Italy's citizenship referendum fails due to low turnout
A referendum on easing citizenship rules and strengthening labor laws in Italy has failed due to low voter turnout, in a win for Giorgia Meloni, whose government urged people to boycott it. Over 50% of voters had to participate to validate the two-day referendum but by close of polls on Monday, June 9, just over 30% of those eligible had done so.
The referendum proposal, triggered by a grassroots campaign and backed by the center-left Democratic Party (PD), would have reduced the time it takes to get citizenship. A non-EU adult resident without marriage or blood ties to Italy must currently live in the country for 10 years before they can apply – a process which can then take years more. A referendum win would have cut this to five years, putting Italy in line with Germany and France.
But Prime Minister Meloni, whose far-right Brothers of Italy party has prioritized cutting irregular immigration even as her government has increased the number of migrant work visas, had said she was "absolutely against" the idea. And many members of her right-wing coalition urged people not to vote to prevent the threshold being met.
The ballot included one question on citizenship. The four others were on increasing protections for workers who are dismissed, in precarious situations or involved in workplace accidents. CGIL general secretary Maurizio Landini slammed the low turnout as a sign of a "clear democratic crisis" in Italy.
Under new leadership, the PD – which is polling behind Meloni's far-right Fratelli d'Italia – had sought to woo working-class voters by backing the referendum. Giovanbattista Fazzolari, Meloni's right-hand man, said the opposition "wanted to turn this referendum into a referendum on the Meloni government." "The answer seems very clear: the government emerges even stronger and the left even weaker," he told journalists in Rome.
Even had it passed, the reform would not have affected a migration law many consider unfair: that children born in Italy to foreign parents cannot request nationality until they reach 18.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Euronews
an hour ago
- Euronews
EU long-term budget: Is health funding on the chopping block?
Emerging priorities such as defence and competitiveness are increasingly drawing resources away from other sectors, raising concerns that health – a key focus of the previous EU mandate – may pay the highest price in the upcoming long-term EU budget. The European Commission is expected to unveil its proposal for the next seven-year budget in July. However, early leaks and mounting speculation suggest that the dedicated health fund could be merged with broader funding instruments, or potentially scrapped altogether. Although health policy is primarily the responsibility of national governments, EU member states allocated €5.3 billion for health through the EU4Health programme in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. This marked the first time a standalone health budget was created at the EU level. Prior to this, EU health initiatives operated with much smaller resources: The health programme for 2014–2020 had a total budget of just €450 million, significantly less than EU4Health. Since its launch, EU4Health has financed a range of initiatives, such as a recent €1.3 million project to address the nursing shortage across Europe by promoting the profession in countries most affected. Yet many fear that the programme will not survive the next programming cycle. Even some EU officials have hinted that EU4Health may have been a one-time measure. Lawmakers have raised alarms about the potential disappearance of EU4Health and its impact on flagship initiatives from the previous term, such as the Beating Cancer Plan. Croatian MEP Tomislav Sokol pointed out the importance of maintaining a dedicated health budget since health has become one of the most important topics in the EU after the pandemic. For this reason, the EU has opted to create a separate health programme within the bloc's budget to support initiatives like the EU health data space and the European reference networks. 'If we're not able to protect this, I'm afraid this will all be diluted and absorbed by some other big funds in the budget, and we will lose this focus on healthcare that we have now,' he told Euronews. Sokol also cited newer priorities like the Critical Medicines Act, arguing that they, too, will require substantial EU funding. "Of course, healthcare remains largely a national responsibility, but EU support is needed to create a level playing field across member states," he added. Concerns over future health investment stem in part from recent budget reallocations. In February 2024, approximately €1 billion was redirected from EU4Health to help finance an aid package for Ukraine. The looming cuts are causing anxiety in the health sector. The PHSSR – a coalition of academics, policymakers, and politicians working on sustainable health systems – highlighted the need for continued investment in a recent report ahead of the Commission's proposal. In an interview with Euronews, AstraZeneca senior vice-president Greg Rossi, who participated in the PHSSR, stressed that Europe risks falling behind in life sciences. "We're seeing massive innovation and opportunity in improving health outcomes. My area, cancer, has seen extraordinary advances in the last 10 to 15 years. But Europe is losing ground," he said, adding that research and development funding has declined, with clinical trials increasingly moving out of Europe. He warned that, without specific health investment initiatives like a dedicated EU health funding, access to innovation will worsen, health outcomes will deteriorate, and Europe's competitive edge will erode. 'Health is an investment to be made, not a cost to be managed. And if we do so, we'll improve the health and the wealth of our countries,' he said. The European Commission is preparing a comprehensive overhaul of the its long-term budget, also known as Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) post-2027. The aim is to make it simpler, more effective, and more aligned with evolving policy priorities. Currently, the MFF stands at around €1.2 trillion – roughly 1% of the EU's GDP. Commission President Ursula von der Leyen is considering a major restructuring of the MFF for 2028–2034, possibly moving away from the current system of over 50 EU-level programmes. Budget Commissioner Piotr Serafin previously indicated that the next budget proposal will focus on "fewer, more focused programmes" and a more strategic, ambitious framework. The European Commission's proposal, expected in mid-July, will offer the first concrete signal of what lies ahead for health funding in the EU.
Euronews
6 hours ago
- Euronews
Irish government rejects motion to stop sale of Israeli bonds
The Irish government on Wednesday defeated a cross-party motion that called on it to stop the Central Bank of Ireland from facilitating the sale of Israeli bonds. The motion, presented by the Social Democrats and supported by Sinn Féin, Labour, and People Before Profit, was intended to block what many refer to as 'Israeli war bonds'. The instruments provide economic support to Israel while it conducts military operations in Gaza, and Ireland's Central Bank currently approves the sale of these bonds in EU markets. Bonds issued by non-EU countries must be approved by the financial regulator in one member state before they can be sold within the single market. The bill failed with 85 votes against and 71 in favour, upholding the government's position. Several TDs, Irish members of parliament, argued that Ireland should not be involved in financial instruments that fund destruction in Gaza. The Central Bank estimated that Israel has raised between €100mn and €130mn from their sale. Taoiseach Micheál Martin nonetheless rejected claims that the Irish government is complicit in genocide by allowing the facilitation of the bond sales. Despite publicly acknowledging the severity of Israel's attacks in Gaza, he maintained that Ireland must oppose the military action within legal and diplomatic channels. As such, the government argued that it cannot legally direct the Central Bank due to its independence under Irish and EU law. When the same objection arose last month in response to a similar motion from Sinn Féin, party leader Mary Lou McDonald argued: 'We have over 20 pages of independent, robust legal opinion clearly stating that the bill is compliant with Irish law, European law and international law.' As per the EU's Prospectus Regulation, non-EU countries like Israel must meet disclosure and legal standards to issue bonds in the bloc. If those standards are met, the Central Bank doesn't have the authority to reject bond applications. 'The Central Bank cannot decide to impose sanctions for breaches or alleged breaches of international law. It is for international bodies such as the UN or the EU to determine how to respond to breaches or alleged breaches of international law,' said Central Bank Governor Gabriel Makhlouf. He added that the Genocide Convention applies to the Irish State, not regulatory bodies like the Central Bank. The reason why the Irish Central Bank is at the core of this issue — despite Ireland being one of the EU countries that has been the most vocally pro-Palestine — is Brexit. When the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union in 2016, Israel chose Ireland to be the home member state to approve its bonds. Prior to 2021, this responsibility fell to the UK. The current prospectus for Israeli bonds is set to expire in September, but Central Bank officials believe that Israeli authorities will likely initiate the renewal process several weeks beforehand. In the absence of new EU sanctions or changes to existing legislation, the Central Bank will remain legally bound to approve the bond prospectus, regardless of the political fallout. Meanwhile, protesters have been gathering for months outside the seat of the parliament, Leinster House, and the Central Bank, demanding that the government block Israeli bond sales. Britain's economic recovery suffered a setback in April, with gross domestic product (GDP) shrinking by 0.3% on a monthly basis, marking the steepest contraction since October 2023, according to data released by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) on Thursday. The contraction, which exceeded market expectations of a 0.1% fall, has renewed concerns over the UK economy's resilience and intensified pressure on both Downing Street and the Bank of England (BoE)'s policy stance. The April downturn followed a modest 0.2% expansion in March and comes amid a broader backdrop of weakening labour market data and fading consumer momentum. The services sector, which accounts for around 80% of UK economic output, was the primary drag in April, declining by 0.4%. Within services, the professional, scientific and technical activities subsector posted a significant fall of 2.4%. This contraction was driven mainly by a 10.2% plunge in legal activities, attributed in part to the impact of changes to Stamp Duty Land Tax thresholds in England and Northern Ireland. The tax change prompted homebuyers to bring forward purchases to March, resulting in a sharp drop in related services, such as conveyancing and estate agency work, in April. Advertising and market research also contributed negatively to GDP, with output down 3.4%, while growth in scientific research and development (up 6.7%) provided a partial offset. The wholesale and retail trade and repair of motor vehicles and motorcycles subsector also weighed on GDP, declining by 1.2% in April after a 0.9% expansion in March. Production output fell by 0.6% in April, with manufacturing production sliding 0.9% — adding to a 0.8% fall in the previous month. Overall industrial production contracted by 0.6%, coming in weaker than the 0.5% decline expected by analysts. Despite a rebound in construction output, which rose 0.9% month-on-month, it was not enough to counterbalance the broader economic dip. The downturn in GDP comes on the heels of deteriorating labour market data released earlier this week. The number of payrolled employees fell by 109,000 in May, the seventh consecutive monthly decline and the sharpest drop since May 2020. The total stood at 30.2 million, a 0.4% monthly fall. The unemployment rate ticked up to 4.6% in the three months to April, in line with expectations, while wage growth softened. Regular pay excluding bonuses increased by 5.2% year-on-year — the slowest pace in seven months and below the 5.4% forecast. Despite the mounting economic headwinds, the BoE is widely expected to leave interest rates unchanged at 4.25% at its upcoming meeting next week. However, traders have increased their bets on a rate cut in August, anticipating a 0.25 percentage point reduction as the economy shows further signs of cooling. Overall, money markets are currently pricing two interest rate cuts of cumulative 50 basis points by the BoE this year. Sterling came under pressure following the GDP release, with the euro rising to 0.85 pounds — the highest level in over a month during morning trading. UK government bond yields extended their weekly declines. The yield on the two-year gilt fell to 3.90%, the lowest since early May, while the ten-year yield slipped to 4.53%. Equity markets, however, remained broadly resilient. The FTSE 100 held steady around 8,860 points, just shy of Wednesday's all-time high of 8,885. Among the notable movers, Halma plc surged over 8% on the back of strong corporate results. BP also gained 1.8%, buoyed by higher oil prices following the announcement of a trade agreement between the United States and China. On the downside, Intermediate Capital Group and EasyJet dropped 4.1% and 2.6%, respectively.
Euronews
6 hours ago
- Euronews
Italy not liable for Libyan coastguard actions in migrant boat sinking
Judges at the European Court of Human Rights ruled on Thursday that Italy can't be held liable for the actions of Libya's coastguard, rejecting a case brought by a group of migrants rescued from the Mediterranean Sea in a fatal boat sinking in 2017. The court in Strasbourg declared the case inadmissible, finding Italy didn't have "effective control" of the expanse of waters off the coast of Tripoli where the small ship carrying around 150 people sank. Twenty people died in the sinking and around 45 survivors said they were taken to Tajura Detention Centre in Tripoli where they were beaten and abused. The judges found that the captain and crew of the Libyan vessel Ras Jadir had acted independently when they answered a distress signal in the early morning hours on 6 November 2017. Since 2017, Italy has supplied Libya with funding, vessels and training as part of an agreement to slow the numbers of migrants crossing the Mediterranean. However, the judges found that this support didn't prove that "Italy had taken over Libya's public-authority powers." A group of migrants was rescued by the humanitarian organisation Sea Watch and were taken to Italy. A ruling in favour of the 14 survivors who filed the complaint at the ECHR could have undermined international agreements made by several EU countries with Libya, Turkey and others to prevent migrants from coming to European shores. The ECHR handles complaints against the 46 member states of the Council of Europe. The intergovernmental organisation isn't an EU institution and was set up after World War II to promote peace and democracy. Libya isn't a member of the Council of Europe, so the court has no jurisdiction over the country's actions. Three right-wing political groups at the European Parliament are attempting for a second time to establish an investigative inquiry committee into NGO financing by the European Commission, as Transparency International alleges an MEP-orchestrated smear campaign against civil society and is launching a complaint about leaks. German newspaper Welt Am Sonntag claimed last week that the EU executive had allegedly secretly paid environmental NGOs up to €700,000 to promote the bloc's climate policy. The Commission denied the allegations of secret payments and a spokesperson told Euronews that the executive exercises a high degree of transparency when it comes to providing funding to NGOs. "The latest revelations published by the German press about murky ties between the European Commission and environmental NGOs make the establishment of a parliamentary committee of inquiry into the so-called 'Green Gate' scandal ever more urgent," European Conservatives and Reformists MEP Carlo Fidanza said in a press release, adding: "This committee, which has been requested by the ECR Group and backed by 200 MEPs from various political families, is essential." Hungarian Patriots MEP Csaba Dömötör told Euronews he believes more transparency is needed in relation to NGO contracts with the European Commission. "We see that they finance a blindly ideologically driven agenda from taxpayers' money, for which the price and the burden will be paid by taxpayers," Dömötör said, adding: "The Commission says those contracts are not secret. We will see, as we will launch targeted information requests to know the content of those lobbying contracts. The European Commission will have its chance to open up and to prove that the democratic values that they request from member states are also valid for themselves." The Welt allegations first surfaced in February, and in April a parliamentary committee voted down a raft of amendments from right-wing lawmakers seeking to incorporate sharp criticism of EU funding for non-governmental organisations into the discharge of the bloc's 2023 budget. As well as rejecting a joint proposal by Fidesz and France's Rassemblement National to condemn an 'enormous EU-NGO propaganda complex', the committee at that time also rejected a slew of amendments tabled by conservative European People's Party (EPP) lawmaker Monika Hohlmeier. Among these was a call for the EU Court of Auditors (ECA) to conduct a probe specifically into the LIFE Programme, the bloc's funding instrument for environmental projects on the ground, a small portion of which supports campaign groups through operating grants. The Conference of the Presidents at the European Parliament will now decide on the establishment of the committee next week in Strasbourg. Another two right-wing groups, Patriots for Europe and Europe of Sovereign Nations, also lined up in support of the initiative. Rene Aust, chair of ESN, told Euronews the group will support any inquiry into the misuse of public funds. "The Commission is paying activists to shape public opinion – this is not neutral governance, but orchestrated democracy," Aust said. The position of the European People's Party group is not clear-cut, since not all MEPs share Hohlmeier's position. Meanwhile, Transparency International EU director Nick Aiossa told Euronews that the claims of NGO's shadow-lobbying for the Commission have already been debunked. "These are already debunked stories that were circulated in February," said Aiossa, adding: "I simply don't understand why the German press would jump on this, unless, of course, it has a more political agenda behind it from the people who are leaking the contracts." He said that Commission funding of civil society in order to participate in public debate is a good thing, and that ample transparency measures already exist. Back in April, Transparency International stood up against the idea of an inquiry committee in an open letter. "These coordinated attacks that we've seen from this House over the last six months have three very clear objectives. They're meant to discredit NGOs. They're meant to distract NGOs to try and counter these false narratives in the press but ultimately, unfortunately, the ultimate objective is to defund NGOs. And we are about to see this play out in the new budget negotiations that are going to take place over the next several years," Aiossa added. He said that a small circle of right-wing MEPs is responsible for leaking sensitive data to the press, and that Transparency would be filing a legal complaint on the issue. "We've had a handful of MEPs have access to a limited amount of confidential documents that they are using to leak to journalists as part of a smear campaign against NGOs. There are rules in place in how these documents must be handled because they are confidential, and there's no accountability in this House on these leaks. And so I intend to submit a formal complaint to both the Commission as well as the president of the Parliament." At the heart of the latest media revelations on EU funding for environmental NGOs are the LIFE operating grants. These are part of the EU's LIFE programme, a €5.4 billion budget (2021–2027) aimed at financing projects related to green innovation, circular economy, energy efficiency, nature conservation, and pollution reduction. Around €15.6 million of this is allocated to environmental NGOs via operating grants and under this scheme, individual organisations may receive up to €700,000 annually. Grants are awarded through open calls with clear eligibility criteria and NGOs are evaluated not by the Commission directly but by agencies such as, in the case of LIFE , the European Climate, Infrastructure and Environment Executive Agency (CINEA). Advocacy through lobbying is permitted but not required or directed under the grants. Each grant includes the disclaimer that 'views and opinions expressed' by NGOs 'do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union'. Grant conditions are public, and there is no requirement that applicants align their objectives with Commission interests to receive funding. In short: NGOs retain full autonomy over how they use the money, within legal and contractual boundaries. They are subject to transparency rules, must uphold EU values, and are routinely audited. If they fail to implement their work programmes, funding can be withdrawn. While much of the oversight relies on self-reporting – one of the main pitfalls of the system – the Commission is enhancing its risk-based verification following advice from the European Court of Auditors. In April 2025, the EU auditors labelled the Commission's funding process as 'opaque' and warned of potential reputational risks. However, it found no evidence during a year-long probe of any wrongdoing by either NGOs or European Commission officials. As a result, the Commission last year issued new guidance to prevent EU funding from being used for direct lobbying of EU institutions following these concerns. With additional reporting by Gerardo Fortuna
