The speach of a Romanian who didn’t speak before the European Parliament

The Prime Minister of Romania has received only five minutes to defend her country. Herre you have the speech of a Romanian who did not have the chance to address the EP. Any resemblance to the speech given there by the Prime-Minister Viorica Dăncilă is not purely coincidental.

Ladies and Gentlemen, members of the European Parliament,

On behalf of Romania, I would like to thank you for giving me five minutes of your time. Five minutes needed in order to clear up, for those in good faith, confusions that have been relentlessly fueled. Five minutes needed in order to debunk, against those of bad faith, the slanders endlessly perpetrated. It’s obvious that there’s no desire for honest debate regarding the rule of law, but for my country to be quickly executed instead.

Nevertheless, from now on none of you will be able to say that he or she did not know or did not have the possibility to know.

Firstly, let us look to the rule of law and the judiciary system.

The statement that „In Romania the Government and Parliament are attacking the rule of law” has become a cliché.

We’ve asked to be informed which legislative amendment or political measure would justify the making of such a statement. Which text of law displeases, which act of Government vexes so? We were given no actual examples.

We’ve informed the European Commission about what we consider to be side-slips of the rule of law, and violations of human rights perpetrated in the name of fighting corruption. The Commission refused to cooperate, as MCV demanded it should, so that these acts would be rebutted. It left us to fend for ourselves. So the side-slips were backed by the European institutions themselves.

As time went on, we brought to the Commission’s attention the inaccuracies that were part of the MCV reports. Those inaccuracies were not corrected. Even worse, our stand and specifications weren’t even noted. That is why you’re not even aware of them. Why is that?

As time went on, we asked the Commission, as part of the MCV process, to take a stand regarding the Secret Services’ intrusion into the lawful processes, as well as regarding the selective justice phenomenon, and the prosecutors’ systematic blackmail of judges. The MCV reports don’t mention any of that, either. They don’t mention whether such things are good or bad. Why is that?

Chiefs of Secret Services, who have perpetrated abuse of power by intervening directly in the judiciary process – as per their own statements and documents uncovered along the way – were decorated by various states. Why is that? What services did they render to those abroad in order to be rewarded in such a manner? We’ve removed them from office.

Likewise, magistrates who accepted to sentence based on information and instructions that were not disclosed to the defendants – received from the Secret Services – were commended and decorated by states that are members of the European Union. Why is that? Because they resurrected practices of the former Communist Political Police, the famous „Securitate”?

As time went on, various Members of the European Parliament members asked the Commission to mention the names of the „experts” who wrote the MCV reports regarding Romania. These names remained a great secret. Why is that? Isn’t transparency one of our common values?

On the occasion of  a EP debate which took place last year, regarding the status of the Romanian justice as well, you decided that an facts finding mission should come to Romania. In so doing, you admited you don’t have sufficient information. The decision was not carried through. So, what can we base today’s discussion on?

I do not know what you want. You do not know the reality. So we don’t have anything to talk about – aside general slogans and some baseless accusations, which I don’t see why I would address.

As within any democracy, measures proposed by the Government are criticised by the Opposition. Often, our national debates are harsh. But I don’t think it would be fair from my part to ask you to arbitrate our national debates. I don’t think it would be fair, either, to ask you acting as umpire between the Government and President of the Republic, or between the legislative and the judiciary powers of our state. In order to solve such matters, we have a constitutional system that is fully functional.

Moreover, I am convinced that it’s not within the scope and competences of the European institutions to act as  arbitrators within our national political disputes. Our state is a member of the Union, but not under its tutelage.

Read here: The government that the Opposition, Diaspora, and Iohannis want to change produced the best economic growth in the EU. Eurostat numbers

Instead it would be worthwhile to talk about the MCV.

We’ve always been honest about the status of the current Romanian justice system, after 10 years of applying the MCV. We don’t deny the virtues of this mechanism. But they cannot be a cause for hiding its shortcomings. And the balance is a negative one.

That is why the MCV shouldn’t be applied to any other member state in the future. We need something else, and that something else shouldn’t be an instrument of discrimination; therefore it should be applied to all member states.

MCV was an annex to the safeguarde clause included in the treaty regarding Romania’s adherence to the European Union. Its role was to offer that clause efficiency and avoid its activation, at the same time. The clause expired on January 1, 2010. From that moment on, the MCV has no legal basis in European Union’s law. From that date on, the European Union has no legal right or basis to exert the attributions implied by the MCV.

I remind you all that according to the Lisbon Treaty, the Commission only has the competencies attributed to it through treaties convened upon by all member states. That is the principle of attribution.

Actually there is no active treaty that attributes the Commission the role of managing any MCV. As a result, prolonging the functioning of the MCV today constitutes a breach of the European law, of the law’s supremacy, and of the rule of law – in both European Union and Romania. The time has come to bring this to an end. As far as we are concerned, the MCV is void. It is caducous and therefore inapplicable.

Read here: „We are the DNA!”: 63% of judges and 60% of prosecutors in Romania were under penal investigation

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Some of you are concerned, because you have seen European citizens of Romania being assaulted by law enforcement forces in  Bucharest. As a result, you think that – because you have the obligation to protect the European citizens – you have the right to punish Romania.

We, in turn, are concerned that you haven’t seen the European citizens of Germany being assaulted by the Frankfurt police; the European citizens of France being assaulted by the Paris Gendarmerie; the European citizens of Belgium being assault these very days in Brussels; in Geneva, Barcelona, London, and so on.

I’ve prepared and offer you a selection of images with law enforcement interventions across Western Europe, including in Germany. You will notice the similarity of methods  between those used there and those used by the Romanian  authorities. These are the European standards.

Romanian citizens are European citizens, when interacting with other member states of the European Union and when they act on the territory of other member states of the EU aside Romania. On Romanian territory, they are Romanian citizens, who must obey Romanian laws. When they disobey those laws, they are sanctioned as per those laws, just as Germans are in Germany, French in France, and Dutch in the Netherlands.

If European citizens from Germany, France, Finland, and so on, were treated on Romanian territory and by Romanian law enforcement authorities according to rules wich are not consistent with the values all of us, as members of the EU share, then we can discuss that. But as of right now, there is no evidence to show that Police and Gendarmerie in other European Union member-states behave differently than they do in Romania.

Sadder still is the fact that you haven’t noticed the Gendarmes being assaulted, on August 10 of this year, by protesters at a protest organized in disrespect of the Romanian law.

I congratulate the Romanian Gendarmerie for the professional and responsible way in which it acted under the given circumstances, and I have for your disposal video footage that confirms what I’ve said. When Gendarmes are assaulted, they react. And they do not do so to defend themselves, but to defend democracy and the rule of law that they’re committed and sworn to protect.

Did they react in a disproportionate manner? What is the exact criterion for what is proportionate? We can talk about that, of course. Then we can convene on that and apply it on the matter at hand, as it is via evidence. With all due respect, what Mr. Manfred Weber saw on TV is not evidence, and what he thinks about it is not the criterion of proportionate response.

Beyond the recrudescence of Nazism within Europe, we are concerned about the fact that some German representatives of parties that call themselves democratic, didn’t recognize – within the violent acts of some protestors from Bucharest, who verbally and physically assaulted Parliament members and members of their families, or judges from the Constitutional Court – the style of action of Nazi assault battalions, and that they didn’t hear the “Death to the Red Plague” cry – one of the favorite battle cries of the Sturmabteilung.

Protests that break the law are not the rule of law. Assaulting Government buildings is not the rule of law. Throwing rocks and Molotov cocktails at law enforcement authorities is not the rule of law. Using Nazi battle cries is not the rule of law.

I represent here a nation that stood up to the tanks of dictatorship, precisely so that Romania would be a democratic state, ruled by law. At those times, many of those who want to teach us today what the rule of law is by supporting anarchy animated by old Nazi battle cries, were watching on TV how blood was shed in the cities of Romania.

That is why – when fighting against those who, in the name of democracy ask us to accept dictatorship, and in the name of law ask us to accept lawlessness – we will do as we know best, and not as you do not know at all. In this battle, it’s clear on which side the legitimate Government of Romania is. I’m waiting to see on which side you are not.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

As part of discussions regarding the rule of law, representatives of political parties that call themselves Christian insist that we, Romanians, should give an original interpretation to the story told by the Bible about Sodom and Gomorra. Under such influence, “progressive conservatives” ask us to replace the old adage according to which only what is natural is moral – „Naturalia non sunt turpia” – with one claming that precisely that which is against nature is moral.

As a Romanian, I believe that it’s my obligation to call the Romanian people to vote on accepting this daring moral innovation and bizarre interpretation of Christian beliefs that are not basis for the cultural identity of only Romanians, but also of the entire Europe.

Moreover, regardless of what I believe, the Romanian Government – faithful to the democratic rules – can’t refuse organizing a referendum on the constitutional definition of marriage, when more than 3 million Romanians (meaning more than the entire population of some member states of the EU) demand it.

What credibility could the institution of citizens’ initiative have, enthusiastically introduced in the Lisbon Treaty, have, if the EP asks the Romanian Government to ignore or boycott the citizens’ initiative recognized by the Romanian Constitution?! What credibility could the EP have in front of European citizens, if it demands such a thing?!

Respecting the principle of laicity  and that of individual rights  at the same time, the Romanian Government will organize a referendum  on the law regarding  the constitutional definition of marriage , adopted as a result of a massive citizens’ initiative. I can only regret if that bothers some Christians, more or less democratic, or some democrats, more or less Christian.

Read here: Justice or injustice in Romania

Ladies and Gentlemen, members of the EP,

Your mission is to defend the common interests and values of all member states, including of Romania. The mission of the Romanian Government is to defend the interests and identity specific to Romanians. The two to have to should not come in collision. If they will, I assure you that Romanians and their Government  will fulfill their duty.

We didn’t come here to excuse ourselves. We do not stay like a student brought in front of the class for the professor to examine. We’re here because we cherish and respect you. We ask in turn for the same cherishment and respect for the Romanian people, who I represent.

If, by (not)speaking before you on behalf of an European nation of 20 million souls, I have not voiced their real feelings and aspirations, it’s only their right to judge me. Our adhering to the European Union has not denied them that right. By adhering to the European Union, Romanians did not give that up.

That is why, as a Romanian, I will not allow anyone, I cannot allow anyone, I have no right to allow anyone from outside of Romania to treat the Romanian Government and the Romanian people differently. Those who attempt to undermine the Romanian Government – by suggesting that they might be defending the best interest of the Romanian people better than it does – don’t understand democracy; but more importantly, they don’t understand the fact that the EU is a community of sovereign states, entirely free and equal among themselves.

Assure the rights of European citizens! The rights of Romanian citizens are negotiated in Romania.

Build an European judiciary system able to defend the rights of member states and of European citizens! The building of a Romanian judiciary system is Romania’s task. It’s its sovereign right, which it hasn’t ceded to anyone else.

If you or we feel that between the two there is no compatibility, we can discuss that. We’ll discuss it in concrete terms, and not just as rhetoric. We’ll discuss it until we reach a common solution, but we will not try to compel one another. Discussion, yes! Dictatorship, no!

Romania’s Constitution, just like the Constitutions of all other member states of the EU, entails a legislative procedure that doesn’t include the any demand for an opinion of the Venice Commission. European treaties don’t include it either. If Romania did and will keep on taking into account its opinions, it’s because it trusts its expertise and experience. The values that guide its activity are also our own. That is why our legislation was always aligned to the recommendations of the Venice Commission. We will keep it that way in the future as well, as long as the Commission will remain objective and keep out of political intrigue.

The Romanian Government – resulted from the will of Romanians that was freely expressed by free and fair elections and  supported by  a consistent parliamentary majority  – understands and respects the European interests in Romania. In fact, when we chose to become members of the EU, we ourselves redefined our interests in the European context. But we ask that European institutions understand and respect Romania’s interests in Europe too.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I speak before you on behalf of a proud nation, the seventh largest in the EU, which doesn’t owe Europe any more than Europe owes it in turn.

I speak on behalf of a rich nation that doesn’t ask the EU for anything  else but the necessary support in order to make the most of its riches. We are not asking for fish, but fishing gear. We are not asking for charity, but solidarity.

I speak before you on behalf of a nation that, including as a member of the EU, finally understood that it’s too rich to stand the test of time without fighting for it.

I speak before you on behalf of a nation that had a history, culture, civilization, and life long before it became a member of the EU; a nation that stood its ground, often on its own, at the crossroads of interests of great powers.

Romanians want to build their future together with the rest of the EU members and within the EU, if possible. If it’s necessary, they can do so outside of the EU as well.

I’ve often heard it said that Romania wasn’t sufficiently prepared to become a member of the EU. The truth is exactly the other way around. EU wasn’t sufficiently prepared for the meeting with history, the opportunity to respectfully include among its members – after decades of forced separation – nations like Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, and others, abandoned to bolshevism at the end of the Second World War.

We are ready to overcome this impasse, together. If possible, shoulder by shoulder; if it’s necessary, in spite of you, as well. Because EU, the European project, the European dream are our own too, not just yours; they are of Romanians, Bulgarians, Hungarians, Polish, Czechs, Slovaks, Lithuanians, and so on, and not just of the founding Western European states. After the Lisbon Treaty, we are co-founders of the EU, not the poor relatives which are tolerated at the table.

We don’t confuse those of you who want to offer us support in consolidating democracy, with those who want to push us back into dictatorship. We thank the former. We tell the latter that they shouldn’t count on us being cowards.

We are not afraid of the sanctions with which you threaten Romania. We are only afraid that these threats endanger the future of the EU. The dream of a united Europe, which is our dream as well, was never lost due to enemies from outside, but due to egoism, dividedness, intrigues, short sightedness, and frivolity from within.

When the King or Prussia wanted to abusively take away the mill from a miller, he latter told him that he’s not afraid of his gesture because there are some judges in Berlin still, who will see to it that justice is done. To those who threaten us with sanctions and reprisals if we accept to follow the citizens’ initiative or insist on defending public order through means used by all members of the EU, we also say: there are judges at Luxemburg, still. And there are Romanians at Bucharest, either way.

Thank you for your time.