The attack foiled yesterday in Dubai, in which an Omani pilot attempted to crash a Flydubai aircraft bound for Tel Aviv with 180 Israeli passengers on board, has brought to mind numerous attacks thwarted by the Israelis. A 9/11-style attack was prevented at cruising altitude thanks to the intervention of the Israeli passengers. Some call it the ‘militarisation of the skies’. It is a euphemism used by those who live under gentler skies.

Take, for example, the case of the Israeli spy who infiltrated ISIS and provided intelligence regarding a plot to bring down a commercial airliner in Europe using a bomb concealed in a laptop. According to information carelessly revealed by Donald Trump to the Russians, the device had managed to pass through airport security checks undetected. The information was so reliable that the United States and the United Kingdom banned laptops in the cabin on many flights from the Middle East. In this instance, Israel did not stop a single flight that had already taken off: it stopped a method intended for use on dozens of aircraft. ISIS had already claimed responsibility for the attack that, two years earlier, had caused a Russian passenger aircraft to explode over the Sinai, killing over two hundred people.

In 1986, on a flight from London to Tel Aviv, a Palestinian man, Nezar Hindawi, had planted a bomb in the suitcase of a female passenger and his partner, Anne Marie Murphy, who was unaware she was carrying it. The aircraft was carrying four hundred people. That same year, on a flight from Madrid to Tel Aviv, Nasser Hassan al Ali attempted to detonate a suitcase on a flight carrying one hundred passengers. Fast-forward to 2006, when an Israeli aircraft was the target of another terrorist plot. This time, the plan centred on Frankfurt Airport.

In 2017, an Australian citizen sent his brother to Sydney Airport to board an Etihad Airways flight to Dubai, carrying a bomb concealed inside a meat mincer and constructed according to instructions from Islamic State. Khaled Khayat and Mahmoud Khayat, the two terrorists, were sentenced to forty years’ imprisonment. “The Israeli secret services foiled the downing of an Australian aircraft; it would have been an unimaginable massacre,” said Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Australia described it as “one of the most sophisticated plots ever attempted on Australian soil”. A year later, at a NATO summit, Netanyahu revealed that Israel had “thwarted dozens of serious attacks, some targeting civil aviation”, including in Europe, “preventing hijacked planes from crashing into European cities”.

This was political confirmation that the public sees only a fraction of the picture. Israel had warned Belgian officials weeks before the attack about inadequate security measures at Brussels Zaventem Airport. The warning had come from Israeli officials tasked with assessing security standards at airports operating flights to Tel Aviv. The Israelis had identified “significant shortcomings” at the Belgian airport, which was the scene of the attacks just a few days later. One member of the cell had reportedly also intended to target the gates for Tel Aviv and the United States.

Yesterday, it was only thanks to the quick thinking of the Israelis on board that a 9/11-style attack was averted. The Jewish state continues to bring down planes full of survivors.

“Technology has enabled us to conduct offensive operations with reduced forces and with a casualty ratio that is extraordinarily favourable to us,” says Borodin, going on to explain that drones (UAVs) play a significant role: “All their parallel actions function as a single mechanism, a single system that allows us to maintain parity with the enemy in low-altitude airspace.” The interaction between reconnaissance and attack assets “enables us to destroy the enemy quickly,” says Borodin, “by expanding the kill zone”, which is a priority objective because if this zone is large, the Russians are forced back, direct firefights are reduced, and lives are saved. “Thanks to the systematic destruction of Rubicon’s launch sites – the Russians’ finest unit of unmanned aerial vehicles – and the depletion of its reserves, we have managed to paralyse its operations, along with those of numerous other enemy drone units,” continues Borodin, “and the Third Army Corps’ air defence system, structured in echelons, deserves a special mention, as it has ensured the air defence units’ total dominance of the airspace within its area of responsibility”. Borodin goes into detail, but remains clear: one can grasp the extraordinary nature of this offensive, and the care he shows for the men carrying it out. Sometimes, in accounts of war, the technological or strategic aspects are emphasised, and in cases of success, the operations seem almost easy. But this is not the case: they are complex, dangerous and deadly. Borodin conveys the extraordinary nature of the operation, the care taken and the risks involved. “We have established a unified radar network, as well as a mechanism for coordination with drone units, electronic warfare units and ground troops to respond swiftly to reports of enemy activity in the vicinity of our positions. Taken together, these actions limited the enemy’s ability to conduct reconnaissance and adjust the fire of drones and artillery”, thereby increasing the Third Corps’ offensive potential and enabling Ukrainian forces to move undetected.

The use of so-called electronic warfare – which effectively renders the enemy blind and deaf – gave an advantage on the battlefield that counterbalanced that of the Russians, who were on high ground and therefore in a very favourable position. “We repelled the enemy drones sector by sector,” says Borodin, “pushing them further and further back into their own territory, and we blocked their flight paths. Co-ordination with air defence units, together with unconventional solutions – such as equipping ground-based drones (UGVs, or as we call them: robots) with electronic warfare equipment – facilitated evacuations and logistical missions, as well as preventing the enemy from conducting in-depth reconnaissance’. With this mix of assets and the increase in the number of crews operating interceptor drones, it has been possible to carry out mechanised assaults. A telling example is that of the Second Mechanised Battalion of the Third Assault Brigade during the breakthrough between Serednje and Karpivka: “Thanks to the concentration of electronic warfare assets, a ‘blind spot’ was created, which allowed armoured vehicles to penetrate deep into the enemy’s defences in wooded areas,” says Borodin. “We deployed our troops, evacuated the wounded and even managed to repeat the manoeuvre several times.” For the first time, medium-depth strikes were employed, and a system was established based on coordination with other units – in particular with air defence – which enables effective strikes on three levels up to two hundred kilometres from the line of contact.

Earth-based robots have become one of the key factors in the success of Operation Vivaldi: “80 per cent of logistics and 90 per cent of evacuations were handled by UGVs”, which were deployed in sabotage operations: “We have adopted a new tactic involving the mounting of single-use Bullspike grenade launchers on kamikaze UGVs, which has enabled us both to exert psychological pressure on the enemy and to strike them,” says Borodin. “Another historic moment was the so-called ‘Grifone’ tactic: we were the first to deploy UGVs using heavy bomber drones.” Ground-based robotic systems based on armoured personnel carriers are now crucial for destroying Russian positions, with a twofold effect: demoralising the enemy and advancing into built-up areas – in this case Nove and Katerynivka – while destroying “an enemy command and communications hub”.

During Operation Vivaldi, robots equipped with combat modules were used in conjunction with the troops’ assault operations: kamikaze UGVs targeted command posts, drone operator positions and areas where Russian soldiers were gathering in the rear. “With UGVs, as well as with unmanned systems, it is possible to lay mines remotely, isolating future combat zones, which prevents the enemy from both bringing up reserves and advancing its assault groups,” explains Borodin.

The Third Army Corps was the first to use UGVs for demining operations and the first to do so during an offensive operation: as part of Operation Vivaldi, more than 30 kilometres of territory have already been cleared of mines in this way. There is also an organisational first: for the first time, the work of the units responsible for ground robots has been integrated into the brigades and then extended to the entire Army Corps, which is precisely the objective set by General Andriy Biletsky: to reduce the number of soldiers in the most dangerous areas and replace them with robots. Once again: technology, strategy and the protection of our most precious asset – human life.

The aircraft had taken off from Dubai at 5.05 Italian time (7.05 in the Emirates); preliminary flight data showed ‘extreme fluctuations’, with drastic drops and sudden climbs at unusual speeds. A couple of hours later, the generic emergency code was transmitted, followed by the code signalling ‘unlawful interference’ – a possible hijacking. It will take some time before every single moment on board the aircraft can be reconstructed, but whilst the codes were being transmitted and changed, and as the aircraft lost altitude, a struggle was taking place on board to thwart an alleged attack aimed at causing the aircraft to crash with 174 passengers on board – many of whom were Israeli – and seven crew members. The incident is being interpreted as an attack on Israel and on the Abraham Accords – the new framework envisaged for the Middle East, which began in 2020 precisely with the normalisation of relations between Jerusalem and Abu Dhabi – and which some do not want, oppose and are attempting to halt. Among the opponents are the Islamic Republic of Iran and terrorist groups such as Hamas, which, on 7 October 2023, after massacring and kidnapping Israelis in kibbutzim in the south of the country, stated that its pogrom was also intended to halt those revolutionary relations that were changing the face of the region. The Flydubai aircraft subsequently landed in Saudi Arabia, at Tabuk Airport: the Israeli passengers were treated by Saudi medical staff and then flown home to Israel.

During the attack, it was the Israeli passengers who subdued the assailant—a reaction that only a population in a state of perpetual alert could muster. They filmed videos while on board; blood can be seen on their faces, on their clothes and in the cabin. Once the plane had landed at Tabuk Airport, the attacker was handed over to the police, and the Saudis were the first to question him. In such a context, it is highly unlikely that there were no direct contacts between the Israelis and the Saudis – Riyadh is one of the most important pillars of the Abraham Accords, according to many the most valuable – and yesterday, in the contacts that likely took place, it emerged that relations are more advanced than the two countries wish to show, as was the case with the Saudis’ refusal to allow Israeli aircraft into their airspace, as initially requested by Jerusalem, to facilitate the repatriation of the Israeli passengers. Building the new Middle East remains a complex task; there is still a vast gulf between covert contacts and what is out in the open – such as the entry of the Israeli Air Force into Saudi airspace would have been. Covert dealings continue to be permissible and supported, and this is precisely what Hamas sought to prevent; even this level of contact is not accepted by Tehran.

Pieces of the puzzle are missing; statements and accounts have appeared in a fragmented manner in the Israeli press, but the image of the aircraft in a nosedive and the blood on the passengers’ bodies shows that Israel remains a target for attacks and sabotage. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was the first among the authorities to speak out, stating that Israel was treating the incident as a terrorist attack. This remains the main line of inquiry, which the Shin Bet and the Mossad are also investigating. With the commemorations for 7 October just a few days away, in a war against the Islamic Republic of Iran that has never truly ended, a new Middle East is taking shape, albeit with great difficulty. And it is a risky process.

The second angle, which is less obvious but politically more interesting, concerns the powerful symbolism conveyed yesterday to observers by the sequence of events surrounding the rescue of flight FZ1073, carrying 174 passengers, 166 of whom were Israeli, according to Israeli media. The sequence in question is not merely about what happened to the passengers, who were rescued yesterday thanks to the intervention of crew members, the other pilots on board and some Israelis who managed to subdue the co-pilot. The sequence to be observed is that concerning what happened around that aircraft, and it is a sequence that provides us with a snapshot of a new Middle East that often escapes the radar of international politics.

The sequence of events is as we know it: a low-cost airline from the UAE carrying Israelis from an Arab country to Israel, saved first and foremost by what happened on board, but around which a chain of security cooperation was set in motion involving the authorities of an Arab country, the United Arab Emirates, the Israeli security forces and the authorities of another Arab country, considered by Israel to be a safe haven, Saudi Arabia, where the aeroplane – which could have caused a massacre of Israelis – landed. In this sequence, in this snapshot, there is a part of the world that we often stubbornly refuse to see. There is a long-standing practice between Arab countries and Israel that has continued to exist even after Israel’s furious reaction to 7 October, which was demonised by much of international public opinion: the Dubai–Tel Aviv flight exists precisely because, in 2020, the Emirates normalised relations with Israel within the framework of the Abraham Accords, and the airline Flydubai launched the first commercial Dubai–Tel Aviv service on 26 November 2020, immediately following the bilateral air transport agreement between Israel and the Emirates.

The overflight of Saudi airspace also forms part of this same regional shift: a few days after the agreement between the UAE and Israel, it was Saudi Arabia – despite not yet having any bilateral agreements with Israel – that authorised flights from the UAE to Israel, at the request of the Emiratis. Today, that relationship is no longer a one-off: Flydubai continues to operate direct flights between Dubai and Tel Aviv. The breakdown of the normalisation process between Arab countries and Israel – as also revealed by internal Hamas documents made public in 2026 – was one of the driving forces behind the events of 7 October: the Iranian attempt, carried out through Hamas’s acts of terror, to provoke Israel into responding to a pogrom with such violence as to make any alliance with Israel unthinkable for any Arab country. 

Yet the Arab countries keen to strike at the Iranian ‘octopus’ in recent years have never severed ties with Israel. Documents attributed to the Hamas leadership show that Sinwar regarded Saudi normalisation as a strategic threat and, just a few days before 7 October, discussed the need for ‘exceptional action’ to thwart it; the same materials also reveal strong Iranian opposition to that process. This is demonstrated by the survival of the Abraham Accords. It is demonstrated by the uninterrupted flow of trade between the UAE and Israel, which remained essentially stable even in the years following 7 October: in 2025, trade in goods amounted to 3.209 billion dollars, compared with 3.254 billion in 2024. This is demonstrated by the fact that the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Qatar, Bahrain, Egypt and Jordan have continued to work in recent years within what the Americans call the ‘Regional Security Construct’ – a framework for regional military cooperation promoted by CENTCOM, the United States Armed Forces’ unified combatant command – which has air defence against missiles and drones as one of its cornerstones.

This is demonstrated by the fact that when, in April 2024, Iran struck Israel with missiles and drones, the UAE and Saudi Arabia contributed to the defence of the Jewish state through intelligence and radar, whilst Jordan, another Arab country, contributed with direct interception operations (and in May 2026, during the war with Iran, Israel returned the favour by sending Iron Dome batteries and Israeli personnel to the Emirates to operate them, to help Abu Dhabi defend itself against massive Iranian attacks, whilst according to an exclusive report in the Jerusalem Post on 15 September, Saudi Arabia and Israel are reportedly engaged in talks mediated by Centcom itself, to provide Riyadh with intelligence to counter the Houthi terrorists). The motives of the co-pilot in the alleged attempt to crash the aircraft remain unclear, and it is not yet certain whether the moments of terror experienced on the Dubai-Tel Aviv flight were the result of a terrorist act.

We know, however, that the safety net within which the Flydubai aircraft was able to bring its passengers to safety is a net that reflects a balance of power in the Middle East which Hamas terrorists dreamed of destroying, which Iranian-backed terrorists dreamed of sabotaging, which the agents of terror living in Tehran dreamed of bringing down, and which has now instead become a fundamental part of theinfrastructure through which, in a Middle East preparing to come to terms with an America in retreat from the world, attempts will be made in the future to curb the sponsors of terrorism and the exporters of terror. The story of the co-pilot who attempted suicide remains to be fully understood. The story of the new infrastructure capable of governing the Middle East, on the other hand, lies right before our eyes: it is a delicate, fragile but real infrastructure, destined to help a part of the world find ways to save itself from the new champions of global terror, just as it did yesterday for the passengers on flight FZ1073.

One is then led to wonder whether this sense of wonder – Cardinal Jean-Marc Aveline said he wept at the sight of people flocking to the Champs-Élysées – might not also stem from the fact that, for far too many years, the belief was that a revival could be fostered not by nurturing the true spirit of the People of God – those who sing the ‘Salve Regina’ whenever they can and who make their way to the Grotto of Massabielle – but rather by setting up colossal synodal projects, convening endless assemblies on pastoral plans, training and development. By organising synods on synodality of infinite duration, longer than councils themselves and with vague, predictable and utopian content. Projects and groups, circles and workshops. All intent on discussing vertical and horizontal synodality, and the never-ending involvement of the laity. Things that interest no one, save for niche groups of theologians in search of lost time, sociologists convinced they are still in the twilight of the 1960s, and the odd radical priest who claims priests are unnecessary. Could this finally be the moment when it is realised that the Church cannot be reformed by sitting round a table writing documents that almost no one will ever read? A very clear signal has come from the heart of French Catholicism. 

Already yesterday, MP Vittoria Baldino had paved the way for the ‘third man’ scenario, proposing Pier Luigi Bersani as the unifying figure for the broad coalition. Today Conte clarifies: ‘I do not rely on personal ambition’. But barring any change of heart, the die is cast and he himself warns: ‘The primaries are looming’. 

And so, the never-ending debate on the primaries continues. A debate that many have already deemed harmful to the coalition, even before the race has begun. “Divisive? That will depend on us,” Conte said during the event in the Senate. Tomorrow, Elly Schlein will chair the Democratic Party’s executive committee (the party assembly is on 18 October), and it will in all likelihood become clear whether the “party” will ultimately field just one candidate, Elly, or whether the reformist wing will put forward Giorgio Gori. “It is up to us to create a climate of harmony,” Conte added.

The ‘no’ to Bettini’s proposal on weapons for Kyiv for defensive purposes only

During the book launch, the former prime minister once again spoke about Ukraine, reiterating his party’s position. This time, however, his remarks were accompanied by a new element. The ‘no’ also applies to the proposal put forward by Goffredo Bettini, who has long been close to Conte and for whom he has the utmost respect (so much so that he asked Schlein for an ‘act of generosity’ and to leave the leadership of the broad coalition to him). In a letter to Corriere, Bettini had proposed continuing to supply weapons to Kyiv, even if only for defensive purposes. On this proposal, the former prime minister explains: “You cannot signal a change of course whilst continuing to send weapons as usual.” This position is also shared by the other wing of the broad coalition, the Green and Left Alliance.

The former prime minister then continues: “Bettini always deserves credit for setting out wide-ranging arguments that take historical reasons into account, and he never trivialises the Russian-Ukrainian conflict either. The band of eager volunteers wants to continue bearing arms and, if anything, rather cowardly, carry on waging a proxy war. We believe there needs to be a turning point.” He explains that, in his view, “even the public are calling for a shift towards negotiations in the conflict”. On this issue, Filippo Sensi of the PD commented on social media: “I read that our scholars, doctors and experts are racking their brains to find the most hypocritical formula possible to convince Vannacci’s closest allies on the issue of Ukraine. Call them Eugenio, we’ll give them to you.”

‘The culture of whingeing is the corpse of 1960s liberalism,’ Hughes said. The newsworthiness of whingeing, on the other hand, is the corpse of journalism, ravaged by decades of populism. Another tragic incident: a burglar who had broken into a courtyard in Baldissero d’Alba was killed by a lorry driver who lives there. At present, not even the post-mortem has been able to determine whether it was a case of self-defence in the strict sense, or murder. Meanwhile, the newsworthiness of such wailing inevitably favours the victim’s narrative. And this leads the Corriere – which sent two correspondents – to report, in unison and without any opposing views, the words of the deceased’s wife: ‘My son no longer has a father and I am devastated by grief. The whole truth must come out; I only ask that justice take its course’. As if he’d been killed in a workplace accident. But since that’s how it’s being treated, the Corriere writes: “It cannot therefore be ruled out that, in order to make some quick and easy money, he had once again joined forces with old friends specialising in theft and robbery.” It cannot be ruled out.

To provide a lighter counterpoint to the news—though the criticism remains valid—the diocese in Palermo has decided to combine two sacraments, First Communion and Confirmation, into a single rite following a five-year course of catechism. The decision provoked a strong backlash.

A wise decision, if education is to be taken seriously. However, a ‘Faith, Economy and Community’ committee has been established, promoted by pastry chefs, confectioners, jewellers, wedding favour makers and photographers ‘to protect the hundreds of family-run micro-businesses affected by the decision to hold First Communion and Confirmation on the same day’. They have written to the bishop. Instead of acknowledging the initiative as a positive effort to keep children engaged in traditional rites rather than exposed to the risks of TikTok and knives, the newspapers are filled with headlines lamenting the change. ‘According to an internal survey of shopkeepers, a large proportion claim to have lost 70 per cent of their earnings.’ Even Hughes would have given up at this point.

Present at the ribbon-cutting ceremony, however, were Prime Minister Meloni, the president of Confindustria Nautica, Formenti, and Regional Governor Marco Bucci. Sources at Palazzo Chigi have indicated that Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni “was surprised and disappointed to find, during the opening ceremony of the Genoa Boat Show, that Silvia Salis was not present on stage”. The Prime Minister is also said to have asked President Formenti why Salis was absent, learning at that moment that it had been a mistake on the part of the Boat Show organisers. Regional President Bucci also stated that he had known nothing of Salis’s exclusion from the stage: “It was a decision made by the Boat Show’s ceremonial organisers; as mayor, I have always taken to the stage.”

Meanwhile, PD Senator Filippo Sensi has come to Salis’s defence, writing on social media: “Leave them be if they don’t invite you onto their stage. It’s a slap in the face for Genoa, not for you. They’re afraid of a proper debate, you little pests.” Regional councillor and Democratic Party faction leader Andrea Orlando was also harsh: “We’ve reached a level of arrogance that borders on the ridiculous. It would be laughable if incidents like this weren’t yet another sign of institutional decline.”

Capacchione, however, likes the document: “It’s a step in the right direction; it’s extremely useful. But the final version must be published as soon as possible.” The draft states that new beach concessions may last from 5 to 20 years, that tendering procedures must be launched by publishing a call for tenders at least six months before the expiry of the existing concessions and, in any case, by 30 June 2027, and also that the continuity of services must be guaranteed during the tendering process. Furthermore, the model tender document sets out compensation arrangements for outgoing concessionaires, alongside limits on the concentration of licences. “These are all the issues we’ve been fighting for,” exults the head of the beach resort association, who can count on a government well disposed to accommodate the sector’s demands. It is therefore a “good starting point”, but there is still a great deal of work to be done to ensure its members accept it. “It is still incomplete. For example, certain types of concessions are missing. There is considerable discretion regarding the scoring system; greater clarity is needed on compensation to define the calculation of commercial value, but also on the eligibility criteria.” These issues, says Capacchione, stem largely from the current legislation (Article 1 of Law No. 166/2024 amending Articles 3 and 4 of Law No. 118/2022). Consequently, “the model tender notice is set within a legislative framework that remains unclear and fails to ensure either the orderly exercise of administrative functions or the correct application of the Bolkestein Directive, particularly in light of recent case law, which has highlighted the need for prior verification of the premise of resource scarcity, the validity of certain extensions to 2033, and also the possible ‘overriding reasons of general interest’ to protect companies currently operating”.

Hence the desire to be involved in drafting the final call for tenders. “I asked Giorgia Meloni to invite me to Palazzo Chigi to highlight these issues, but she has not yet replied.” Capacchione also sent a letter to the Prime Minister dated 27 September – World Tourism Day – emphasising that “the absence of a clear regulatory framework, which is leading to the current chaotic management of administrative functions in this area, poses a mortal risk to the future of Italian tourism”. A few days later, here is the draft tender designed, within the limits of his capabilities, precisely for this purpose. “There is a timing issue. The standard tender must be issued as soon as possible and be binding, just as is the case for other public administration contracts; otherwise, local authorities will continue to act in a disorganised manner with extremely broad discretion. The chaos is worse than the Bolkestein Directive. “Our battle,” says Capacchione, “is to demand the correct application of the Bolkestein Directive whilst seeking to safeguard those companies that have, up to now, always operated in compliance with the rules. The problem is not the tenders themselves, but when and whether to hold them. “The directive must be applied in accordance with the ruling of the European Court of Justice.” The Court, the president states, “has intervened on several occasions, stating that the obligation to hold a tender applies where there is a scarcity of resources. So we want to set out, on the basis of European case law, what the criteria are for determining when there is a scarcity of resources,” he says, addressing the Italian legislature. “Either the legislator takes action or we will end up in court, and the problem will be resolved in two, three or four years’ time. By which time we’ll all be dead, as Keynes used to say.” 

Years of fierce protests, clashes (both verbal and physical) and strikes now seem to have reached a point of no return. “The Bolkestein Directive exists; it must be implemented; we need to take a pragmatic approach. Let’s avoid ideological battles – they serve no purpose.” After all, he observes, “over the past twenty years, various governments of all political persuasions have done nothing but postpone the problem, without resolving it. And this government has done the same. The slogans ‘no to Bolkestein’ or ‘pro-Bolkestein’ solve nothing; they are simply propaganda. It is time for a definitive solution in everyone’s interest,” he concludes. “And the call for proposals is a step in the right direction, although there is still a great deal of work to be done.” 

Renzi says that “only the left can lose the next election, and that those who fail to reach an agreement will bear a responsibility before history”. There is a small story that recounts what Schlein believes to be a great one, describing this party with its unique past, which invented the role of the independent MP. It was Enrico Berlinguer – that angular, tenacious face that Schlein has imprinted on the PD membership card – who championed ‘the independent’, the man and woman who are close yet distant by design. They were, and are, cultural figures, economists, lawyers, singers, film directors and, of course, writers and painters whom the Italian Communist Party (PCI), but also the Italian Socialist Party (PSI) and the Radical Party, put forward on their electoral lists. To name but a few: Stefano Rodotà, Giorgio Ruffolo, Natalia Ginzburg, Gino Paoli, Eduardo De Filippo and Altiero Spinelli.

Among the most famous radicals: Enzo Tortora, Leonardo Sciascia. The independent left-winger is an unconventional figure who brings prestige and distinction to the party. Schlein has, quite rightly, revived and revitalised the role of the independent MP. In the last European elections, she chose to field, amongst others, Marco Tarquinio, Cecilia Strada and, in the south, Lucia Annunziata. The ballot box proved her right. Schlein expanded her support to 24 per cent (a brief aside on the polls: in those elections, the M5S, which had been predicted to reach 15 per cent, ended up at 10 per cent) thanks in part to these figures. Annunziata had made it clear that she would not join the PD, but as a Member of the European Parliament she pays her dues both in Europe and at home. There is no need to reiterate who Annunziata is: former director of TG3, president of RAI, a ‘abbess’ who has made the headlines. She was chosen for the European Parliament on the strength of her expertise and is responsible for foreign affairs and defence – the very issues on which the PD and the M5S are at odds.

Annunziata has just one flaw. She doesn’t need to blow her own trumpet for the secretary’s post, nor does she have to beg for interviews. Over recent months, she has been working on dossiers concerning China – dossiers that the PD has allowed to slip away, in silence. In a few months’ time, European posts will be up for re-election, and amongst these is the vice-presidency held by Pina Picierno (who has left the PD); the serious danger is that the PD’s jubilant primary election machine will be scaled back in Brussels too. In European politics, the Spanish delegation is manoeuvring to seek compromises with the European People’s Party, whilst the Italian delegation is thinking about how to return to Italy. Some see themselves as ministers, others as challengers to Schlein. Being independent already means being an outsider, but being an outsider does not mean being unwanted. The PD uses the ‘independent’ status as a pretext to marginalise Annunziata. Her work ends up on desks and is only opened months later. The objection is simple: why doesn’t she join the party, why doesn’t she get a membership card? The answer is just as straightforward: she had agreed with Schlein on ‘independence’ – that special quality that brings constructive criticism and a dissenting voice.

Today, Annunziata is a member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, a member of the Delegation for Relations with Israel, and a member of the Committee on Security and Defence. She travels the world, not least because it would be interesting to know how many other MEPs from the PD are able – and willing – to take part in this work. In good families, they say: ‘Lucia, this is your home.’ This does not apply to Annunziata. To take part in party events, she must be formally invited; otherwise, she is excluded. But is Annunziata not the delegate responsible for the crucial issues of our times? Annunziata has informed her group that if her voice is not needed, she might as well remain a backbencher. If one were to resort to the bureaucracy—which Schlein has taken a liking to of late—it would end up like this: Annunziata would receive her full salary, whilst the PD would lose yet another voice, a source of expertise, and even her seat. In recent months, no fewer than four women have left the PD. Annunziata’s case is even more exceptional. She would be the first to walk away from this illusion. The illusion that there was room and respect for independence within the PD.

Ranucci replied to all three, rejecting the accusations. But his response to Mottola is particularly telling: “It was broadcast freely on several occasions,” wrote the former presenter of *Report*. He didn’t do badly financially either, given that he ended up earning around 330,000 euros a year by selling his investigative reports (editing and travel costs included in the price): the highest figure of all the correspondents”. In effect, Ranucci is holding his former friend’s substantial earnings against him – the very same figures that, just a month ago, had been published by Daniele Capezzone’s Il Tempo, prompting a barrage of accusations of falsehoods and threats of legal action from Report’s journalists: “You’ve published false figures on salaries,” Ranucci wrote on Facebook, having always referred to the Angelucci Group’s newspapers as a sort of smear campaign directed against him. Now Ranucci has hurled that very same material at his former colleague Mottola, thereby doing Il Tempo a huge favour. In any defamation trial brought by the Report journalists, the Angelucci Group’s defence team will be able to call Mr Ranucci to testify; should the judges so wish, he will once again become the presenter of Report. 

Yesterday, the ‘General in Reverse’ Futurists were back to taking a dig at the right: “We need an Italian ICE”. This is a long-standing passion of Vannacci’s – a Trump-style anti-migrant police force – which is now set to become a bill, as announced by Davide Bergamini. The MP spoke in the Chamber of Deputies during Question Time to press the minister on security and immigration, citing recent news stories from Reggio Emilia to Modena: crimes committed by ‘second-generation Italians’. More CPR centres are needed; remigration is a familiar script. But one that gained new momentum yesterday. Thus, according to Fn, more prevention is needed. They are calling on Piantedosi for “30,000” new recruits to the police force, more military personnel for the ‘Safe Roads’ programme, to whom they also wish to “assign judicial police functions”. And then, above all: “A police force dedicated to immigration and repatriation”, explains Bergamini. “A specialised unit”, rather than a new autonomous force. The draft bill will be tabled shortly, they promise. This is the first card that Vannacci’s supporters (who are always promising “new recruits imminent”) are playing after Calabria. It was supposed to be Saxony-Anhalt, but instead FN failed to make a breakthrough. The general had put his all into it, so in the end even that 10.9 per cent – no small feat and well above the percentages estimated by the polls – lent itself to various interpretations. Vannacci, who is now also squabbling with Aldo Cazzullo over Xmas, stands by it in any case; he takes issue with those who talk of a ‘flop’, with the newspapers and with the usual moderate centre-right. He keeps repeating that he is indispensable if the right is to win, and that he is waiting for Meloni to call. But what do those within the National Front – the very same people making conciliatory statements towards the government – actually think? “We won’t enter into an agreement, and that suits us just fine.” So it’s better to keep attacking, to keep them chasing after us.

At least until the right realises that every attempt to gain ground is met with an even bigger outburst. Meanwhile, in response to the Vannacci supporters – aided, moreover, by questions from FdI and Noi Moderati – Piantedosi cited the figures on repatriations (“6,500 this year, never such a high number”) and landings (“down 80 per cent” over two years). He then announced that he is working to open six new CPRs: in Calabria, Emilia-Romagna, Trentino-Alto Adige (2) and Tuscany, with the left already vowing to put up a fight. The reaction from the majority, however, was different; following the Education Decree, they have new cards to play on the issue of immigration. “Left-wing governors, such as Giani in Tuscany, will not stop the government,” attacks Meloni’s ally, Colonel Giovanni Donzelli. Matteo Salvini also weighs in: “Full steam ahead without hesitation.” Against the broad coalition, certainly. But also, and even more so, to try to take the wind out of Vannacci’s sails. Following the by-elections in Reggio Calabria, the ruling coalition breathed a sigh of relief. But fears remain. So, in the evening, another decision was announced: the Interior Ministry stated that the suspension of the Schengen Agreement with Spain remains in force for a further two weeks: “Possible terrorist threats”.

There were five texts in total; each group presented its own text, with the exception of Azione. Those registered to speak were Riccardo Magi (Più Europa), Gianni Cuperlo (PD), Alfonso Colucci (M5S), Devis Dori (AVS), Roberto Giachetti (IV), Igor Iezzi (Lega), Alessio D’Antonio (Azione), Andrea Gentile (Fi), Gianluca Vinci (Fdi), Alessandro Colucci (Nm) and Edoardo Ziello (FnV), for a total of one hour and twenty minutes of debate.

Whilst the decisive blow regarding the party’s vulnerability to the ‘deserters’ (copyright Tajani) is, in short, slow in coming, this axis stretching from Calabria up to Piedmont, with its sights set on Milan, is at least attempting to carve out a place for itself on the party’s economic agenda. Perhaps in the hope that these battles might form the basis for a motion at the party conference. Perhaps immediately after the general election.

“The Five Star Movement’s Roman councillor acted as our master of ceremonies,” Vladimiro Bibolotti, essayist, blogger for *Il Fatto Quotidiano* and, above all, president emeritus of the National UFO Centre, tells *Il Foglio*. “Diaco opened our meeting to a large audience.” Although, as Vladimiro goes on to explain, “you shouldn’t attribute the interest solely to the Movement, which has certainly shown itself to be keen”. We ask for further details… “The Five Star Movement,” says the ufologist, “are very interested in us, but the CUN is non-partisan.” So? “So I wouldn’t pin the blame solely on them, the poor things!” No? And who else would you blame? “Well, Vannacci’s deputy has also been coming to our conferences lately.” Perhaps Massimiliano Simoni? (Gasperini is too close to the Lefebvrians to be keen on aliens). “Mario Borghezio came.” He’s a friend of Lefebvre’s too, but perhaps more compatible with Mars. “Marco Rizzo came.” The cosmonaut Rizzo. “And then…”. It’s all building up… “Then even Musumeci is on our side.” Nello? “The minister, yes, who in the past tabled a parliamentary question on flying objects.” Really? “Yes. Musumeci. He’s open to UFOs.” And indeed, the minister is in charge of the Sea and Civil Protection. He is the man tasked, amongst other things, with flushing out Martians in Rome. The conference, however, organised by the Five Star Movement’s council group, retraced the history of ufology from the post-war period to the present day. Particular attention was paid to the Twining Memorandum and the Pentagon documents. The only things missing were Welles’ “The War of the Worlds” and the UFO that Venditti spotted at Villa Paganini when he was a child. In any case, Bibolotti says: “We don’t want to reduce the issue to a spectacle. We want democracies to be able to tackle intelligence dossiers without taboos.” Because, after all, the subject is serious. In fact, extremely serious. So serious that it deserves an audience worthy of the subject. “Andreotti used to pay attention to us,” the president reminds us; he is now, however, the focus of the Five Star Movement’s attention. “Leave them in peace, though. It’s not just them, and they don’t deserve it.” No, of course not. But the fact is that whilst Conte talks about foreign policy, they are pushing themselves even beyond the sky… Or perhaps they’re simply reverting to their old ways. The one involving Paola Taverna and chemtrails. The one involving the honourable Sibilia, sceptical of the moon landing. Or perhaps the honourable Basilio, who believed in mermaids. Bibolotti repeats: “We don’t want to convince anyone of the existence of extraterrestrials.” And thank goodness for that. Not least because when you were a ufologist, Mr President, they were already on Mars.

“I believe that telling the stories of unsolved cases is very important,” says Valsecchi. “There are stories that continue to haunt us for years, because the truth is missing, because the families are waiting for answers, and because we feel that they concern us too. Cinema can draw us into the lives of those involved and help us understand what it means to live with those questions. Of course,” he continues, “we must show respect and have a thorough understanding of what we are telling. Just because a story is famous doesn’t mean it’s already a good film. You have to find a perspective, work out through whose eyes to tell it. And you have to be honest about what we know and what still needs to be clarified. People’s lives aren’t something to be treated lightly.”

The creative process is everything when dealing with stories of bloodshed, especially if they are sensitive and still taking shape. “When a story strikes a chord with me, I try to delve deeper into it, to understand who the people are and what lies behind it. From there, I start to think about a story. If it interests and moves me, I hope it will interest and move the audience too. Today, given the difficulties Italian cinema is facing at the box office, a producer must ask themselves even more keenly what they want to do and why anyone should go and see it. I ask myself this question before I even begin. What strikes me about this story? What might resonate with the audience? Is there an emotion, a conflict, something that will stay with them?” And it is amidst these doubts that, says the producer, “unresolved cases can have great power, but mystery alone is not enough. You have to make the viewer feel just how much that story has changed someone’s life. And work out whether it needs a film, a series, a documentary or a podcast.”

There is a thriving ecosystem of successful media products centred around unsolved cases in Italian news. A news story that has never been closed (such as the Ustica case) allows screenwriters, authors and content creators to continue producing material on the subject. Yet however unresolved the story may remain, “the public expects the narrative to lead somewhere. Even an open ending is fine, provided it sheds further light on the matter. And this also applies to cases considered resolved.” From Garlasco to Ustica, there are countless series, books and podcasts dedicated to these cases. But television, too, is full of in-depth programmes on these cases. “There is a risk that crime reporting will turn into mere entertainment. When every suspicion becomes a revelation, grief ends up becoming a spectacle,” says Valsecchi, who believes that to avoid reaching such a level of cynicism, “we must research, distinguish facts from hypotheses and respect people. As a producer, I always ask myself what my story adds. It’s not enough to choose a case simply because everyone is talking about it.”

Looking at the figures, podcasting is the sector in which the success of true crime is most evident. In 2025, for the third year running, Elisa True Crime was crowned the most listened-to podcast in Italy on Spotify, a record it also shared on the rival platform Apple Podcasts. The allure of true crime convinced Francesca Fagnani to create a ‘Crime’ spin-off of her Rai programme ‘Belve’, in which her interview with the killer Roberto Savi helped reignite the controversy surrounding the ‘Uno bianca’ case. There is also a long list of audiovisual productions focusing on the most notorious, protracted and mysterious cases in our crime news: from the Avetrana murder (Disney Plus) to the Claps case (Rai), via the documentary on the murder of Yara Gambirasio (Netflix) and the miniseries by Stefano Sollima on the ‘Monster of Florence’ (also on Netflix), which is about to launch its second series. What drives a person to become fascinated by crime stories? “We want to understand, and we recognise ourselves in the fears and lives of those involved. The mystery is alluring, but it’s the people who really draw us in. And today, given how difficult it is to attract audiences to cinemas, we have to start with the content itself. A famous case might pique curiosity, but to convince someone to go to the cinema, you need a story that makes them feel something.” On screen, there’s a life violently cut short, with the circumstances still to be fully clarified. In our mouths, however, there’s popcorn.

“Our stance has always been not to shelve the case,” Verini begins, speaking to Il Foglio. “Yet, several months ago, when the public prosecutor’s office made the request, it did so by emphasising a clear point: that evening, an act of war took place; there were allied aircraft that carried out an unauthorised manoeuvre in Italian airspace, causing the aircraft to crash; since France is not cooperating – and this is the investigators’ key argument – we found ourselves forced to request that the case be dismissed. This request itself contained a key justification: there is a lack of evidence to proceed, whilst acknowledging the act of war. It was Cossiga who, back in 2008, was the first to admit the responsibility of the French aircraft tracking the Libyan MiG in which Gaddafi was due to travel – having been warned in good time not to fly on that aircraft. Then, fifteen years later, came that famous interview with Giuliano Amato, who told La Repubblica: ‘France must speak out and say what it knows’. Two former prime ministers who urged the Rome Public Prosecutor’s Office to issue a letter of request to France.”

Yet it would have come to nothing once again, were it not for ‘the pressure from so many people calling for the facts to be formally and unequivocally established’, continues Verini, highlighting the active role played by Daria Bonfietti: a former senator for the DS, co-founder of the association of relatives of the victims of the Ustica air disaster and sister of Alberto, who died in the disaster. “A couple of months ago, the Antibes summit was scheduled. At that point, Bonfietti launched an appeal, realising it would be an important direct opportunity: I took some discreet steps with the Prime Minister, on behalf of the MPs who have been following the case for some time. After the Strait of Hormuz, after the tariffs, Meloni could have raised the issue with Macron. A bilateral meeting offers the right degree of flexibility to do so effectively. And so Meloni did just that: on 27 June, the anniversary of the massacre, she informed both me and Bonfietti. Through Mantovano”, the Under-Secretary to the Prime Minister’s Office, “she also urged the public prosecutor’s office to oppose the case being dropped. We were aware of Macron’s simultaneous overture, but in agreement with Meloni we felt it appropriate to keep the information confidential. Until today.”

It took the combined efforts of all the institutions, regardless of political affiliation. “I have been following the Ustica case since ’96, when I was chief of staff to the then minister Walter Veltroni,” explains the Democratic Party official. “It was he who introduced me to Bonfietti and tasked me with handling this case. NATO began cooperating even back then, but always within certain limits. And so did other Italian governments. Today, Meloni’s role in this affair must be acknowledged: the other day, Bonfietti rang her to thank her. And Mattarella’s efforts must also be remembered, as they have always been of great institutional significance. On certain issues, we go beyond party politics. It is right that this should be the case – not to mention that Meloni and the right have always been inclined to support the air battle theory. In this case, the Prime Minister did what she had to do, spurred on by us MPs and by Macron’s encouraging input. Sometimes perseverance does yield results. So far, there have only been suspicious suicides, a great deal of opacity and attempts to throw the investigation off track. But the only thing that is certain is that, on that evening 46 years ago, all the radar stations were silenced. And that 81 people died.”

Ecology in recent decades has provided many reasons to be wary of this portrayal. Ecosystems have a history, and what happens during a disturbance can alter the conditions on which all subsequent developments will depend. A species that has gone extinct may have left behind a different community; a different community may have transformed the soil or water; those transformations may continue to exert their effects even after the cause that set the process in motion has been removed. Returning to the starting point therefore requires something other than simply retracing one’s steps, and in some cases that previous path may no longer be available.

Few places illustrate this problem better than Yellowstone, which for years has been used to tell precisely the opposite story.

At the beginning of the 20th century, wolves were systematically eradicated from the national park as part of predator control policies that were considered normal at the time. The last known pack was culled in the 1920s, and for around seventy years the wolf remained virtually absent from Yellowstone. Meanwhile, the elk – the large North American deer that is one of the wolf’s main prey species – exerted increasing pressure on the vegetation, particularly on willows and other plants in riparian areas.

When, in 1995, the United States decided to reintroduce wolves by transferring them from Canada, one of the most successful ecological stories of recent decades began to take shape. The wolves preyed on elk and reduced their numbers; their presence also altered the behaviour of their prey, which would frequent areas where the risk of being killed was greater less frequently; the willows were thus able to regrow, the beavers found food and material for their dams, the dams altered the course of the waterways once more, and the recovery of vegetation reduced bank erosion. By the end of this process, the return of a predator had even altered the rivers.

The scientific basis for this story was sound. In the early years following the reintroduction, several researchers investigated the possibility that Yellowstone was exhibiting a trophic cascade – that is, the propagation of effects exerted by a predator through the lower levels of the food web. Other studies focused on the ‘ecology of fear’, according to which the presence of the predator might have altered the way prey used the space even before reducing their numbers. These were reasonable ecological hypotheses, subject to normal scientific debate and difficult to distinguish from the other processes affecting the park at the same time.

The transformation took place when this complexity was condensed into a linear narrative.

In 2013, George Monbiot took Yellowstone to the TEDGlobal stage during a talk dedicated to rewilding – the restoration of ecological processes through the reintroduction of extinct species and the reduction of human intervention. The case of the wolves featured prominently in the talk: after seventy years of absence, the return of this predator would have reduced the deer population, encouraged the regrowth of trees along watercourses and allowed beavers to return, ultimately leading to changes in the very shape of the rivers.

The following year, that section of the speech was turned into the video "How Wolves Change Rivers", featuring spectacular footage of Yellowstone, Monbiot’s voiceover and a narrative flow so straightforward that it could be followed without any knowledge of ecology. The video reached tens of millions of people, and its central argument became part of environmental outreach, educational materials and popular conservation culture.

Its strength lay in the perfect symmetry of the narrative. Man had removed the wolf and Yellowstone had deteriorated; man had reintroduced the wolf and Yellowstone had begun to recover. What had been taken away was restored, and the system resumed its path towards its previous state. The removal and reintroduction appeared as two inverse operations, separated by seventy years and linked by the same causal chain, traversed first in one direction and then in the other.

This idea coincided perfectly with a much more general belief: that nature possesses a state of its own, from which we can cause it to deviate, but to which it would be able to return as soon as we restore what we have taken away. The ability of ecosystems to reorganise themselves was thus interpreted as a capacity for self-repair, attributing to nature a sort of memory of its previous state.

Yellowstone seemed to provide the evidence that was missing to support this belief.

Data collected in subsequent years painted a different picture. Wolves certainly preyed on elk and contributed to the decline in their population, alongside other large carnivores and human hunting outside the park’s boundaries. The behavioural effects attributed to fear of predators proved to be variable and context-dependent, as a herbivore must continue to forage and chooses where to do so based on the distribution of resources as well as the risk of being killed. Vegetation showed recovery in some areas and much more modest responses in others.

Daniel Stahler, who heads the Yellowstone wolf programme, described these effects using a phrase far less suited to a viral video: rather than a major ‘trophic cascade’, in many parts of the system a ‘trophic trickle’ is observed.

The most significant finding comes from an experiment that began in 2001 and continued for twenty years, published in Ecological Monographs by N. Thompson Hobbs and colleagues. The authors studied willow communities in the northern part of Yellowstone to understand why the return of large carnivores had not restored the riparian environment that existed prior to their elimination.

To understand this, one needs to look at what happened during the decades when the wolves were absent.

The willows in riparian areas have been linked to beaver activity through a relationship that has endured over time. Beavers used the willows both as food and as building material; their dams slowed the flow of water and raised the water table locally, creating conditions favourable to the growth of the willows themselves. The vegetation therefore supported the beavers’ activity, which in turn helped to maintain the environment necessary for the vegetation.

The pressure exerted by the elk kept the willows short for a long time and reduced the resources available to beavers. As the number of dams decreased, the watercourses also changed: river channels became deeper, the water table fell in several areas, and conditions favourable to the growth of riparian plants diminished. A process that began with a change in the food web had thus gradually transformed the physical environment as well.

When the wolves returned to Yellowstone, they found the result of those seventy years.

Hobbs and colleagues experimentally separated the two main factors. In some plots, they prevented large herbivores from reaching the willows by erecting fences; in others, they built artificial dams that mimicked the hydrological effects produced by beavers. The design allowed for a comparison between normal conditions and those in which grazing was reduced, and each situation could be studied with or without the restoration of the hydrological conditions associated with the dams.

The question was crucial. If the problem had essentially stemmed from pressure from the elk, reducing grazing should have allowed the willows to return to their previous condition. This was precisely the outcome that the reintroduction of large carnivores was intended to promote.

After twenty years of experimentation, simply excluding herbivores improved the growth of the willows without restoring the historic community. Altering the hydrological conditions also had a significant effect. The willows reached the heights characteristic of the environment being restored when the two measures were combined: reducing grazing whilst simultaneously restoring the conditions previously created by beaver dams.

The return of the predators had not erased what had happened during their absence, because in the meantime the system had acquired new constraints.

In ecology, this phenomenon is described by the concept of hysteresis. When a system exhibits hysteresis, the trajectory it follows after a disturbance depends on its previous history, because certain variables have changed during the transition and continue to influence what may happen subsequently. Returning the factor that caused the change to its initial value does not, therefore, force the system to retrace its steps.

The model proposed by Hobbs and colleagues illustrates the difference well. In a very simple food chain, consisting of a predator, a herbivore and a plant, one can imagine that the removal of the predator would increase the number of herbivores and reduce the number of plants, whilst the return of the predator could rapidly reverse that sequence. Real-world ecosystems comprise organisms that alter the environment in which they live and processes that operate over different timescales. During the absence of predators, herbivores can therefore contribute to changes in the habitat that persist even after the predators return.

Yellowstone provides a particularly clear example of why the beaver is an ‘ecosystem engineer’: through its dams, it directly alters the hydrology. When its activity declines, this changes a variable that will continue to influence the vegetation even if the pressure from the elk is subsequently reduced.

Meanwhile, the herbivore community has also changed. The elk population has declined sharply compared with the 1990s, whilst the bison population has increased and now accounts for a much larger proportion of the biomass of large herbivores. Bison are far less vulnerable to wolves and continue to exert pressure on the vegetation. Consequently, the food web into which the predator has been reintroduced is also different from the one that existed before its elimination.

Talking about hysteresis does not mean claiming that every transformation is definitively irreversible. Hobbs’s experiment shows that, by intervening in hydrology and herbivore pressure, it is possible to shift the system once again and encourage strong growth in willows. It means recognising that restoration does not consist of undoing the initial intervention, because the system we are acting upon today is the product of what has happened in the meantime.

This distinction profoundly alters the meaning of the expression ‘nature’s self-repair’. A disturbed ecosystem continues to organise itself according to the prevailing conditions and may stabilise in a configuration different from the previous one. Nature does not retain a blueprint of the lost state and does not work to restore it. It retains the consequences of the processes that have taken place.

A carved-out watercourse remains carved out even as the elk population declines; a lowered water table continues to affect the vegetation even after the wolves have returned. If beavers cannot find enough willow, they do not build the dams that would encourage the growth of the willow itself. The past thus becomes part of the causality of the present.

Even the concept of balance in nature becomes dangerous when it is used as if it were describing a general property of ecosystems. An ecological system can remain in different configurations for a long time and can develop mechanisms that cause a state resulting from a previous disturbance to persist. Stability offers no guarantee that the stabilised state will be the one we wish to preserve.

The implications for conservation are very serious. If degradation and restoration were symmetrical processes, we could regard the loss of a species or the transformation of a habitat as temporary damage, because it would be sufficient to subsequently eliminate the original cause and leave it to the system to rebuild what had been lost. Hysteresis removes this guarantee, because during degradation the ecosystem continues to change, and every change alters the conditions on which recovery will depend.

Restoration may therefore require interventions that no one would have foreseen at the start of the transformation and may depend on processes that have become difficult to reconstruct. In some systems, thresholds may be exceeded beyond which a return to the previous state requires conditions that no longer exist.

Preservation remains a top priority in this regard – one that no promise of restoration can replace.

The Yellowstone case also shows just how easily a sound scientific question can turn into a false certainty when it encounters a narrative that confirms what we already wish to believe. Trophic cascades do exist and the ecological effects of large predators are real; the oversimplification arose when a network of time-dependent relationships was reduced to a linear chain in which each step could be traversed in both directions.

The success of "How Wolves Change Rivers" also stemmed from this implicit reversibility. The story suggested that by removing one element, we had caused degradation; by reintroducing that same element, we would set the entire system in motion in the opposite direction. It was a perfect fit for our confirmation bias, because it transformed the complexity of ecology into a demonstration of nature’s innate ability to restore its own balance.

Twenty years of experimentation have taught us a different lesson. Ecosystems do not wait for us to intervene in order to continue changing, nor do they revert to their past state when we remove the cause that had transformed them. Every phase of their history shapes the conditions of the next phase.

The wolf has returned to Yellowstone. But the time that has passed during its absence has not.

And it is precisely for this reason that destroying and rebuilding are not equivalent actions, whilst preserving what still exists remains the safest form of ecological intervention possible.

The problem arises when criticism of political decisions becomes confused with the delegitimisation of science. In recent years, in certain sections of the centre-right, legitimate scepticism has sometimes been accompanied by an undermining of the medical and scientific communities and, in some cases, of well-established knowledge. It is a dangerous short circuit.

Politics has the task of making decisions. Science has the task of studying the facts on the basis of the available evidence. These are different spheres. A minister may make a mistake, just as a scientist or a technical committee may. But acknowledging a scientific error does not mean replacing the scientific method with a political conviction.

Science, after all, is not democratic: it does not decide by majority vote. A piece of data does not become false simply because it is unpopular, nor does evidence become true simply because it garners widespread support. Scientific knowledge progresses through data, verification, debate and the ability to correct itself when new evidence emerges. It is precisely this ability to correct errors that is one of its greatest strengths.

The parliamentary commission of inquiry into Covid should also move in this direction. Investigating the handling of the pandemic is both legitimate and necessary: we need to understand which decisions worked, which had negative consequences, what political and administrative responsibilities have emerged, and where the state has shown its weaknesses.

But its aim should be, above all, to learn from mistakes in order to be better prepared for the next emergency. The risk, however, is that a commission of inquiry may be perceived as a tool to fuel a political battle against the scientific community, taking on a more ideological than investigative stance. That would be a missed opportunity.

The question we should be asking is not just who was at fault, but what we need to change. How can we improve protocols? How can we make data usage more transparent? How can we communicate more effectively during a crisis? How can we protect public health, education, the economy and individual freedoms all at the same time?

A political force that aspires to govern should aim to address these questions without turning science into a political adversary. Catering to the most radical elements of one’s electorate may yield immediate support, but risks leaving behind a legacy of mistrust in institutions that, in the long run, harms everyone.

Criticising the lockdown does not mean being anti-science. Challenging a public health measure does not mean denying reality. Calling for transparency regarding the data does not mean undermining the authority of doctors. But turning mistrust of science into a political identity is another matter entirely.

The lessons learnt from the Covid crisis should serve to build a country that is better prepared, not simply more divided. Politicians have the right – and the duty – to assess the decisions that have been taken. But they must do so without confusing criticism of those in power with a denial of the facts. Because it is one thing to hold people to account for the mistakes made during a pandemic. It is quite another to turn science into an enemy. The former is democracy. The latter is populism.

Less in the public eye than the MEP – who now follows a strategy of constant provocation to remain in the spotlight and thus continue to bask in the media limelight – Alemanno has been travelling the length and breadth of Italy in recent months, organising events and attracting former activists and businesspeople, political leaders and supporters. As the focal point of growing interest, there is no doubt that Alemanno’s social right has become the backbone of a party otherwise grappling with no small amount of internal turmoil, and of which it is, to date, undoubtedly the most organised and strongest core. And this is a core which, whilst active in Veneto, Lombardy, Tuscany and various other Italian regions, has its heart in Rome. In Rome, in fact, the social right’s platform provides the common ground that unites virtually all right-wing parties, from FdI to the Lega and, indeed, right through to Futuro Nazionale. Not to mention that the political trajectory of Alemanno – the only right-wing mayor in the capital’s recent history – has intersected with that of a great many politicians who are now leading figures in centre-right parties.

Alemanno’s five-year administration has, in fact, brought together and united, in various roles, politicians who are now active in FdI or the Lega. Not just elected representatives, but party officials and ordinary activists too. That entire hidden, unseen world drives political action on a day-to-day basis, on the ground. Precisely thanks to Alemanno and his deep roots in Rome, Vannacci knows full well that he can count on an unprecedented political showcase; the election campaign for Rome, in fact, far from being merely a stepping stone to a local election, is a contest inevitably destined to take on national significance. It follows – and they are well aware of this at Via della Scrofa – that Alemanno and his allies can carry out a relentless campaign to erode the Roman base of Fratelli d’Italia, aiming to poach leading figures, members and, above all, votes, by emulating what Vannacci has already done at national level to the detriment of the Lega.

Against this backdrop, the centre-right’s choice of candidate will no longer be merely a challenge to Roberto Gualtieri but will take on the form of a political battle against the radical right as well: a weak candidacy would therefore risk steering the Roman electorate – which has always looked to a certain social right – towards Vannacci and weighing down the centre-right at a national level, filling the sails of Vannacci and Alemanno’s ship. Moreover, the precedent set by Enrico Michetti’s candidacy – with Carlo Calenda reaching 19 per cent, partly thanks to disillusioned centre-right voters – should set off a very clear alarm bell for Giorgia Meloni and her sister Arianna, who, despite some rumours, is unlikely to agree to stand for mayor. Choosing the wrong candidate – and openly playing to lose – risks proving a very costly mistake, even at national level.

Twenty-five minutes of applause at the Venice Film Festival marked the start of the popular uprising. The other Middle Eastern drama, entitled ‘La voce di Hind Rajab’, directed by the Tunisian director and screenwriter Kawthar ibn Haniyya, received slightly less last year. Such running times do not even seem possible without a few members of the audience fainting – but who would dare to faint at such a juncture? In ‘Naza’, there are no little girls on screen. The young Palestinians are merely evoked: their loving fathers – members or supporters of Hamas – return home to sleep, the Israelis open fire, and some collateral damage is expected, factored in, even calculated. This takes place, it is worth remembering, after 7 October 2023. Women, children and the elderly died in the massacre on Israeli soil: some were living in kibbutzim, others were dancing at a music festival. Many were kidnapped and tortured; not all of them returned home. The Israeli government and army refused to turn the other cheek. They did everything in their power to track down the perpetrators and punish them.

These are the premises. It should also be noted that Hamas enjoys considerable popular support. Not everyone wears a uniform, nor do they sleep in barracks. In the evening they return home to their wives and children: their dearest loved ones, but also their main source of protection. The observation may seem cynical, but it accurately describes the situation. Hamas supporters sleep at home in the evenings, and it is in their own homes that they are hunted down. Since the directors – both Israeli – are determined to make this act of war seem unacceptable, they show numerous well-lit family interiors in Tel Aviv. These serve to send a shiver down the spine of the viewer, who naturally identifies with them. Meanwhile, the same viewer watches ‘talking heads’ on a dark terrace… Barely lit, they explain military operations. When a militant or a sympathiser needs to be identified, a diagram of the house is drawn, showing the points of attack. And, of course, the collateral damage is calculated: family members, visiting friends, children who are already dreaming of war against their age-old enemy.

Israeli army personnel are listening in on conversations – all mobile phones have been hacked. And they are calculating the number of potential collateral casualties. This does not seem like a particularly serious aggravating factor in times of war. ‘Naza’, which received the Special Jury Prize at the Venice Film Festival (another standing ovation), is presented by the directors as a documentary. However, none of the interviewees are named, for their own safety. Therefore, viewers are asked to accept the film’s content at face value, trusting both the anonymous interviewees and the filmmakers. Well-behaved audiences typically refrain from asking questions; well-behaved audiences applaud.

Given the purely moral nature of the pact, there are no provisions for legal coercion, nor, of course, any sanctions. It is a sort of technologically updated replica of the ‘lawless order’ – to quote a well-known book by the American jurist Robert Ellickson – which characterises the resolution of disputes between neighbours and which, to some extent, characterised the order of the Wild West. From the internal colonisation of the frontier to the frontier of artificial intelligence, in practice: after all, the agreement expressly refers to ‘responsibilities linked to the frontier’. And just as in the frontier described—with romanticised overtones—by Frederick Turner, where the arm of the law continued to operate simply by standing on the sidelines and being ready to intervene when necessary, the White House agreement also provides for the possibility that certain specific elements and areas may become subject to regulation.

Nor is it ruled out, as Trump pointed out whilst reading the clause in the text, that a committee comprising ten people representing the most significant companies could be established, headed by the White House’s Artificial Intelligence Coordinator. The key points of the agreement, which will apply to all companies involved in the AI race, consist of a substantial increase in internal controls and safety systems, particularly in the fields of cyber security and biological and chemical research, a qualitative and quantitative expansion of supervisory teams, partnerships with external and independent assessors, and the establishment of the aforementioned board, which is intended to act as a conduit and link between AI leaders, enabling them to discuss and monitor one another. The text and concept of the agreement are the result of the diplomatic efforts of David Sacks, former White House adviser on AI and cryptocurrencies, as well as a venture capitalist belonging to the ‘PayPal Mafia’ and a long-standing friend and collaborator of Peter Thiel dating back to their days at the Stanford Review. However, a substantial contribution was also made by Huang and Musk, who – not coincidentally – sat on either side of Trump at the banquet table, in true Praetorian style.

There is no doubt that the greatest problems will arise in relation to cross-checks and audits, given that all attempts to date have proved highly unsatisfactory. The very emergence of organisations such as METR – an independent evaluation body for cutting-edge AI models – has revealed decidedly opaque aspects and undeclared yet obvious conflicts of interest; several employees of the audit bodies come from the very same companies that are supposed to be audited. In reality, the agreement also implies another commitment – one that is not explicitly stated but has been discussed and agreed upon amongst tech leaders: to make AI, and above all data centres, appealing to American citizens once again. The popularity of high technology in the United States is in freefall; in March, a Gartner survey revealed that 70 per cent of respondents were opposed to the construction of data centres near their cities of residence. In mid-September, the same level of opposition was confirmed by an NPR/PBS survey. On 16 September, the House of Representatives passed the Ratepayer Protection Act, a law designed to protect energy consumers, requiring data centre owners to bear the cost of energy price rises financially without passing the burden on to the public.

The idea put forward by Trump and the Silicon Valley figures surrounding him is to establish a comprehensive system of incentives for communities that host data centres, whilst also developing technologies for infrastructure construction, heat dissipation and water consumption, in order to minimise their environmental impact.

Testa and Zollino’s argument is divided into two parts: the first deals with the energy context in general, whilst the second focuses on nuclear power and Italy. This division serves to ensure a rigorous approach. The authors begin by addressing the global energy issue: as the global population and per capita income grow, ever-increasing amounts of energy will be required. However, the threat of climate change imposes a constraint: while they acknowledge that fossil fuels will remain essential for some time to come, their use must be limited as much as possible. To achieve this objective, two strategies must be pursued simultaneously: on the one hand, the electrification of consumption, that is, the gradual replacement of existing technologies (for example, with electric cars or heat pumps). The other challenge is to generate ever more electricity from emission-free sources, thereby reducing and ultimately eliminating (or almost eliminating) the role of fossil fuels. This explains the focus on renewables, which have seen spectacular growth in recent years, and on nuclear power, which remains one of the most important low-carbon sources globally. Of course, the situation in developing countries – characterised by rapid economic growth and rising energy consumption – differs from that in industrialised nations, where consumption and emissions have long since stopped rising; yet there is a clear interest in finding common solutions, and it falls primarily to the most prosperous economies to invest in the research and development of clean alternatives.

This is where the second half of the discussion begins, which takes a closer look at our country. Testa and Zollino adopt a secular approach: although their positions are well known, they strive not to take sides and to base their opinions on the facts, not the other way round. Moreover, there is an autobiographical element to this journey: both admit to having voted against nuclear power in the 1987 referendum, but to having changed their minds after examining the issue in greater depth in the years that followed. After outlining the characteristics of nuclear power stations and discussing their historical safety record, they present the results of various scenarios. The book focuses on Italy: it analyses the characteristics of our energy system and applies various scenarios. To do so, it takes stylised examples – such as the installation of a data centre in Lombardy or in Puglia – and assesses what would change if, in one case, only renewable sources (wind and solar) were used, and in the other, a mix of renewables and nuclear (alongside a variable proportion of gas). Furthermore, they show how the scenarios change as natural gas prices fluctuate. Since renewable energy production varies with the seasons and is not entirely predictable, the more we accelerate the transition, the more necessary it becomes to oversize the system, upgrade the grids and add storage systems. The authors also consider the cost of nuclear power over the entire life cycle of the plants, showing how the weight of the initial investment affects the comparison with other technologies depending on the time horizon considered.

Testa and Zollino do not dispute that, in theory, wind or solar power are cheaper than nuclear power, but this is only true ‘if we compare each technology individually, disregarding variability, seasonality and the simultaneous nature of generation’. Consumers want energy when they need it, not when weather conditions allow: therefore, we must focus on the system as a whole, not on the individual sources that contribute to supplying the required power. The total cost of electricity, in other words, does not correspond to the average cost of production of the individual technologies, but includes the expenditure required to have energy at a specific time and in a specific place. And this depends not only on generation plants, but also on energy transmission infrastructure, batteries and any incentives. This is why “variability, seasonality and simultaneity take on enormous significance”. The conclusion is that it would be wrong to think we can solve all our problems with a single technology (or by using only some and excluding others). Nuclear power can make a vital contribution to minimising costs and reducing emissions: Testa and Zollino do not see nuclear power as some mythical ‘silver bullet’, but – as the book’s title suggests – as the missing piece in a jigsaw puzzle that is already complicated enough, without us making it impossible in the name of some prejudice.

Let us begin by dispelling the false reports concerning alleged diversion of state resources which, according to Confindustria and certain journalistic analyses, are said to be caused by the reform of the framework law on the craft sector. Anyone familiar with the text of the reform knows that the alarmist estimates of hypothetical impacts exceeding one billion euros on the state coffers are entirely unfounded. In fact, a clause ensuring financial neutrality with regard to social security contributions to INPS is provided for: craft enterprises which, as they grow, exceed the standard thresholds for the number of employees set out in the current framework law on craftsmanship will be subject to the same social security contribution rates as industrial enterprises of a similar size. Furthermore, the extension of the obligation for owners and partners to register with the Special Artisans’ Fund (IVS) will result in an increase in contribution revenue. Moreover, the reform does not create any ‘grey area’ between the craft sector and industry. Contrary to Confindustria’s claims, businesses will have no discretion in choosing whether or not to be classified as craft enterprises, depending on their own interests – which, in any case, are non-existent. In fact, registration in the Register of Craft Enterprises is mandatory in all cases where a business meets the relevant criteria.

Furthermore, the increase in the threshold to 49 employees does not apply to all types of craft businesses, but only to those in the arts and traditional crafts sector, whilst the current differentiation in the maximum number of employees based on the activity carried out is maintained, with a proportional increase in staff numbers.

The alarm over wage dumping or the erosion of protections for an alleged 1.8 million workers is also unfounded. It is well known, in fact, that the legal classification of a ‘craft enterprise’ does not oblige the company to apply a specific collective agreement: a craft enterprise may apply industrial collective agreements and vice versa. This is a situation that already exists in Italy today. In fact, almost all the collective agreements signed by craft organisations are applied well beyond the limits of the 1985 Framework Law on Craft Enterprises. There will therefore be no direct or indirect impact on workers’ wages or on the resulting tax burden. As for employment, it can only be boosted, given that the reform aims to remove the ‘bottleneck’ to employment growth for all those firms that currently risk having to choose between taking on one more employee and losing their legal status as an artisan enterprise.

More generally, the need to revise the current framework law – which is a full 40 years old – as also highlighted by the President of the Republic at the 2024 annual general meeting of Confartigianato, is necessary to enable craft businesses to navigate a constantly evolving market and the major economic and social transformations of our time. In other words, according to Confartigianato, craft enterprise should not be a ‘cage’, but rather a status based on the pre-eminence of the value of work and the entrepreneur’s skills, guaranteed and protected by Article 45 of the Constitution. After all, one need only look beyond our national borders. In countries such as France and Germany, the artisan nature of a business does not limit its size: it is possible to be an artisan whilst employing dozens or even hundreds of staff.

If we all care about the competitiveness of the Italian manufacturing sector, and given that the reform does not provide for preferential treatment that distorts competition between businesses nor for reduced revenue for the public purse, whose interests are served by keeping the craft sector confined within size limits that stifle its growth? One is led to wonder, in short, what exactly is the problem? What is the real reason for such concern on the part of Confindustria? Perhaps competition at the trade association level? In this regard, we are convinced that, as always, it will be the companies themselves that freely decide who best represents and protects their interests, regardless of the reform of the framework law on the craft sector.

Marco Granelli

President of Confartigianato

Today, the City of Milan owns 54.8 per cent of SEA. F2i, through 2i Aeroporti, owns around 45 per cent and has full control of Sagat. The proposal under consideration is a merger between the two companies, a move that would inevitably lead to a dilution of Palazzo Marino’s stake. At this point, one might argue that there is nothing particularly surprising about this: if a smaller company is absorbed into a larger one, the shareholdings change, and what matters in the end is the value of the new entity. True. But it is precisely for this reason that the issue cannot be reduced to the percentage of shares held. What those shares enable one to do also matters – and perhaps above all else. If the merger were to be accompanied by new shareholders’ agreements or amendments to the articles of association capable of granting the private shareholder greater rights regarding the appointment of the chief executive, business strategy, the budget or investments, the municipality could formally continue to hold a majority whilst simultaneously having less power than before. This is a scenario that needs to be assessed today, not a foregone conclusion. But precisely because it needs to be assessed, it raises a question that should be of particular interest to the public shareholder: how much are those rights worth? And what does the local authority receive in return for a possible rebalancing of governance?

This is where the tender process comes into play. Not as a bureaucratic formality, nor as a means of blocking the transaction. On the contrary: as a way of determining whether the proposed transaction is truly the most advantageous. A competitive tender serves precisely this purpose: to compare values, investments, conditions, guarantees and governance rights. It serves to put a price on something that would otherwise risk being decided simply through negotiations between the parties already at the table. The documentation on the transaction specifically identifies this as one of the contentious points: the possible strengthening of the private shareholder’s governance would take place without a competitive process, with potential implications for the future contestability of the public shareholding. Naturally, a merger does not automatically amount to a sale of shares, and it would be incorrect to pretend that the legal issue has already been resolved. Article 10 of the Consolidated Act on Publicly Owned Companies provides for procedures governing the disposal of shareholdings that are based on publicity, transparency and non-discrimination, and permits direct negotiation only in justified cases. The key issue, therefore, is to ascertain whether and to what extent these rules apply to this specific transaction.

But the response “it’s not a sale, it’s a merger” cannot, on its own, bring the discussion to a close. If the merger results in a substantial change to the powers exercised over a public asset, it is reasonable to ask why that decision must be made without putting it to the market. All the more so given that an alternative route exists, at least in theory: Sea could acquire Sagat whilst keeping its shareholding structure unchanged. This does not mean that this solution is necessarily better. It might be too costly, it might be less efficient, it might make less business sense. But the very fact that it exists shows that there is not just one way to achieve the same objective. And when there are several ways to carry out a transaction involving a public asset, the question of comparing the alternatives becomes hard to avoid. Giuseppe Sala, too, has set out two very clear conditions: to create economic and social value for both areas and not to alter SEA’s current corporate structure. The PD group leader at Palazzo Marino, Beatrice Uguccioni, has called for a discussion – prior to any decision – on the business plan, the corporate balance and the economic and employment implications. In short, the issue should not be whether one is for or against the merger. It could be an excellent deal. But precisely if it is, it should be possible to demonstrate this. This is the issue that is worth keeping distinct from everything else.

There is no need to wait until a corporate matter becomes a legal case to ask whether a procedure is sufficiently transparent and competitive. In Cagliari, where another airport deal has raised precisely the issue of the lack of a public tender process, the debate has progressed much further. But in Milan, the question can be asked earlier, whilst decisions are still to be made. If a tender is not necessary, it would be useful to know clearly why. If, on the other hand, it can serve to gauge the value of the project and better safeguard the public interest, the question remains, stubbornly simple: why not hold one?

In practical terms, Poste will have full visibility over TIM’s main activities and initiatives and will be involved at an early stage in the assessment of operations of major strategic importance. The stated aim is to coordinate industrial policies, integrate expertise, infrastructure and technologies, and develop synergies, whilst maintaining the legal autonomy of TIM and its subsidiaries, not least to protect minority shareholders. For the time being, the composition of TIM’s board of directors remains unchanged, and Pietro Labriola is expected to remain at the helm of the company during the initial phase of the integration. On the stock market, TIM’s share price fell by 2.6 per cent. Poste’s share price rose by 1.04 per cent.

Di Battista, aged 48, had undergone surgery at a hospital in the Cuban capital and returned to Italy by air ambulance between 11 and 12 September; on 18 September, he announced that he had been discharged. He says he does not identify with the ‘sick warrior’ rhetoric: “I’m not one of those people who say ‘I’ll pull through’; I have to undergo treatment and maintain a positive attitude. It’s the doctors who mustn’t give up.” He adds: “I’m part of that group of Italian citizens who ask, ‘Why me?’”

The article also touches on politics. At the Gemelli Hospital, he reports, he was told that in Cuba the operation had been carried out with great precision, despite using technology from thirty years ago, in a hospital with no running water. And on Giorgia Meloni: she behaved well towards him, as did the whole government, and rang him to urge him to ignore the controversy over the state flight, which – he points out – was never really a possibility.

From the world of comics, here is “Il grande potere del Chninkel”, written by Jean Van Hamme and illustrated by Grzegorz Rosiński, published in Italy by Editoriale Cosmo. The narrative unfolds in a fantastical world, somewhere between fantasy and science fiction, illuminated by two suns and ravaged by a seemingly endless war, where three immortal lords vie for dominion over the planet and where, amidst their battles, entire populations exist solely to fight, serve and die. Amongst them are the Chninkel: small, fragile beings reduced to slavery. One need only look at them to immediately sense a visual and narrative kinship with Tolkien’s Hobbits. This is a comic book strongly influenced by the aesthetics and imagery of the 1980s, yet one that retains a surprising modernity even today: a must-read, therefore, if you love Tolkien, but also if you’re looking for an original, surprising and somewhat unconventional take on fantasy.

For the audiovisual sector, this week’s recommendation is an Italian documentary that recounts a surprising story: “La mia Anima ha fretta”, directed by Giuseppe Contarino, a film that recounts the history of the Contea Gentile in Abruzzo and that of its founder, Nicolas Gentile. It is a journey that began with Nicolas’s diagnosis of leukaemia, his determination to make the most of the time he had left, and his love for Tolkien and The Lord of the Rings, but which soon became much more: a place to celebrate, certainly, but above all a place to honour great shared values, including friendship, a love of nature and a rediscovery of the simple things in life. The documentary has already enjoyed significant success on the international festival circuit, winning multiple awards (including in Australia and Mexico), and is now seeking a distributor in Italy. The next major screening is scheduled during the 60th edition of Lucca Comics & Games. 

Two distinctive works that shed further light on the world of pop culture, featuring icons and popular myths that help us make sense of the present. Join us next week for Decoder, here on Il Foglio’s channels, for another trio of unmissable titles. 

The draft decree-law contains urgent measures to ensure the smooth start of the 2026/2027 academic year, to support the measures of the National Recovery and Resilience Plan falling within the remit of the Ministry of Education and Merit, and to promote the integration of foreign students within the school system as well as in higher education and research. Among other things, the decree-law would include a cap on the number of foreign pupils per class and a ban on the wearing of burqas and niqabs during school activities.

“Today, the Council of Ministers approved the decree on schools. A 30 per cent cap on the number of pupils in classes who do not have an adequate command of Italian, more resources to help them learn our language, and a ban on burqas and niqabs in schools. These are common-sense measures that do not divide, but help to achieve genuine integration, avoiding ‘ghetto’ classes and giving all pupils the same opportunities,” said Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni on social media. “This is the direction we want to continue to follow,” she added, “a school system that promotes integration without compromising on the rules, that supports those facing the greatest difficulties, and that ensures everyone starts on an equal footing.”

Article currently being updated

As we recall here, this initiative follows on from one a year ago, when two hundred priests gathered at the Church of Sant’Andrea al Quirinale to voice their protest against ‘the genocide of the Palestinian people’. This was not a prayer vigil, but a call on politicians to end their inaction and silence and to make their voices heard – naturally against Israel. Yesterday, in addition to “denouncing the genocide taking place in Gaza, the unjustified violence against the Palestinian civilian population and the state of apartheid in force for over 70 years throughout the occupied Palestinian territories”, calls were also made for “the suspension of arms sales to those committing crimes against civilians”, ‘the disarmament of the State of Israel to prevent further deaths of innocent people’, as well as ‘the prosecution for war crimes of all those responsible for the mass extermination currently taking place in Gaza’. As for the Hamas pogrom, there was nothing: not even a footnote or a side note. On the contrary, among the network’s objectives is the need for “the recognition of personal, political and military responsibilities, through independent and fair investigations into 7 October 2023, and into what happened before and after that date”.

The procession made its way through the streets amidst banners, singing, guitar music and Gospel readings. Tourists were particularly curious and approached the priests to gain a better understanding of what the event was all about. “You don’t often see priests demonstrating, but in reality we prayed and then walked through the city in the blood of the martyrs,” said Father Rito Maresca, who organised the campaign. “I’m happy; we prayed that there would be no more indifference,” said another priest, Father Pietro. “Everyone can contribute to change; we are priests and we pray, whilst others can choose what to do to stop the genocide in Gaza.”

The ghetto according to Palazzo Chigi

The most sensitive part concerned the Quirinale. The day before, in Amatrice, Mattarella had opened the school year by recalling that schools are open to all, as stipulated in Article 34 of the Constitution, and by calling on them to avoid ghettos and not to erect barriers. Almost everyone interpreted those words as a warning against the measure due to be discussed in the Council of Ministers on Thursday 24 September. The text is expected to make the 30 per cent threshold binding and includes a ban on the burqa and niqab in schools.

Meloni turned the interpretation on its head. She said she did not interpret the president’s speech as a challenge to the government’s initiative. In her view, a ‘ghetto’ arises when a foreign child who does not speak Italian is placed in a class where the majority do not speak Italian. In that case, she emphasised, “that is the ghetto”. Distributing pupils more evenly would therefore serve precisely to avoid this. She clarified that the cap applies to foreign pupils who do not speak our language. She then brought up an awkward precedent for the President: Mattarella, whilst Minister for Education, “drafted circulars that more or less urged against concentrating foreign pupils” in the same class. 

There is a precedent, but it does not entirely correspond to the government’s measure. Circular 205 of 1990 suggested grouping, where possible, pupils from the same language group into classes of up to five. It was a guideline, not a law. However, a 30 per cent cap already existed in the circular signed by Mariastella Gelmini, which was often disregarded. The practical issue remains. According to some estimates, bringing all classes below the threshold would require moving nearly 130,000 pupils. The opposition reacted immediately. Elly Schlein accused the Prime Minister of pulling the President’s strings, citing a lack of a sense of the state. The M5S group leader in the Senate, Luca Pirondini, accused her of manipulating the Quirinale’s words. 

The criticism levelled at Istat

On the subject of the budget figures, Meloni expressed regret but did not engage in self-criticism. On the very same day, Istat had confirmed a 2025 deficit of 3.079 per cent of GDP, rounded up to 3.1. This dashed hopes of falling below 3 per cent and exiting the excessive deficit procedure ahead of schedule. The Prime Minister claimed to have reduced the deficit from 8.1 to 3.08, comparing herself to someone who has reached thirty and narrowly missed out on thirty-one. The real target, however, was the statistics office. Meloni noted that Istat, on the very same day, had revised its growth forecast for 2024 upwards, as it does every year. She wondered whether it was the Italian people or the government who were being underestimated, and expressed the hope that this would not happen again in three years’ time. She levelled the same criticism at the European Commission, which had forecast growth of 0.5 per cent for Italy. 

The revision has taken place and is substantial: growth for 2024 has risen from 0.8 to 1.1 per cent. However, upward revisions, based on more complete data, are to be expected and do not constitute evidence of hostility on the part of the institute. The same press release also contained a less welcome figure: the tax burden for 2025 has risen to 42.9 per cent, seven tenths of a percentage point higher than the previous year. The Prime Minister offered her explanation for this on Porta a Porta: the tax burden is rising because more people are working and paying tax, not because tax rates have increased. Meloni also admitted that the problem lies elsewhere. Italy is not growing as it should for structural reasons: low productivity, insufficient investment in innovation and human capital, and the cost of energy. To keep energy bills in check, 60 billion has been spent over four years. 

Stamp duty, healthcare and regional governors

The third front is that involving the regions. On 16 September, the Council of Ministers approved a road tax exemption for 2027 on vehicles up to 80 kilowatts. On 21 September, the new National Health Service charges came into force, with some patient contributions increasing. There is no technical link between the two measures, but seen side by side they have fuelled the controversy. The President of Tuscany, Eugenio Giani, described it as an electoral ploy funded by regional taxes, at a time when the regions are calling for more funding for healthcare. 

The Prime Minister has rejected the accusation. She explained that the measure costs 2.4 billion and that the regions do not pay for it, as the state reimburses them. She described the criticism from opposition governors as politically motivated and denied that there would be any cuts to regional healthcare. She then issued a challenge: left-wing regional presidents are free to opt out, forgo the contributions and continue to levy the vehicle tax. She also took the opportunity to take a swipe at the M5S over the billions in building subsidies still outstanding. However, it remains to be clarified how the compensation will be funded. The fund, amounting to around 2.3 billion, is drawn from unused PNRR resources. And the measure lasts for twelve months. Giorgetti has already stated that it will inevitably become a permanent feature. From 2028 onwards, therefore, funding will have to be secured each year. 

Trust as an ultimatum

The final section, on electoral law, is also the most political. The Senate approved the reform on 15 September with 113 votes in favour and 71 against. The bill returns to the Chamber of Deputies, where it is scheduled for debate on 28 September. The government wants to avoid a repeat of what happened in July, when the secret ballot revealed the dissenting MPs. Meloni cited that very precedent. She recalled that, when the amendment on preferential votes was rejected in the Chamber of Deputies, many said that the government had lost Parliament’s confidence. Now preferential votes are included in the text, and when the bill returns to the Chamber of Deputies, she said, clarity is needed. “If the government does not have Parliament’s confidence, I think we will have to take note of that.” 

It is not an explicit threat of a crisis, but the gist is clear. Confidence is needed to safeguard the text, even if it does not shield it from the final vote. The message is directed primarily at the majority. Discontent is rife across the parliamentary groups, and the Lega is a major factor, being internally divided and never convinced that it should give up single-member constituencies. In practice, whoever scuppers the reform takes responsibility for the government’s failure. Meloni joked about the rumours of a spring vote, saying that those spreading them can’t wait to get rid of her. She added that no electoral law can be tailor-made: if the voters don’t want you, no system will save you.

The tactic is the same across all issues. Mattarella’s words become confirmation, the Istat revision an underestimate, the stamp duty a cost borne entirely by the State, and the secret vote on the electoral law a vote on the government. It works on television, where five minutes are enough to reframe the questions. Tomorrow in the Council of Ministers and from 28 September in the Chamber of Deputies, however, the figures will be less open to interpretation.

“Following Tajani’s despicable remarks, Prime Minister Meloni said they were simply poorly worded comments. That is not the case; these were not mere slips of the tongue. So much so that today Vannacci has returned to the subject, specifying that he prefers women not to wear skirts. The truth, unfortunately, is that this language is not a mere indiscretion, but reflects the sexist and patriarchal mindset of many men,” said Valeria Valente of the PD.

Senator Alessandra Maiorino of the Five Star Movement was also present, albeit wearing a long skirt: “I didn’t realise we were supposed to wear a short one!” she said. “I suppose that makes me a woman of good character, then!” she joked. Other participants included Simona Malpezzi, Cecilia d’Elia, Ilaria Cucchi and Susanna Camusso.

Frosinone’s number 22 was simply sensational against Como; he earned the applause of both his own supporters and the opposition’s, saved everything he needed to save and, on two occasions, even more than could reasonably be expected. Take the sixth and forty-second minutes, for instance, when he deflected three headers from close range – shots that four times out of five would have ended up in the net. Not on Sunday. Because Sunday was the perfect Sunday for this goalkeeper who, at twenty-two, has already found the composure and maturity needed to be decisive in Serie A. And it doesn’t always go like that. In fact, it almost never goes like that, because perfection always floats far from the turbulent waters in which goalkeepers operate. And yet it is nothing but perfection that is expected of a goalkeeper. Around the number ones, there is always the pointing finger of those who can do nothing but blame a ball retrieved from the back of the net; there are snorts, insults and doubts.

As for Lorenzo Palmisani’s talent, however, there were few doubts even before kick-off in the match against Como. You don’t end up guarding the goal for Italy’s Under-19, Under-20 and Under-21 teams by chance. You get there through skill, physicality and anticipation. And the Frosinone goalkeeper has all of this, as well as being fairly two-footed – which certainly doesn’t go amiss in today’s game.

Meanwhile, Frosinone are enjoying an unexpected sixth place in the table, ten points that will come in very handy when tougher times arrive (and for a newly promoted side, tougher times usually do come around) and an eight-point cushion above the relegation zone – which perhaps smacks of faint hope but is still a welcome prospect. They are relishing Antonio Raimondo’s goals, Giorgi Kvernadze’s dribbling, the passing and tactical play of Romano Schmid and Giacomo Calò, and the numerous saves by Lorenzo Palmisani – a man who dreamed of being Gianluigi Buffon and who will be able to say that, at least on one day in his life, he came close.

Meanwhile, for what it’s worth – and it’s not worth much – Lorenzo Palmisani can claim to be the second goalkeeper to occupy both first and second place in the ‘Guanti sporchi’ daily rankings: the first was Elia Caprile against Hellas Verona.

The three best saves from the fifth matchday of Serie A

1. Lorenzo Palmisani in the 6th minute of Frosinone v Como 2–0 – 5 points

2. Lorenzo Palmisani in the 42nd minute of Frosinone v Como 2–0 – 3 points

3. joint top: David De Gea in the 21st minute of Fiorentina v Napoli 1–1 – 1 point

3. Vanja Milinković-Savić (joint top) in the 63rd minute of Fiorentina v Napoli 1–1 – 1 point

The ranking

1. Lorenzo Palmisani (Frosinone), 11 points
2. Chrīstos Mandas (Lazio), 7 points
3. Guglielmo Vicario (Juventus), 6 points
4. Guglielmo Falcone (Lecce), Filip Stanković (Venezia), 5 points
6. Edoardo Corvi (Parma), Mike Maignan (Milan), Josep Martínez (Inter), Alex Meret (Napoli), Maduka Okoye (Udinese), 3 points
11. Elia Caprile (Cagliari), David De Gea (Fiorentina), Vanja Milinković-Savić (Napoli) 1 point

What you have just read is "Guanti sporchi", a light-hearted football-themed piece about Serie A’s number ones and the save that somehow made the football weekend better – at least from the perspective of that minority who dress differently from the others on the pitch. You can find all previous instalments here.

Ali Asgari, director of the film “Un po’ di luce” – Kami Nour in Persian – in competition at the 83rd Venice Film Festival, arrived in Rome on Tuesday, where he studied for ten years, to present a preview of his latest film at the Greenwich cinema – a film “about life continuing amidst tragedy”, he says. “For a year we were surrounded by numerous tragedies, but I always saw this life, running on a parallel track and continuing, undisturbed. I didn’t want to make a film about the war, about the massacre of young Iranians, but about its effects. Nor did I want to make a dark film: as the title suggests, I wanted to portray a little light that still exists at the end of Iran’s tunnel – the light we are seeking, in the everyday reality of life that carries on.” Ali tells Il Foglio that he came up with the idea for the film in June last year, during the Twelve-Day War, and was struck by how life carried on, against the backdrop of the bombing, followed by the subsequent protests that were brutally suppressed: “I wanted to portray this contrast – war and life continuing side by side, the fragile boundary between despair and the silent forces that keep us anchored to life.” Life lies in the small, everyday gestures, in family ties that waver but do not break, in the plants that take over the rooms and survive as they are passed from house to house, in the clandestine performances without hijabs. Arash has decided to take his own life, but life continues to pursue him; the green leaves of his plants are so large they won’t even fit in his car; he keeps giving them away, and yet he remains unemptied.

“He is haunted by small signs of life and light that never leave him alone,” says the director: flowers, trees, animals: “In the film, I tell the story of a person who wants to die, but it is life itself that keeps seeking him out.” War, on the other hand, is present in Trump’s threats of bombing – “it could strike at any moment”, as is repeated on several occasions – in the tape on the windows used for protection, in the regime’s calls from an unknown number that never stops monitoring you, in the blocked internet, in the seals on a doctor’s surgery who had the audacity to ‘want to save the world’ by treating the ‘rebels’, and in the fear of taking one’s son to hospital for fear that he might be arrested. ‘War gives you strange ideas, you know?’ a friend remarks. ‘Demolishing it costs more than rebuilding it, and if a missile were to hit it, I’d save myself the cost of demolition – after all, Trump has said his strikes will be targeted and won’t hit civilians. Trump would never lie; he’s sure of that.’ While trying to explain to his three brothers the darkness into which he has sunk, Arash always sees a glimmer of light. The ultimate challenge is the moment when he’ll have to tell his mother about his decision, but first Masia takes him to her son’s show; they have to hand in their mobiles because it’s all clandestine. ‘It’s ridiculous,’ comments his youngest sister Mahsa, ‘it’s not as if we were robbing someone.’ On stage, the young man has to say goodbye to his mother before fleeing abroad; she begs him not to leave, then calls out to the audience from the stage: “Can you persuade my son to change his mind?” One member of the audience replies: let him go; there’s nothing he can do here. Arash says nothing. Even at the final family dinner with his mother, everyone will be far too quiet; then the sound of laughter will return, along with hot dishes, music and a Kurdish dance in which bodies draw closer and hands clasp and intertwine, bringing a little light back into the room.

The result of such haste was a frantic meeting, with negotiations continuing right up to the last minute and culminating in a decree which, in the end – to keep everyone happy – was split into two. There were even two press conferences. One was held by the Socialists, which was confused and full of stammering from the Minister for Housing Policy, Isabel Rodríguez, who was visibly unprepared for a text that was still being finalised. Another was held by the ministers of the Sumar coalition, who presented a far more concise and radical proposal: permanent contracts or those with automatic renewal, and an obligation for the landlord to compensate the tenant with the equivalent of at least 12 months’ rent in the event of unjustified termination. A proposal that was scrapped because it was already doomed to fail.

The first proposal stands a slightly better chance, but it must win over centrist and strongly regionalist parties such as the Basque PNV and the Catalan Junts, which are more attuned to the middle classes. The decree extends protection against evictions until 2030 and establishes a ban until 2028 on the purchase of property by ‘vulture’ funds, whatever that may mean. Minister Rodríguez acknowledged that Urbagestión, the company that owns Maricarmen’s home, is not a speculative fund but simply an ‘SME’ – that is, a small and medium-sized enterprise – stating (this time without stammering) that they are nonetheless vultures and scavengers.

Meanwhile, Urbagestión has reached an agreement with Maricarmen, and she, having just been discharged from hospital, will be able to return home. But it is now too late to defuse the social time bomb, a weapon that could make all the difference in the battle looming ahead of next year’s elections. The leaders at Puerta del Sol – the square where hundreds of activists have been camped out for days, visited by a constant stream of VIPs – have already made it clear that they have no intention of breaking camp, as the measures taken so far are insufficient. This situation suits the left as a whole, because the protesters did not gather outside Isabel Rodríguez’s ministry, but rather in front of the headquarters of the Autonomous Community of Madrid, led by Isabel Díaz Ayuso of the People’s Party. But perhaps it suits the far-left best of all, as they are seeking to wear Sánchez down in order to stem the flow of tactical voting (however beset by scandals, in the upcoming general election the Socialist Party will still be the only bulwark against the advance of the right).

An extreme left that, for the most part, is increasingly showing itself to be both militant and government-oriented. Yolanda Díaz’s personality seems two-faced, much like Tuesday’s press conference; just a few days ago, at the Spanish Communist Party’s conference, she urged the people to mobilise against the government of which she is a minister and deputy prime minister. We shall see how she reacts to the rejection of the most radical measures proposed by her group. Many are betting on her remaining silent, because behind those fiery speeches lies an ally whom Sánchez has definitively brought to heel with her candidacy for the Director-General of the International Labour Organisation (the vote is on 16 November).

Amidst a flurry of openings that have been taking place in recent weeks, Palazzo Reale reaffirms its status as the centrepiece of Palazzo Marino’s exhibition programme (the final one organised by the Sala administration). The organisers have opted to play it safe with ‘Dalí and Fashion’, aptly inaugurated by Anna Wintour during Milan Fashion Week, complete with a much-photographed gala dinner in the palace courtyard: two hundred works, including paintings, drawings, videos, garments, sculptures, objects and photographs by and about Salvador Dalí, explored not so much as an artist but as a surrealist figure, so obsessive about self-representation that today’s influencers seem utterly clueless by comparison. It took a co-production between MondoMostre and Civita Mostre e Musei, and collaboration with the Fundació Gala-Salvador Dalí, to bring to fruition a project ‘blessed’ by the Italian Chamber of Fashion, it’s a shame that some pieces that have made history are missing, such as the ‘Lobster Dress’ designed by Dalí for Elsa Schiaparelli (all the fashion house’s iconic dresses are on display until 15 November at the V&A Museum in London: ubi maior…).

Ahead of next week’s opening of the largest exhibition ever staged in Italy on Francis Picabia – an unconventional and elusive figure straddling Impressionism, Cubism and Dadaism (with the evocative title: “Picabia. Opening the Doors of the Night”, produced by Madeinart – whose last exhibition at Palazzo Reale was on Max Ernst in 2022) – the other ‘big’ autumn exhibition is already open to the public. ‘The Brueghels. The Origins of Pictorial Genres in Europe’, curated by Bernard Aikema, features a classic exhibition layout (though with a few minor flaws in the colour scheme of the exhibition captions: the white font, which is too thin against a blue background, makes reading difficult, but we are told this will soon be rectified). It adopts a sociological approach: on the whole, it features not many works (around eighty) and not many by the famous Brueghels, but it tells the story of how this Flemish dynasty managed to transform itself into what we would today call a brand, reinventing genre painting with teeming scenes of peasants and ‘proverbial’ situations in which vices and virtues are captured on canvas. A figurative revolution, that of the Brueghels, simple only in appearance; in fact, the intended audience for their much-copied paintings were the wealthy, the only ones capable of deciphering their allegorical meanings: it is therefore an excellent idea to provide maps that help us, today, to understand the paintings and the intricate family connections.

The Brueghel exhibition is organised by 24 Ore Cultura, which next week will also present the final exhibition at ‘its’ Mudec in Via Tortona: for the grand finale (marking 12 years as concessionaire and private partner of the museum, which remains the property of the City Council), a major exhibition on Matisse is being staged, and people are already wondering what the Gruppo 24 Ore company will focus on from next March onwards, and above all, which of the exhibition producers ‘in the Milanese circle’ will have the audacity to take its place (in other words: to shoulder the museum’s onerous running costs, and to design exhibitions in spaces smaller than in the past, as more space will be allocated to the permanent ethnographic collection). The call for tenders for the new concession, drawn up by the City Council, closed on Monday and received no bids: the news came as no surprise to those in the know. A second call for tenders will be issued soon (time is running out).

And here, having left the ‘Zona Cesarini’ behind, we plunge into a fray reminiscent of days gone by, in which Milan itself takes centre stage – whether as an unknown quantity or perhaps a sacrificial victim of perverse decisions. Because, in 2032, it is still unclear which stadium Milan will have. So, strictly speaking, for which venue will the FIGC be putting the Lombard capital forward as a candidate? (A quick disclaimer: even in the dossier on the Milan-Cortina Olympic bid, it had to be specified that the opening ceremony would take place at the Meazza – whether it had been sold or was about to be demolished made no difference). The saga of the stadium in Milan is, in fact, a string of incredible paradoxes and missteps. Let’s start with the most recent paradox: a few days ago, the City of Rome – with the approval of the Services Conference, following a process lasting just 90 days – gave the green light to the project for Roma’s new stadium in Pietralata. The club and the City Council have agreed that work will begin by March 2027, with the aim of having the stadium ready in 2031, in time to host Euro 2032. It is unlikely to happen – the Olimpico will be used instead – but the new stadium is a decision driven not only by private but also by public interest; the path forward is clear. In record time, the City of Bologna also approved the plans yesterday for Bologna’s new, privately-owned stadium in the Fiera area. Naturally, other cities are moving more slowly on such projects: in Naples, De Laurentiis dreams of a new stadium, but the city council has opted for a refurbishment of the Maradona; whilst Florence is grappling with the labourious renovation of the Franchi, having roundly rejected Fiorentina’s plans for a new stadium.

But the case of Milan is the most astonishing. Here, the two clubs, Inter and Milan, were the first to launch their new stadium project in July 2019, seven years ago; yet the decision to sell part of the site (“Grande Funzione Urbana San Siro”) for the new development and to demolish (partially, though the outcome remains to be seen) the Meazza stadium was only finalised at the eleventh hour last autumn. As a result, Rome and Bologna (Rome perhaps even with two stadiums, should Lazio’s Flaminio project get off the ground) could capitalise on this and have their new stadiums before Inter and Milan.

It is not merely a paradox of timing. The fact is that the new stadium project, despite the sale having gone through, is still in the balance. The sword of Damocles in the form of the Regional Administrative Court (TAR) hangs over its head. The Lombardy Regional Administrative Court has consolidated five appeals against the sale and the plans for the new San Siro stadium; the ruling was expected by September, but the process seems to be dragging on. And, of course, there will then be the Council of State. The appeals are considered weak or specious: they challenge the legality of the sale, the resolution on public interest – approved by a majority in the City Council – and the historical preservation restrictions, despite the Regional Administrative Court having already rejected the requests for a stay of proceedings aimed at triggering the famous 70-year period after which the Superintendency’s protection takes effect. And despite the fact that the Superintendency itself had made it clear that there was no scope for any restrictions, let alone architectural ones. Then there were the appeals by the developer Claudio Trotta and the ‘Sì Meazza’ committee, which questioned the sale price (set by the Revenue Agency), whilst Trotta complained about the tight timeframe of the tender (which was entirely in accordance with the rules), even though it is difficult to imagine that a few extra weeks would have enabled him to raise the billion-plus needed for the deal.All of this—with a certain margin of uncertainty, given that we are, after all, talking about the Italian justice system—could be overturned by the Regional Administrative Court.

The real weapon of those seeking to block the project is the timeline: even as it stands, it will be difficult to meet the deadlines agreed with the City Council – work to begin in 2027 and the stadium to be ready in 2031; furthermore, the architectural firms Foster+Partners and Manica have only announced that the project will be presented by the end of October, but it is clear that before formalising all the necessary steps, Inter and Milan (as well as the City Council) are waiting to see the appeal proceedings concluded. Then there is even a criminal investigation (into bid-rigging and the disclosure of official secrets) which, although recent rulings have begun to deflate the grandiose urban planning investigations, will drag on. Long enough to force Inter and Milan to throw in the towel? Probably not, but the paradox of coming last, or being left with an old and inadequate stadium (the dream of the brilliant ‘archaeologists’ of the Meazza), is a real own goal.

But now the Five Star Movement’s first regional president is getting involved too. In the region governed by Alessandra Todde, an incinerator is set to come into operation in a few months’ time. Here too, realism has prevailed – not least because Ms Todde, an engineer, certainly knows how to do the maths. Nonetheless, the president has placed herself in a somewhat awkward position. She has promoted a moratorium on new renewable energy plants while authorising the opening of an incinerator. The Five Star Movement and the entire broad coalition are now struggling to make sense of it. At the time of the events in Parma, the movement – then still known as the ‘Grillini’ – maintained that waste-to-energy and separate waste collection were incompatible. The former, it was claimed, would have undermined the latter. The result: after more than 10 years of the plant being in operation, separate waste collection has risen from 45 per cent to 80 per cent. A record. And Pizzarotti, who had in the meantime been expelled from the Five Star Movement, stood for re-election and was re-elected as mayor for a second term.

The composition of the campaign team ahead of next year’s presidential election is the clearest indication of this. On 14 September, Le Pen brought men and women from her inner circle into the heart of the campaign machinery. First and foremost, Renaud Labaye, a long-standing loyalist of the leader, who has been appointed deputy campaign director and will work alongside Yoann Gillet, who has held the same post since 3 July. Sébastien Chenu, an MP and Marine’s right-hand man, has been appointed coordinator of elected representatives, whilst Andréa Kotarac, who left Mélenchon’s left in 2019 to embrace Le Penism, has been named campaign spokesperson. But it is also those who have been removed, or sidelined, that reveal this new phase for the RN. François Durvye, an economic adviser close to Bardella and a key figure in the attempt to build a more economically liberal RN, has stepped down. Pierre-Romain Thionnet, a staunch Bardella loyalist, has been removed from the chairmanship of the party’s youth wing, and Victor Chabert, another of Bardella’s staunchest supporters, remains head of the RN’s press office but will not serve as the presidential campaign’s press officer. Finally, policy work has returned to the control of the ‘Horaces’, the group of intellectuals close to Marine Le Pen, under the supervision of the sovereigntist leader’s brother-in-law and special adviser, Philippe Olivier.

Political differences over certain key issues in the programme have also highlighted the growing rift between the two in recent months. Marine, should she be elected to the Élysée, promises to repeal the pension reform introduced by Emmanuel Macron, which raised the retirement age from 62 to 64, and for certain categories she does not rule out lowering it further, to 60. Bardella, on the other hand, advocates a more liberal stance, in line with that of Medef, the French employers’ organisation, and has on several occasions expressed doubts about the sustainability of the current pension system. There is also a divide over the Islamic headscarf, one of the sovereignist party’s long-standing issues. Marine has promised to ban it in public spaces – not just in schools – via a referendum, thereby meeting the demands of the party’s conservative wing, whilst Bardella has taken a more cautious stance, insisting on the need to distinguish between the Muslim faith and Islamism. This is not a definitive ideological split, but it demonstrates the existence of two strategies within RN: Marine’s, which returns to mobilising the traditional identity-based themes of the Front National, and Bardella’s, which is more geared towards building his own image as a national right-wing figure capable of appealing even to voters whom the old RN never reached.

For over a year, the balance of power had been almost the reverse of what it traditionally is. Marine, weakened by the legal proceedings concerning her European parliamentary assistants and by the prospect of possible ineligibility following the first-instance ruling in March 2025, had made way for her heir apparent ahead of the presidential elections. Bardella had begun to forge his own political identity, achieving a level of popularity in numerous polls that even surpassed that of his mentor. Then came the ruling of 7 July, which turned the situation on its head once again: the Court of Appeal’s decision allowed Le Pen to immediately relaunch her candidacy for 2027, whilst Bardella reverted to his role as the designated prime minister – the eternal number two. It is against this backdrop that what some observers have termed the ‘re-Le Penisation’ of the RN has begun to take shape – that is, Marine’s reclaiming of personal and familial control over the party’s structure. The reconciliation between Marine and Marion Maréchal – the niece who, in 2022, had sided with the inflammatory polemicist Éric Zemmour, leader of Réconquête, against her aunt – points in this direction. Marion, currently a Member of the European Parliament and president of the Identité-Libertés party, published a book in January with the telling title, "Si tu te sens Le Pen", and following the death of her grandfather and National Front founder Jean-Marie Le Pen, she has gradually re-established ties with the family. Marine wants to bring her back into her political orbit, even though her precise role in the campaign has not yet been defined, because she can broaden the scope of the future campaign further to the right: a problem for Bardella, who in 2024 had helped to curb the inclusion of men and women close to Marion on the lists for the parliamentary elections.

Tensions between the two came to a head at the end of August. According to Libération, during an internal meeting, Bardella reportedly reacted to the plan to give Marion more space with the phrase: “C’est elle ou moi”, meaning ‘it’s her or me’. The RN president’s position has been further complicated in recent days by revelations from Mediapart regarding anti-Semitic messages he allegedly wrote when he was 17 and a rank-and-file party activist. “All banks are owned by Jews. (…) The Jew must dominate other peoples, crush them and rob them; a Zionist is necessarily a Jew, deep down. In France, two excellent examples are BHL (Bernard Henri-Lévy) and (Jacques) Attali. And this is precisely what they want: a New World Order dominated by Israel, with Jerusalem, of course, as its capital”, Bardella is reported to have written. Mediapart claims to have investigated the matter for months and to be in possession of dozens of independently verified conversations. Bardella has categorically denied being the author of those statements and says he is prepared to take Mediapart to court. As things stand, these are therefore contested allegations, not facts established in court, but politically the issue is explosive because it strikes at the very heart of one of the pillars of the RN’s transformation under Marine: ‘dédiabolisation’, that is, the attempt to make the party presentable to a much broader electorate than its historical base.

“I think the main damage to the RN, following these revelations, is the potential loss of undecided voters – that is, those who, in a possible second round against the leader of the radical left, Jean-Luc Mélenchon, might have been tempted to vote for Marine Le Pen without being regular voters for the party,” political scientist Jean-Yves Camus, director of the Observatoire des radicalités politiques at the Fondation Jean-Jaurès, tells Il Foglio. Some argue that Bardella was only 17, and that at that age people say all sorts of things. “One is always responsible for what one writes. That does not, however, mean that one holds the same views for one’s entire life. But one thing is certain: the damage is done. Marine Le Pen’s future prime minister-designate now has hundreds of articles claiming he was anti-Semitic,” emphasises Camus. But who passed the messages on to Mediapart, which promises to publish them in the coming days? “According to some, they come from supporters of Alain Soral,” says Camus, referring to the anti-Semitic writer and former member of the National Front who is said to have influenced the political development of the RN president and some of his close associates when they were teenagers. “It would therefore appear to be an act of revenge against Bardella who, by travelling to Israel and adopting pro-Israeli positions in recent times, has in some way betrayed the ideals of his youth,” concludes Camus.

Lecornu’s plan to reduce the deficit excludes across-the-board tax increases. Firstly, the aim is to keep spending at 2026 levels, except for interest on the national debt and defence spending, and to cut funding for ministries and agencies. Secondly, the plan is to make changes to social security (healthcare, basic pensions and child benefits), aiming to cut its annual deficit from 22 billion in 2026 to 12–13 billion in 2027. The government is also proposing not to increase the index point – the figure used to calculate public sector salaries, which has been frozen since 2023. To achieve savings of €4.1 billion in the social security budget, Labour Minister Jean-Pierre Farandou clarified yesterday that only pensions up to €1,260 per month would be fully adjusted for inflation, while higher pensions would see smaller increases. A further €9 billion of the €54 billion in savings is expected to come from measures already introduced this year.

With Renaissance, the MoDem, Horizons and Les Républicains, the government has just over 200 MPs out of 577, so it does not have a majority. On the 2026 budget, which was only approved in February, Lecornu was saved by the Socialist Party in exchange for scrapping the 2023 pension reform, which would have gradually raised the minimum retirement age from 62 to 64; thus, ten days ago, the Prime Minister wrote to Socialist MPs to propose a new compromise on the budget. The Socialists are calling for a tax on large inheritances, something Lecornu’s government rules out, and on 27 September, Secretary Olivier Faure, who is standing in the presidential primaries, stated that “if nothing changes (compared to the current proposal, ed.), we will vote for a motion of no confidence”. Jean-Luc Mélenchon’s La France insoumise will vote for a motion of no confidence in the government in any case and, to balance the public finances, has even proposed writing off a fifth of France’s debt. Marine Le Pen, leader of the Rassemblement National (RN), has said that an imperfect budget is better than no budget at all – given that she could amend it if elected – but that she will vote against it if pensions are not adjusted for inflation. On 17 September, Lecornu promised not to invoke Article 49.3 of the Constitution, under which the budget is deemed approved without a vote by MPs unless the National Assembly passes a vote of no confidence, provided the parties refrain from filibustering. However, on 28 September, the Minister for Relations with Parliament, Laurent Panifous, described approval by a vote as “very difficult” and did not rule out the use of Article 49.3. In short, to get the budget approved, Lecornu will need either Le Pen or the Socialists: in an ordinary vote, where abstentions are not counted, it would be enough for RN to abstain for him to prevail against the ‘no’ votes from the left; under Article 49.3, it would be enough for one of the two not to vote in favour of the motion of no confidence. Otherwise, there is the ‘loi spéciale’, used last year, which would allow the state to enter 2027 with the capacity to finance essential expenditure (according to the Treasury, this would increase the deficit by half a percentage point of GDP).

Meanwhile, yesterday the yield on French 10-year bonds exceeded 4.8 per cent, the highest since 2008. According to Reuters, this reflects doubts about France’s public finances and political stability, whilst for Luis Garicano, an economist at the LSE and director of the Rhine Group, the proposal to write off the debt plays a major role: “This absurd debate has undermined both France’s credibility and the ECB’s room for manoeuvre, because the TPI (editor’s note: the instrument through which the ECB can buy a country’s bonds if its spread rises without economic justification) only counteracts ‘unjustified and disorderly’ market dynamics. But higher yields for countries that might not wish to pay their debts are not unjustified,” he added. The Governor of the Banque de France, Emmanuel Moulin, reiterated that the means to correct the deficit lie in the hands of the government and parliament. Today, Lecornu will present the plan.

Just a few days ago, Senator for Life Liliana Segre had called for unity and for common ground to be found. By around mid-October, the bill – which has already been approved by the Senate – is expected to be put to a vote in the Chamber.