I found rather difficult to structure the idea of this post. Simply because it has in background four recent different facts (and many, so many others not so recent), connected mostly by some aspects of the Dark Age of Communism.

1. A Romanian Eurosceptic site (yes, I usually try to stay informed, reading the both sides of a story), AlterMedia (well, not quite ‘Romanian’, since it is part of an international network, but on this particular site most of the authors are Romanian) is talking about the youth of Mr. Barosso, President of the European Commission, presenting a video, with an young and ‘lefty’ Barosso, member of a Marxist Leninist organization. They are quoting the Portuguese MEP Miguel Portas (nota bene - the link is from Mr. Portas’ website, but not to the related story).
Well, I have no reasons not to believe that Mr. Barosso was inclined to adhere to a communist movement, and I also believe that it was mainly a reaction to the autocratic regime that ruled Portugal in those times. They also quote Mr. Portas (again, the link does not confirm this) that the video was posted several times on You Tube but it ‘mysteriously’ disappeared every time. Which made me smile, because …
2. .. I found the same little movie .. guess where! On Mr. Barosso’ website. Smart move, Mr. President! Well, this is why I usually double check what I find on the internet.
3. In the context of Burma events, the European Commission VP, Margot Wallström, was talking about the Palme d’Or-winning Romanian movie, “4 months, 3 weeks and 2 days”, saying that “it was a totally depressing ( but true !) film, including how dark the streets were…”. A comment to this, from a Romanian reader, Marcela, was:
“Dear Margot,
I saw the film “4 months, 3 weeks and 2 days” last week, too. It “rebuilds” only one moment of thousand difficulties, problems of Romanian dictatorial regime where I survived. My thoughts are now for a better life of Burma’s people, too.”
4. Few days ago, I was watching a talk show (”Altfel” Realitatea TV) with ‘three wise (Romanian) men” - Gabriel Liiceanu, Andrei Plesu and Dan C. Mihaescu. They were talking, among other things, about the people (many very young) that were praising the communist ideology, considering Guevara is a hero, arguing that the ideas behind communism are “ok”, but they were not applied accordingly. (Yeah, right! Wake up! The communism did not fail only in Romania, it failed in every country it was “applied”, wether it was Russia and all “Soviet” countries, China, North Korea, former Yugoslavia, half of Germany, Poland or Cuba). Smiling, the three gentlemen were saying that this new trend is mostly generated by people that have no idea what kind of regime this was (because they are too young to know or remember, or they did never live in a communist country), and the cure for this ‘disease’ would be to send them for one year to live in North Korea.

Well, in relation with these facts, I was thinking yesterday: If there are people who pay to spend few weeks in a ‘prison environment’, or as I was reading recently in press - to try for few hours the life a beggar, why not make them pay if they want to taste the life in a communist country?
I wouldn’t go so far and send them in North Korea, where they will probably (literally) die from starvation or tortured in the communist prisons.
But in Romania, where they are already exploiting the Dracula image, I can bet that in one or two years tops, we will have a new offer for tourists: a duplicate of the life in communism. One of a kind experience: darkness, cold, no TV, no food, no the elementary hygienic items or medicine, no information, no freedom of speech, no access to culture, forced to sing for the Big Brother, afraid to speak even in front of the relatives, living just a big and ugly lie. God help us to remain just a holiday experience (kind of twisted, I think), and never again a sad and terrifying reality.

The European Union and Bulgaria are arguing about how to spell the word euro.
The problem lies with Bulgaria’s Cyrillic alphabet (the third alphabet in EU, after the Latin and the Greek ones), under which the common European currency is spelt “evro” rather than euro.
This discussion threatens to block the signing of an EU accord with Balkan state Montenegro. Bulgarian diplomats said they could only sign the document if euro is spelt correctly in the Bulgarian version of the agreement:

“This is part of our national identity. We brought the third alphabet into the European Union and it’s a matter of respect for linguistic diversity,”

Bulgaria is presently the only EU member to widely use the Cyrillic alphabet but it is also used in Balkan countries that are lining up to join the EU.
Other countries where the euro is pronounced differently, including Slovenia, have tried to obtain a different spelling of the common currency, but they have failed. Except for Greece.

Unlike Slovenia which uses the Latin alphabet, Greece had put forward its different alphabet as an argument - something that Bulgarians are trying to do as well.

The European Central Bank insists that the name of the common currency must be the same in all the official languages of the EU. On the other hand, the existence of different alphabets should be taken into account - opinion also supported by Multilingualism Commissioner, Leonad Orban.

Of course, for some it looks like a minor and ridiculous matter, but Bulgaria brings the same arguments as Greece. Why “yes” for Greece and “no” for Bulgaria?

In 2005, 65 members of the Flemish business and academic establishment issued a “Manifesto for an Independent Flanders Within Europe”, crystallizing the terms of the debate over demands for Flemish independence. And this was not the product of the xenophobic extreme right-wing Flemish nationalist party, they were serious people.

Last year Belgium’s public RTBF-TV broadcasted an extremely convincing news bulletin portraying the live break-up of Belgium, a bad joke, as some said. It was not just a bad joke. Not only because the very next day Philippe Dutilleul, the director of the fake newscast, presented the book “Bye-Bye Belgium”, so it was a not very original marketing method (see Orson Welles’ “War of the worlds”), but also because the news flash that Flanders had declared independence and that the Belgian state was breaking apart was credible enough for many Belgian citizens.

Nowadays, for about three months Belgium still has no government, since elections on June 10, in which voters split on ethno-linguistic lines between French-speaking Walloons and Dutch-speaking Flemings. And there are more and more talks about splitting Belgium.

And this happens in European Union, where the ‘integration’ and ‘multilingualism’ are promoted. One of the debate issues is the very heart of EU – Brussels, since the Flemings are asking for more autonomy and to “cut” a bilingual electoral district from Brussels.

But in the same time, the EU capital is also one of the few things that may hold the country together: although Brussels is located within Flanders, it is unlikely that a majority of this overwhelming Francophone city would choose to become part of a new Flemish state.

Once again the citizens of EU will pay with their fundamental rights the price for so-called war against terrorism. The East-European nations have seen this before –in the name of the national security a lot of stupid and dangerous rules are implemented, and when the people will finally realize that the authorities went too far, it will be probably too late for an amiable solution.
So, according to the new EU-USA agreement, our private information will be held by American authorities for 15 years (so they say; let me see: after 15 years what really happens?).
Many European states have expressed their concern on this matter, The European Court of Justice rejected the first issue of the agreement ….so what?!
Is it me or the situations in which the European authorities don’t bother to take into account the opinions of the member states are more frequent every day? – they just give another form to the agreement (with almost the same result) and get what they want.
The fact that the same strategy is used for the European Constitution (not any more called ‘Constitution’, but in many respects still with a similar legal value), that the referendum is avoided (let’s be serious: if not for this kind of treaty, than for what on Earth does the referendum even exist?!) should be a very serious signal for European citizens. The fact that European Institutions are going too far will probably cause many anti-integration movements, and I don’t think European Union is ready for a civil crisis. Somebody is playing with fire.

..and he has reasons to smile, no doubt about it. What a bargain!

First enthusiasm for releasing the five Bulgarian nurses and one Palestinian doctor from Libyan prisons, then some mixed emotions, and finally rising eyebrows: so this is all about! .

One must be really naive to think that there were no deals behind the release, and we are all grateful that the prisoners are now safe at their homes. But if we turn to the very old question ‘cui prodest?’ the situation is already ’smelly’.

First the ‘big (European) brother’ - France, is giving a helping hand to his ‘little sister’ - Bulgaria (should I say: ‘our twin sister’?). So far so good, the fight for human rights concerns us all, no matter who the injured part is, and it should no matter who imprisoned innocent people. But it does matter if there is uranium involved.

So, the French presidential had the ability to capitalise on the work done by others, especially EU External Affairs staff.

And now, along with the millions paid for the benefit of dead children’ families from Libya, we discover that there were other deals made: nuclear deal between France and Libya (signed one day after the release), exploration for uranium reserves, military, science and education and cultural agreements etc.

A happy Commission President announced the beginning of the “normalisation” of relations between Europe and Libya.

As if the human rights situation in Libya is suddenly ‘normal’. It might be, for those who see the oil reserves and the opportunities that arise.

And ‘Other countries, including the UK and the US, are also lining up to visit Libya in the near future.’ Of course, there is a slice for every one, actually, for every ‘big brother’, and all these while no EU institution is wondering who will compensate the nurses for the ordeal they endured, after they left their homes and went in a foreign and dangerous country to save lives.
Perhaps Mr. president Sarkozy will solve this matter, too.

A different position, but humble and not quite convinced, has Mr. Van Orden: “I am very dubious about the proposed ‘closer EU ties’ with a country that conducts itself in such a way. What signal does this send? [..] We should not be giving credit to Gaddafi’s political opportunism and Libya’s backward judicial system.”

Does anyone remember that there is still a debate whether or not The Charter of Fundamental Rights should be included in the Constitutional Treaty? Wanna bet it will not be, not even in a simplified form?

Keep smiling, Mr. Sarkozy, France already said: ‘no’ to the Treaty.

Un articol de azi din Gândul face câteva referiri la preferinţele românilor, aşa cum sunt prezentate în Eurobarometrul 67 (Primăvara lui 2007).

In esenţă, ‘încrederea românilor în instituţiile statului, mai exact în Parlament şi în Guvern, este în scădere accentuată, în timp ce încrederea în UE se menţine ridicată. […] Astfel, încrederea în UE s-a menţinut la acelaşi nivel (65%)’, iar, conform Eurobarometrului, încrederea în Parlament şi în Guvern se află în cădere liberă: 19% (in ambele cazuri) faţă de 24% respectiv 27% anul trecut.

Nu este o surpriză, desigur, nici nu pot spune că aceste păreri sunt incorecte. Problema este dacă încrederea deplină a unor conaţionali în Instituţiile Uniunii Europene are la bază argumente reale, daca ‘noi, românii’, ne construim simpatiile în cunoştinţă de cauză sau doar din disperare, pentru că vedem integrarea europeană ca pe un colac de salvare şi ne imaginăm că ‘ei , europenii’ (oare cand vom putea rosti fără să ezităm ‘noi, europenii’?) sunt buni şi cinstiţi şi nu au altă grijă decât să ne scoată pe noi din mizerie. Altruismul european este un mit, totul se negociază, vai de ţara care nu ştie să-şi aleagă reprezentanţi în mult-lăudatele instituţii.

Păi să vedem, sa judecăm prin prisma imaginii unora dintre cei mai cunoscuţi reprezentanţi ai integrării europene, adevărate simboluri ale istoriei comunitare:

Read the rest of this entry »