Once again my country’s president puzzled me. Romanians are euro-optimists because of their perfectly justified naivete that Europe would bring us “the good”, without too much interference on our behalf. Most Eastern Europeans have joyfully embraced the European Union, despite lack of knowledge, awareness and information on this magnanimous institution. I bet the Irish did the same back in the good old days when the EU literally fed them, and now they rejected the European project. When a country’s president dismisses a journalist’s question (and a very smart one) about the European Union as being “below minimal intelligence standards”, then we might be heading for trouble.
President Basescu was asked today, by a journalist in Brussels, how he would cope with the loss of a European Commissioner in case the Lisbon Treaty does not entry into force. It’s well-known there are reform plans on reducing the number of European commissioner from the current 27. Romania’s on the potential losers’ list in case this reform is applied. Thus, the journalist’s question is highly interesting, contentious and smart. And yet the president refuses to answer it, adding that “I believe this question is below minimum intelligence standards”…
Pardon my French… but like, WTF/H???? How can you do that? How can we then take for serious his rather intelligent remarks on other EU issues, such as the need for member states to ratify the treaty, the need to focus on the Western Balkans as potential targets for enlargement, and so on. How can we hope to achieve active European citizenship absent of continuous education for all on EU issues?
I’m numb. I’m really numb. For Romanian speakers, Vlad Petreanu wrote a crisp entry on the subjects. You can also watch the video of the president’s intervention here.
Later edit: The question (I just watched it now) was a technical mistake, as the journalist mistook the Lisbon treaty for the Nice Treaty. Anyhow, the issue of reducing the number of commissioners is still valid, and Basescu’s reaction really unappropriate.
“I bet the Irish did the same back in the good old days when the EU literally fed them” — if I remember well, the Irish had to be dragged to polls two times before they voted for their entry into EU.
Mda, e un bou. Citisem ieri toata povestea si comentariile aferente. Majoritatea il felicitau pe Basescu pentru reactie argumentand ca presa este idioata si dand exemplu trio-ul de la Antena 1. Dar nu a existat nici un comentariu referitor la intrebarea jurnalistei: la ce se refera, are sens, etc?
Cam atat de nepasatori suntem!
alt+f4 romania
@emil – the structural and cohesion funds virtually created Ireland’s economy as we see it today
@andreea – the question was technically wrong, but just technically. under the nice treaty, the number of commissioners is the same as the number of member states. under the lisbon treaty, it gets reduced to 18, with rotating seats for smaller EU member states, and Romania is a candidate for losing its commissioner. thus, the problem persists and it’s a good one, it’s just that the journalist mistook names, but still the dilemma she raised is a very real one.
As far as the question went there was no “question” because of the refference to the wrong treaty. Maybe Basescu was to damn blunt, but he had a point. Theere was no question to answer…
where did u get this information?
“under the lisbon treaty, it gets reduced to 18, with rotating seats for smaller EU member states, and Romania is a candidate for losing its commissioner.”
it is totally wrong. you are misinformed and you cause great damage to Romania’s interests by talking so carelessly about such an issue.
@moromete – you’re right; the journalist had made the mistake; but still, the president should not treat her like that
@saiza – here’s where i got the info: http://europa.eu/lisbon_treaty/glance/institutions/index_en.htm (an official EU site, to be exact); losing its commissioner = having a rotating commissioner, not a permanent one like it does now; please pay more attention before making rude comments
Dear Corina, I didn’t mean to be rude. Everybody knows that Lisbon reduces the number of Commissioners to 18 from 2014, as the “official EU site” you provided also shows.
Also, Nice says that the number of Commissioners has to be reduced once the number of Member States reaches 27 (that is, now).
The essential detail in both cases is that the posts will rotate between all countries equally.
I just wanted to know where did you get the information that only the smaller EU Member States will have rotating seats. This is plain disinformation. How do you think Malta or Luxembourg or Cyprus would react to that?
BTW, why do you count Romania as being one of the smaller states anyway?
Dear Corina
The question was a clear trap. If Basescu had answered, yes, I’d be willing to give up a commissioner, the press would have said “Poor Romania, seduced and abandoned by its president”-c’mon not having a permanent commissioner its not tragic, as we know, commissioners don’t represent the state, but the general EU interest. It like having smaller government.
If he had said “No, I would not give up a comissioner”, then the press would have said “Basescu is blocking the EU”.
@saize … you’re fully right… my mistake on big countries/ small countries. romania’s not small in any way, by means of its population or territorial size. however, it’s still a minor state in the economy of the EU, also because of present restrictions Romanian citizens suffer from in the post-accession period.
@Valentin… I don’t believe it was a trap; I think the poor journalist was confused. But I still disagree with you on the importance/ lack of importance of a commissioner. I believe that in diplomacy and politics, official prerogatives matter less the soft power, which a country gains by having a commissioner from one of its most prestigious public figures.
There is no magic skill.
Very interesting article, i bookmarked your blog
Best regards