When he answers, he uses more direct language and rhetorical formulas that he knows well
Yesterday the sharp response to Debora Serracchiani, today a series of targeted replicas, ad personam, to Mario Monti, Ilaria Cucchi, Roberto Scarpinato, Giuseppe Conte. Giorgia Meloni he is particularly at ease when it comes to arguing ‘one versus one’. The formula of the intervention in reply, yesterday in the Chamber and today in the Senate, puts the new prime minister in a position to assert his dialectical skills, collecting insistent applause from the majority of him. More suited to rallies than to institutional interventions, they argue from the opposition.
Surely, the messages he throws on the roof on cash, on the flat tax, on neo-fascism, after the one on women who (not) walk one step behind men, are effective. On the merits, we can discuss every single point but, on the level of communication, it is difficult not to recognize that Meloni’s words work. Also thanks to rhetorical formulas that you know well and to a more direct and informal language.
To answer Conte on the roof to cash, he uses the words of another, somewhat decontextualized, to support his thesis: “There are countries where there is no limit and evasion is very low, these are Piercarlo’s words. Padoan, minister of the Renzi and Gentiloni governments, governments of the Democratic Party “. To answer the senator for life, and former premier, Mario Monti, who criticized the flat tax, returns to appoint the Democratic Party: “He introduced a fixed tax of 100 thousand euros for the rich who moved from abroad: the flat tax is only good for the Democratic Party? “.
Replying to Ilaria Cucchi, about the batons at Sapienza, he resorts to a tried and tested scheme, raising his voice: they were “protesters who with a picket wanted to prevent others from expressing their ideas. Democracy is in respect of the ideas of others. Do we allow those who do not think like us to prevent us from talking? “. When she addresses Senator Scarpinato, she becomes even more firm, almost theatrical, and says: “The transference effect you have made between neo-fascism, massacres and supporters of presidentialism is emblematic of the theorem of part of the judiciary, starting with the misdirection and first judgment on the via d’Amelio massacre. And that’s all I have to say. ” (from Fabio Insenga)