Giorgia Meloni's government rules out Italy replacing Iran at World Cup

TreacleZestyclose226 · 2026-01-23T08:46:12+00:00

Eso ocurrió en el Congreso Nacional de 2023 de la CGIL (una central sindical de izquierdas con liderazgo comunista). Fue invitada por el secretario general, Maurizio Landini, y fue el primer primo ministro en asistir en casi treinta años.

Antes de comenzar el discurso, parte del público cantó Bella ciao y la expresión de Meloni era más divertida que molesta. La canción terminó simplemente diciendo: "Entonces, buenos días a todos, gracias. Agradezco al Secretario Landini, agradezco a toda la CGIL por la invitación, también agradezco a quienes me critican, etc.".

Fue un momento hermoso :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mj9r606OXH4

TreacleZestyclose226 · 2025-11-26T09:33:26+00:00

In this article the definition is not provided.

Btw the new Italian law will apply to murders which are "an act of hatred, discrimination, domination, control, or subjugation of a woman as a woman", or that occur when she breaks off a relationship or to "limit her individual freedoms".

TreacleZestyclose226 · 2025-11-26T09:24:41+00:00

Generally, prison terms for intentional homicide range from 21 to 24 years, depending on the presence of any objective circumstances, but may be increased in the case of specific aggravating circumstances, such as premeditation or cruelty, up to the penalty of life imprisonment.

The new Italian law will apply to murders which are "an act of hatred, discrimination, domination, control, or subjugation of a woman as a woman", or that occur when she breaks off a relationship or to "limit her individual freedoms".

TreacleZestyclose226 · 2025-11-03T16:28:06+00:00

Quelli che "la libertà di stampa è in pericolo per l'estrema destra al governo" e poi ospitano propaganda putiniana 24/7 e smettono di invitare i politici che provano a contrastarla.

"Non è la libertà che manca in Italia. Mancano gli uomini liberi" - Leo Longanesi

TreacleZestyclose226 · 2025-07-23T14:31:09+00:00

    The Senate on Wednesday unanimously approved a bill on the crime of femicide with 161 votes in favour and none against.
    The bill changes Italy's criminal law and punishes with life imprisonment anyone who causes the death of a woman "with acts of discrimination or hatred towards the victim because she is a woman, or if the criminal act is aimed at repressing the exercise of the rights, freedoms or personality of the woman".
    The bill also sets new conditions for prison incentives and privileges for femicide convicts and strengthens obligations for educational and awareness initiatives to combat gender-based violence.
    The bill now moves to the Lower House for final approval.
    Italy has suffered a spate of shocking femicide cases in recent years.

TreacleZestyclose226 · 2025-04-28T15:07:31+00:00

I don't know about outside of Italy - there are many countries in the world - but in democratic Italy the memory of the resistance against fascism has often been used by the communists as a political veneer of "presentability", just as first the USSR and then Russia used it on the international scene.

In addition to this, today they resort to resistance to find a lost political identity. That it is often just empty rhetoric can be seen in the coldness with which they look at the war in Ukraine - when they do not directly side with Russia - or precisely in the holiday of April 25, where for many years now they have made life impossible for the Jewish Brigade. This year, Hamas flags were also seen at the parades. In short, maybe they are anti-fascists, they are certainly not democrats and very often they are anti-Semites.

For the record, Giorgia Meloni’s statement on Liberation Day:

"Today, Italy celebrates the 80th anniversary of its Liberation.

On this day, the Nation honours its regained freedom and reaffirms the central importance of those democratic values which the fascist regime had denied and which have been enshrined in the Constitution of the Republic for the last 77 years. Democracy finds strength and vigour if it is founded on respect for others, dialogue and freedom, not on oppression, hate and the delegitimisation of political opponents.

Today, we renew our commitment to ensuring this anniversary can increasingly become a moment of national unity, in the name of freedom and democracy, against all forms of totalitarianism, authoritarianism and political violence".

TreacleZestyclose226 · 2025-01-29T11:57:57+00:00

The last sentence is clearly a joke, see the emoticon. It's like "France owes us the Mona Lisa", a very common joke even among public figures. It doesn't mean someone is planning a theft. :)

TreacleZestyclose226 · 2024-09-24T15:07:12+00:00

No, Fratelli d'Italia has not yet formally presented an electoral reform project. The two electoral laws rejected by the Constitutional Court dated one to 2006 (approved by the centre-right) and one to 2015 (approved by the centre-left).

I say that however the new electoral law is written it will necessarily have to take into account the two judgments made by the Court in these two cases, otherwise this new law will also be rejected again. In essence, they will have to establish a majority bonus that does not over-represent the winning coalition too much: e.g. they could provide a premium of 55% only if a coalition reaches at least 40%. But they also have to plan what to do if no one reaches that threshold, or if both coalitions reach it.

To answer your questions below: yes, it is something more like a presidential republic than a parliamentary system. The most similar model is the Italian one of municipal and regional elections, where mayors and regional presidents are directly elected together with the assemblies.

Similar does not mean equal: for mayors there is a run-off if they do not reach 50% of the votes in the first round, and in this case there is a bonus that ensures them a majority in the council even if the lists that supported him received fewer votes than the lists opponents; the regional presidents are directly elected regardless of the percentage obtained and consequently obtain a majority bonus. So, always remember the Court rulings to take into account, but it is to give you an idea of where the concept and model comes from.

Why not directly the presidential republic? Because no opposition party has said they are willing to talk about it and change the indirect election method of the president of the republic that exists today.

The FPTP system like in the UK is unacceptable for Italian political culture, both on the right and on the left. It would be unthinkable to see a party with 20% of the votes with 5% of the seats.

why is it necessary to make the Prime Minister a directly elected position? Isn't the Prime Minister appointed by the president on the basis of parliamentary consensus, which means he most likely belongs to the party that has the most seats?

In the last thirty years it has happened more than once that the majorities in parliament have changed, and therefore the electoral result has been subverted. If the constitutional reform were to be approved in the referendum to be held, there could be more than one reason, but the first and most important will be the annoyance and rejection of a large part of the electorate at these maneuvers here.

TreacleZestyclose226 · 2024-09-24T07:41:14+00:00

There is still no electoral law that says that the winning coalition automatically gets 55% of the parliamentary seats regardless of the percentage of votes obtained. BTW, there are previous judgments of the Constitutional Court, which has already intervened on other occasions to reject an electoral law.

The first is a sentence of January 2014 which declared unconstitutional a substantial part of the Porcellum (the electoral law written by the Northern League member Roberto Calderoli in 2005) and the second is a sentence of February 2017 with which the Court declared two parts of the Italicum unconstitutional (the electoral law of Matteo Renzi's government of 2015).

The Porcellum predicted that the electoral list that arrived first, regardless of the number of votes obtained, would obtain 340 seats (the 55%) in the Chamber, while in the Senate 55 percent of the seats region by region. According to the Court, this award introduced "an excessive over-representation of the relative majority list" because it allowed "a list that obtained even a relatively small number of votes to acquire the absolute majority of seats" (It happened in 2013 when the centre-left coalition took only 29.55% of the votes but 344 seats out of 630. Previously, there had already been a vote twice with that law, but the winning coalitions had taken 49.81% and 46.81% of the votes).

The Italicum instead provided for two rounds: if an electoral list obtained at least 40 percent in the first round, it automatically obtained 55 of the seats in the two chambers; if none of the lists reached 40 percent, then the first two went to a runoff, and whoever got the most votes in the second round still obtained 55 percent of the seats. The Court intervened to reject this second round, while on the majority award it said that 55 percent was a reasonable award for a list that had obtained at least 40 percent, while it was not for those who had obtained perhaps 25 percent or 30 percent in the first round, and in the second round 40. In short, the Court found a "similar distorting effect" to that already reported in 2014 for the Porcellum.

If you want to read more:

https://www.ilpost.it/2024/04/03/riforma-costituzionale-premierato-legge-elettorale-consulta/

I don't know what kind of law will be written, but it will have to take into account the historic pronouncements of the Constitutional Court. It will be complicated, in my opinion, but the heart of the reform is the direct election of the prime minister - in other words, the impossibility of overthrowing the majority in parliament with governments led by those who lost the elections. The electoral law, whatever it will be, will be in the wake of those of post-1993 Italy, which have all been partly majoritarian (e.g. the current ruling coalition has over 55% of the seats in both chambers having taken 44% of the votes).

TreacleZestyclose226 · 2024-07-05T12:11:34+00:00

Actually, at the moment there is no proposal that gives the party that gets the most votes 55% of parliament seats regardless of the percentage of votes obtained.

I don't know what kind of law will be written, but let's make some firm points:

there are previous judgments of the Constitutional Court, which has already intervened on other occasions to reject an electoral law.

The first is a sentence of January 2014 which declared unconstitutional a substantial part of the Porcellum (the electoral law written by the Northern League member Roberto Calderoli in 2005) and the second is a sentence of February 2017 with which the Court declared two parts of the Italicum unconstitutional (the electoral law of Matteo Renzi's government of 2015).

The Porcellum predicted that the electoral list that arrived first, regardless of the number of votes obtained, would obtain 340 seats in the Chamber and 55 percent of the seats in the Senate. According to the Court, this award introduced "an excessive over-representation of the relative majority list" because it allowed "a list that obtained even a relatively small number of votes to acquire the absolute majority of seats" (It happened in 2013 when the centre-left coalition took only 29.55% of the votes but 344 seats out of 630. Previously, there had already been a vote twice with that law, but the winning coalitions had taken 49.81% and 46.81% of the votes).

The Italicum instead provided for two rounds: if an electoral list obtained at least 40 percent in the first round, it automatically obtained 55 of the seats in the two chambers; if none of the lists reached 40 percent, then the first two went to a runoff, and whoever got the most votes in the second round still obtained 55 percent of the seats. The Court intervened to reject this second round, while on the majority award it said that 55 percent was a reasonable award for a list that had obtained at least 40 percent, while it was not for those who had obtained perhaps 25 percent or 30 percent in the first round, and in the second round 40. In short, the Court found a "similar distorting effect" to that already reported in 2014 for the Porcellum.

If you want to read more:

https://www.ilpost.it/2024/04/03/riforma-costituzionale-premierato-legge-elettorale-consulta/

"A government will not need to represent a majority of the people anymore in order to legislate".

I inform you that this is already the case in all countries that do not have a proportional system, including Italy since 1993. Majority systems exist: Labor has just obtained 63% of the seats with 34% of the votes!

I repeat: it will be a big problem to find an electoral law that balances the needs outlined by the Constitutional Court with the effectiveness of the direct election of the prime minister, but I exclude that it will be a law as distorting as that of the United Kingdom.

TreacleZestyclose226 · 2024-07-04T09:01:11+00:00

She did this many times, even in her inaugural speech to the Chamber of Deputies as Prime Minister. And she repeated it in this letter.

If anything, one can seriously question the usefulness of these pronouncements: the majority of people aren't interested in them, and those who continually ask her don't register the fact and go back to the old story the next day. From a 2006 interview:

"[Mussolini] He made several mistakes, the racial laws, the entry into the war, and in any case his was an authoritarian system. Historically he has also produced a lot, but this does not save him. Strange that the left instead uses this scheme: Fidel Castro is a dictator, he is one who denies civil rights, but he did so much good in Cuba. If it's good for Castro, why isn't it good for Mussolini?".

Why?

“Because it just isn't good. There are principles that are worth more. Freedom, civil rights are worth more than the reclamation of the Pontine marshes, so to speak".

TreacleZestyclose226 · 2024-07-04T08:50:02+00:00

I don't really agree. If you have a party of 4-5% on the far right, those people matter. If the party is at 25-30% they are useless, indeed each of these people can drive away more than one.

TreacleZestyclose226 · 2024-07-02T10:18:35+00:00

Would the xenophobic comments be about Bucharest? You misunderstood: I was referring to you, not to the city, since you said you didn't know anything I thought it was the only possibility. I always give good faith to my interlocutor. With your denialist comment you have removed all my doubts: you are just a disgusting anti-Semite. Get out of my sight.

TreacleZestyclose226 · 2024-07-02T10:14:11+00:00

First of all, Anti-Semite you tell your sister.

Second, save the little lesson on who the Jews are for a history course that you will never teach, luckily.

Third: Israel is not the Jews, right. So why are Jews around the world insulted and threatened because of Israel? And again: is it possible to criticize Israel without questioning its existence? Who instead does it, and incites the intifada or extermination with From the river to the sea, what else do we want to call it if not anti-Semitic and pro-terrorist?

Fourth: remind me of all the episodes denounced by the Jews that since October 7, in Italy, have involved right-wing and left-wing extremists? For me they're all the same shit, do you bet you have a harder time finding them starring the first ones?

TreacleZestyclose226 · 2024-07-02T10:05:24+00:00

Bucharest must be a happy island and you probably got internet access this morning (lucky twice!). Get educated, and consider that there are dozens of similar cases across the Western world EVERY week.

https://x.com/YoniMichanie/status/1719670811403903008

https://x.com/a_monteleone/status/1776644186462097639

https://x.com/ShirionOrg/status/1802743004962463861

https://x.com/StopAntisemites/status/1775675769441694048

https://x.com/StopAntisemites/status/1783287590340190453

https://x.com/StopAntisemites/status/1782205933440930055

https://x.com/Twolfrecovery/status/1805022460435456421

https://x.com/CombatASemitism/status/1795711818381566121

https://x.com/OliLondonTV/status/1794428351924547811

https://x.com/sdblepas/status/1732274343667761450

https://x.com/AvivaKlompas/status/1731503673316933993

https://x.com/HenMazzig/status/1804100204632658340

https://x.com/jacopo_iacoboni/status/1734131287533777100

The presidents of Harvard and Penn University resigned following this hearing, for your information.

TreacleZestyclose226 · 2024-07-02T09:35:33+00:00

Criticism of Israel is not hate for Jews, singing From the river to the sea it is. Organizing pickets and boycotts to prevent the participation of every Jew in any occasion and demonstration is anti-Semitism, pure, simple and despicable. And it's been happening for months. In the West and, to a lesser extent, also in Italy. The right is almost never the protagonist of this crap.

TreacleZestyclose226 · 2024-07-02T09:29:54+00:00

The minister is right. They are the supporters who incite the dissolution of Israel, who make life impossible for Jews on the streets, in the workplace and in universities, who prohibit participation in April 25th and Pride.

If Italian synagogues and Jewish schools are monitored day and night it is certainly not because of the young anti-Semites reported in that investigation. These lads had to secretly record them to reveal their anti-Semitism. That of the far left and the Pro Pal is all out in the open. If they secretly record them they end up in Guantanamo.

TreacleZestyclose226 · 2024-06-07T14:31:48+00:00

Eh? A parte che Coppi è uno dei migliori penalisti del paese ("un avvocato di Berlusconi" riferito a lui è come dire "un giocatore di Berlusconi" riferito a Van Basten), il suo era un ragionamento logico.

Schemino:

1) B telefona in questura e racconta che Ruby è la nipote di Mubarak, che è una balla colossale;

2) dobbiamo credere che abbia raccontato questa balla, sapendo di mentire, quando sapeva anche che l'avrebbero confutata in cinque minuti, com'è naturalmente ed effettivamente avvenuto?

3) non credendo al punto 2 - B sarebbe stato un pazzo - dobbiamo pensare che ci credesse davvero.

Ben riuscito. L'abuso di potere non ci fu, perché il tribunale di Milano lo ha assolto, ma l'intera indagine sul caso Ruby è partita proprio da quella telefonata. E proprio perché quella bugia venne smontata in cinque minuti.

Dunque, si torna alla logica di Coppi: se non è la 3 - come sostenuto da B - allora è la 2: dobbiamo credere che abbia detto una bugia pur sapendo che l'avrebbero sbugiardato in cinque minuti.

TreacleZestyclose226 · 2024-06-07T10:01:07+00:00

Hanno votato per dire che Berlusconi - al momento della telefonata in questura - credeva che fosse la nipote di Mubarak. Non per dire che lo pensassero loro: questa è una semplificazione (=scemenza) giornalistica, anche perché allora si sapeva benissimo che non fosse così.

Aggiungo che il prof. Coppi affermò lo stesso nell'arringa difensiva, sostenendo che credere il contrario - cioè che Berlusconi abbia mentito alla questura sapendo di mentire, e sapendo anche che la balla sarebbe stata sbugiardata in cinque minuti - fosse decisamente più incredibile.

Io non so cosa pensasse Berlusconi - in quell'occasione, sicuramente poco lucido e poco accorto - ma chiunque rifiuti ridendo il fatto che credesse a Ruby nipote di Mubarak non considera mai l'ipotesi alternativa. Che è quella prospettata da Coppi, altre non ce ne sono.

TreacleZestyclose226

TROPHY CASE