Bartolozzi’s words shifted attention away from Meloni’s unusually long 13-minute video defending her reform of the judicial self-governing bodies. If anything, it is often second-line figures who reveal most clearly the illiberal drift at work. (3/3)
She also added: “I am under investigation, I will flee this country.” She is accused of allegedly lying to magistrates about the repatriation of Libyan general Almasri, wanted by the ICC for crimes against humanity, after his arrest in Italy. (2/3)
Illiberalism in the making. “Vote Yes and we get the judiciary out of the way. They are firing squads, execution platoons.” These were the words used yesterday by Giusi Bartolozzi, head of staff to Justice Minister Nordio. (1/3)
Out for @ejprjournal.bsky.social with @lucatomini.bsky.social!
With many data, e.g. @vdeminstitute.bsky.social & @demerosiondec.bsky.social, we show comparative patterns of democratic survival related to resistance actions during autocratization episodes in democracies.
Here: shorturl.at/gOhba
I commented for POLITICO Europe 🗞️ on European far-right parties pushing ICE-style migration enforcement. Even without explicit Trump links, the same punitive logic is being normalized within European legal frameworks.
🔗 www.politico.eu/article/euro...
Italy. On a mainstream talk show, clashes between protesters and police in Turin. Demonstrators were labelled terrorists. Meloni called for attempted-murder charges. Measures shielding police and allowing 48h detention of protesters without offenses are under discussion. Illiberalism in the making.
Bruxelles folks 👋 Tomorrow I’ll be presenting an overview of my new project on party-based illiberalism. Looking forward to the discussion!
I’ve always intended this as a space where everyone speaks for themselves. We all hold many opinions but we have agency and choose which opinions to voice. If you’re a global opinion-maker on illiberalism, it’s telling that after yesterday your first post is about the legitimacy of Edmundo González
To me, posting about the legitimacy of the next president of a country only hours after it has been illegally invaded and its president kidnapped introduces at least a layer of ambiguity.
Odd how champions of liberalism endorse illiberal moves that violate international law and state sovereignty
Back in Palermo for Christmas and dreaming of Serie A! 💖🖤⚽️
In her Christmas message, Meloni has attacked those "who say we shouldn't set up nativity scenes in schools since they offend people from other cultures".
I have discussed the "rediscovery" of Christmas traditions by radical right parties with Politico:
www.politico.eu/article/how-...
🚨𝗡𝗲𝘄 𝗮𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗹𝗲 𝗼𝗻𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗲! 🚨
🇮🇹 Twenty thousand leagues below the Po: 𝗰𝗮𝗿𝗲𝗲𝗿 𝗽𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗽𝗮𝗿𝘁𝘆 𝗶𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗶𝘁𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘀𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 in the Lega (Nord)
Read the new article by @gippone.bsky.social & Sofia Marini here 👉 doi.org/10.1080/1359...
#Italy #Lega #party #career
New Publication out! 🔥 Italy’s right-wing politics has changed dramatically over the past two decades. With @gippone.bsky.social and @leonardo-puleo.bsky.social we started from a basic question: Why has the radical right surged inside Italy’s right coalition? Radicalisation or something different?
Another piece of the illiberal puzzle? Some reflections on Italy’s new constitutional judicial reform: it risks weakening liberal democracy, especially alongside gov attacks on the judiciary, power shifts between PM and Pres of the Republic, and new limits on protest. @lseeuroppblog.bsky.social
The Guardian gets it. The real importance of Orban's visit to see Trump was getting financial backing for Orban's tough upcoming election campaign. And all indications are he got it. www.theguardian.com/commentisfre...
A table showing profit margins of major publishers. A snippet of text related to this table is below. 1. The four-fold drain 1.1 Money Currently, academic publishing is dominated by profit-oriented, multinational companies for whom scientific knowledge is a commodity to be sold back to the academic community who created it. The dominant four are Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley and Taylor & Francis, which collectively generated over US$7.1 billion in revenue from journal publishing in 2024 alone, and over US$12 billion in profits between 2019 and 2024 (Table 1A). Their profit margins have always been over 30% in the last five years, and for the largest publisher (Elsevier) always over 37%. Against many comparators, across many sectors, scientific publishing is one of the most consistently profitable industries (Table S1). These financial arrangements make a substantial difference to science budgets. In 2024, 46% of Elsevier revenues and 53% of Taylor & Francis revenues were generated in North America, meaning that North American researchers were charged over US$2.27 billion by just two for-profit publishers. The Canadian research councils and the US National Science Foundation were allocated US$9.3 billion in that year.
A figure detailing the drain on researcher time. 1. The four-fold drain 1.2 Time The number of papers published each year is growing faster than the scientific workforce, with the number of papers per researcher almost doubling between 1996 and 2022 (Figure 1A). This reflects the fact that publishers’ commercial desire to publish (sell) more material has aligned well with the competitive prestige culture in which publications help secure jobs, grants, promotions, and awards. To the extent that this growth is driven by a pressure for profit, rather than scholarly imperatives, it distorts the way researchers spend their time. The publishing system depends on unpaid reviewer labour, estimated to be over 130 million unpaid hours annually in 2020 alone (9). Researchers have complained about the demands of peer-review for decades, but the scale of the problem is now worse, with editors reporting widespread difficulties recruiting reviewers. The growth in publications involves not only the authors’ time, but that of academic editors and reviewers who are dealing with so many review demands. Even more seriously, the imperative to produce ever more articles reshapes the nature of scientific inquiry. Evidence across multiple fields shows that more papers result in ‘ossification’, not new ideas (10). It may seem paradoxical that more papers can slow progress until one considers how it affects researchers’ time. While rewards remain tied to volume, prestige, and impact of publications, researchers will be nudged away from riskier, local, interdisciplinary, and long-term work. The result is a treadmill of constant activity with limited progress whereas core scholarly practices – such as reading, reflecting and engaging with others’ contributions – is de-prioritized. What looks like productivity often masks intellectual exhaustion built on a demoralizing, narrowing scientific vision.
A table of profit margins across industries. The section of text related to this table is below: 1. The four-fold drain 1.1 Money Currently, academic publishing is dominated by profit-oriented, multinational companies for whom scientific knowledge is a commodity to be sold back to the academic community who created it. The dominant four are Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley and Taylor & Francis, which collectively generated over US$7.1 billion in revenue from journal publishing in 2024 alone, and over US$12 billion in profits between 2019 and 2024 (Table 1A). Their profit margins have always been over 30% in the last five years, and for the largest publisher (Elsevier) always over 37%. Against many comparators, across many sectors, scientific publishing is one of the most consistently profitable industries (Table S1). These financial arrangements make a substantial difference to science budgets. In 2024, 46% of Elsevier revenues and 53% of Taylor & Francis revenues were generated in North America, meaning that North American researchers were charged over US$2.27 billion by just two for-profit publishers. The Canadian research councils and the US National Science Foundation were allocated US$9.3 billion in that year.
The costs of inaction are plain: wasted public funds, lost researcher time, compromised scientific integrity and eroded public trust. Today, the system rewards commercial publishers first, and science second. Without bold action from the funders we risk continuing to pour resources into a system that prioritizes profit over the advancement of scientific knowledge.
We wrote the Strain on scientific publishing to highlight the problems of time & trust. With a fantastic group of co-authors, we present The Drain of Scientific Publishing:
a 🧵 1/n
Drain: arxiv.org/abs/2511.04820
Strain: direct.mit.edu/qss/article/...
Oligopoly: direct.mit.edu/qss/article/...
Our friend @rrresrobot.bsky.social has finally broken the chains that tied it to evil Elon #farright #radicalright #research
🎤 With @sldelange.bsky.social in @theguardian.com on the Dutch election outcome: www.theguardian.com/world/2025/o...
Proud of this collective effort and grateful to everyone involved. If you’re interested in democracy, courts, or illiberalism, I hope you’ll enjoy reading it!
www.bloomsbury.com/us/dissensus...
/END
Finally, Andrew Bradley wraps up with key takeaways & practical ideas to strengthen judicial independence in Europe. We hope this volume serves scholars, practitioners & engaged citizens interested in how judges perceive & resist executive aggrandisement. 7/N
The book concludes with contributions by the crème de la crème of scholars @gabor-halmai51.bsky.social, Lisa Conant, Agnieszka Kubal, @tommasopavone.bsky.social , @katarinasipulova.bsky.social & Ramona Coman — who use our interviews to push forward debates on judicial politics & democratic decline.
In a chapter, I’ve tried to provide some coordinates for the debate on contemporary illiberalism, discussing the dynamics of the illiberal supply and the fascination that these political recipes exercise on European citizenries. 5/N
In addition, a series of chapters helps contextualise the academic debates on the role of judges in defending liberal democracy (by Ramona Coman) and on the essence of judicial independence (by Viktor Kazai). 4/N
We bring together voices of those who’ve lived through democratic collapse, and others witnessing a gradual erosion of judicial independence & democratic quality in their own countries. 3/N
The book amplifies the voices of actors on the frontline of Europe’s conflicts over liberal democracy — namely, European judges and prosecutors. It includes 18 interviews exploring their hopes and fears about the erosion of liberal guarantees and judicial independence across and beyond the EU. 2/N
💫Second great news of the day
The book “Dissensus over Liberal Democracy: Insights from European Judges” is finally out with
@bloomsburyacad.bsky.social @hartpublishing.bsky.social
I’m truly happy to have co-edited this volume with Ramona Coman, Viktor Kazai, and Andrew Bradley.
A thread 🧵 1/N
🚀 If you’re working on similar stuff, drop me a PM!
🚀🚀🚀 First time posting here! I’m happy to share that I’ve just started a new FNRS-funded project at ULB (CEVIPOL/IEE): Party-Based Illiberalism in Europe. Over the next three years, I’ll study how illiberal ideas and practices spread across party systems and citizenry. @sciencepoulb.bsky.social
