Since Meloni seems to be in pole position to win, the newspapers begin to lick her ass, and invent non-existent naval blocks that Italy would have practiced against Albania. Which has never happened. Since Di Feo fails to explain them (after all, an admiral has already thought of letting him know that he doesn't understand shit), I'll try.
Let's go step by step.
The constitution of Italy. The constitution has the highest place among the sources of law, which implies that an Act of Parliament CANNOT change or invalidate it. In that case, if you're lucky, the president doesn't sign it, otherwise it's declared unconstitutional later, and everyone affected by the measure asks you for money.
What does the constitution say?
Now let's see what happens. Article 10 clearly states with the force of the constitution that Italian laws conform to international laws when they have been generally recognized: it means that if one is part of the UN then the resolutions of the UN are recognized, if one is part of the SAR or of SOLAS those laws are recognized as if they were Italian laws. But unlike those laws born in parliament here it is the Constitution that says it , and therefore the opinion of the parliament and its parties is worth a saw.
But here comes the first problem: according to international law, what is a naval blockade? It is an act of war recognized as such by the UN, of which Italy is a part and recognizes the statute and the resolutions.
Thus, if Italy has a dispute with another country, and retaliates with a naval blockade, THEN it is committing a deliberate act of war.
There is a dispute with Libya (the management of migratory flows), but this does not mean that Italy can start a war. Because it can not'?
Because article 11 says that Italy REPUTES war as a means of settling international disputes.
In short:
- the Constitution recognizes those treaties which define a naval blockade as an “act of war”.
- the Constitution prohibits the use of acts of war to settle international disputes.
Ergo, a naval blockade against Libya just for a dispute over migrants is not constitutional. Point.
Since this comes from the strength of the constitution, which is superior to both Parliament and the acts produced by the Government, regardless of who is in Parliament or the Government, the naval blockade is illegal. Point.
But that's not enough. How exactly is a naval blockade done? The navy is sent to patrol the waters, and if there are ships trying to leave the country, they are told to go back, under penalty of using military force, i.e. large caliber firearms, torpedoes, missiles , etc.
But if the ship is civilian, you can't do that. You can't shoot them. Because the Constitution is clear:
- the foreigner is treated according to international standards in this regard. (Article 10)
- the foreigner has the right to ask for political asylum (art.10)
- the constitution recognizes human rights (art. 2) and therefore you cannot shoot civilians like any Russian.
therefore, not even the material action of naval blockade is permitted, unless it is already in a state of war with Libya, which it is not.
When I was in the military, the League won elections for the first time. So we asked ourselves, and we asked the commander during a lunch in the square, if we really should have fired on the boats as Bossi said.
And if not, how could we refuse the order. He and the purser (in large ships there is a purser with a degree in law and assigned to matters of justice) explained to us what we should do.
If the order to "transmit" the order arrives from the command, the commander must order the officers to execute it. So you're there supervising the disassembly of a torpedo warhead (in my case), and they tell you “launch a torpedo on that big Albanian ship heading for Italy”. And you know it's packed with civilians.
So what do you do? The first surprise is that you can't say no. You answer like “immediately”, or “yes, commander”, and so on. Then accept the order. (otherwise, it's legal trouble).
But then carry on with what you were doing, and don't cast anything at all. You do not prepare the torpedo, you do not make it available to the launch chain (which started in the ECG room at the time) and therefore no torpedo is launched.
Good. What can the commander do? First it puts you in the report by asking what stopped you. For example, there may have been a malfunction. And you reply that the order was unconstitutional.
The commander, who is not a fool, limits himself to noting what happened and orders you to go back to your occupations.
But you're on a big ship, so the captain is a career guy who wants to be an admiral. So to get out even cleaner, he orders the purser (who becomes a kind of magistrate) to ascertain that there are no criminal offenses.
The commissioner will call you, you will say that the order was unconstitutional, and the commissioner closes the investigation. He has a degree in law and therefore knows the Constitution.
BUT now the commander (who wants to make a career) has the problem of groups of howler monkeys calling him traitor and pusillanimous, and when these monkeys are ministers, it can hinder his career.
What does it do? He sends you to trial. You go before a military tribunal, and say that you accepted the order, but as it was unconstitutional, you did not implement it. The judge will ask the witnesses if you have accepted the order, the commander himself will say that you have answered "immediately", or "yes", commander, and therefore you are fine.
But now the judge is pissed, wondering who gave the unconstitutional order. Apparently it's the commander, who however says that he didn't give the order, but he only sent it, the order coming from the naval command, in slang navicoma, or something like that.
The court then summons the Admiralty (which “coincidentally” sent someone to attend the trial to avoid mud) and the Admiralty testifies that it itself transmitted the order, which came from the Ministry, via the General Staff.
Your trial ends without consequences for you, for the commander and the admiral. And then it will happen that the investigation against the minister is opened. (as happened to Salvini with the Rakete, in short).
Let's go to another point: the press claims that the naval blockade was made against Albania. He does it because he thinks Meloni is going to win, and a preventive ass licking never hurts.
But things didn't go like this. After arriving in Bari del Vlora, the Albanian government made it clear that the refugees wanted them back. And out of 22,000, about 17,500 were sent back immediately, the rest (the diehards) were isolated in small groups and sent back later. 1500 remained who had asked for political asylum.
https://www.ilmessaggero.it/blog/albanesi_tutti_casa_la_vera_storia_vlora-1371102.html
The rest of the situation was managed in a condition of AGREEMENT with the Albanian government, with an aid operation to Albania, and in the situation whereby the Albanian government wanted its citizens back and agreed to take them back.
When we stopped an Albanian boat we were carrying out, depending on the situation, a customs operation or a maritime police operation, legitimized by a treaty between Rome and Tirana.
There was NEVER a naval blockade of Albania, and journalists who say otherwise have a face that smells like Meloni's ass.
And when you try to say that with Albania it was the time we raised our voices and acted tough, you are exactly giving the most absurd, stupid and wrong example:
a sign that some journalists like to lick Meloni's ass.
The next question will be: don't Meloni and those of FdI know it?
Of course they know. But they also know they're talking to a bunch of howler monkeys who know nothing about their constitution. What will happen'? It will happen that to make the howler monkeys happy they will try to vote for a "naval blockade". If they are lucky, the President of the Republic does not sign the decree for them. If, on the other hand, they are unlucky, then the Consulta will cash it out, and all those who have been affected by the decree sue them and ask for money.
In both cases, as fascists are wont to do when they bang their skulls on their own mediocrity and incompetence, they will start complaining that "the boderi fordi" and the "dip steit" stopped them. And so we need the presidential system.
Which perhaps they will also do, only to then discover that the Constitution will inevitably be superior even to the President. Which without the Constitution could not be such.
And then they will cry even louder (the fascists are big whiners) and they will say that the presidential system is not enough for them, and they want at least the Sultanate.
But in the meantime they will be buried in farts and the country will have lost twenty years to get rid of them.
