There is something deeply reassuring, for a certain reading of the public debate, in considering a constitutional referendum as a technical, almost neutral step. A matter for insiders, for constitutionalists, for textbooks. Yet what happened in Italy tells exactly the opposite story. The referendum vote was anything but neutral: it was a political vote, and perhaps for the first time so clearly, also a vote influenced by foreign policy.

The weight of cities

It is not only the interpretations that say this, but the data. Large metropolitan areas recorded higher participation and a higher concentration of support for the ‘No’ party. This is not a detail. Cities have always been the place where the vote is charged with meaning, transformed into opinion, linked to current events. They are spaces traversed by global flows, by cultural tensions, by sensibilities that hardly remain confined within national borders.

Young protagonists

Alongside this, the role of young people emerges strongly. Not simply voters, but protagonists. A generation that perceives itself as European before being national, grown up within a borderless horizon, used to reading the world as an interconnected system. For these young people, the future is no longer a domestic issue. It is a global issue. And when an opportunity arises to cast a vote that has real political weight, that generation responds.

It is no coincidence that, in recent months, European squares have filled up again. Not only for local claims, but for issues that transcend borders: the return and self-exaltation of Trumpism, the military choices of Benjamin Netanyahu ‘s government in Gaza, the illiberal drifts of Viktor Orbán. Different movements, but united by the same perception: that of a world that is changing direction.

This ferment could not remain confined to the squares. It found its natural outlet in the referendum. For the first time, a domestic consultation became the place to express a position on global balances, on leadership models, on worldviews. It was not just a vote on a reform. It voted on an idea of the future.

The limits of sovereignism

Within this framework, the government led by Giorgia Meloni inevitably paid a price. Not so much for the specific merit of the reform, but for the perception of its international posture. On the one hand, a declared Europeanism and support forUkraine; on the other, endorsements for Viktor Orbán and the defence of the principle of unanimity in Europe, the real brake on European integration. Added to this is a certain closeness, at least symbolically, to the political universe of Donald Trump, bearer of a world vision based on power relations rather than alliances.

The breaking down of national borders

But what is happening in Italy is not an anomaly. It is part of a broader trend acrossEurope. In France, the recent local elections have scaled down the ambitions of Marine Le Pen and Jordan Bardella‘s Rassemblement National, who are favourites in the polls but are less convincing when it comes to entrusting them with government responsibilities. Similar dynamics were observed in the recent parliamentary elections in the Netherlands and Slovenia where the pro-European front won against internal anti-European opponents and external enemies.

It is as if, at the moment when the vote becomes decisive, voters – especially the younger ones – activate a different level of awareness. A sort of critical reflex that leads them to weigh not only the promises made, but also the international implications of political choices.

A new participation

In this sense, the Italian referendum also tells another story, less obvious but perhaps even more significant: that of a return of participation. No longer in traditional channels, no longer in parties, but in new, hybrid, often spontaneous forms. A participation that ignites when it perceives that the vote really counts, that it can have an impact, that it can be a message.

The Sense of Two Thirds

And it is here that the most frequent objection, that too much political weight has been given to a technical reform, also falls down. Because a constitutional reform is never really technical. The Constitution is the place where a community defines itself, its balances, its limits. It is, by its very nature, political.

It is no coincidence that the 1948 constituents had provided for a high threshold – two-thirds – to prevent constitutional amendments from becoming a battleground between contingent majorities. When that threshold is not reached, the referendum returns the floor to the citizens. And with it, inevitably, it also restores the political dimension of the vote.

What we saw, therefore, was not an accident. It was a signal. A clear indication that something is changing in the way voters – and especially younger voters – relate to politics. The boundary between inside and outside is blurring, national choices are becoming a reflection of global dynamics, and voting is becoming a tool for taking a stand in the world.

The standard is simply not what it used to be.