In June 2025, Italy finds itself at a crossroads — politically, socially, and institutionally. The country is heading toward a significant referendum on June 8–9, addressing five key questions on labor rights and citizenship.

These referenda emerge against a backdrop of pressing socio-economic challenges:

Workplace Safety: In 2024, Italy reported 890 workplace fatalities, marking a 2.5% increase from the previous year. The construction sector alone accounted for 142 deaths, underscoring persistent safety concerns in high-risk industries. 

Immigration and Employment: As of early 2024, foreign residents comprised approximately 9% of Italy's population, with over 70% being non-EU citizens. Notably, immigrants contributed 8.8% to the national GDP  in 2023, reflecting their role in the Italian economy.

Despite these pressing issues, 

The stance taken by several members of the governing majority regarding the upcoming June 8-9 2025 referendum on labor and citizenship has sparked widespread debate: their strategy is one of abstention, framed as a “political choice” and rooted — so they claim — in constitutional law.

This narrative is shared by all the parties advocating a boycott of the vote: the 50%+1 quorum — the threshold required for the referendum to be valid — has been elevated to the cornerstone of this argument, justifying abstention as a constitutionally sanctioned option.

Responding to Maurizio Landini, secretary of the CGIL (Italian General Confederation of Labor, which promoted the four labor-related referenda), Alberto Balboni, President of the Senate's Constitutional Affairs Committee and a representative of the governing party Brothers of Italy, defended this line of reasoning by citing constitutional principles: the Constitution, he argued, recognizes voting as a right, not a duty. Citizens have the right to choose whether or not to vote, and boycotting the vote is also a constitutional right.

But isn’t it at least somewhat ironic that the ruling party — along with ideologically aligned coalition partners — is now urging citizens not to exercise a constitutional right?

And isn’t it just as troubling that this call for abstention comes in the context of a referendum of critical importance, with questions that directly impact anyone who has ever worked — or will work — in Italy, including a significant number of legally residing foreigners who contribute to the national economy?

For those with a long memory when it comes to democratic participation, the irony was immediately clear. And it is far from harmless — it leaves behind a lingering sense of disillusionment and mistrust toward the institutions and their credibility.

"Voters must be aware of the importance of the referendum, and the only way to ensure that is to bring them to the polls — not to ride the wave of abstention," said Roberto Calderoli, then a senator with the League (now Minister of Regional Affairs and Autonomies under the Meloni government), during a proposed constitutional reform that aimed to eliminate the quorum from abrogative referenda.

Today, however, Deputy Prime Minister and Forza Italia leader Antonio Tajani claims it is precisely the quorum that legitimizes referenda: in his view, failing to reach the quorum would send the message that the issues at stake simply aren’t that important.

"Our strategy is abstention. It’s not a sign of disengagement — quite the opposite: it’s the strongest form of engagement. We want to prevent the quorum from being reached. This is a constitutionally legitimate stance," said Igor Iezzi, head of the League's delegation in the Constitutional Affairs Committee of the Chamber of Deputies.

And yet, not long ago the League took the opposite position. Its leader Matteo Salvini had labeled those who encouraged abstention during the 2022 justice referenda (which his party promoted) as "thieves of democracy".  Now, ironically, it is members of the League deploying the very same strategy.

What Are the Referendum Questions About?

Of the four labor-related referenda, two aim to reverse provisions introduced by the Jobs Act — the labor market reform package passed by the Renzi government (Democratic Party) in 2015.

At the time, Giorgia Meloni — then in opposition — dismissed the Jobs Act as "pizza wrapping paper." Now, her party (Brothers of Italy) is calling for a boycott, while the Democratic Party — which originally promoted the legislation — is urging people to vote in favor of changing it, renouncing its past in the name of stronger worker protections.

Here are the details of the five referendum questions:

Question 1: Illegitimate Dismissals in Companies with More than 15 Employees

This would repeal provisions of the 2015 Jobs Act, which entitle workers fired without just cause to financial compensation (between 6 and 36 months of salary), but not reinstatement — except in rare cases. A “yes” vote would bring back the possibility of reinstatement, within the limits set by the 2012 Fornero law. Over 3 million workers could be affected.

Question 2: Illegitimate Dismissals in Companies with Fewer than 16 Employees

This would eliminate the current cap on compensation for illegitimate dismissals in small companies — which make up about 90% of Italian businesses. A “yes” vote would allow judges to determine compensation case by case, with no predefined ceiling (that nowadays consists in a cup of six months).

Question 3: Fixed-Term Contracts

This seeks to reinstate the obligation for employers to provide a reason (causale) when issuing a fixed-term contract shorter than 12 months — a rule scrapped by the Jobs Act. Currently, employers only need to justify contracts longer than 12 months.

Question 4: Joint Liability in Contract Work (Appalti)

A “yes” vote would establish joint liability in cases of workplace injury within subcontracting arrangements. This means that not only the employer, but also the contracting company (the one commissioning the work), would be held liable.

Question 5: Citizenship

Backed by +Europa and supported by 637,000 signatures, this proposal would reduce the residence requirement for non-citizens seeking Italian citizenship from 10 to 5 years — and automatically extend citizenship to the minor children of applicants. A “yes” vote would facilitate the inclusion of non-EU residents, provided they meet other conditions: language proficiency, clean criminal record, tax contributions, professional suitability, and economic self-sufficiency.

Are These Questions Really “Negligible”?

Given the scope of these questions, it’s difficult to see them as anything but significant. According to ISTAT and Inps data:

• Over 3 million workers are employed by companies with more than 15 workers.
• More than 90% of Italian businesses have fewer than 15 employees; most are micro-enterprises with revenues under €2 million.
• According to INPS data, of the 6.2 million new hires in 2024 (Jan–Sept), about 3 million were on fixed-term contracts.
• In the first trimester of 2025, more than 96,944 workplace injury reports were filed (excluding students).
• Over 3 million non-EU citizens legally reside in Italy with valid permits, out of a total of 5.3 million foreign residents (Istat).

The Weaponization of Abstention

These numbers underscore the real-world stakes of the referendum. And when one considers how parties now in government once harshly criticized the Jobs Act — with Meloni calling it "pizza paper" and Salvini decrying its effects on job insecurity — the current calls for abstention seem like a glaring contradiction. What we’re witnessing is not political consistency, but convenience.

Abstention has long been the most effective way to block an abrogative referendum. Out of the 77 such referenda held in Italy from 1974 to 2022, only 39 reached the required quorum — and of those, 35 occurred between 1974 and 1995, a time of much higher civic participation. Since 1997, only four have succeeded.

In this light, seeing the ruling coalition choosing to boycott one of the few remaining instruments of direct democracy appears less a principled stance and more a calculated move to avoid an uncomfortable public debate.

So the real question is not just whether it is legitimate to call for abstention. The deeper issue is this:

What kind of democratic culture are we fostering when those in power actively undermine one of the primary tools of popular sovereignty — the vote?