Italy Rediscovers National Identity In Fight With EU Court

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

In my forthcoming book, Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution, I discuss the threat posed by transnational governance, particularly with regard to the European Union. Now, Italy appears to be rediscovering its national identity in a growing fight with the Strasbourg-based European Court of Justice (ECJ). The court just blocked Italy from enforcing its own immigration laws to combat the flood of undocumented persons in the country.

Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni has called the ruling an attack on national sovereignty.

The case was brought by two Bangladeshi illegal migrants who were being removed from the country and sent to an asylum processing centre in Albania.

The EU member states can only determine safe countries for the return of migrants if they provide evidence and allow for judicial review. It found that the relocations by Italy “do not offer sufficient protection to their entire population.”

Former International Criminal Court magistrate Cuno Tarfusser observed that, under the decision, undocumented persons would merely have to declare themselves as being LGBT or a persecuted religious minority, and their removal would easily be blocked.

Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni said:

“This is a development that should concern everyone – including the political forces that today celebrate the ruling – because it further reduces the already limited margins of autonomy for Governments and Parliaments in shaping the normative and administrative direction of the migration phenomenon. The Court’s decision weakens policies aimed at countering mass illegal immigration and defending national borders.”

I have long been a critic of the EU’s expanding efforts to project its power not just across but outside Europe.

That includes threatening American companies that they must comply with EU censorship laws or face confiscatory fines.

 Articles 34 and 35 of the infamous Digital Services Act require all sites to identify, assess, and mitigate “systemic risks” posed by content, including any threats to “civic discourse”, “electoral processes,” and “public health.” It is up to the EU to define and judge such categories in terms of compliance.

The act bars speech that is viewed as “disinformation” or “incitement.” European Commission Executive Vice President Margrethe Vestager celebrated its passage by declaring that it is “not a slogan anymore, that what is illegal offline should also be seen and dealt with as illegal online. Now it is a real thing. Democracy’s back.”

Some in this country have turned to the EU to force the censorship of their fellow citizens. After Elon Musk bought Twitter and dismantled most of the company’s censorship program, many on the left went bonkers. That fury only increased when Musk released the “Twitter files,” confirming the long-denied coordination and support by the government in targeting and suppressing speech.

In response, Hillary Clinton and other Democratic figures turned to Europe and called upon them to use their Digital Services Act to force censorship against Americans. (Clinton spoke at the World Forum and lashed out at the failure to control disinformation.)

The EU immediately responded by threatening Musk with confiscatory penalties against not just his company but himself. He would have to resume massive censorship or else face ruin.

At the recent Berlin conference, the World Forum heralded the slogan “A New World Order With European Values.”

It was an expression of the globalized model of governance, a move that directly challenges core principles of democracy and national sovereignty. Countries like Italy are now facing the reality of such transnational governance as European courts and legislation negate national priorities and regulations.