Before the end of this year, the European Union should have a President, elected for 2.5 years.
One of the most pronounced names for the job is that of the former British prime minister, Tony Blair, supported by the French President, Nicolas Sarkozy.
But two other French leaders - Edouard Balladur (the former conservative French prime minister, close to Mr Sarkozy) and Valérie Giscard d’Estaing (former French president and the father of the now defunct EU constitutional treaty) expressed their opinion that Europe’s first president must have majority support from his home country, which should be a nation that respects all its European commitments. Something that Britain might not be doing for the time being.

“Tony Blair cannot be president of Europe,” writes Edouard Balladur in Le Monde . Despite his declarations of good intent, for 10 years, Mr. Blair did almost nothing to put an end to Britain’s special statu, with its opt-outs in the fields of justice and home affairs, non-membership of the euro - area and of the border-free Schengen zone. Moreover, says he, Mr Blair is far too close to America to build an independent Europe.

I might add that if Tony Blair would accept the post, he will have to give up his job at J. P. Morgan, an US-based investment bank (with a salary of around £2 million per year). He would also have to drop his diplomatic role as a Middle East envoy on behalf of western nations.
Besides, Mr. Blair is the subject of an war crimes investigation on the deaths of Iraqi citizens killed during the armed invasion and occupation of Iraq (strange that the mass media did not cover this issue according to its importance, but that’s my opinion. And an ‘innocent’ question: will Basescu follow? since he is the strongest and most vocal Romanian supporter of the Iraqi invasion. Yeah, let’s move on).
There is also an on-line petition agains Blair’s nominalization at www.stopblair.eu, and if we remember the “cash for honours” scandal, we undestand why Mr. Blair is not suitable to become the first EU president.

Other two possible candidates are the prime minister of Luxembourg, Jean-Claude Juncker, a declared believer in a ‘United States of Europe’ and Bertie Ahern, the Irish prime minister. For now.

Something tells me that the recent outburst of the communications commissioner Margot Wallstrom will have some consequencies, at least the debates regarding the election of an EU president will be a little more transparent than before.

Monsieur Valéry Giscard d’Estaing is making in his blog (yes, he had started a blog at the age of 81, and, as you can see, the venerable is very active) a detailed comparison between former (or should I say ‘the late’?) Constitutional Treaty and the present Lisbon/Reform Treaty.

(I really like how it sounds in French: ‘billet’, it reminds me somehow of Arghezi’s ‘Bilete de papagal’)

On 2nd of October, Mr. Stavros Dima, the EU Commissioner for Environment, has just joined the blogosphere! I predict it will be one of the most visited blogs in the next months.

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.

..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 »