We are working to arrive at the March European Council as prepared as possible. For this reason, Italy, together with Germany and Belgium, promoted today a table of like-minded countries, countries that agree on the urgency of giving answers to European competitiveness for our productive sectors. A meeting that was very well attended, clearly demonstrating a broad sensitivity on the topic and a role that Italy can play in a particularly important and delicate phase.
Our objective, the objective of this meeting, which is somewhat similar to the one we already organized and structured on the topic of migration, is to encourage the Council to give the European Commission clear things to do, so that the Commission can appeal to clear indications it has received from the Council, also to curb a bureaucracy that in Europe is clearly exceeding its role.
So it is a meeting that we want to structure. It went very well. A meeting that we want to structure, which does not only aim at the March European Council, but wants to follow the dossiers and the implementation of the indications that the Council provides to the Commission on matters that are so strategic.
On this, clearly the issues of competitiveness are many. Personally and on behalf of Italy, I have focused and will focus above all on the issue of energy prices. On this, clearly there are dynamics and responses needed at the national level. Next week we will bring to the Council of Ministers a very detailed measure on the issue of energy prices, but they are also European issues.
If we do not remove the problems that exist at the European level, we will not be able to give an answer on the most serious issue that jeopardizes the competitiveness of our businesses, which is the issue of energy costs. Here the issue is very technical, but we must start with a profound revision of the ETS system and, in particular, by curbing the financial speculation around the system, and then the CBAM directive and many other very technical things.
After that, clearly, there is the issue of the single market, there is the issue of simplification. The letter written by Italy and Germany offered many tools to simplify and to do it quickly. There is the issue of the automotive sector, on which Italy has been at the forefront from the beginning, and the objective is always the serious application of the principle of technological neutrality.
There is the issue of the international context in which we operate, fighting our dependencies. The issue here too of strategic autonomy, which involves energy, involves critical raw materials. There is the issue of international trade, on which we continue to be very open, provided, obviously, that there is reciprocity.
So the European Union must choose, because if its strategy is to open up to free trade agreements, and Italy agrees on this, then it must also know that it cannot continue to complain excessively, because we cannot make free trade agreements with systems that do not even remotely have the rules we impose on our producers. And so, on one hand, simplification and deregulation are needed, and on the other, this obviously makes it effectively positive to open up to other markets.
So, as you can see, there are many issues. The challenge, in essence, is to understand if the European Union can give concrete, effective, immediate answers on competitiveness issues, because there is no more time to lose, and if it can return and if it wants to return to thinking big, as we hope and want.
With France, the Franco-German engine has turned off to turn on this Italian engine. There is certainly a Franco-German-Italian engine at this moment, meaning there is certainly a convergence with Chancellor Merz on these issues, on many issues. We are strengthening our bilateral cooperation, but it is not something done, let's say, against someone else, excluding someone else.
France participates in the competitiveness table we promoted, and it is good because clearly it is a very important country to discuss these matters. So, I never see politics that way, but certainly at this stage there is a relaunch in relations and in the capacity that Italy and Germany are having to coordinate their positions. On this, clearly, the Chancellor's role has been very positive. Very positive, and I am grateful to Friedrich because we are doing a good job together.
We did not address the issue of Eurobonds in this meeting, also because the meeting was an inaugural one and we did not want to, also because the participation was so broad that we risked being late for the council, which was not what we wanted to do. We will continue to work. The goal we set for ourselves is not only to meet before the European Councils, but to work throughout the time between one European Council and the next to arrive with concrete solutions.
I would like the working group to propose three concrete things to do for the next council. The first is, I repeat, on energy prices, and so we are trying to be very concrete. There was no discussion, but there will be today. I presume that the issue of Eurobonds can also be addressed today. It is one of the great issues that Europe has been discussing for a long time, on which you know positions are very diversified.
There is a risk of divisions, meaning now all alliances are strategic variables depending on the issues, not on the objectives to be achieved. However, if Europe were to give an answer, especially regarding the competition from outside, these variable alliances do not give a good idea.
Well, it depends on how you interpret them. I have always said, and as you correctly said, in the European Union alliances are variable. There are matters on which, let's say, you form a group with certain nations. We will have, for example, the challenge of the multiannual budget. In the challenge of the multiannual budget, Italy defends the role of cohesion, because this is also an important element.
We must remember, and it is worth remembering, we must not make the mistake of considering competitiveness as an alternative to cohesion, because without cohesion you leave entire territories behind, you do not have adequate infrastructure, and therefore you undermine competitiveness anyway. But that is an issue on which we will probably find more agreement with southern countries than with northern ones, and therefore we must work within these alliances.
That is the reason why it is necessary to talk to everyone, as I have always told you, and not to try to exclude anyone, not to try to consider anyone, let's say, an invalid interlocutor. It is always a mistake, especially in an organization like the European Union. After that, it is obvious that if there are countries that organize themselves, whether they are large countries or medium-sized countries, it makes no difference, when they agree to try to provide the Council, which is the one that decides, with more precise elements and also, let's say, a convergence already built. This can only help the Council's work.
Look, the problem we have is that very often the indications we give to the Commission are not clear, and if the indications are not clear, they get lost due to the overpower of bureaucracy, because there is the trilogue, because the functioning, as you know, is very complex. So I think we are doing work that is not against anyone and that, on the contrary, helps everyone. It can help the Council, it can help the Commission, it can certainly help citizens and businesses because perhaps we manage to give some answers.
Thank you all.
I do not believe such a figure exists, but certainly both Draghi and Letta are making a very important contribution. It starts from their reports, and I think they have both been precious.
Personally, I am in favor, but you know that the debate here in Europe is one of the most divisive. Thank you, good work.
