2026 Referendum in Italy on Justice Reform

DirectDemocracyS Italia.

POPULAR REFERENDUM VOTE OF: March 22 and 23, 2026

Attention, Italians residing abroad will vote according to specific rules, before the scheduled dates. For all information, consult the Laws and regulations on the various official institutional websites of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of the Interior!

SUBJECT OF THE REFERENDUM: JURISDICTIONAL SYSTEM AND ESTABLISHMENT OF THE DISCIPLINARY COURT

INVITATION.

First, we invite all our users to join our various analysis and internal voting groups (there are dozens, perhaps hundreds). There, you can make suggestions, organize discussions, even across groups. After the actual voting, you can participate in the detailed analysis of the results and all subsequent activities. To find one or more groups, after logging in, go to this link (visible and usable only after logging in):

https://free.directdemocracys.org///free.directdemocracys.org/utility/extensions/submit-ticket

As the subject, write: 2026 Referendum on Justice Reform, leave the default priority of 3 normal, and as the message, write "analysis and internal voting groups." You will receive all the instructions via private message in the social media area of our website. As always, the groups have been divided into various subgroups, with varying numbers of users, also based on the different types, to allow everyone to participate. We look forward to seeing you there. PS: If you already know the group, or if you have already been invited by one of the members, simply accept the invitation and you will automatically be added to the respective group.

CONTENTS OF THIS MATERIAL.

This material contains: an explanation of the questions, voting methods, the official position of DirectDemocracyS, which we recommend when referring to the NOI vote, the general results of the internal voting test, an official position that we do not recommend, but which contains personal reasons to justify a personal official position, compared to the recommended one, the IO vote. At the end, you'll find what will actually change in the Constitution, along with related predictions if the YES vote wins.

Here is some information:

Below you will find a free, independent, neutral and complete explanation of the referendum on justice in Italy on 22-23 March 2026 , with:

• what is really being voted on
• which constitutional articles change
• how it works today
• comparison with other countries
• possible consequences of YES and NO

🗳️ What is this referendum?

It is a confirmatory constitutional referendum (Article 138 of the Constitution).

👉 It does not propose a new law:
it serves to confirm or reject a reform already approved by Parliament .

• If YES wins → the reform comes into force
• If NO wins → the current system remains
• ❗ There is no quorum: only the majority of valid votes counts.

The vote will be on profound changes to the organization of the judiciary.

⚖️ Which parts of the Constitution are being amended?

The reform concerns several articles of Part II of the Constitution:

• Art. 87
• Art. 102
• Art. 104
• Art. 105
• Art. 106
• Art. 107
• Art. 110

These articles regulate:

• structure of the judiciary
• Superior Council of the Judiciary (CSM)
• discipline of magistrates
• relations with the government

🧩 The main changes expected

1) Separation of careers between judges and prosecutors

Today in Italy:

• Judges (who decide cases)
• Public prosecutors (prosecution)

👉 They belong to the same "order" of magistrates
👉 They can change roles during their career

With the reform:

• Separate careers from the beginning
• No transition from PM to judge or vice versa

📌 Declared objective: greater impartiality of the judge

2) Two Superior Councils of the Judiciary

Today:

• There is a single CSM for all magistrates

With the reform:

• Two distinct bodies:
  • CSM of judges
  • CSM of public prosecutors

They are needed for appointments, careers and discipline.

3) High Disciplinary Court for Magistrates

New constitutional body that:

• judges disciplinary responsibilities
• replaces the current internal system

Objective: greater independence and transparency.

4) Drawing of lots for some members of the self-governing bodies

Some of the members would not be elected but drawn by lot.

👉 It serves to reduce the power of the "currents" within the judiciary

⚖️ How the Italian system works today

Italy has a unique model in Europe:

👉 Unitary judiciary

• judges and prosecutors are part of the same body
• strong independence from political power
• constitutional autonomy

This system was born after fascism, to avoid government interference in justice.

🌍 How other countries behave

🇫🇷 France

• Separate careers
• Prosecutors under the influence of the government
• More hierarchical system

🇩🇪 Germany

• PMs subordinate to the Minister of Justice
• Possible political influence on the investigation

🇺🇸 United States

• Public prosecutors often elected
• Highly political system

🇪🇸 Spain

• Separate careers but with limited autonomy

👉 Italy is one of the few countries with completely independent PMs.

🔥 Arguments from YES supporters

According to those in favor:

✔️ Improved impartiality of the judge

The judge will not be part of the same body as the prosecution.

✔️ More balance between prosecution and defense

The process would become more “equal”.

✔️ Reduction of internal currents

Lottery and separation limit the logic of power.

✔️ Greater disciplinary responsibility

With a dedicated courtyard.

⚠️ Arguments of the NO supporters

According to those who are against:

❌ Risk of weakening the PMs

Separated from the judges, they could become more controllable.

❌ Possible political influence

If prosecutors lost their autonomy, the government could influence investigations.

❌ Fragmentation of the judiciary

Two distinct systems might not coordinate as well.

❌ Lottery = less representativeness

It reduces internal democratic choice.

🔮 Expected consequences if YES wins

Short term

• Immediate structural reform
• New institutions to be created
• Possible tensions with the judiciary

Medium term

Possible positive effects:

• greater perception of impartiality of judges
• processes more similar to Anglo-Saxon systems

Possible side effects:

• conflicts between prosecutors and judges
• complex and costly reorganization
• risk of politicization of the accusation

Long term

Two opposite scenarios:

1. More balanced and transparent system
2. Weakening of investigations into corruption and strong powers

Both plausible.

🔮 Expected consequences if NO wins

Short term

• No constitutional changes
• Symbolic victory of the current model

Medium term

• Debate on justice will continue
• Possible new, less radical reforms

Long term

The system is maintained:

✔️ Strong independence of magistrates
❌ Criticisms of slowness and self-referentiality

🧠 What does this referendum really determine?

It's not just technical.

It's about the fundamental question:

👉 Who should supervise justice?

• Autonomous judiciary (current model)
• More separate and structured system (reformed model)

⚖️ An important political fact

The vote is also seen as a political test of the government.

News on the 2026 justice referendum

According to international analysis, the country is divided and participation could be decisive.

🧾 In short, ultra-neutral

👉 The referendum does not decide "whether justice will be better or worse."

Decides:

what kind of judiciary should Italy have.

If YES wins	If NO wins
Separate careers	Unitary judiciary
Two CSMs	A CSM
New disciplinary court	Current system
Greater impartiality possible	Greater independence
Possible politicization of PM	Institutional continuity

------------------------------------

Official location of our system, which we recommend to all our users.

🗳️ Recommended position: Vote YES in the referendum on justice (March 22–23, 2026)

DirectDemocracyS never imposes individual political choices.
Every citizen is free and sovereign in their vote.

However, after technical, institutional and comparative analysis, we believe that this reform represents at least two steps forward – although it also contains a possible step backwards .

For this reason, we recommend voting YES , while acknowledging its limitations and risks.

⚖️ What really changes with the reform

The referendum confirms or rejects a constitutional law already approved by Parliament.

If YES passes:

• judges and prosecutors will have separate careers
• two distinct self-governing bodies will be created
• a disciplinary court will be established
• some nominations will be drawn by lot to limit the weight of the currents

If NO wins, the current system will remain.

The reform modifies the organization of the judiciary but does not abolish its formal autonomy.

✅ Why we recommend YES — The two steps forward

1) Greater clarity between the prosecution and the judge

In the current Italian system:

• judges and prosecutors belong to the same order
• they enter with the same competition
• can switch from one function to another

The reform introduces a structural separation.

This strengthens the judge's perception of impartiality, because:

👉 the accuser no longer belongs to the same career as the judge
👉 the risk of "cultural proximity" between the two functions is reduced
👉 the process appears more balanced between prosecution and defense

Many supporters see this as a way to make the judge more “third-party”.

In several Western systems, the prosecutor is already separate from the judge.

2) Reduction of the power of internal currents

The Italian judiciary is strongly influenced by internal organized groups.

The reform introduces:

• two distinct Higher Councils
• partial selection by drawing lots
• new disciplinary rules

The stated goal is to limit corporate logic and internal politics.

From a systemic perspective, this is an attempt—imperfect but concrete—to reduce undemocratic concentrations of power.

3) Greater transparency of responsibilities

Separating functions also means:

• make it clearer who decides what
• avoid confusion between those who investigate and those who judge
• improve the readability of the system for citizens

An understandable system is always a more democratically controllable system.

⚠️ The potential step back

The main risk is only one but significant:

🔴 Possible weakening of the public prosecutor's independence

According to critics:

• Separating careers could bring PMs closer to executive power
• could increase political control over investigations
• could alter the balance of power within the state

Part of the judiciary fears that the reform will make prosecutors less autonomous.

This is the most delicate point.

🌍 How other countries behave

There is no single model.

Many democracies adopt different systems:

“Separate” model (similar to the reform)

• United States
• United Kingdom
• France
• Spain (in part)

Here the prosecution is separate from the judge and often closer to the executive.

“Unitary” model (similar to today's Italy)

• less widespread
• based on the idea that both the PM and the judge are guarantors of the law

The reform brings Italy closer to the prevailing Western models.

🔎 Likely consequences if YES wins

In the short term

✔ greater institutional clarity
✔ profound organizational changes
✔ complex transition phase
✔ strong political and judicial debate

In the medium term

✔ processes perceived as more balanced
✔ reduction of the weight of the currents
✔ possible greater efficiency

⚠️ but also:

• risk of conflicts between the prosecution and the judge
• need for new implementing laws
• possible attempts at political influence

🔎 Consequences if NO wins

✔ the current structure remains
✔ no structural reform
✔ institutional continuity

But also:

• persistence of already known critical issues
• postponement of any changes
• likely reopening of the debate in the future

🧠 Why DirectDemocracyS recommends YES

In our view:

👉 An imperfect improvement is preferable to immobility
👉 A system can be corrected later
👉 Separation of powers and transparency are fundamental principles
👉 Reducing uncontrolled concentrations of power is always positive

In other words:

Two steps forward, one step back — but the general direction is progress.

🧩 Our additional proposals (beyond the reform)

Reform alone is not enough.

DirectDemocracyS also believes that:

• real responsibility of magistrates for serious errors
• certain timescales for the processes
• transparency of decisions
• independent performance evaluations
• advanced use of technology
• democratic control without political interference

These measures are not included in the referendum but are essential for truly fair justice.

🗝️ Conclusion

👉 Voting is free and personal.
👉 There is no forced choice.
👉 Both options have pros and cons.

However, we believe that:

✔️ Voting YES means attempting a concrete improvement of the system

❌ Voting NO means maintaining the current situation without changes

We recommend YES because it represents an imperfect but real advancement .

--------------------------------------------------------------

RESULTS OF INTERNAL VOTING TESTS IN VARIOUS GROUPS

We inform you that from the voting tests in the various groups involved, on our platforms, a simple majority of us, approximately 52% if the vote were held today, would vote yes.

------------------------------------------------------

For those who aren't convinced, here are some conclusions from the discussions so far, to advise those who want to vote NO.

Below is a possible official position consistent with the principles, style and philosophy of DirectDemocracyS , formulated as follows:

✔ independent
✔ non-propagandistic
✔ non-imposing
✔ technically motivated
✔ useful to inform your users
✔ consistent with your public justice material

🏛️ Recommended location for DirectDemocracyS

Referendum on Justice — Italy, March 22-23, 2026

⚠️ Fundamental premise (mandatory in our style)

DirectDemocracyS never forces anyone to vote.

➡️ Everyone must make free, informed, and responsible decisions.

Our role is:

✔ provide independent analysis
✔ explain real consequences
✔ propose better solutions
✔ advise, not command

This is consistent with the principle of informed and continuous popular sovereignty of your system.

🧠 DirectDemocracyS Principles on Justice

From our public materials a very clear line emerges:

1) Justice must be equal for all

“Justice means the application of the law, which must be equal for all.”

2) Laws must be ethically correct and improvable

If they don't work, they need to be changed — but in a rational way.

3) Real responsibility for those who exercise power

No institutional impunity.

4) Control from below, not from the elite

Sovereignty belongs to citizens, not corporations.

⚖️ DirectDemocracyS analysis of the referendum

This referendum is not just about technical aspects.

👉 It's about the balance between three powers:

• judiciary
• politics
• citizens

🔍 Central point: separation of careers

The referendum mainly introduces:

➡️ separation between judges and public prosecutors

DirectDemocracyS Interpretation

Separation itself is NOT automatically good or bad.

It depends on:

• who controls the PMs
• how independent do they remain
• What accountability systems exist
• how protected are citizens

🧭 Recommended location (consistent with DirectDemocracyS)

👉 Precautionary advice: Lean towards NO

Not to defend the status quo, but because:

❗ The reform is incomplete according to DirectDemocracyS standards

Introduces structural changes WITHOUT:

❌ true direct control of citizens
❌ effective personal responsibility of magistrates
❌ total transparency ❌
radical anti-corruption systems
❌ reform of the efficiency of justice

🧨 Risks identified

1) Possible weakening of the independence of investigations

By separating PMs, the risk of them becoming influenced by political power increases.

👉 DirectDemocracyS is opposed to any concentration of power not controlled by the people.

2) No real democratic control from below

The reform modifies internal organs of the judiciary, but:

❌ It does not increase the power of citizens
❌ It does not introduce public scrutiny
❌ It does not hold those who make mistakes directly accountable

3) It does not solve the main problems of justice

For DirectDemocracyS the real problems are:

• very long times
• impunity of the powerful
• regulatory complexity
• organizational inefficiency
• real inequality before the law

The reform does NOT intervene decisively on these aspects.

4) Lottery and new bodies do not guarantee quality

The draw reduces the currents, but does not guarantee competence or responsibility.

⚖️ Why NOT automatically support YES

DirectDemocracyS does not support reforms in principle:

❌ partial
❌ non-systemic
❌ not designed for the global collective good
❌ driven by traditional logics of power

Our approach is always:

👉 Change everything that doesn't really work, not just some parts.

🟢 Because it's not an ideological NO

It doesn't mean defending the current system.

👉 It means considering the reform insufficient or potentially risky.

DirectDemocracyS aims for radically better solutions, not compromises.

🧩 DirectDemocracyS proposals on justice

Based on our material and philosophy, a coherent reform would include:

✔ 1) Real personal responsibility of magistrates

• effective discipline
• financial liability for serious errors
• independent assessments

Consistent with the principle of universal responsibility.

✔ 2) Certain procedural times

Slow justice is injustice.

Possible tools:

• total digitalization
• simplified procedures
• elimination of useless rules
• penalties for unjustified delays

✔ 3) Real civic control

Not political, but popular.

Examples consistent with DirectDemocracyS:

• supervisory bodies independent of citizens
• complete transparency of proceedings (when possible)
• verifiability of decisions

✔ 4) Effective equality before the law

Not just formal.

👉 Equal rights for rich and poor
👉 Defense accessible to all

✔ 5) Complete depoliticization of justice

Neither political domination nor internal corporatism.

✔ 6) Radical simplification of the laws

The more complex the laws are:

➡️ The more they become tools for a few experts
, the less they are right for everyone.

✔ 7) Intelligent use of technology

Consistent with your model:

• process traceability
• anti-corruption systems
• technical decision support (not a substitute)

📢 Recommended message to our users

✔ Balanced DirectDemocracyS formula

👉 "Voting is free and personal.
We don't impose anything. We recommend you evaluate carefully."

🧾 Official summary version possible

👉 DirectDemocracyS believes that the reform:

• does not solve the structural problems of justice
• could create new imbalances
• does not increase real democratic control
• does not introduce adequate responsibility

➡️ For this reason, we prudently suggest voting against (NO), while respecting every individual choice.

⭐ Final sentence in DirectDemocracyS style

👉 Don't vote to defend a system.
👉 Don't vote to follow propaganda.
👉 Vote for what you think is best for the collective good.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

🧠 Strategic analysis of long-term political implications

Referendum on Justice — Italy, March 22-23, 2026

This analysis does not only concern the technical reform of the judiciary, but the systemic effects on power, democracy and institutional balances in the long term (10–30 years).

🏛️ 1) Redefining the balance of state powers

The referendum affects the relationship between:

• judiciary power
• executive power
• legislative power
• citizenship

In a democracy, this balance is the true “core” of the system.

If YES wins

👉 Possible rebalancing in favor of elected politics
👉 Reduction of the "counter-power" role of the judiciary
👉 System more similar to other Western democracies

In the long term this can lead to:

✔ greater governability
✔ less institutional conflict
❌ less ability to block abuses of power

If NO wins

👉 The autonomous role of the judiciary is implicitly strengthened
👉 Politics remains more exposed to judicial control

Over time:

✔ strong anti-corruption capacity
❌ risk of permanent conflicts between powers

⚖️ 2) Transformation of the role of the public prosecutor

The PM is a strategic figure: he decides which crimes to prosecute and against whom.

Scenario YES

Separation of careers = possible evolution of the PM towards a more “accusatory” model.

In the long term:

• greater investigative professionalization
• greater specialization
• possible internal hierarchization

But also:

❌ risk of indirect dependence on political power
❌ selectivity in investigations on sensitive topics

Scenario NO

The PM remains part of the same order as the judges.

In the long term:

✔ strong autonomy
✔ continuity of the Italian model

But:

❌ persistence of criticisms of corporatism
❌ difficulty of future reforms

🧩 3) Effects on the political stability of the country

Justice directly impacts the life of governments.

With YES

Possible reduction of:

• politically destabilizing investigations
• conflicts between the judiciary and the government
• political use of justice (perceived or real)

👉 This can foster more stable and long-lasting governments.

But in the long run:

❌ risk of reduced accountability of public decision-makers

With the NO

The current system remains capable of strongly influencing politics.

✔ strong control over abuse
❌ chronic instability possible

🌍 4) International positioning of Italy

Judicial institutions influence:

• investor confidence
• international cooperation
• democratic reputation

If YES wins

Italy is moving closer to the prevailing European and Western models.

Possible long-term effects:

✔ greater perceived legal predictability
✔ improved economic attractiveness ✔ reduction of the image of an
“ anomalous ” system

If NO wins

Italy maintains a unique and highly autonomous model.

This can be seen as:

✔ guarantee of
independence ❌ institutional rigidity

🧬 5) Impact on citizens' trust in the State

Trust is the most important political capital.

Scenario YES

If the reform produces processes perceived as fairer:

👉 Confidence can increase.

If suspicions of political control arise:

👉 Confidence can drop dramatically.

Scenario NO

Confidence remains tied to current problems:

• slowness of justice
• complexity
• perception of distance from citizens

🧱 6) Effects on the future of institutional reforms

This referendum could become a precedent.

If YES wins

👉 It demonstrates that profound constitutional reforms are politically possible.

In the long term it can pave the way for:

• reforms of the form of government
• review of State-Regions relations
• changes in public administration

If NO wins

👉 A sign that the country is reluctant to structural change.

Possible consequence:

• greater institutional immobility
• future reforms more difficult

🔄 7) Evolution of democracy in the long term

The basic question is:

👉 Who controls who?

• judiciary that controls politics
• policy that rebalances the judiciary
• citizens who control both (ideal model)

🌐 8) Strategic implications for innovative movements like DirectDemocracyS

For systems based on direct democracy and widespread accountability:

With YES

✔ more “modular” and reformable system
✔ reduction of corporate concentrations
✔ greater space for new models

But:

❌ beware of any centralizing drifts

With the NO

✔ strong autonomy of existing institutional powers
❌ greater difficulty in introducing radical innovations

🔮 9) More realistic scenario at 20 years old

Whatever the outcome:

👉 The Italian judicial system will continue to evolve.

The real decisive variable will be:

• quality of future laws
• political culture
• citizen participation
• capacity for democratic control

There is no definitive reform.

🧾 Strategic conclusion

This referendum does not just decide on a technical reorganization.

It decides the long-term direction of the State:

✔ If YES wins

➡️ Evolution towards a more separate, flexible and politically balanced system
➡️ Risk of reduced investigative autonomy

✔ If NO wins

➡️ Continuity of a highly independent model
➡️ Risk of immobility and institutional conflicts

⭐ Final summary

👉 It's not a clash between "just justice" and "wrong justice."
👉 It's a choice between two models of balance of power.

Both can work well or poorly depending on how they are managed over time.

CONCLUSIONS: WHAT REALLY CHANGES THE CONTENT OF THE CONSTITUTION IF THE YES VOTE WINS?

Below you will find a clear, technical, yet understandable explanation of the constitutional changes indicated in the text, that is, what would actually change if the YES vote were to win in the referendum of March 22-23, 2026.

🏛️ First of all: what does amending the Constitution mean?

These are not ordinary laws.

👉 The "rules of the Italian justice system" are changing.

In particular, the current model of a unitary judiciary (judges and public prosecutors in the same rank) is being overcome.

👑 Article 87, paragraph 10 — President of the Republic and CSM

Today

The President of the Republic chairs the Superior Council of the Judiciary.

👉 There is currently only one CSM.

The President is the guarantor of the independence of the judiciary.

After the reform

With two separate Councils (judges and prosecutors), the text needs to be updated.

The role of the President does not change, but:

👉 will have to preside over a system with two self-governing bodies.

In essence:

✔ technical modification
✔ no direct impact on citizens
✔ serves to maintain constitutional coherence

⚖️ Article 102, paragraph 1 — Who exercises the judicial function

Today

The Constitution speaks generically of “ordinary magistrates”.

It does not constitutionally distinguish between:

• judges (those who decide)
• prosecutors (who accuses)

After the reform

The distinction between: is introduced or strengthened:

• judiciary (judges)
• prosecuting magistrates (PM)

👉 This means that the separation becomes constitutional, not just organizational.

This is one of the most important changes.

🏛️ Article 104 — Superior Council of the Judiciary

Today

There is a single CSM for all magistrates.

The CSM:

• guarantees independence
• decides on appointments and careers
• exercises discipline

After the reform

Two separate Councils are created:

1️ ⃣ one for judges
2️ ⃣ one for prosecutors

Practical consequences:

✔ separate self-government
✔ completely autonomous careers
✔ end of the institutional unity of the judiciary

This is the heart of the reform.

🧑 ‍ ⚖️ Article 105 — Careers and discipline of magistrates

Today

The single CSM manages:

• hiring
• transfers
• promotions
• discipline

for all magistrates.

After the reform

A new institution is born:

⚖️ High Disciplinary Court

This court will deal with disciplinary sanctions.

Furthermore:

• some skills remain with the new CSMs
• others are transferred to the new Court

👉 The idea is to separate those who govern careers from those who judge conduct.

👥 Article 106, paragraph 3 — Honorary magistrates

Honorary magistrates are non-career judges (e.g. justices of the peace).

Today

The law is built on the unitary model of the judiciary.

After the reform

A technical adjustment is needed.

👉 The role of honorary magistrates remains unchanged.

The text is updated to fit the new separate structure.

🔁 Article 107, paragraph 1 — Unity of the judiciary

This is one of the most symbolic articles.

Today

The Constitution states that magistrates:

👉 They are distinguished only by functions, not by career

It is possible to switch between PM and judge (with limitations).

This expresses the principle of unity of the judiciary.

After the reform

The separation becomes constitutional.

👉 It will no longer be possible to change functions during your career.

Two distinct professional paths are created right from the start.

Consequence:

✔ greater specialization
✔ greater distance between prosecution and judge
❌ loss of fungibility between roles

🏢 Article 110, paragraph 1 — Minister of Justice

Today

The Minister of Justice has authority over the organization of services.

It does not intervene in the decisions of the magistrates, but manages:

• resources
• administrative staff
• functioning of the offices

After the reform

A technical update is needed because there are now two self-government systems.

👉 This does not automatically mean more political power over justice.

It serves to coordinate the new structure.

🧠 What emerges overall

If YES wins:

🔴 End of the unitary judiciary provided for by the Constitution

Two parallel systems are born:

• judiciary
• prosecuting magistrates

each with:

• own career
• own government
• own rules

⚖️ What does NOT change directly

❌ The crimes do not change
❌ The courts do not change
❌ The Penal Code does not change
❌ The rights of citizens in the process do not change

Only the constitutional organization of the judiciary is changed.

🌍 Why this reform is considered "structural"

Because it affects the way the State exercises justice.

It is comparable to:

• change the electoral system
• to change the powers of Parliament
• reform the Presidency of the Republic

🧾 Ultra-clear synthesis

👉 Today: a single judiciary with different functions
👉 After the YES: two separate judiciaries by Constitution

I wait	Today	After the YES
Single CSM	✔	❌
Two CSMs	❌	✔
PM↔judge transition	✔	❌
High Disciplinary Court	❌	✔
Unitary judiciary	✔	❌

CONCLUSIONS.

Voting no would essentially mean being satisfied with how justice is working in Italy, and we know full well that it doesn't work quickly or even properly.

In recommending a yes vote, we don't consider it a sufficient change, but it is at least an attempt to change things. If modified by eliminating the lottery (stupid, unsuccessful, and potentially disastrous) and introducing the election of every institution, judge, jury, and all the parties involved, and by fully integrating, in the future, all our structural proposals designed for the common good, it could represent the start of something truly better.

For further details, please contact our specialist groups and our groups dedicated to this referendum. We encourage you to go vote and let everyone know your opinion!