But it’s not them I want to focus on right now. I’m concerned about the consumers of journalism – readers, viewers and listeners. Their numbers are dwindling, becoming minuscule indeed. I’d like us to cherish them, even that sensational average 9 per cent audience share of the most ridiculous ‘truth-telling’ programme in the whole world – you know the one I’m talking about. And everyone knows their own audience, favours them and would never want to let them down. Yet I’d also like to guillotine them one by one, sneer at them, insult them politely, mock them mercilessly – these ‘investigative journalism’ addicts, a ludicrous genre that fancies itself objective, independent and sovereign. But just how gullible, know-it-all, angry, ridiculous, indignant and feeble-minded are certain dear friends – viewers near and far – who allow themselves to be taken in by a troglodyte who reviews his own work and calls it a ‘masterpiece’ under a false name, who allows himself to be polled, believes himself a leader, abandons a close friend to prison on Ferragosto and clings to his reputation as a victim of the system and of censorship, when in fact he is a protégé of Telemeloni and his officials, who are incapable even of telling him to get lost with his chats. I once thought that a newspaper was like an umbrella – a tool that nobody uses for personal purposes any more, an elegant accessory to one’s demeanour, a mark of bourgeois or working-class distinction: it has become the devalued, occasional head-cover that you snatch from a street vendor when it rains or the sun beats down, going hand in hand with social media and ‘flip-flop’ TV – these two scoundrels of the news world that we’d gladly do without, apart from tennis, football and the news, ‘Italy on a bed of shelled clams’, as Paolo would say if he were a shareholder.

Ribbentrop, the former Foreign Minister, was also despised by the other defendants, who regarded him as incompetent and arrogant

In reality, the man was not exactly a former spirits sales representative, as he was ironically described in the immediate post-war period; just as Himmler had not been a mere chicken farmer, although he had cultivated that passion. Ribbentrop had married the wealthy Annelies Henkell, daughter of a wine-growing landowner, and had worked in that sector for a while. But he had attended various schools in Europe and America, learning foreign languages well. In his elegant home, he entertained industrialists and diplomats whom he had met through his wife, and by a technicality in his birth records, he had added ‘von’ to his middle-class surname. He met Hitler and made a favourable impression on him with his hatred of the Bolsheviks and the Jews. Following a series of rival candidates being ruled out, he found himself posted to London as ambassador. At that time, Oxford students had publicly declared that they would never fight for King and Country. Cambridge – as would later become apparent – was rife with Soviet spies, and all the British, except Churchill, supported an unconditional policy of ‘appeasement’. Encouraged by these indications, Ribbentrop assured Hitler that Britain would never come to the aid of the Eastern European countries in the event of a conflict. Hitler loved to hear what he was already convinced of, and appointed him Foreign Minister. He and his wife were the first to be surprised by such an honour. Once again, from his own point of view, the Führer had chosen well: Ribbentrop proved a docile tool in his hands, using the splendour of his uniform and the haughtiness of his manner to mask the aggressiveness of his policies. He did not devise a single one of the crimes of which he was accused, but went along with them all. Like Hitler’s other leading ‘yes men’, the gallows awaited him.

Two other defendants, however, were of a completely different character and background. Admirals Erich Raeder and Karl Dönitz had been, in succession, the commanders of the German Navy. The former had rebuilt it following its annihilation in the First World War; the latter had converted it from a surface fleet to a submarine fleet, unleashing hundreds of U-boats which, for a time, disrupted transatlantic supply lines. Raeder was charged with planning the invasion of Norway and Denmark, as well as the sinking of several ships. Dönitz was charged with ordering his crews to fire even on survivors after a ship had been sunk. These were plausible charges, mitigated by the fact that Allied sailors had also behaved in a more or less similar manner. Raeder was sentenced to life imprisonment, but not even the extremely harsh Soviet prison authorities must have been entirely convinced of his guilt, as they allowed his release after just ten years on health grounds. In fact, the admiral died in 1960 at the age of eighty-four. His conviction was the subject of various controversies: in any case, he was one of the few people who had the courage to oppose some of Hitler’s decisions, and Hitler did indeed dismiss him in 1943.

Controversial convictions for Admirals Raeder and Dönitz, who had been commanders of the German Navy

His position was taken over by Karl Dönitz, an expert in submarine warfare. He was more of a Nazi than Raeder, but this did not make him any more compliant with the Führer’s whims; indeed, perhaps for this very reason, the Führer respected him so much that he appointed him as his successor. The admiral was captured alongside Jodl and Speer, and immediately imprisoned. The accusation that he had failed to come to the aid of the crews was refuted by an affidavit from his (almost) American counterpart, Chester Nimitz, who admitted to having issued quite similar orders. Dönitz was sentenced to a lenient term of ten years, which he served in full. He died at the age of eighty-nine without ever having renounced his conduct as a soldier in any way.

And so we come to the most controversial, enigmatic and, in his own way, fascinating of the defendants. Albert Speer was an architect not yet thirty when Hitler called upon him to design the grandiose structures of his thousand-year Reich. Seduced by such a glorious prospect and backed by virtually unlimited resources, Speer, like Faust, sold his soul to the devil. In his memoirs, this brilliant and multifaceted visionary acknowledged the hypnotic power of his Mephistopheles, and his own unconditional submission. Hitler always treated him with an almost affectionate courtesy, which some insinuated was a sign of latent homosexuality. There is no evidence of such an infatuation, but all historians agree in describing him as the favourite of that exclusive circle. The former house painter probably saw in that young man the qualities of the artist that he himself – having been rejected at the entrance to the Academy of Fine Arts in Vienna – had longed to become. For the Reich and its leader, Speer designed imaginative plans and colossal structures, from the Nuremberg stadium to the blueprint for a new Berlin dominated by a dome three times the size of St Peter’s. The war brought this peaceful building programme to a halt, and in 1942, Speer was appointed Minister of Armaments. In this role, the artist proved himself to be a creative planner and an unyielding executor. The more Germany was devastated by Allied air raids, the more the factories churned out tanks, aeroplanes, guns and submarines. In 1944, when half the Reich had been reduced to rubble by American B-17s and British Lancasters, Speer quadrupled war production, particularly of panzers and aeroplanes. He unscrupulously exploited slave labourers, prisoners of war and even internees held by the SS. This latter decision led to him being charged with crimes against humanity. However, as far as possible, he preferred, as Davidson wrote, the carrot to the stick, and repeatedly interceded with Hitler to call Himmler and his torturers to order. The Führer granted his request, and without becoming a compassionate philanthropist like Oskar Schindler, Speer improved the conditions of the workers he managed to recruit. He did not do so out of humanity, but out of utilitarianism, aware that a mistreated and undernourished worker produces less than one in acceptable conditions. Naturally, he was aware of the crimes of the SS, of Auschwitz and the massacres there, even though he claimed otherwise at Nuremberg. However, he had no means of preventing the dictator’s planned extermination programmes. In the spring of 1945, with culpable delay, Speer realised that his Mephistopheles was destroying Germany, and when he was ordered to turn the country into scorched earth, he rejected this suicidal delusion, risking both his position and his life. He later claimed to have planned to kill Hitler by introducing poison gas into the bunker’s pipes, but no one ever found any evidence of this impractical scheme. In the end, the young architect acknowledged, at least in part, his guilt, and the court showed leniency: it sentenced him to twenty years’ imprisonment, which Speer served to the very last day. When he was released in 1966, he published his memoirs, which became a bestseller. Today, historians question the sincerity of his account, and Simon Wiesenthal once said to him: “If they had known at Nuremberg what we know about you now, they would have hanged you.”

Speer, the artist of the new Berlin, and the programmer and unyielding executor of the war effort

Even more ambiguous, though far less intriguing, is the figure of Rudolf Hess, who had been languishing in an English prison since 1941, having parachuted there for reasons that nobody explained and nobody understood. He had been one of Hitler’s earliest associates and had helped draft his "Mein Kampf". For a few years he led the party, from which he was gradually marginalised. By the start of the war, he no longer held any influence, and his mind was showing signs of instability. During his imprisonment he remained silent, and his presence at Nuremberg was largely a matter of form. He took part in the trial by feigning amnesia, save for a few moments of deceptive lucidity. He was sentenced to life imprisonment, and following Speer’s release he remained the sole inmate at Spandau Prison, where he took his own life in 1987.

The figure of Hans Frank is far more remarkable. He had been a skilled lawyer, having defended Hitler in dozens of trials, and at the age of 33 he was appointed Minister of Justice for Bavaria. He was a capable jurist, and had he remained so, he would have spared millions of people – and ultimately himself – a tragic end. Unfortunately, following the conquest of Poland, he accepted the post of Governor-General of that ill-fated country, already divided between the two partners in crime in Berlin and Moscow. In that role, he distinguished himself through his efficiency and cruelty. It was under his jurisdiction that the first – and, in fact, the only – extermination camps were established; little is known about them even today because, with the exception of Auschwitz, they were all destroyed by the Nazis. Yet the names Chelmno, Belzec, Sobibor, Maidanek and Treblinka evoke even greater horror than the all-too-familiar names of Dachau, Bergen-Belsen, Buchenwald and Mauthausen. It was in those Polish camps that the first methods of mass murder were trialled. All these death factories were run by the SS and Hans Frank. During the trial, ‘the executioner of Kraków’ converted to Catholicism and declared himself repentant. He always wore dark glasses; it is not known whether this was out of shame or because of a sensitivity to light. He accepted his death sentence as inevitable, and died after five minutes of agony and five years of ignominy.

We do not have much space left to describe the other defendants, who, as the British ‘prosecutor’ put it, were identified on the basis of a reputation that was more or less deserved. Some were veritable butchers, such as Wilhelm Frick, former Minister of the Interior and Protector of Bohemia and Moravia; or Fritz Sauckel, Plenipotentiary for Labour Mobilisation, who sent millions of slave labourers to certain death through exhaustion and starvation. Others were depraved ideologues, such as Alfred Rosenberg, theorist of Aryan superiority and the extermination of the ‘Jewish race’; or Julius Streicher, perhaps the most repugnant of them all, ostracised even by his own comrades for the vulgar and violent anti-Semitic propaganda in his newspaper "Der Sturmer". The last of the criminals destined for the gallows was Arthur Seyss-Inquart, the Austrian Quisling who had facilitated the German invasion and had been rewarded with full powers over Anne Frank’s Netherlands. They were all hanged, and no one raised any objections.

The fates of Baldur von Schirach and Konstantin von Neurath differed considerably. The former had been the leader of the Hitler Youth and Gauleiter of Vienna. He had come into conflict, within the limits permitted, with Hitler’s right-hand man, Martin Bormann, who had marginalised him. He was sentenced to 20 years’ imprisonment and released alongside Speer. The latter had been appointed Protector of Bohemia and Moravia, but in 1941 he was replaced by Reinhard Heydrich, who was considered more efficient and more ruthless. Neurath was sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment and was released in 1954 on health grounds.

The last three defendants were sent to trial without a shred of evidence. Hjalmar Schacht, Franz von Papen and Hans Fritzsche had been staunch Nazis, but had taken no part in either the war or the massacres. The first was a skilled banker who had revived the German economy and finances; the second an astute politician who had paved the way for Hitler, only to be rewarded with a minor diplomatic post; and the third a newspaper editor who had assisted Goebbels in his enthusiastic propaganda campaign for the Führer. They were all acquitted, although they were immediately subjected to a German ‘denazification’ tribunal. They received symbolic sentences and were released after a short while.

Also in the dock are the organisations that had carried out Hitler’s hegemonic programme

This overview would not be complete without mentioning the charges brought against the organisations. As we have said, this was an original idea because, according to the general principles of law (and of our own Constitution), criminal liability is personal. However, Jackson decided to bring before the court those bodies which, in various ways, had generally represented German militarism and, in particular, Hitler’s programme of hegemony. Thus, the General Staff of the Armed Forces, the leadership of the Nazi Party (NSDAP), the SA, the SS, the Gestapo and the SD were all charged on various counts. No one fully understood what this meant, particularly whether a conviction of these organisations would automatically imply guilt on the part of all their members. To grasp the implications and paradoxes of this decision, one need only consider that the General Staff, as such, had not existed since 1918, and that its apparent counterpart, the OKW commanded by Keitel, was merely the Führer’s personal staff. As for the SS, the matter was even more complex. This ‘empire of evil’ created by Himmler comprised a series of bodies dedicated to a wide variety of tasks: first and foremost, control of all police forces – the secret police (Gestapo); the public order police (Orpo); and the criminal investigation police (Kripo). Then there was the Security Service (SD) and the Central Administrative Office (Wvha), which exploited the immense labour of internees in the concentration camps. In short, the SS was responsible for the ‘Final Solution’ for the Jews; for the persecution of minorities and political dissidents, Roma, homosexuals and members of religious groups. In short, the entire repressive apparatus of Nazism was managed by this organisation and its diabolical leader. But his role did not end there. Himmler had created a veritable private army, the Waffen-SS, which eventually became the most efficient of the large military units. By the end of the war, there were 38 divisions, and almost all had distinguished themselves through their fanaticism and ferocity. The 1st SS Panzer Division ‘Leibstandarte’ had massacred 600 American prisoners at Malmedy and as many civilians during the Battle of the Ardennes. The Second, ‘Das Reich’, had burnt just as many French people alive at Oradour; the 16th, ‘Reichsführer’, had brought shame upon itself with the massacres at Marzabotto and Sant’Anna di Stazzema. In Poland and Russia, the atrocities had been even more gruesome and widespread. However, the task of trying and convicting the hundreds of thousands of individuals – civilians and military personnel alike – who had been enlisted in this organisation was clearly impossible. And the results became apparent almost immediately, when the sheer scale of the numbers was compounded by a conflict of interests. The Americans and the Soviets divided these former Nazis equally between them, placing the most experienced among them in the security and intelligence services. Klaus Barbie, recruited by the CIA, was perhaps the best known, because his most famous victim, Jean Moulin, became the symbol of the French and European Resistance. But thousands got away scot-free. Even the perpetrators of the Malmedy massacre, although sentenced to death, were in fact released after a few years. When the scales of justice become too heavy, even their sword shatters.

The indictment of the associations was perhaps the most striking anomaly in a trial that was, on the whole, fair. And this was the case despite a series of unusual features and innovations that make it a ‘one-off’ in the history of military jurisprudence. We shall examine this in more detail in the next instalment, when we discuss the charges.

(3 – Continued)

Eighty years ago, around this time in August, the proceedings of the greatest trial in history, conducted by an international military tribunal, drew to a close: on trial were the crimes of Nazism, embodied in the 22 defendants – senior political, civilian and military leaders of Hitler’s Germany. Carlo Nordio, Minister of Justice, presents a six-part account of the trial. The first instalment, “C’è un giudice a Norimberga”, was published on Friday 31 July; the second, “Goering e poi gli altri”, on Friday 7 August.

As we await the battle in September and the emergence of unexpected unifying figures, a recent Piepoli Institute poll on the primaries goes some way towards explaining (at least in part) Elly Schlein’s fears. It also takes into account Matteo Renzi and the leaders of AVS. Giuseppe Conte is in first place with 43 per cent, whilst the Democratic Party secretary stands at 36 per cent. Livio Gigliuto, president of the Piepoli Institute, says: “The leader of the M5S enjoys a competitive advantage. In addition to the votes of his own supporters, he could benefit from those of PD voters: according to our findings, this would amount to around 25 per cent.” How can this be explained? “These voters probably see the primaries as a means of choosing the most effective candidate to defeat the right, regardless of party affiliations.” Conversely, those who sympathise with the Movement are far less likely to support a candidate who does not come from their own political circle. “And not because of Schlein,” observes Gigliuto. “It would be the same even if the secretary were someone else.” The M5S electorate, however much it has changed over time, still harbours mistrust towards the PD. If, on the other hand, for example, the Democrats were to back a civic figure in the primaries – or at least someone not directly linked to the party, such as Silvia Salis – they could broaden their appeal.” Whilst awaiting the manifesto, the mayor of Genoa is another major variable in this phase: some would like to see her stand as a candidate for Prime Minister, Renzi points to her as a reformist leader, whilst Goffredo Bettini advises her to head a new party. Certainly, were she to enter the fray at national level, she could throw the calculations of the broad coalition into disarray. This, and other matters, are being discussed by the PD and M5S ‘sherpas’ as they seek to mediate on the rules for the primaries. Firstly, a framework of values must be established to prevent the defeated candidates from defecting. The Nazareno, unlike the M5S, would prefer a two-round system, modelled on the polling stations that saw Bersani defeat Renzi in 2012 (in the first round, none of the five candidates secured more than 50 per cent). In a run-off, Schlein could already count, for example, on the vote from Casa Riformista. The large number of candidates – with Ruffini in the running, there would already be six – favours a solution of this kind. But of course, this would require the PD to be open to the Movement’s demands: not just polling stations, but also online voting, to which M5S activists have historically been attached. In short, this is where the agreement lies. After all, Conte has reiterated this several times: “They must be genuine primaries”, that is, as open as possible and not steered by party structures. From this point of view, the PD is the best-equipped party. Discussions are also continuing over the timing, with the M5S wanting to speed things up and hold the vote by November (December at the latest), whilst Schlein is aiming for the new year (despite the Montepulciano faction). It will then be necessary to define who is actually eligible to vote: one option could be pre-registration on the electoral rolls. Not to mention the contribution: will it be paid as in previous primaries organised by the Democrats, or not? Finally, as regards the candidates, the suggestion came from Franceschini, who explained to Rep that anyone putting themselves forward must represent “a political faction, a group of MPs”.

The mid-August break has slowed things down, but a balance will have to be found. And as soon as possible, not just on the programme, to restore a sense of unity and prevent sections of the electorate from falling by the wayside, regardless of the leaders’ directives. This is perhaps why some eager individuals have already begun to reignite the battle over the electoral law, calling for a mass rally after the summer when the bill is debated in the Senate. Claudio Mancini of the Democratic Party has done so in these pages, but the reformist Alessandro Alfieri is also in agreement. After all, the battle against the ‘Melonellum’ is the one that most closely resembles the ‘No’ campaign in the referendum, the defence of the Constitution. It acts as both the glue and the fuel for the left. A way to broaden and mobilise civil society, the committees of legal experts and journalists – what we have termed in these pages the ‘committees’ strategy’. And then we must not forget that it was precisely against Meloni’s electoral reform that the broad coalition – in a truly extra-large formation – managed to come together in the streets, following the failure of the PD-M5S-AVS alliance in Naples and the cancelled rally in Padua. On that occasion, it was Magi who launched the initiative. “We were the first to denounce that the right is carrying out a veritable electoral coup, changing the rules of the game a year before the elections, solely to remain in power,” the leader of Più Europa tells Il Foglio. “As has already happened in the Chamber of Deputies, we must replicate a united protest.” The date has already been set. “15 September, when the Melonellum bill comes before the Senate. The mobilisation,” he concludes, “against this anti-democratic outrage must continue, and we must all do it together.”

A thorn in the side of those in power

Pierluigi Battista’s book is a splendid stone thrown into a pond. The author throws caution to the wind and, in this powerful and necessary book, does not throw the baby out with the bathwater. It is an uncomfortable exposé, much like Ranucci’s books. (continued on page two)

His latest literary work is not strong with the weak nor weak with the strong, but shows no favour to anyone. Within its pages, the oxen have not yet bolted, and it is well known that there is none so deaf as those whose eyes are lined with ham, and that it is better to be alone than in bad company. A thorn in the side of power. (Pierluigi Battista)

Roger Scruton’s successor

At last we have Roger Scruton’s successor, and he’s Italian: Camillo Langone, whose book "Il vero conservatore" (Liberilibri) hits the bookshops this autumn. Our distinguished contributor is even better than the English philosopher, first and foremost because, rather than riding horses, he eats them (in the delightful chapter ‘Meat’ you’ll find a list of rather reactionary foods: ‘fried salami, cotechino, veal tongue, tripe, snails, liver, sliced heart, horse pesto...’. More relevant than Joseph de Maistre, more useful than Alain Finkielkraut, more conservative than anyone else. (Camillo Langone)

A profile of the wheeler-dealers

In short, if these mythical figures known as ‘fixers’ really did exist, the novel “Hanno vinto loro” provides a composite sketch of them. It is the newspapers of the time that paint a picture of them, alongside the account of an eleven-year-old boy who is forced to spend his afternoons with one of these fixers. The year is 2001: the year of the G8 summit in Genoa, the Twin Towers and, in short, Berlusconi’s longest-serving government. The eleven-year-old, raised in a strict, moralistic family that had lost its connection to the Italian Communist Party, is told the inside story behind Italy’s great mysteries. But how much of it is true? And above all, who actually won? (Giulio Silvano)

It is unrivalled in Italy

A book on cinema – note the modesty of the title “Nuovo cinema Mancuso” – which outshines Orson Welles, and which Cahiers du Cinéma have tried in every way to sabotage and challenge. It is unrivalled in Italy, and abroad they envy us for it – those spiteful, jealous lot. Excellent beach reading – avoid Capalbio, too many self-styled “cinema artists”. Under the parasol, it replaces idle chatter. Passionate in its joys – alas, rare – and above all in its grudges that stretch to infinity. Even if you never go to the cinema, it looks splendid in your bicycle basket. Tucked away next to a Hermès scarf. (Mariarosa Mancuso)

As good as Nick Hornby

Shall I compare myself to a Sally Rooney, but a funny one? Why not. I’ve written three fine books on contemporary emotions, complete with a catalogue of tics and neuroses. Antonio Pascale told me I was a female Woody Allen when I made my debut. Let me explain what love has become in this century: it’s not a god but a demon, and unlike Sally, I also make an effort for the reader: to lighten the load, to free them from their burdens. My style isn’t lacklustre. Like Nick Hornby – that’s right, I really do resemble Nick Hornby, now that I think about it. (Ester Viola)

What style, what elegance

I don’t know the author, but he’s a giant. Masneri’s “Paradiso” (Adelphi) is the greatest Italian novel of the post-war period, of the twentieth century – perhaps since Dante. Sublime prose, with a touch of irony that Flaubert could only dream of. I’ve read it three times and cried twice. Give it as a gift; pass it down to your children. And what style, what elegance, what moral (and, one senses, physical) stature. A brilliant read, whether in Cefalù or Pomezia. Would you like me to make it sound more professional?

Giorgetti, the minister in charge of the finances, is at it again, whilst Salvini is off to Lucca, clattering along in his clogs, to scare Banca Intesa and Unicredit by proposing the Spanish model: “Given that money is needed, would anyone prefer a wealth tax on the current accounts of 50 million Italians or a 5 per cent levy on the billion-euro profits of Italy’s two main banks? Let’s do as Sánchez does”. Remember when it was reported that Vannacci had asked Salvini to put his aide-de-camp on the list? Back then, when it was all hugs and kisses with that scum of a general, he used to say it was all newspaper fantasy, but now he recalls: “I read that Vannacci says: ‘I’m absolutely against closed lists’. My friend, you asked me for one thing: your man at the top of the closed list, and he’s even from the area… but come on!’ He’ll end up telling us that Vannacci was even asking him for tin soldiers. In the meantime, he’s trotting out the old balalaika tune again because ‘I’m ready to make my contribution to Ukraine’s reconstruction, but I think this Russophobia is getting us nowhere’. Russophobia? Giorgetti would do well to enjoy his last few days’ holiday and give serious thought to his future with Salvini. The out-of-favour politician promises that “I’d like to raise the flat-tax threshold for VAT-registered individuals to 100,000 euros” and asks for funds: “I need seven billion for maintenance”. He is already putting his stamp on the next Budget Bill: “I envisage a provision to neutralise the Fornero reform, allowing people to retire early, ahead of the planned age of 67.” He speaks of all the Italians affected by the ‘esodo’ (early retirement crisis), not to mention his own departure as secretary of the League. Attilio Fontana, the ‘hidalgo’, will speak soon, and it will be a call to Giorgetti. After the constitution of that federalist party, attention turns to another document. Giorgetti, the minister who attended the governors’ meeting – the ‘Grand Council’ session – on 25 July, what will he choose? All eyes are now on him. All that’s needed is his signature, alongside those of Fontana, Zaia, Fedriga and Fugatti. His signature on the document is like fate weighed by the gods. If Giorgetti signs, the party’s leadership will pass to a triumvirate. It’s just like in De Andrè’s song (the one they won’t let Salvini sing). They will come to Giorgetti to ask him about his (dis)love. What will he reply? “Will you continue to let yourself be chosen / or will you finally choose?”

“I joined the party ten years ago,” says Senator Roberto Marti. “I committed to a national project; I joined the League with Salvini, whom the national party had chosen, and I believe that any other conditions should be discussed within the party, not outside it.” But outside the party, in fact, the dissidents from Northern Italy are, according to some, reviving the ‘Interno’ faction. Just yesterday, the Viminal saga took a new turn. Matteo Piantedosi, the minister chosen in 2022 to bring the right-wing parties (and the Leagues) together, is expected to stand as a candidate next year with Fratelli d’Italia. Some news sites in Irpinia – would you believe it – are reporting the candidacy as a ‘done deal’, citing news of an agreement with Meloni, and even the go-ahead from Matteo Salvini who, if things stand as they are, is set to take over the ministry which, from the outset, has been a League stronghold. The ‘Captain’s’ carefully laid plans, however, would now end up trapping him and causing him to lose the party leadership (it’s always the same old story). Meanwhile, the Ministry of the Interior has issued a denial: “No one has asked the minister to stand as a candidate,” they tell us. “No party.” And from the wing of the League most loyal to the Deputy Prime Minister comes the comment: “They’ve run out of ideas.” This time, the words come from Gianluca Savoini, Salvini’s former spokesperson, when we raise the possibility of a plot by the Northern League involving Piantedosi – the ‘master key’ to the South.

Meanwhile, in Marina di Pietrasanta, the secretary replies: “The League is the party of the north, the centre and the south. If there are some people who think differently, so much the better for democracy, but that is not the party. The party is here today.” I am the party. In the north they grumble; in the south they nod in agreement.

And in the meantime, enough of the mudslinging. Or is that asking too much? “Ranucci is innocent until proven guilty,” the MP reiterates. “I do wonder, though, what would have happened to any politician with a friend like Lavitola. Shall we recall the mind-boggling motorway service station story?” That was when Renzi found himself in the eye of the storm, again due to Report’s ‘scoop’. “The truth about the motorway service station incident has yet to be revealed, and we’ll see what happens following important decisions such as the declassification of documents covered by state secrecy. The rather sensational Ranucci case highlights how, in Italy, we’re used to double standards. I’m interested in the political angle of the issue – because, for the rest, it’s been discussed far too much, for far too many days. Firstly: the weakness of the ruling class. In recent years, we have replaced politics with manufactured outrage. We no longer manage problems and processes, but at best the attention of the moment. Secondly: the right and the left must be called to order.”

What do you mean? “I’ll start with my own coalition: enough of championing the ‘Report’ method, enough of defending the demagogue of the moment. I’d advise changing the agenda. Let’s think about inadequate wages and high petrol prices. These are the problems facing Italians, who are unfortunately infected by a widespread virus of Jacobinism. It will be just like with Di Pietro: once Ranucci is gone, they’ll find a new follower to latch onto. If there is a lesson to be learnt, it is that, once again, there is no such thing as a supposedly paradisiacal civil society ready to redeem a supposedly sinful political society. By constantly belittling those involved in politics, we end up spinning out of control. The Left must open its eyes.” Nobody is doing so: from the M5S to the AVS, right through to the PD in disarray. “We’re here. If my friends in the PD return to professing and practising political autonomy – by stopping mocking those who engage in politics, and avoiding self-proclaimed saviours – the centre-left will rediscover the rule of law. As for the bloodthirsty right, which rides the wave of punitive justice according to its objectives of the day: let’s avoid the rolling heads that do nothing but strengthen Ranucci. A self-proclaimed martyr. Salvini and Gasparri are playing right into his hands more than anyone else. What is needed, if anything, is a RAI that is up to the task, capable of handling the matter with corporate professionalism: we are still paying the price for the mistakes and horrors of recent years, during which we have not even managed to elect a president who commands public trust. From a public service broadcaster, Rai has become a political battleground, which has undermined its programming and led to a loss of viewers. The programmes in the schedule have been turned into blunt weapons wielded by one faction against another: now Rai’s management must do its job and take responsibility, without waiting for directives from politicians. This, too, is an issue.” And as for Ranucci? He has compared himself to Moro, Falcone and Borsellino. “A saying comes to mind: ‘Joke with the foot soldiers, but leave the saints alone’.”

But the data in question is, paradoxically, difficult to handle even for the right, because the fact that Italy is much safer than the right often portrays it to be is a small time bomb ticking beneath the framework that has underpinned its security measures for years: Italy is unsafe; there is too much trouble, too much crime, too many disasters, too many dangers; and because of all these problems, we need tighter restrictions, new criminal offences, harsher penalties, new security measures and new security decrees. The figures provided by the Ministry of the Interior demonstrate unequivocally that the sense of insecurity in Italy is largely the result of a psychosis fuelled by the left, from the opposition, and the right fails to govern, from within government, because it is accustomed to responding to questions on security by relying, as it always has, more on perceived security than on actual security; and it does not take much to realise, as we have already written in these columns, that if you train voters to regard the parameters of perceived security as the only ones to be considered when discussing security, you will inevitably end up governing by relying more on perceived data than on actual figures. One might argue that the fall in crime is precisely due to the government’s crackdown on security, but if you take a broader view and examine crime trends, you will see that the reduction in many offences is a long-term structural trend that has been affecting Italy for years. Examples: between 2013 and 2019, reported offences fell from around 2.9 million to 2.302 million – a 20 per cent drop over six years. But even the opposition cannot get away with claiming that the 10 per cent decline in 2026 is simply a continuation of a trend that has always been in place. That is not the case. After the Covid pandemic, crime rates began to rise again, and this increase continued until 2024.

The recent reversal began in 2025, when crime fell by 1.8 per cent, and accelerated sharply in the first half of 2026. The government cannot, therefore, take credit for the historic decline in Italian crime, which began long before Meloni, but the opposition cannot pretend that the reversal recorded over the last eighteen months does not exist. A second statistic that puts the prophets of doom in a difficult position concerns a very sensitive issue: femicides. In 2022, 130 women were murdered; in 2023, 120 according to the Interior Ministry’s figures; in 2024, 118; and in 2025, 97. These figures are still very high, but they point to a truth that few have the courage to state explicitly: in less than three years, the number of women killed has fallen by around a quarter. It is more difficult to determine the extent to which awareness-raising campaigns, active policies, prevention measures, legislation and public policies have contributed to this, but the figure stands. Here and throughout, we use the term ‘femicide’ in its current sense, bearing in mind that the new criminal offence only came into force at the end of 2025 and that the previous data series are not perfectly comparable. In the first half of 2026, the report presented today by the Ministry of the Interior will reveal another significant figure: the number of victims remains high at 34, but this is 37 per cent lower than last year, when the figure stood at 54 after six months. Discussing the results of the fight against femicide is controversial because, for some, presenting the figures is seen as an attempt to downplay the issue, lower the threshold of public concern or normalise it – when it is clear that highlighting improving trends can also have another effect: demonstrating that change is possible. A similar argument can, in essence, be made regarding another interesting figure from the Interior Ministry’s report, which concerns arrivals by sea. When it comes to curbing irregular immigration, the centre-right government can claim mixed results. The first full year under the Meloni government was 2023, when there was a surge in arrivals: up 50 per cent on 2022, from 105,000 to 158,000.

Following the disaster of 2023, however, things really did change. Landings fell from 157,651 to 66,617 in 2024, a drop of 58 per cent. They remained virtually unchanged in 2025, at 66,316. And in the first half of 2026, they plummeted further from 30,060 to 14,388, a fall of 52.1 per cent. The Interior Ministry’s report attributes part of this result to cooperation with Libya and Tunisia and records 275,463 departures prevented between 2023 and June 2026. The issue is clear. If the left, as it did when Sánchez presented figures showing that Spain’s repatriation record was better than Italy’s, wishes to criticise the centre-right government for being ineffective, it should have the courage to say what it lacks the strength to say: we need to take a tougher line on irregular migrants. If, on the other hand, the right were to draw any lessons from what has happened in recent years with regard to irregular immigration, it should have the courage to admit that landings do not follow a long-term trend, like murders, but are volatile, depending on many factors, including routes, the situation in North Africa, agreements with transit countries, the ability of local authorities to prevent departures, and shifts towards other Mediterranean routes (side note: the Ministry of the Interior points out that in the first half of 2026 there were 4,432 repatriations: +34.3 per cent, but the figures must be put into context: in 2018 there were 6,820 forced returns, in 2019 7,054, and in 2025 the report indicates a total of 6,772 returns – good figures, but no better than those already recorded in the past). Good news, as we know, often takes us by surprise, frightens us and catches us unprepared; and the good news in recent months has also taken the right-wing government by surprise, when it found itself having to come to terms with positive developments that have come about thanks to the use of tools which the right has always opposed (the record tax revenues recorded by the state as a result of the fight against tax evasion were achieved through the widespread use of digital payment tracking, which the right has always demonised, before coming to power and adopting these measures itself).

But if a piece of good news takes us by surprise, frightens us or makes us feel uneasy, rather than hiding it – even at the cost of feeling disoriented – that news deserves to be examined, understood and analysed; and if it serves to challenge our own certainties, so much the better. Good news does exist, even if it is frightening, and to try to focus a little less on perception and a little more on reality, we must sooner or later resign ourselves to considering not only comforting bad news but also disorienting and formidable good news as newsworthy enough to be published prominently, in the knowledge that today’s pessimists, as Giuliano Ferrara suggests, are not well-informed optimists but are, often, ill-informed pessimists, sometimes even misled by their own followers.

Ranucci expects, at most, a warning – which at Rai is the equivalent of a light smacking for the naughty child of the moment. That noble section of the organisation which believes, “He’ll step aside. It’s too much”, is deluding itself, and it’s a pity. The only person who today faces the genuine challenge of figuring out who is hosting "Report" is the director of Current Affairs, Paolo Corsini, who stands out as the doyen of the profession: he was mocked by Ranucci (along with Lavitola) and now has to deal with Ranucci with the elegance of a profession that, within 24 hours, forgets insults and wrongs – that ‘let’s focus on making a good news programme, a good show’ attitude. Ranucci keeps repeating, “They want to get rid of me from Rai; if they do, they’ll prove they’ve caved in to politics.” Do you know how this might end? If Ranucci doesn’t leave, they’ll say Rossi must go, for failing to rein him in. The blame on Rossi and the fallout on Ranucci.

In France, a country where the demographic winter is less severe than here, a public subsidy is offered for the cryopreservation of eggs to all women aged between 29 and 37. In Italy, there are two proposals – from the PD and the M5S – tabled in the Chamber of Deputies moving in this direction (and another will be added in September in the Senate, tabled by Democratic Party Senator Filippo Sensi, who proposes replicating the model already in place in Tuscany). Another proposal has also been announced by the former Prime Minister and leader of Italia Viva, Matteo Renzi, who suggests adopting the French model, with an allocation of 100 million euros to be included in the next Budget Bill. The aim is to reach a cross-party agreement. There is no lack of openness from Forza Italia and the Lega. Elisabetta Tovaglieri, a Lega MEP, admitted to La Repubblica that she had personally made use of social freezing: “It cannot be a divisive issue,” she said. But within Giorgia Meloni’s party, the idea is not gaining traction. There is reluctance. Mennuni adds: “I find it abhorrent to suggest to a woman – as if it were a sign of modernity – that she should wait to have children and then undergo the difficult and painful process of stimulation for the transfer of frozen embryos. Instead, we must channel our energies into restoring a woman’s ability to choose to become a mother within the natural timeframe available to her. For her own good and for the well-being of the child, who, I would remind you, is not an object of other people’s rights.” For this reason, the FdI senator addresses her colleagues in the opposition directly: “I propose that the PD and the Five Star Movement should not bow to the market logic that revolves around these businesses, and should instead focus their efforts on securing budgetary resources to offer young people the opportunity to start their own families.” 

The position of another FdI MP, Ylenja Lucaselli, is more nuanced but essentially no different: “We are not opposed to the idea out of hand, but it is a sensitive issue. Are we sure that these choices really help boost the birth rate? And then there is the question of age: if you freeze your eggs, at what age will you have children? Are we sure we want mothers in their 50s or 60s? It’s true that we’re all younger these days, but are we certain that a woman of that age can truly be a mother? In principle, it’s a good thing that technology helps women to have children, but before such a decision is taken, there needs to be a wide-ranging ethical debate.”

No chains are visible, the handcuffs are obscured, but Meloni’s video is, in some ways, somewhat reminiscent of Trump’s immigration-themed videos. For the Prime Minister, it is a way of making it clear what the government’s policy is, and will be, from now until the end of the parliamentary term: “Deportation operations for irregular migrants are continuing. Border defence, security, compliance with the rules: we will continue straight down this path”. Earlier that morning, it was Piantedosi himself who announced the repatriation of 17 foreign nationals. But the issues discussed at yesterday’s hearing were different. The suspension of the Schengen Agreement with Spain, which will remain in place at least until mid-August (but may last until the end of the month). There are fears of new waves of migrants arriving in Ceuta by that date. According to the minister, the networks of traffickers must not be underestimated, whilst in the Spanish outpost – where “72,000 third-country nationals” have arrived – there are still 6,000 people and 1,300 minors who cannot be repatriated. Furthermore, and above all, there is a risk of terrorism, adds Piantedosi, and “every irregular entry is a vulnerability for the whole of Europe”. Certain areas of Morocco are “historically subject to recruitment and radicalisation by jihadists”. In short, these are exclusively security issues, according to the Interior Ministry, which rejects accusations of political exploitation levelled by the opposition: “There is no ideological battle against Sánchez”. Even so, the decision to step up border controls has indeed seemed rather too harsh – a political move to appease the right – particularly given that Italy is a country of first arrival. Meanwhile, Spain has reported that over 3,000 travellers from Italy have been checked. These are the effects of what the Italian Foreign Ministry described as “retaliation” in recent days. As for the checks carried out in Italy, according to the Minister of the Interior, 21 people have been turned away – six of whom are of Moroccan origin (though it is by no means certain that they came from Ceuta) – and three arrests have been made.

During the hearing, which lasted over two hours, Piantedosi rattled off figures, trying to keep the discussion almost entirely on a technical level. He highlighted the decline in arrivals, also mentioned Salvini, and recalled the work done in Europe in an attempt to change the approach to migration, as well as cooperation with other countries, starting with Denmark under the (not-so-left-wing) socialist Mette Frederiksen. But the issue is now more political than ever, with General Vannacci’s return to Italy looming large and Matteo Salvini in freefall. And with the opposition on the offensive, in what is now an election-like atmosphere for everyone: whilst the PD secretary claims that “Meloni is chasing after Vannacci”, Riccardo Magi says that “Piantedosi is embarrassing; he’s grasping at straws”. Statements coming from the Five Star Movement are along the same lines. This will continue for months.

The next case – a potential crisis to be avoided, which has in fact been unfolding for a few days now – does not concern Sánchez, the Spanish Prime Minister favoured by the left. Rather, it concerns Friedrich Merz’s Germany, with whom Rome has sought to find common ground on various issues. On Wednesday, Berlin intends to send Abdirisaq Warsam, the Somali national previously described as a ‘zero migrant’, back to Rome. She is a Dublin case, who, according to the regulations, should return to the country where she first arrived: Italy. Piantedosi assures us that “we have adopted a bilateral memorandum of understanding to clear the backlog of Dublin cases until the new Pact comes into force”. But what will the government do next week? Piantedosi answers again. He stands his ground, politically. “I have already written to my German counterpart stating that we do not accept this.” The government wants to focus on forms of compensation “for the hundreds, thousands of migrants brought to us by German-flagged NGOs. Since the start of the year, there have been 2,200. Since 12 June, when the new Pact came into force, there have been more than 500.” At this very moment, the Humanity 1 – a German-flagged vessel – is at sea, heading for Ravenna following a rescue operation. This too will be taken into account in the talks with Berlin. Contacts are ongoing, according to the Interior Ministry: as for the Somali woman, a solution, an agreement, will be found. It could be a rejection of the German request or, indeed, a form of compensation; we shall see. These are technicalities which, for the Interior Ministry, will not alter the political substance. Or at least that is the hope. The aim now is to avert another crisis and dispel the spectre of Vannacci. But it is by no means certain that Palazzo Chigi will succeed.

“I am a magistrate and I always wait before speaking,” former Senate President Pietro Grasso, an associate judge in the Cosa Nostra Maxi-trial and Chief Public Prosecutor in Palermo, tells Il Foglio. Grasso, who would prefer not to speak but then lets it slip. “There will always be,” he says, “those who use those names as a shield.” The names of the fallen. “I wait. But, to tell the truth, it’s nothing new.”

The former Speaker of the Chamber of Deputies, Luciano Violante – a former magistrate, chair of the parliamentary Anti-Mafia Commission and a member of the commission of inquiry into the Moro case – does not wish to “play the moralising moralist”. If anything, he would like to “fully understand what happened” and “wait and see”. Yet, on this issue, even he does not beat about the bush: “Moro, Mattarella, Falcone and Borsellino would not have gone to dinner with Lavitola”. Full stop.

So, whilst on the left former magistrates and senior state officials watch the idol’s twilight, Valter Lavitola’s detention in prison has been confirmed. The risk is that of evidence tampering and the danger of him absconding. And his statements – even after five hours of questioning – are said to have been ‘vague’. Investigators from the Rome Public Prosecutor’s Office may now summon Sigfrido Ranucci as a person with knowledge of the facts. The facts? An attack in Pomezia last October, “for his own good, to enable him to obtain a higher level of security detail, in light of the threats he had received”.

But what, then, is ‘protection’ for an investigative journalist? An indicator of credibility or a mark of distinction? Protection or a stigma in the long line stretching from Roberto Saviano to Sigfrido Ranucci today, and perhaps stumbling upon the self-inflicted attack by a young journalist from Vicenza?

Giuseppe Ayala responds to Il Foglio: “It has often been exactly as you say: an indicator of credibility.” Ayala, a public prosecutor in the Maxi-trial and Under-Secretary of State for Justice in the Prodi government, was Giovanni Falcone’s desk neighbour. And when asked about the appropriateness of such comparisons, he sighs. He would prefer not to discuss it. But perhaps more out of modesty than caution. “For those who know these stories well,” he says, finally, “it is a comparison that simply defies comment. Ranucci defies comment.” Why does he say that? “Because it is impossible to find the words. The sheer magnitude of those stories, when set against this affair, leaves me speechless.”

And even Sigfrido himself is left speechless on this journey to the end – or perhaps not – of Report. His lawyer, Roberto De Vita, explained yesterday that “he could never have imagined that a friend would go this far”. That the love was explosive, that is, almost as much as the comparison of the investigative journalist to Falcone and Borsellino. He could never have imagined, however, that someone had already made that brazen comparison. Or as Pietro Grasso puts it: “Nothing new”.

It was the figures that convinced over a hundred scientists and researchers to appeal to leaders across the political spectrum to urge local councillors not to oppose the plants on ideological grounds. It is regrettable that, three months after the appeal, Schlein and Conte have not even met with them.

In Sardinia, however, as we mentioned, things may be starting to change. Or at least that is the hope of the companies involved. In September, the extraordinary regional commission on energy is finally due to begin work; its chair will most likely be Stefano Tunis, a regional councillor for Sardegna 2020 – a centrist opposition list – who has been criticising the Sardinian president for months on the issue of renewables. More than a few see this move as an attempt by Todde to share responsibility for future power plants which, having overcome regional obstructionism, will begin to be built. The Sardinian Energy Company is also set to be established – a public enterprise aimed at purchasing part of the energy produced by renewable energy companies before reselling it at a small mark-up, thereby capping prices for Sardinians and creating a fund for public investment, modelled on the approach taken by similar public companies in the Aosta Valley and the province of Bolzano.

A recent meeting involving the Sardinian president also suggests that things are moving forward. According to sources consulted by "Il Foglio", Todde is said to have met with the chairman of ERG, Edoardo Garrone, in recent weeks. Following the successful outcome of numerous appeals against the regional government, work is set to begin shortly on the repowering of the company’s wind farm in Nulvi-Ploaghe, in the Sassari area. Todde is reported to have stated that she is now in favour of the project.

Furthermore, through a budget amendment, the Region of Sardinia has allocated 4.8 million, to be spread over 2026 and 2027, for the creation of specialist technical offices on renewable energy within provinces and metropolitan cities to assess projects. The assessments will be carried out in accordance with Regional Law 20/2024, the legislation under which Todde had designated only 1 per cent of the territory as suitable for the installation of renewable energy plants. The law provided that it would be automatically impossible – without even the initiation of a preliminary investigation – to construct plants outside these areas. In 2025, the Regional Constitutional Council struck down this part of the regional law. Todde therefore imposed a moratorium to prevent preliminary investigations into plants in unsuitable areas, pending the drafting of regulations (which were never drawn up). At the end of July, the Constitutional Court also struck down this moratorium. Consequently, the technical departments will now also have to deal with any preliminary investigations into wind farms outside the boundaries of the suitable areas. And, partly for this reason, some are suggesting that the president – who has now been defeated in all judicial forums – is softening her stance: Todde is reportedly unwilling to attempt to halt the wind farms through further regional legislation.

Attacked by Luigi Spaventa – a man of genuine academic standing who did not spout anti-Zionist nonsense on social media whilst wearing sandals and a T-shirt in California – Berlusconi responded to his rival in the Rome constituency, a Maynard Keynes-style economist, by saying that before speaking, one ought to have won a few intercontinental cups and a few league titles. Boom!

You’ve got to know how to make a bum!, but not in the sense of Pomezia or Cefalù. Of course, the people are gullible – ‘to speak of the people is to speak of a thousand fools’, as Guicciardini claimed – but there are limits. Even to taking to the field. What did the Conducator have to say? That they’re all corrupt and scoundrels, that a clean-up is needed, that a shake-up of the ruling class is urgently required – a sort of universal ‘Piazza Pulita’ – and that there must be just one man at the helm. That’s a bit thin. Il Cav., with his ‘this side or that side’, his affectionate Italianism, his big bucks and staff, his Rossoneri shirt and his villas, had a programme and a method; he knew how to commission opinion polls and, above all, how to use them with a finesse that these lot can only dream of. He had a certain vision of Italy, as Ezio Mauro – our finest Greek commentator – would say. He embodied a slice of society and individualism; the ‘Reagan of Brianza’ – a nickname bestowed upon him by Gad Lerner – is not merely Monteverde Vecchio, with all due respect, or a small village in the province of Latina that granted him honorary citizenship. Unfortunately, ‘Il Cav.’ set a precedent across the continents, right down to his symmetrical opposite: he who was a strictly constitutional and pro-European narcissist, a lover of life capable of emotion and dignity, even in his most acrobatic excesses – unlike his wicked imitator, his perverse symmetrical opposite, that Trump from Queens who has turned the United States into an annex of his own ‘Report’.

Taking to the field – after Grillozzo’s rubber dinghy escapade, after the gathering of those with two degrees who spend their days loafing about, after the Rousseau system – has become nothing more than a savage power grab, and that’s that. Or perhaps a way of dealing with personal neuroses, dissatisfaction and the obvious psychotragic issues revealed in their autobiographies. You’d be better off staying at home.

It seems – indeed, it is – a ‘J’accuse’ directed at those who are instead playing catch-up with former General Vannacci. He continues: “You can’t say ‘we’ve held a party conference’ and pretend that everything is fine. So I believe the best thing would be to pause, discuss matters, and work out what the solution might be, with everyone willing to reset internal party roles from the top down to the smallest branch”. Desperate times call for desperate measures, but with eight months to go before the election, it’s a daunting task. “I can afford to say this because, for some, I’m part of the Salvini wave, whilst for the hardcore Salvini supporters, I’m a nostalgic Northerner. The truth is that the League is my home, and I’ve already taken a step back when I resigned from Parliament to help the League and the region, as was only right.” Guidesi puts forward his proposal as a mediator: “A complete overhaul of all positions, a review of the party constitution and regulations, and a policy-setting assembly before we start afresh. If we want to save the League, we must all be willing to do this by putting personal interests aside. If, on the other hand, there’s anyone who only cares about their own skin, well, let them know that if they carry on pretending nothing’s wrong, before long there won’t be any chairs left to sit on.” And this could be the most convincing argument. Then, as a man involved in the local economy, a nudge to the business world: Lombardy “I believe must do what it is capable of doing, what it was created for: to be and represent, including at trade union level, a region, the region’s needs and the region’s interests. This is our expertise, which we also express through local councillors, regional governors, mayors, and the entire network at our disposal. I am absolutely convinced that we need to get back on track and invest in this, reversing the course taken in recent times to some extent”. With a keen eye on energy issues. According to Guidesi, in the forthcoming Budget Bill, to support the northern manufacturing sector (and here Fontana’s federalist interpretation resurfaces), the League should call for “simplification, first and foremost, because budgetary scope is limited. We need to send a signal, especially to businesses in the north. I believe that the real adversary continues to be centralism. Centralism is the enemy of development, the enemy of economic growth, and the enemy of all capacity for innovation – not only from an economic perspective but also a technological one, in every respect.” In short, according to Guido Guidesi – a Lega member from Codogno who has been passionate about his political ‘community’ all his life – the complete overhaul of a party that has become bogged down represents a return to the movement’s origins and its fundamental principles. And it is certainly not about chasing slogans on remigration and ‘round-ups’ such as those put forward by Vannacci.

“We absolutely must return to prioritising – and, in my view, perhaps even giving unique importance to – the issue of decentralisation and the regions. There is a need for this. Unfortunately, even this government needed to take more action in this regard.” It remains to be seen how Salvini will respond to Guidesi’s proposals (some signals have already emerged). For the time being, following the latest outburst led by Fontana and whilst awaiting the Pontida rally, the “rebels” seem to be wondering where their revolution is heading. With Luca Zaia on the sidelines, Giancarlo Giorgetti busy with his hypothetical bid for the highest office, and Roberto Calderoli now a prisoner of his own role. Amidst all this, the only rock-solid certainty is that Salvini will not give up. Waiting for someone to try to take up the broom, as on that distant, dramatic night of Bobo Maroni. Waiting for the re-dreaming barbarians.

The Ranucci method – which is distinct from the ‘Report’ method, a programme which, for all its flaws, errors and missteps, has in the past produced not only rubbish but also genuine investigations – is a method that embodies a specific, clear and explicit journalistic practice, of which Ranucci has become one of the leading advocates. The Ranucci method works like this. It thrives on a culture of suspicion, on conjecture, on insinuations, on scraps of evidence, on references to ‘systems’, of magistrates’ memos, of anonymous interviews, of out-of-context wiretaps, of theories passed off as truths, and of skilful and unscrupulous cut-and-paste tactics used to try to demonise whoever they choose to focus on. To make the method effective, however, it is not enough simply to use these ingredients. Something more is required. And that ‘something more’ concerns the qualities possessed by the chef who skilfully stirs the cauldron. Shrewd cutting and pasting, the cunning use of scraps of evidence, and theories passed off as truths are not enough. One must possess the ‘inconvenience’ stamp, through which one attempts to seal everything one touches with the wax seal of moral truth. To obtain that stamp – as is often the case even with the most shrewd magistrates – it does not matter whether one achieves results, or verifies that one’s investigations were based on concrete facts rather than on strands of manure that have ended up in the fan.

To earn that label, you need to make your objectives clear; you need to present yourself on the scene as the watchdog of power that everyone wants to silence in order to shut up those who tell truths alternative to those proposed by the system; and, above all, you need a propaganda machine that turns every scrap of evidence you produce into truth and transforms your actions into acts beyond reproach. This propaganda machine is usually the anti-establishment political agenda which, by turning the heroic journalist into a loose cannon planted beneath the system, rejoices when the heroic journalist channels their energy into striking at the symbols of the system. But the most important drumbeat – the fundamental cog in the media-judicial circus – is that which stems from the judiciary, a natural occurrence in a world where the line between reporter and prosecutor often becomes very thin; a circus which, when it places its hand on a journalist’s shoulder, confers upon them the power to be regarded as a bearer of truth and not merely of points of view, regardless of that journalist’s actual results. What counts are the objectives, not the results. What counts are the intentions, not the evidence. What counts are the theories, not the facts. The Ranucci method consists of presenting itself, to the satisfaction of many, as the last bastion of free information in a world where information is ‘compromised’; consequently, any attempt to criticise that method is not merely a point of view. It becomes something more. Complicity with the crimes that journalist is fighting against, an existential threat to his freedom. And following this logic, as Lavitola had clearly understood, the more support grows, the harder it becomes to criticise the method, and the more likely it is that this method – as Ranucci himself may well have realised – could become untouchable and beyond question even in other spheres, including the political arena.

Aldo Grasso, in his delightful book published by Raffaello Cortina, "Cara televisione", argues that the proliferation of ‘heroic’ journalists in Italy also stems from a major misunderstanding linked to the myth of objectivity. The myth of objectivity, says Grasso, quite rightly, is a manifestation of false consciousness. The journalist’s task is not to convince the reader that they are telling the truth, but rather to warn them that they are recounting their own truth, whilst acknowledging that other truths also exist; for a journalist who tells the truth is, quite simply, a journalist who not only avoids passing off conjecture as fact, but also admits to having interpreted the facts in accordance with their own opinions. The heroic journalist does exist; Italy is full of heroic journalists. But when, at the grand ball of news reporting, a journalist does not confine themselves to reporting facts but chooses to divide the world into those on the right side and those who are not, they may find themselves with a friend eager to exploit their fame to make their political profile bombproof. The limits of the Lavitola method will be scrutinised by the magistrates. The limits of the Ranucci method perhaps also deserve to be scrutinised by all those who today are trying not to apply the culture of suspicion – modelled on Ranucci – to the Ranucci case; that is, the followers of the ‘heroic journalist’ who, having become accustomed to dividing the world into those on the right side and those who are not, are now desperately trying to resist the siren song urging them to apply to Ranucci the very same method that Ranucci might well have applied to any of his enemies who found themselves in his position: presumed to be Lavitola’s accomplice until proven otherwise – naturally, whilst playing on a few scraps of truth.

"I believe the investigators have done an excellent job, unravelling a very complex web of events. Without the expertise and meticulousness of those who carried out the investigation, it would probably not have been possible to shed light on the matter and dispel the many insinuations," says Fazzolari. “It takes the nerve of certain biased journalists,” insists the Fratelli d’Italia representative, “to talk of FdI’s relentless persecution of Ranucci. It is exactly the opposite. It was he who, over recent months, has repeatedly sought to link FdI to the bomb that exploded outside his home. He tried to cast a shadow over me by orchestrating a ridiculous charade in the Anti-Mafia Commission, with Scarpinato acting as his sidekick. The Five Star Movement MP asked him whether there was a link between my alleged decision to have Ranucci followed by the secret services and the bomb: at that point, in a dramatic twist, the presenter of "Report" demanded that the answer be kept secret, fuelling speculation and suspicion.”

“A report on ‘Report’ – he continues in the interview – then suggested there was a link between the attack and the Fratelli d’Italia MP Gimmi Cangiano. From what I’ve read in the newspapers, when he was questioned by the Rome Public Prosecutor’s Office, Ranucci is also said to have named the chair of the Anti-Mafia Commission, Chiara Colosimo. After that, still not satisfied, following Lavitola’s arrest, he tried to drag MP Francesco Filini into the affair – the very MP who was guilty of asking him, during the Rai Supervisory Committee hearing, whether he was thinking of entering politics. In short, a continuous and calculated attempt to link FdI to the attack.” The Undersecretary to the Prime Minister says he is neither angry about the insinuations nor satisfied with the outcome of the investigation: “Neither one nor the other. Setting aside all other considerations, I believe Ranucci should apologise to FdI and to all the people he has tried to smear over the past few months.” When asked whether Ranucci knew about the attack, Fazzolari replied: “If I were to apply the ‘Report’ method, the answer would be obvious. However, I prefer to wait for the investigation to unfold. One thing is certain: the person who ordered the attack is a close friend of Ranucci’s.”

And furthermore: “Ranucci ought to explain to everyone why, whilst he is ready to attack anyone at the slightest pretext, he has always defended the instigator of the attack on him. And certainly – he insists – he will have to clarify why, on the very day of the search, he spent two hours on the phone with Lavitola to agree on an explanation to give regarding the inspection carried out outside his home by the fixer and his henchman, who is believed to have links to the Camorra”. As for the future direction of "Report", Fazzolari explains that "personally, I think that "Report", under Ranucci’s leadership, has lost credibility compared to the Gabanelli era. But that is not the point. The point is the farce we have witnessed: it has emerged that the inquisitor of others’ frailties had all the weaknesses, contradictions and lack of transparency that he morbidly sought in others. And, as the undersecretary warns, the public has never been forgiving of such contradictions.”

“The information shared has highlighted the existence of high internal security risks relating to possible uncontrolled and sudden movements of third-country nationals through the common area, which, as such, do not rule out potential terrorist infiltration within migration flows,” said Piantedosi. According to him, various sources indicate that certain areas of Morocco, including those near Ceuta, “have historically been subject to recruitment and radicalisation by jihadists”. “The exceptional nature of this situation has required immediate government action to safeguard internal security, through the temporary reintroduction of internal border controls with the Kingdom of Spain, in accordance with the provisions of Regulation (EU) 2016/399, known as the Schengen Borders Code,” he continued. 

On the suspension of the Schengen Agreement with Spain, “what the government has chosen to do is fully in line with European law”, he explained. “Other European states have done so and continue to do so, including in relation to Italy. I am not aware of any concerns being raised or requests for further clarification in those circumstances.” The minister therefore emphasised that "whilst Italy’s initiative is based on solid, objective grounds and control measures, the suspension imposed on us by the authorities in Madrid amounts, by their own admission, to a largely retaliatory measure". Moreover, "the temporary reintroduction of internal border controls has been implemented hundreds of times over the years by European countries: Spain itself has resorted to it 22 times since 2009, just as certain other countries have done in relation to Italy or other partners". 

"Together with Germany and France, we have suspended the quotas for so-called ‘Dublin cases’ until the EU Migration and Asylum Pact comes into force on 12 June," said Piantedosi. “I have already made it clear to my German counterpart that we will not accept cases reported in the news that predate that date. And that, in any event, from that date onwards, we will offset this with the thousands of migrants being brought to our shores by German NGO ships: 2,200 since the start of the year and more than 500 since 12 June alone. “We have accepted that the responsibility of the countries of first entry should not be waived,” Piantedosi noted, “but we are confident that the number of potential ‘Dublin cases’ will continue to fall, as we work to ensure that fewer and fewer irregular migrants arrive in Italy and Europe.”

Piantedosi then once again defended the policies implemented by the Meloni government on immigration. “Since the start of the year, landings in Italy have fallen by 55 per cent compared with 2025, and if we compare the landings in the first seven months of 2023 – the start of the parliamentary term – with the same period this year, the figures have plummeted by 82 per cent. In 2026, in essence, around 17,000 people arrived, which is less than a quarter of those who reached Ceuta in two days,” she said. Shortly before the hearing began, Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni shared a video on social media showing irregular migrants being put on a plane by the police. "Deportation operations for irregular migrants on Italian soil are continuing," Meloni wrote. "Border defence, security, respect for the rules: we will continue straight down this path."

The exponential rise in support for the party led by the former Iena presenter, which celebrated its first anniversary last February, could prove to be a factor capable of influencing the political balance even at national level. It is precisely for this reason that, a few weeks ago, on 30 July, La Vardera formalised the alliance with Progetto Civico Italia, a political movement founded by Onorato. The leader of Controcorrente will serve as president, whilst Carmelo Miceli will head the confederation in Sicily. During July, Controcorrente’s broad support in Sicily began to have a tangible effect on national political polls as well, which place La Vardera’s movement at around 1 per cent. In short, Onorato’s move has a specific aim: to boost the popularity of his movement and secure more bargaining chips to play at the main table of the broad centre ahead of the general election, where, alongside him, there are Matteo Renzi’s Italia Viva, Riccardo Magi’s Più Europa and, in a few days’ time, the political project of the former director of the Revenue Agency, Ernesto Maria Ruffini, will also be launched. On the other hand, La Vardera’s commitment to supporting Onorato (and therefore the centre-left) is a signal that the former Iena presenter is sending to the PD, the M5S and the rest of the coalition ahead of the Sicilian elections, where the alliance landscape remains completely up in the air. “We have decided to continue,” La Vardera said during the press conference with Onorato, “a path we embarked upon a year ago with what, for us, is the only project that fits perfectly with the characteristics of our Movement.” 

And, after all, it would not be the first time that the widespread support for a movement that originated purely in Sicily has been exploited to influence national elections. We have already seen this with Cateno De Luca, the former ‘godfather’ and now a major opponent of La Vardera. In 2022, the two of them, together with another former member of Le Iene, Dino Giarrusso, led Sud chiama Nord to elect two MPs in the single-member constituencies of Messina, and helped the movement secure 14 per cent of the vote in the regional elections. Even today, its support at national level stands at between 1 and 1.2 per cent.

Alessandro Onorato’s movement, Progetto Civico, was founded in the autumn of 2025. Described as “the party of mayors”, as it is a network of local administrators, it has always been backed by a section of the PD for a different reason: the need to find a fourth, centrist and civic pillar for the broad coalition, capable of preventing that area from falling into the hands of former Prime Minister Matteo Renzi. It was, not coincidentally, Goffredo Bettini who first put forward the idea of something very similar to Progetto Civico; a few days ago,  in these very columns – perhaps spurred on by La Vardera’s arrival – spoke of Progetto Civico as a movement undergoing “incredible expansion” and a “well-held centre”, whilst admitting that Renzi should instead mind his own business because he would be “difficult to conceal within a framework with multiple key figures”. 

An agreement could, however, be reached with Riccardo Magi’s Più Europa, which favours a federation with Progetto Civico precisely to create a centrist alternative to Italia Viva. In this case, there would also be a candidate for the centre-left primaries. “There will be no political manoeuvring,” La Vardera told Onorato, “that could prevent us from standing in the general election.” It is clear, however, that for the small centrist parties, division is a risk. The crux of the matter lies in the so-called ‘anti-splinter group rule’ – an amendment to the new electoral law introduced by Forza Italia – which stipulates that the votes for coalition lists that fall below the 3 per cent threshold will not be counted towards the coalition’s total vote tally. However, the law also states that the top list among the ‘losers’, even if it fails to pass the threshold, will be entitled to elect its representatives on a proportional basis. For Schlein, this is a stumbling block: if Iv and the coalition between Più Europa and Progetto Civico were both to fall below 3 per cent, the broad coalition would risk losing many votes. If, on the other hand, a single list were to be formed, La Vardera’s electoral weight could be utilised by Onorato when drawing up the lists.

Electoral law and the pitfall of preferential votes

Let’s start with the electoral reform. On 16 July in the Chamber of Deputies, following the rejection by around fifty maverick MPs and Vannaccia’s manoeuvres regarding preferential voting, the majority held firm in the secret ballot during the final vote on the Stabilicum, which was approved at first reading with 217 votes in favour and 152 against. In fact, two days earlier, thanks to the secret ballot, the centre-right had narrowly lost by a single vote on the proposal put forward by Fratelli d’Italia, Noi Moderati and the UDC, which would have introduced a preferential voting system with a fixed lead candidate without respecting gender parity.

It was precisely the alternation between male and female candidates that appears to have prompted several mavericks to vote against the amendment tabled in the Chamber of Deputies. Now, however, Meloni’s aim is to ensure the same scenario does not play out again in the Senate, where a secret ballot is not provided for. Following a lengthy internal debate within the majority, a summit at the Fratelli d’Italia headquarters in Via della Scrofa has eased tensions within the coalition: FdI, Lega, FI and Nm will propose to the Senate – where there is no provision for a secret ballot – the amendment already tabled in the Chamber of Deputies to introduce preferential voting, with a single change to further strengthen gender alternation which, according to reports, will be required in the new text to be observed at a ratio of 60 per cent to 40 per cent among the list leaders. If the reform is approved with the addition of this amendment, or others, it will mean that it will have to return to the Chamber of Deputies for a third reading, with the risk of facing the same scenario already seen in mid-July. Shudder.

The Vice-President of the Senate, Gian Marco Centinaio, has already commented on the timetable, announcing that the debate in the Chamber is scheduled to begin on 9 September “with no set closing times”, following the examination by the Constitutional Affairs Committee, which will begin in early September – the deadline for tabling amendments in both the committee and the Chamber is 1 September – and will continue on 11 and 14 September; meanwhile, the explanations of vote and the final vote on the reform are scheduled to take place in the Chamber on 15 September. The Prime Minister’s aim is to have this bill approved at its third reading in the Chamber of Deputies by October to avoid it coinciding with the Budget Bill. A failure to do so could lead to the early end of the parliamentary term, with the risk of holding elections under the Rosatellum, the current electoral system which, according to the Prime Minister and various opinion polls, would penalise the centre-right, particularly in the single-member constituencies of southern Italy. Although the natural expiry date would be October 2027, rumours are growing ever more persistent that the term might end early – specifically in mid-April, that is, four years and six months from the start, which is the right amount of time to qualify for a parliamentary pension.

Budget Act, safeguard clause and defence expenditure

There was talk of the budget bill. This year’s will be the Meloni government’s fifth and final Budget Bill before the upcoming elections, which, as always, must be approved by 31 December. But there could be a change compared to recent years, and it was Lorenzo Fontana himself who announced it. Speaking at the ceremony where the parliamentary press presented the ‘Ventaglio’, the Speaker of the Chamber of Deputies raised the possibility of a genuine two-stage process between the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate: “I have already begun meeting with the Ministry of Economy and Finance to try to establish a timetable that will ensure the broadest possible debate in Parliament and, if possible, also allow for two readings. We would like to ensure that this Budget Bill, which is likely to be very complex, can potentially be dealt with in this way.” As we mentioned earlier, in recent times, it has been standard practice for only one chamber to examine and amend the Budget Bill, whilst the other has confined itself to a general debate and the final vote on the entire bill, before swapping roles the following year. This year, the debate will begin in the Chamber of Deputies.

However, there are two dates to mark in red. Before proceeding with any kind of assessment, we will have to wait until 22 September, when the final certification on the 2025 deficit-to-GDP ratio will be issued. If it remains at 3.1 per cent, as estimated by Eurostat in April, Italy will not exit the infringement procedure that began in 2024 and there will be less scope for policy measures. The situation would be different if the ratio were to fall below 3 per cent. The other key date is 15 October, the deadline by which the government must submit the Budget Planning Document to the European Union. Whilst it is still too early to know exactly what measures Parliament will adopt and to what extent they will feature in the Budget Law, Economy Minister Giancarlo Giorgetti has already set out a direction. During his address to the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate on 6 August, when he officially announced the activation of the national safeguard clause, the League minister indicated that, for energy, Italy would seek the maximum level of flexibility allowed by the EU – namely 0.6 per cent – whilst for defence, the figure would be capped at 0.9 per cent.

Taken together, these measures thus make up exactly the total 1.5 per cent quota permitted under EU rules. All measures of a temporary or emergency nature are excluded from the scope of the safeguard. The Ministry of Economy and Finance (MEF) has specified that measures aimed at temporarily alleviating the crisis, or direct and indirect subsidies – such as the reduction in excise duties on fuel – cannot be counted towards this figure. Mr Giorgetti noted that the assessment of the request to activate the clause will take place in September, whilst its formalisation will occur at the October Ecofin meeting. Following the Council’s recommendation, a similar approach will be taken to the so-called budgetary deviation procedure, on which Parliament will be called upon to deliberate in the run-up to the next budget.

Still on the subject of the Budget Bill, Transport Minister Matteo Salvini has already announced his intention to levy a tax on the profits of the major banks, drawing inspiration from Pedro Sánchez’s Spanish model: “We will ask for a contribution equal to 5 per cent of profits for three years, and we will ask this not of all banks but of the top ten,” said the League secretary. Although the banking association, led by Antonio Patuelli, is adopting a wait-and-see approach and has not yet taken an official position – other than reiterating that it considers the agreement signed last year with the government to be valid – namely a commitment to provide multi-year contributions, without any new one-off taxes, to contribute to financial stability and economic solidarity.

Differentiated autonomy and the left’s ‘democratic alarm’

And with the resumption of parliamentary business in September, the debate on ‘differentiated autonomy’ – approved in June 2024 – will also begin anew. This is the government’s sole major remaining promise following its defeat in the referendum and the abandonment of the ‘premierato’ system, though certain provisions of the legislation have been declared unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court. After the Senate had approved the resolutions on the preliminary agreements for Liguria, Lombardy, Piedmont and Veneto on 16 July, it was the Chamber of Deputies’ turn five days later. The measure essentially devolves powers to the regions in four areas: civil protection, the professions, supplementary pensions and the coordination of public finance in the health sector. The preliminary agreements therefore commit the government to continuing negotiations with the four regions in accordance with the provisions of the Calderoli Law and the Constitutional Court’s ruling. The text must now be approved by the Council of Ministers in the form of individual bills for each of the regions involved and then voted on by Parliament; however, the governors of two southern regions – Antonio Decaro of Puglia and Roberto Fico of Campania – are already preparing to lodge an appeal with the Constitutional Court.

Rai reform: between the corporate model and the resignation of the Supervisory Board

Another issue awaiting Parliament is the reform of Rai. For months now, this bill has been stalled in the Senate’s Eighth Committee. The Supervisory Committee is, in fact, deadlocked over the appointment of Simona Agnes, whom Forza Italia would have liked to see as the company’s chairperson. However, Antonio Tajani’s supporters have never managed to convince their League allies, effectively leading to this prolonged deadlock. This deadlock led, on 2 July, to the resignation not only of Chairwoman Barbara Floridia (Five Star Movement), but also of all 16 opposition MPs sitting on the Supervisory Committee. This move had been threatened for months and comes just as the reform of the broadcaster is about to be passed. However, the resignations appear to signal something else: namely, that this parliamentary term is truly drawing to a close. Confirming this, almost immediately, came the reaction from the majority councillors: “Irresponsible Left – we’re resigning too!” All this has happened precisely during the weeks in which discussions on the reform of Rai are continuing. On this matter, as we write here, the Minister for the Economy, Giancarlo Giorgetti, has set out several red lines: “The corporate model cannot be radically altered.”

From the consolidated law on cinema to the draft bill on anti-Semitism, the other dossiers on the table

On 6 August, the parliamentary committees concluded the preliminary examination of the consolidated bill on cinema reform, and the final vote in the Chamber is scheduled for 9 September, during the Venice International Film Festival, as announced by Federico Mollicone, Chair of the Chamber of Deputies’ Culture Committee. On 21 July, meanwhile, the anti-Semitism bill resumed its passage through the Chamber of Deputies’ Constitutional Affairs Committee after having been approved at the end of March in the Senate, where a compromise had been reached on a bill introducing into Italian law the definition of anti-Semitism formulated by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), which was strongly championed by Democratic Party Senator Graziano Delrio. However, the Democratic Party was divided on this point because that definition was considered too broad, to the extent that Democratic Party Senator Andrea Giorgis was tasked by Francesco Boccia – the party’s leader in the Senate and a staunch supporter of Secretary Elly Schlein – with finding a compromise between the party’s various viewpoints and presenting a different bill. In the end, in March, the text referring to the IHRA definition was approved in the Senate, with the PD abstaining; however, six members of the PD voted against their group’s position, including Delrio.

Also in the Chamber of Deputies, but this time in the 13th Agriculture Committee, the draft bill on hunting – first tabled by Lucio Malan, leader of the Fratelli d’Italia group in the Senate – has been submitted for consideration; it was approved by the Senate on 23 June 2026. The text amends the 1992 law and aims to redefine the balance between animal welfare and hunting. In the Senate, meanwhile, the bill proposing the recognition of equines as companion animals, along with other provisions for their protection and the promotion of measures for the conversion of livestock farms – proposed by MPs Eleonora Evi, Patrizia Prestipinio and Debora Serracchiani – was assigned for consideration on 20 February. However, scrutiny by the 13th Agriculture Committee has not yet begun. Also in the Senate, the 8th Environment Committee has been tasked with scrutinising the draft decree – approved by the Council of Ministers on 7 August – for its conversion into law, concerning urgent provisions on the mandatory compostability of certain types of packaging. Once proceedings resume, the Senate is also expected to approve the authorisation for the government to act on sustainable nuclear energy, given that the Eighth Environment Committee concluded its proceedings on 22 July following the Chamber of Deputies’ approval on 4 June.

In short, between the RAI reform, the Stabilicum and the Budget Bill, there are several issues awaiting MPs upon their return from the summer recess, but there is still a small piece of news: whilst the MPs have gone on holiday, a number of technicians have remained at Montecitorio and have begun installing new-generation, fully digital, high-definition cameras that improve the quality of audiovisual footage inside the Chamber with a new 16:9 aspect ratio.