Melons: "My political destiny is not at stake. The reform solves most of the problems"

The fate of the executive is not linked to the outcome of the referendum on justice. This was made clear Prime Minister, Giorgia Meloniduring an interview given to the program Quarta Repubblica, broadcast this evening on Rete4.

The prime minister marks a clear distance from Matteo Renzi’s historical precedent, emphasizing nature structural and not plebiscitaria of the consultation.

Meloni: “Renzi tied his political destiny to the referendum, I didn’t”

Meloni analyzed the political value of the votereiterating that the reform represents only one piece of a broader strategy: “Renzi, objectively, tied his political destiny to the referendum. I do not. Because, I repeat, for me the justice reform it’s super important but it’s one of the thousand things I’ve done in these four years, so it’s right that the judgment is asked about the overall initiative. On justice there is the particularity that is expressed with a separate vote but, in any case, you cannot consider it a judgment on the government“.

The stability of the government and the merit of the reform

Rejecting the criticism from the opposition on the stability of the majoritythe prime minister added: “I’m not here to talk about it because I’m worried that everything will collapse, also because this opposition says every month that everything is collapsing and instead four years have passed and nothing has collapsed”.

Criticism of the opposition and “changes of mind”

The head of government then pointed the finger at theinconsistency which, according to him, characterizes the opposition to the reformexplicitly citing the Democratic Partyil Five Star Movement and the magistrate Nicola Gratteri: “The Democratic Party supported the separation of careers what should he say? And the Five Star Movement that supported the draw for CSM members what should he say? What should Nicola Gratteri, who was for the draw of CSM members, say?”.

According to Meloni, the public debate would be polluted by excessive tones which would hide a lack of arguments on the merits: “I don’t know why they changed their minds. In Gratteri’s case I don’t think his ‘no’ is because there is a right-wing government. In the case of the left, yes. But can we continue like this? Can we continue that even when we agree that there is something that doesn’t work and that it can be fixed if someone else suggests it, we have to necessarily say no?”.

Transparency, meritocracy and currents

To the center of reform project what remains is the overcoming of logic dividers inside the judiciary. Meloni claimed the intent to protect theindependence of judges from the mechanisms of internal power: “I want one reform that allows the good magistrates who do their job to be able to advance career even if they are not included in the division mechanism of ideological currents. This is also exactly why I am doing the reform, because in Italy we have thousands and thousands of judges who do their job excellently and who have often been mortified because they didn’t have the right friendships“.

In this sense, the measure is presented not as an attack onjudicial orderbut as an enhancement of its own efficiency: “It’s not one reform made against the magistrates but made for all magistrates, which is a different thing. Because the reform introduces the meritocracythe responsibility and, therefore, also allows a Efficient justicebecause where there is responsibility you also answer where you make a mistake or when you are negligent or when you don’t do your job.”

The issue of repatriations and the application of the law

Finally, the President of the Council defended the legitimacy of government measures in the matter of immigrationreiterating that “La law it’s not ‘poorly written’, it’s well written, it was approved by Parliament and is in line with the European law. So I don’t know what is meant by ‘badly written’, which is a little discretionary…”. This is a passage which closes with a precise reference to the duties of the judiciary: “the work of judges is to make it apply, the lawdo not work against a government if it bothers him, even if we are talking about a small part of it judiciary“.