise reflects distrust toward voters’ choices and the abilities of those elected.

It is composed of the ministers of the Member States, who, depending on the subject under discussion, participate in the formation of legislation, sharing legislative power with Parliament as a kind of “upper house.”

Here too, their contribution can only reflect particular interests, with the consequent predominance of the stronger Member States.

The role of this institution should therefore also be reduced and converted into one of providing Parliament, through information and non-binding opinions, with knowledge of the needs and interests of the individual States in each sector under examination, together with the orientation that, in their view, decisions should take so that the common interest is not placed in conflict with the particular interests of the members of the Union.

In conclusion, there must first be awareness of the importance of preserving and advancing the European Union; an appropriate selection of candidates; and information sufficient to enable voters to participate and vote on an informed basis.

These should be the premises for the new legislation, which must then have the courage to abandon distrust and conflict driven by individual interests, together with the resulting jealous reservation of powers by the governmental institutions of the individual Member States, and move toward complete integration.

Integration must also be harmonious, based on solidarity, and flexible toward those parts experiencing difficulties, always serving the common interest and common good, while evolving toward a federal model.

In the meantime, the above-mentioned innovations concerning the powers of the existing institutions can serve as preparatory steps, to be adopted pending the adoption of a Constitution that completes the transition.

Such a Constitution should specify the delegation of sovereignty by the Member States, the scope of their autonomy, the structure of public institutions and bodies, and, naturally, the orientation of policy in all sectors, particularly in the economic, social, environmental, defense, immigration, and international-relations fields.

Furthermore, in determining this structure, particular attention must be paid to ensuring that the Union has both knowledge and social participation.

Knowledge is understood not only as that provided by the two institutions examined above, but also as the ability to discern the causes, effects, and opportunities relating to the problems to be addressed and the measures to be adopted.

Such knowledge must be provided by outstanding experts in the various fields and is necessary so that decisions and measures, although proposed by political institutions, are always informed, enlightened, forward-looking, feasible, and genuinely functional to the interests they are intended to serve.

Knowledge must also be understood as direct contact with civil society, established and structured in such a way as to ensure constant alignment with the needs and developments directly expressed by European citizens, which are often perceived by politics only with serious delay.

Civil-society participation should also be ensured in organizational and institutional terms, giving associative bodies a genuine opportunity to be consulted and to submit requests that are then examined and evaluated.

With regard to defense, France and Germany have been consistently advocating the creation of a European army.

The proposal is supported on the grounds that the growing disengagement of the United States, the rise of China, the generalized arms race, and the growth of current and prospective conflicts create a need for the European Union to strengthen itself militarily and not remain in an inferior position in terms of defense and prestige.

This is a perspective based on individualism, on international relations founded on conflict and confrontations of power, and on prestige founded also on military strength.

Such a perspective cannot be endorsed if the aim is to aspire to and work toward extending internationally, at planetary level, the harmony that should be strengthened within Europe.

And if it is true that the disappointment that followed the initial enthusiasm for globalization, the resulting tendencies toward closure, and the emergence of walls, nationalism, and sovereigntism have generated conflictual relations and confrontations of strength and power, including military power, it is equally true that all this resulted from a series of mistakes: from globalization that was neither regulated nor moderated, which opened the planetary sphere to an economic system based on capitalism, laissez-faire economics, and financial speculation, responsible for the crisis of the real economy and for the consequences that followed in all sectors of economic and social life, above all poverty, inequalities, unemployment, the sacrifice of young people, economic recession, and social regression.

Therefore, the reaction that responds to the instinct to flee, close borders, embrace individualism, and strengthen armed defensive and offensive action is profoundly misguided, because it intensifies the conflictual nature of international relations, weakens individual economies, increases power imbalances and inequalities, and further undermines hopes for cooperation in solving problems that have by now become planetary in scale, such as environmental sustainability, climate change, and terrorism.

As for weapons, it is well known that the greater their number, the more armed conflicts increase, because weapons are made to be used, whether by those who produce them or by those who purchase them.

Therefore, as arms increase, disarmament—especially nuclear disarmament—also loses any prospect of progress.

It is therefore evident that the appropriate response can only be to remove the causes rather than aggravate them; to regulate globalization and cooperate in building an economic system capable of relaunching the real economy, creating social justice, and achieving environmental sustainability.

The elements of cooperation and solidarity, together with the resulting unified governance that entails the transfer of sovereignty, which must be developed within the European Union, are also needed at planetary level.

Individual political entities, such as the European Union, must cooperate in extending them, including by setting an example.

Therefore, in light of these requirements, a European army can have meaning and a positive effect only if it entails greater integration and delegation in relations among the Member States.

In other words, the need to have an army should no longer have significance for the individual countries but should instead be delegated to the Union.

Consequently, the individual Member States should no longer maintain their own national armies— thereby freeing up enormous budgetary resources—and should retain only research activities, which remain useful also because of their civilian applications, together with possible limited participation in the production of weapons needed by the Union.

Furthermore, the Union should keep its new army within the limits required by its international solidarity obligations—today through participation in NATO and, in the future, as would be desirable, through the contribution required by the UN or another single supranational organization for the entire planet having ownership and control of armaments and military forces.

Under these conditions, both within the Union and in terms of the model that the Union should demonstrate and propose for future planetary relations, a European army can be regarded as compatible with these objectives and should be encouraged.

As for immigration, which has created problems and disagreements, the solution must bear the mark of the supranational dimension, capable of resolving conflicts, ensuring due solidarity toward immigrants, and realizing the opportunities that the phenomenon can offer to the common good of the Union.

Therefore, points of entry, both maritime and land-based, must be regarded as Union borders, and responsibility for managing the phenomenon must lie with the Union, whatever the point of entry concerned.

This applies both to border protection and to the management of immigration flows.

The Union and its institutions must therefore act in coordination with the individual States, establishing an equitable distribution of their participation, with precise responsibilities, organizational arrangements, and costs relating to all stages of reception: rescue at sea, designation of a port, first aid, identification, distinction between immigrants to be admitted and those to be rejected, and allocation of quotas to the individual States for final reception and integration.

The purpose is to provide an appropriate response of reception and integration to those fleeing wars, violence, and also hunger, while taking into account the different capacities for participation determined by the conditions and needs of the individual Member States.

Furthermore, Europe must intervene in the places from which people flee and in the countries through which immigrants pass, in order progressively to eliminate the causes of the phenomenon and encourage those transit countries themselves to participate in reception.

This task initially entails financial expenditure, but it cannot be limited to simple financial payments intended to secure the cooperation of such countries, which are not always faithful to their commitments.

It also requires radical measures of social justice which, promoted and supported at international level, would constitute a common response to the duty to provide reparation for colonial exploitation and would be capable of removing conditions of poverty and general deprivation through infrastructure, the real economy, employment, and services.

This is a task of planetary social justice that must also entail ending the continuing exploitation of the resources of the subsoil, and of land, exclusively for the benefit of multinational corporations.

These corporations too must accept a fair distribution of returns in favor of the local workforce employed there and of the communities in the territories concerned.

For the entire system to function as required, States themselves, especially where they are members of the Union, must also cease competing against one another through more or less visible maneuvers aimed at securing a privileged position in the exploitation of the resources of those territories.

These conflicts must cease, for all the reasons of solidarity, cooperation, higher interests, and duties set out above, and because they play a significant role in the repeated failure of attempts to manage the immigration phenomenon.

The creation of a common foreign policy, supported by all members in the interest of the Union, would certainly contribute to ending these conflicts.

Such a policy does not currently exist, and the central institutions must have the strength to create it.

Furthermore, the various unacceptable forms of exploitation and torture that have arisen and made the immigration phenomenon doubly tragic must be decisively fought.

Here too, genuinely effective measures are required, possible only if all Union members are determined and act in solidarity, and are capable of securing agreement and cooperation at international level as well.

It can no longer be tolerated that, in the collection and transit centers preceding entry into the Union, degrading forms of violence and torture are used.

It cannot be accepted that immigrants are forced to pay substantial sums, often obtained through sacrifices by their families, only to be sent toward death at sea on overcrowded vessels destined to sink.

Nor should the duty to carry out rescues at sea itself become an occasion for disputes or profit.

Putting an end to these phenomena is both necessary and possible. The Union, together with those countries and institutions that regard themselves as strong and civilized, should therefore adopt all the measures required to eradicate them.

Finally, it is not only appropriate but also a duty that reception and integration be extended to those fleeing unsustainable economic conditions, whatever the cause.

This is required by human solidarity and by the need for reparation for periods of colonial domination; it is also appropriate as a means of filling the demographic gap and the resulting social ageing.

For the same reasons, it is time for the Union to regulate uniformly all circumstances and conditions under which citizenship should be granted, particularly in favor of the many young people who, in addition to having been born in Europe, can demonstrate significant integration in educational, cultural, and social terms.