Going down history lane, we find Belgium, one of the founding members of the European Communities, holding the first ever Council presidency, in January 1958, when the Rome Treaties entered into force. It was, of course, by alphabetical order that this was decided. But since that was the very beginning and no precedent existed, the seat of the EC institutions was also not set. Luxembourg declined to get the seats of all EU institutions. However, the Council had to start meeting somewhere, and with Belgium at it helm, Brussels was the obvious choice. For practical reasons, the Commission came along. This was thought of as a temporary solution but in reality the provisional situation became the permanent location of the two EU institutions (formally confirmed by the Amsterdam Treaty, “only” 40 years later). The European Parliament, initially based in Strasbourg,  got its Brussels seat a bit later, when it became closely associated in the decision-making process by the introduction of the codecison procedure.

So if you thought that the choice of Brussels was somehow based on logical, historic, economic, common sense or whatever other types of reasons you can come up with, think again. It was indeed, by chance, and later by inertia that Brussels hosts the EU institutions. One can also look at it as a “legacy” of the first ever Belgian presidency. An interesting thought, now when we are approaching the start of Belgium’s 12th edition of EU Council Presidency. Back then the EC institutions had just been created and lots of nitty-gritty details of their working were to be decided in the first months. Now, the EU structure, redefined by the Lisbon Treaty, needs to be implemented in practice. Coincidentally, both times Belgium gets to play a leading role (baring in mind of course the very different historical context and the evolution of EU integration). As we saw, Belgium left quite a strong mark back then, putting Brussels at the centre of the EU. Will something similarly relevant be said about the 2010 presidency, 50 years from now?

More youtube fame for Mr Farage but the “non -country” strikes back: http://idontwanttoberude.com/

The categories:

First, the president should be, well, boring — like Brussels itself. Politicians have knocked down candidates for being too controversial or too outspoken. Second, he should likely hold center-right or Christian Democratic political tendencies, given that Europe itself is headed that direction. Third, he should come from a country that uses the euro — showing full fealty to the concept of the union. Fourth, he should come from a small European country — anything other than Britain, France, Germany, and Italy, which normally dominate the union’s affairs. Finally, two wild-card characteristics: He should ideally speak French and have opposed the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq — if not at the time, then soon afterward.

Read the article (with more less detailed profiles of each candidate) here. Obviously the list is debatable: For example, it seems strange to include Angela Merkel (not boring?) and Anders Fogh Rasmussen but not Mary Robinson… also candidates from the Iberian peninsula might might not be considered since Commission President Barroso is from Portugal, to a lesser extent that might also be true for Polish candidates (Buzek = President of the European Parliament). I was also wondering about the language skills of the contenders… (Most of them fluent in French? – And what about English ?). One important category is missing: The “I made the case for the EU while being in office” – category.
Oh, and  sadly even the analysts (in this case: “assistant editor with a degree from Harvard”) of Foreign Policy fall into the trap of talking about a “EU President”…

The new group took the name European Conservatives and Reformists (a contradiction in terms even in the name) but no-one thought to register any domain name for the new group before its establishment. So on 22nd June I had a look around to see what I could find – ecrg.info was still available and I purchased it and registered it with Google. Now more than 3 months on there is still no official ECR Group website as far as I can see, and the single page of my website has risen slowly up the Google results, so much so that I’m starting to get mails via the website from all sorts of organisations asking for information about the ECR’s MEPs and positions and even asking for speakers for conferences.

Not only acronyms are an art form but also normal EU terminology can be tricky. Language plays an important role in constructing a certain image of the EU and journalists and bloggers should be aware of that.  The correct use of terms is a necessity for understanding  political processes in the EU and a basis for every interpretation of “the beast”.  The following list is a first step to clarify some confusing terms. So let’s start with some basic terms which caught my eye in the last weeks:

- The right term is “President of the European Council” – not EU president, not President of Europe, not Council President. The European Council is one EU institution and its president only presides over this particular institution. (Obviously the European Council should not to be confused with the Council of Europe or the Council of the EU!) Journalists should also mention the (unfinished) job description and the possible lack of power of the post when writing about certain personalities… Anyway, another fact is that probably every other top position in the EU has more power that this new European Council President.

- The (6-month) rotating presidencies of the Council of the European Union will not be abolished with the Treaty of Lisbon, they will merely be transformed. The rotating presidencies will still be in charge of all Council of the EU meetings (which is another institution!). The ‘European Council President’ will only chair the ‘European Council’ (“EU summit”) which happens 4 times a year. The only thing that the rotating presidencies will not be able to do seems to be connected with foreign policy, as the new “President” and the new “Foreign Minister” will set the agenda there. So, I guess the danger is that the media might ignore the (less political) rotating presidencies in the future!

- The Council of the European Union (the institution with the rotating presidencies…) consists of national ministers (shocking!). Depending on the policy area, the respective national minster (or ambassador) has a veto during the EU decision making process. Journalists and Bloggers often forget that national representatives are at the heart of EU decision making. EU bashing from national politicians that were present in the respective Council meeting  should be exposed more regularly! And don’t think that the various national ministries are not involved from a very early stage of a EU policy initiative… So, any article with a headline like “EU imposes [law x] on [member state y] ” is wrong and misleading!

- “Brussels” is a city and not a political system.  However “Brussels” seems to be the term for all journalists that (sometimes deliberately) do not care about which EU institution  is actually involved. Often used as a substitute for the EU as a whole.  Most of the time however, news labeled with “Brussels decides…” involves only decisions by the European Commission or the Council of the European Union, usually neglecting the influence of the European Parliament.  “Brussels” as a term comes with a notorious EU-skeptic connotation. So be aware of it if you use it in an article. So, better check which institution you mean and at what stage of the policy making process a certain proposal is!

- Federalism – If you think federalism equals centralism which leads to some sort of EU super state, think again and get your facts straight:

Federalism is the theory or advocacy of federal political orders, where final authority is divided between sub-units and a center. Unlike a unitary state, sovereignty is constitutionally split between at least two territorial levels so that units at each level have final authority and can act independently of the others in some area. Citizens thus have political obligations to two authorities. (more)

I know federalism is a controversial term in the UK and I think most of the confusion comes from a wrong understanding of the term. (the infamous “f-word”…) Generally, people that live in federal states seem to have a better grasp of the concept (examples: Australia, Canada, Germany, Switzerland, USA). The thing is that a federal system is only a description for a structure (and not necessarily an ideology). The problem is not whether something is federal or not, the real (ideological) problem is what should be decided on which level.  A lot depends on the distribution of authority. But this distributional debate should not be called ‘federal’.’ [Anyway, on a EU level it seems that the debate between intergovernmentalism and federalism is pretty much outdated and new multi-level governance (MLG) or network approaches are more useful to explain EU politics. - OK, this is rather academic - but also journalists should be aware of these debates to be able to report EU politics more clearly!]

More explanations for EU-Jargon can be found here. If you are not sure how to translate a certain piece of EU terminology in your native language why not check this database (which is called IATE – Inter-Active Terminology for Europe)? Buying a EU textbook could also be a good idea…

…to be continued…

And still, looking at the crowds passing by, catching glimpses of their conversations (in all languages you can imagine), made me wonder what is the real purpose of all this, and if that purpose is achieved. In my naivety, I would imagine that the aim of putting up such a “show” should be trying to get closer to the citizen and trying to get the citizen interested in what the EU and its various institutions are doing. Well, while the first issue (getting closer to the citizen) might be achieved, at least at a physical level (i.e. people do step in the premises of the institutions), the second one is much more tricky and, in any case, much more unlikely to be achieved in one day, be it even Europe Day.

Nevertheless, as part of the larger aim of communicating Europe and as part of the campaign for the European Parliament elections that has just started, I was expecting the event to be a bit more meaningful from the point of view of content. Taking advantage of the varied crowd that was present, the MEPs could have used the Open Day for campaigning, for showing their face to the public and inviting them to debates. Instead, the only MEPs present at the debate were Belgian, while all the others are probably already campaigning in their home constituencies, which is, truth be said, more effective in term of vote- gathering than speaking  to a (packed) Hemicycle to an audience that is unlikely and/ or unable to vote for them. That much for a European public sphere, European idea and European citizenship…

Outside the Hemicycle, however, people were getting what they came for: colourful balloons from all political groups, that seemed to have arrived to the (correct) conclusion that giving out goodies is far more attractive to the public than trying to explain political programmes. Another fashionable feature this year were quizzes. Wherever you turned to, everyone (and I mean it almost literally: everyone) was taking a quiz. That is how some people ended up with 5 colorful umbrellas…and that’s about it. Why, one would say? Aren’t quizzes an intellectual thing to do? Well, not in this case, they aren’t. The winners only needed a light version of common sense, patience to queue and a few spare smiles to offer to the organisers when asking for help. EU? What EU? A…we’re in a European institution…right…Well, then Long Live the EU, as long as it puts on this show yearly and we all leave with our colourful goodies.

So why am I so negative about it? Everyone seemed to be enjoying, a festive feeling was in the air…It’s probably a mixture of disappointment in the way the event was treated by both sides: on the one hand, the way people (who were arguably on a trip to discover the EU institutions) dismissed any informative material, as nothing but papers they would never read anyway; on the other hand, the way the institutions themselves designed the Open Day: it is, undoubtedly, far easier to “get closer to the citizens” by not mentioning much about the EU but offering a bit of circus for one day a year; the question that comes to my mind now, and should definitely appear in the self-assessment of the event, is: after they all happily leave the “marketplace”, having gathered all the items they came for, will anyone feel more enlightened on EU issues or would they even remember what the blue, red or green on their new (free!) bottle opener stands for?

And still, I am looking forward to next year’s celebrations, which will probably end up organsied after exactly the same blueprint. It is, after all, a successful event, people say. Good example of institutional inertia…

At a panel with the ‘traditional’ media the question came up whether established media cover EU affairs in-depth enough? The question was primarily directed to the chief editor of De Standaard, one of the biggest Belgian newspapers (based in Brussels) but with quite a poor record of EU coverage and with only one (!) journalist covering the EU.

So what did Peter Vandermeersch, chief editor of  De Standaard answer? Basically he avoided answering the question (“don’t think we have a poor record…hahaha”) and instead compared the EU with the ‘obscure’ topic of Latvian poems claiming that an editor has to make editorial decisions and needs to listen to the customers (not readers or citizens!) – And he continues: “Latvian poems can be beautiful but are not relevant…”

In that moment Hans Laroes, head of news and editor in chief of NOS Niewus, one of the Dutch public broadcasters, jumped in to ‘help’ his colleague by saying that “the media does not like free trips by the EU”.. obviously a comment that neither answers the question nor shows a huge deal of professionalism.

So, first of all, both journalists clearly fail to understand the significance of the EU. Furthermore it is questionable if such an arrogant and ignorant behavior towards the EU can be justified with any journalistic ethos.

At the same time I am wondering whether this attitude is widespread among editors of newpapers/broadcasters? If it is a common thing it is hardly surprising that we are faced with poor EU reporting and a lack of public debate/knowledge about the EU!

Anyway, the big story for the EU blogosphere this week is the “successful hijacking” (in a positive sense!) of New Europe, a weekly newspaper that is seen as the main rival to European Voice. Your humble author played a little role in this and this blog was also mentioned in the editorial. The complete print version of New Europe can be found as an pdf file here.

The buzz around the EU blogosphere last week inspired New Europe to publish the editorial on The future of the EU blogosphere which is worth reading. Of course the launch of our bloggingportal was covered as well as with a full page article Political EU Blogs at your fingertips, Bloggingportal.eu launched. (with pictures in the print edition). And that is not all, Jon managed to get the strategically important last page of the paper with the Anyone but Barroso campaign and an article on David Cameron and the EPP issue.

On a different note: We are very pleased with the launch of bloggingportal.eu and we are looking forward to your suggestions how to improve the portal. We also have a facebook group, so feel free to join and make it even more popular by inviting your friends! Since it is quite a grassroot initative with only a handful of people involved and without any sponsers or institutions, things can take a bit longer but we try to be as efficient as possible. And of course we are still looking for editors in order to cover as many languages as possible! In case you have not noticed I also integrated the editors’ choice in the sidebar of this blog!

Th!nk about it has launched as well, the EJC powered EU blogging competition. The kick-off event in Brussels last week was quite a success and there was a lot of enthusiasm about blogging about the EU and the EP elections (sounds stange but it is true!). It is an interesting mix of new and experienced bloggers which should make it a good read. So make sure you check it regularly!

As some of you know, I am involved in the organisation/develpment of both projects (bloggingportal & thinkaboutit) so I am a bit biased here

“Entropa”, as the project is called, is a joint creation by 27 artists, one from each Member State, each of them depicting their country by means of commonly used stereotypes. The Czech artist David Černý, who conceptualised the project, managed in this way to extract the stereotypes from their natural context (the us/others dychotomy), “internalise” them through the visions of the local artists and put them together only to symbolise the impossible match. A messed-up map of Europe, where the rigurously drawn geographical borders become unbridgeable gaps, and where mental barriers are created through stereotypes. The installation might seem utterly non-esthetical and unfitted; but, baring in mind its purpose as a warning, isn’t it just the way it should look?

The concept behind the installation is summarised by Milena Vicenová, the Permanent Representative of the Czech Republic to the European Union:

The freedom of art as an extension of the freedom of speech is the core value of democracy. There are many barriers to integration and cooperation in Europe. Stereotypes are such barriers. When we point out the stereotypes we begin demolishing them. Making fun of prejudice destroys it most efficiently.

The stereotype installation shows in a very figurative manner German highways, France strikes, Italian football, as well as Dracula in Romania and IKEA in Sweden. A more political approach, mirroring the debates on Europe, was taken in the case of UK and Czech Republic. The UK is missing from the installation; its physical absence symbolises the negative attitude the British are seen as having towards the EU. Another stereotype. And what better prejudice can represent the Czech Republic in a European context than President Klaus and his controversial ideas? Diversity issues and tolerance are also touched upon in the cases of The Netherlands and Poland. A presentation of the project and each of its 27 components can be found here.

Critics complain about the dimensions of the installation and the noise it makes (and it only starts “living” on 15 January!). Even though one might argue if its place is in the Council building or rather in a museum, the idea behind the installation and especially its non-abstract nature are an appropriate starting point for European debates on barrier and borders constructed through national(ist) perceptions. In order to reach out beyond the Council bureaucrats and stir a real European debate, the installation (which only weighs 8 tones) should tour the marketplaces of (medium-sized) towns across the EU.

An exclusive photo of the installation:

and the “French – German axis”:

Update 13.1.2009: Now it is getting interesting: Conceptual art at its best. As a Czech Newspaper revealed today David Cerny fooled the art and the political world. There are no 27 artists, all CVs are invented by the artist himself and it was only him that created the installation. Basically the debate around the project is also part of the installation. Art and discourse are one.

Now, of course this has political implications: Did the Czech EU Presidency know about this? Apparently Cerny signed a contract to work with 27 artist on the piece…did he breach the contract or was the Czech Government aware of it? (Hat-tip: Coulisses de Bruxelles) According to Reuters the artist said he had deceived the government: “We knew the truth would come out. But before that we wanted to find out if Europe is able to laugh at itself,” Cerny said. Interesting detail of the story is also that apparently no tax money was used for the art project and all costs were covered by the artist himself! And I agree with Bruno Waterfield (who also has more details!) that this story ain’t over yet.

Update 16.1.2009: Mission accomplished as controversy continued: Bulgaria demanded to remove the Bulgarian piece of the installation, the Czech presidency apologized (good speech here). Don’t understand why Czerny also thinks he has to apologize… And the installation started its own “life”, so watch the video:

Entropa: Czech artist David Cerny speaks out

Read the story here.

Apparently Viviane Reding, EU Commissioner for information society and media, has quite an impressive self-promotional strategy. Of course she is a very important Commissioner who has a very busy schedule; no doubt she is in charge of a very important portfolio and has achieved quite a lot! She has been a member of the European Commission since 1999 (!) … yes .. indeed she is a VIP! (And I don’t know whether she is considering a third term…)

But being a VIP is difficult and to work with them is even more problematic! So how to deal with VIPs? If you are organizing a conference, seminar or something similar and you want her to speak at this event, make sure that you invite other VIPs preferably ministers, other (also former!) Commissioners, well known MEPs, and CEOs that run global enterprises …. oh yeah and don’t make the mistake to invite anyone who might oppose Reding’s policies! It is obvious that Ms Reding does not want to sit on a panel with people that are “only” important but lack the “V”(incl. specialized staff, mangers, scientists, advisers…let alone citizens)! If you have doubts whether somebody is acceptable as a panelist I am sure her cabinet can help you! By following these rules it is very likely that Ms Reding will eventually speak at your event!

Somehow not a very convincing communication approach! But rumours are not facts.

Anyway, many shops prepared for this special event in a rather surprising way: shops closed yesterday around 4.30 pm (!) in order to prepare the sales. Of course this is rather annoying for the customers, but since this is Belgium we should not be surprised… and this is only the tip of the iceberg! To get the full picture about sales and competition principles in Belgium read this excellent article in The Economist:

During the twice-yearly pre-sales blackouts (there are also summer sales) a hundred inspectors from the Belgian economics ministry scour the country for advertisements, window stickers or price tags that even hint at discounts. A Prohibition-style speakeasy culture has sprung up in response. Gambits include putting question-marks on price tags and advertising “friendly prices”. Chic boutiques in Brussels telephone favoured customers or send them “privilege cards”, inviting them to pop in for an early visit. Controls must be “extremely severe” to ensure that the rules stick, explains Robert Geurts of the economics ministry, who glories in the title of director-general for regulation and organisation of the market. Inspectors receive many tips by telephone as rival shopkeepers denounce each other.

If all this sounds fundamentally illiberal, that is because it is.

(More…)

Around four weeks ago I was in Strasbourg. But the train strike in France forced me to make a detour through Germany. Consequently I could not use the train ticket (Strasbourg-Luxembourg-Brussels) I had bought before the trip.

So, a few days later I went to the train station, explained my little problem to some very friendly (!!) NMBS/SNCB employees, who gave me a rather short (!!) form to fill in. Three (!!) working days later I received a letter that stated that I would get reimbursed! And today, the money really arrived on my bank account!

It is actually amazing for a country that is normally known for its inefficiency and its notorious bureaucratic system.

I just started deleting blog spam….it is incredible what kind of spam you get these days! It used to be only the obvious things about different medications and various operations, as well as dating opportunities…but now they started making compliments:

• informative post, keep it up.
• dude cool site i like it very much.
• revolutionary. breathtaking. awesome post dude.
• Excellent forum with fantastic references and reading…. well done indeed…
• great site, nice design.
• nice choice of colors.

and my favorite:

• your blog is so important. you are the new media

That should give me indeed enough motivation to go on with my blogging

In case you just returned from your holidays in a remote area without newspapers and Internet connection, you might be interested in what happened during the summer. Here is the ultimate (but incomplete) list of important things you missed:

1. Early elections in Poland! What does this mean for the new EU treaty?

2. European Parliament elections in Romania!

3. Still no government in Belgium! Even summer was cancelled in Brussels this year.

4. The IGC is on the way, Gordon Brown needs strong nerves; and just to make sure: Britain has not lost control of its foreign policy: part 1 and part 2

5. George W. Bush lost Karl Rove and Tony Snow.

6. President Sarkozy is back!! Sarkozy in the US!! A new Iraq strategy?? A deal with Gaddafi!! Cecilia Sarkozy saves Bulgarian hostages (on her own!!)!! Hyperactive president!!

7. Georgia and the mysterious missile; Russia proposes own IMF candidate

8. Germany: Two years of Angie and Italian Mafia in Germany.

9. EU news: EU wants to break up energy giants; The EU and Kosovo

10. Media news: BBC dropped from Russia’s FM waveband; wordpress.com is blocked in Turkey! wordpress.com is still blocked…

11. George Tabori and Ingmar Bergman

In the euroblogosphere two (among many others I have not yet discovered) very interesting new blogs appeared: Brussels Comment and The European Parliament (that wants to find out what Europe has ever done for us).

Bad news for the German speaking blogosphere: The best political blog has decided to call it a day! Good bye Kosmoblog! We will miss you!

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABTR2Xe_sGw]

Brussels has a very dynamic job market, probably the biggest in Europe, for those interested in international and European politics. Although there are many cultural, linguistic, and job-seeking differences, the uniting factor for this city-within-a- city is indeed the EU. In between one job add and the next, Brussels-based Europeans live their lives discussing the past, the present, and the future of this one political body. In a sense, they are the citizens the EU does not have.

However, it is truly a shame that well-qualified graduates are often exploited and not properly paid (especially outside the EU institutions). Moreover the “networking obsession” is a rather bizarre business here in Brussels. In that context I can’t stop thinking about the famous quote by George Soros (not sure if it was him though) who once said: “Networking is not working!”.

And, as far as I can recall there is even a law in Belgium that prohibits any internships for university graduates…!

Now, President Basescu is suspended from office and there will be a referendum on May 19 (unusual for elections: a Saturday AND the day of Saint Patriciu …), the political elite is deeply split, demonstrations in favour of Basescu took place, a parliamentary coalition without any mandate is in power and politicians already want to change the Romanian constitution to prevent Basescu from becoming president again, leaving the country with a interim president and interim MEPs (due to the indefinetly postponed EP elections) …. So what happened in Romanian politics? Everything is quite messy (as usual), so let’s make some sense out of it. Here is a little blog/commentary roundup:

Vladimir Tismaneu and Paul Dragos Aligica call it a Parliamentary Putsch:

The frivolous impeachment procedure is payback for Mr. Basescu’s unremitting fight against corruption and his support for transparency in dealing with the secret police archives from Romania’s dark, totalitarian times. When the president last year called the former communist regime “illegitimate and criminal,” he made himself many enemies among the old nomenklatura.

Andrei Plesu, a former Romanian foreign minister and well known writer and former Basescu advisor also lashes out at the parliament:

One can say without exaggeration that in all the years of its fragile democracy our country has been led by faceless voting robots who wave their hands between naps while the demagogues keep talking.

Valentina Pop comments on Romania’s backlash to kleptocracy:

The new political configuration around liberal prime minister Calin Tariceanu is using and abusing every possible democratic tool for its undemocratic goals: delaying the European elections for fear of facing the voters, an impeachment procedure against president Traian Basescu based on no constitutional grounds and a cabinet reshuffle to get rid of performing ministers thought to be “too close to the President”.

(…)

For the newly installed “Black Coalition” – the one Romanian voters never approved – the stakes are great. The four “Black Coalition” parties – Liberals, Socialists, the ethnic Hungarian UDMR party and the small Conservative Party of former communist secret police agent and media owner Dan Voiculescu – are trying to defend the very privileges and impunity they have been used to so far.

The European Commission seems to have predicted something like this when it constantly called for “continued reforms that are irreversible.”Four months after Romanian accession, it is clear that not even the post-accession monitoring mechanisms imposed by Brussels and the threat of safeguard clauses are real means of pressure for the Romanian politicians.

And she comes to a rather worrying conclusion:

Romania’s return to kleptocracy will be devastating for its citizens and business environment. But ultimately, Romania’s backlash will prove that EU’s “soft powers” are sometimes too soft. This is particularly so when facing old guard communists with decades of experience in cooking the books, corruption and promises that are never fulfilled.

Jon Worth also thinks about the role of the EU:

In the meantime the EU looks on quite helplessly. Barroso and others have stated that Romania needs to get the crisis sorted out using its own methods, but the European Parliament elections in Romania have been postponed in order to achieve a national solution. Plus with pressure being increasingly applied to Basescu, and government ministers talking a much more anti-EU rhetoric, the situation for Brussels is not easy. If the EU was to trigger the safeguard clauses that accompanied Romanian accession, would that actually help? On the other hand, with equally shaky politics in Poland, Slovakia and Hungary, would a tough message to Romania from the EU not just look like hypocrisy?

The nEUrosis has an excellent overview focusing on the legitimacy of the whole suspension procedure:

A democracy is based on a clear separation of powers, all of whom bear the same degree of independence. When any of these over-rules the decision taken by another, the premises of democracy are severely affected. When a Parliament dominated by anti-presidential forces decides to over-rule a constitutional advice provided by the highest constitutional authority in the country and assumes constitutional powers the most immediate question is: in which sort of democracy are we living?

Gérard Delaloye, a historian and journalist, thinks that the Romanian constitution should be changed:

The Romanian political class … cannot be spared a drastic revision of the Constitution without plunging the country into anarchy or dictatorship. Furthermore, the current crisis also rests on the exorbitant power of members of parliament, deputies and senators. The electoral system, directly inspired by the communist regime is based on a list ballot of proportional representation where the elected representatives are chosen by the parties, not the voters. Thus, over fifteen years, a parliamentary autocracy has been created which serves its own interests when it is not obsequiously pandering to those of the oligarchs, its backers.

Cristina Viehmann looks at the underlying reasons of the crisis that do not only stem from the personal fight between Tariceanu and Basescu:

But there may be other reasons as well. The president’s reforms were undeniably aimed against the interests of many politicians, many of them belonging to the Social Democrat Party (PSD), which ruled Romania from 1990 until 1996 and again from 2000 to 2004. (…) For many, the PSD symbolizes what Romania was unable to deal with after 1989 – its communist past.

Regarding the anticipated outcome of the referendum she is rather sceptical:

According to opinion polls, Basescu is backed by 50 percent of the electorate and is therefore very likely to win and return to office. But once in power, he will find himself immobilized by the parliament.

However, EurActiv speculates about new parliamentary elections later this year while The nEUrosis sees a light at the end of the tunnel:

The entire political scene might not settle after the referendum in May, but at least one issue could become clearer: president Basescu and the strong reforms advocated by him and his supporters show the right way for Romania, not the economic interests or behind-the-scene political games of those for whom the reform of the Romanian institutions and society exists in theory, but not in practice.

But even new presidential elections would be difficult to win for Basescu according to Catalin Dimofte who sees a certain mood of apathy among voters:

In the end, the assumption of many political analysts that Basescu will easily win early presidential elections may turn out to be false. It relies on a single risky belief, which is that his opponents will not be able to come up with a credible candidate of their own.

….. to be continued…..