Senator Claudio Borghi Aquilini, 55, a figure of significant influence within the League party, has solidified his reputation as the ultimate disruptor of the budget maneuver. Describing himself as ‘unlikable,’ Borghi’s relentless energy is evident in his constant movement between Senate corridors and television studios. Over the years, the ‘Mr. No’ of the League has perfected the art of boycotting, sabotaging, and dismantling, striking blows against both the opposition and his own governing majority.
The Unyielding Stance: From Euro to Ukraine Aid
Borghi’s list of rejections is extensive and well-documented: the Euro? Never. Europe? Get out. The ESM? A trap. The Fornero law? Absolute evil. The Green Pass? A disguised obligation. The PNRR? Not free money. The Stability Pact? Unsustainable. And aid to Ukraine? Enough is enough. In June 2024, Borghi even called for the resignation of President Mattarella, drawing widespread condemnation.
His latest battleground involves aid to Ukraine. Allies, sensing his impending opposition, have already issued warnings. Marco Osnato, economic head for Giorgia Meloni’s party, initially attempted to appease Borghi, calling him a ‘likeable character,’ before sternly advising him to ‘decide which majority he wants to be part of.’ Osnato concluded, ‘If one doesn’t agree, one makes other choices… We are in favor of Ukraine.’
A month prior, Defense Minister Guido Crosetto had to remind Borghi of the government’s stance. The clash erupted over a US document on national security strategy. Crosetto expressed his views on X, prompting Borghi to criticize, ‘Think a little, where you read that we need more weapons to buy together with the EU, I read that the EU must be dismantled.’ Crosetto, literally towering over Borghi, retorted, ‘Think a little, if you can’t even understand a tweet in Italian, how could you have understood the report in English?’
Internal Strife and Political Theater
While League leader Matteo Salvini adores him, not everyone on the right finds Borghi ‘likeable,’ a sentiment likely shared by Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni. Two months ago in the Senate, Borghi, co-rapporteur of the Finance Bill and author of ‘Twenty Years of Sovereignty,’ earned the title of the ‘class villain.’ From his seat, he deemed it ‘incomprehensible’ to allocate funds for missiles in the budget while neglecting hospitals. ‘Giorgia’ was displeased, treating him like an opposition figure in her reply: ‘It’s not exactly like that, as you know.’
The recent turmoil surrounding the latest budget maneuver, which nearly brought down Meloni’s government, saw Borghi as a central figure. The left sarcastically elevated him to ‘new Minister of Economy’ in place of Giancarlo Giorgetti. Borghi proudly claimed to have thwarted the ‘overzealous technician’ who allegedly inserted the despised pension regulations into the text. He boasted of fighting with amendments on ‘windows’ and the redemption of degrees, and thundered on behalf of the fighting League, ‘If we say no, it’s no!’
Unconventional Alliances and Golden Passions
Borghi reserves his rare ‘yes’ votes for figures like Donald Trump and Elon Musk, whom he frequently ‘hearts’ on social media. Another Borghi passion is gold ingots, evidenced by his short, self-produced ‘docufilm’ titled ‘Gold to the Homeland,’ which circulates on YouTube. Featuring vintage black-and-white images, it narrates the tale of an amendment through which the senator claims to have ‘secured’ 2,452 tons of gold reserves. Here, one can decide whether to laugh or cry.
Borghi’s actions raise critical questions about the coherence of governing coalitions and the effectiveness of political decision-making in Italy. His consistent opposition, while perhaps a genuine reflection of his convictions, undeniably creates friction and uncertainty within the political landscape. The ongoing saga of Borghi’s ‘no’ votes highlights the complex interplay of individual ideologies, party loyalties, and the pragmatic demands of governance.
As Italy navigates its economic and social challenges, the influence of figures like Borghi, who prioritize ideological purity over political consensus, will continue to shape the national discourse. The question remains whether such an approach ultimately serves the best interests of the country or merely perpetuates a cycle of internal conflict and legislative stalemate.
