The recent electoral campaign for designating the Romanian members of the European Parliament ended with a deep breath from the elects. “Finally we’re done with it,” the winners said, congratulating each other. Is this behaviour of our elects the first attribute of our “Europeans.” If yes, it would be very damaging for Romania, because it is precisely this eventual “yes” that would equate to a continuation of the behaviour so far of those we chose to represent us in the EP, who in fact did not represent Romania with its big problems and national aspirations, and only represented themselves. With the detrimental “nuances” from one party to another, without the due national solidarity and with their only unhealthy preoccupation for waging war against each other, not against those who attacked our common home.
This explains the fact that, in the past, a significant part of Romanian MEPs in Brussels voted in favour of electing Tokes to a leading office of the European Parliament. Although this lugubrious character was famous as the fiercest militant for the breaking of the Romanian territory into parts, some of these historic regions due to be incorporated into Hungary. Despite the frequent interrogations they were addressed on this issue, in the recent electoral campaign the “honourable” candidates pretended that they did not understand the question or, possibly, that others are to blame for the respective anti-Romanian behaviour.
At least, let’s hope that after this tense confrontation with the voters, the new elects to the European Parliament will not ignore anymore, like in the past, that they are Romanians, above all, and this quality must pass before their political affiliation. Let’s hope that their frequent political quarrels are left for those at home, because in Brussels the activity of Romanian MEPs must exclusively concentrate on our strategic national interests. Especially as the recent electoral campaigns in other European countries evinced most dangerous tendencies against the fundamental principles of the EU and, implicitly, against Romania. For instance, in Western Europe, an ever increasing tendency is about dividing EU member states in two categories – those who adopted the euro as national currency, in discordance with those that have not adopted it yet, because of a deficit of economic development.
By doing so, this deficit would have fewer chances to be recovered, hence the idea that the first and most important attitude of our MEPs is the united effort to avoid Romania being treated as a second-hand European country. As it was treated until now.
Dividing European states into categories, with some clearly inferior to others, will only widen the social-economic gaps between states. Fragmentation thus does not represent a solution for strengthening the EU in relation with other regions of the world. Especially in the present phase, when the competition between continents escalates to near-war situations. From this complex and unpredictable perspective, the European lawmakers of Romania are called to show unity and solidarity with each other, so the economic power and creative capacity of our country rapidly rises to the level needed by Romania, in its position as the 7th largest and most populated country of the EU. In this respect, we must no longer accept differentiations of European behaviour detrimental to Romania.
Besides justice, today, an increasing number of Romanians wonder why the EU compels Romania to sell its farmland also to citizens of other states, while Hungary, the Czech Republic a.o. do not have this risk. Risk? Yes, it is a serious risk for Romania selling its farmland to external factors. And when this risk comes precisely from the insufficient social-economic development of Romania, which the EU considers as an argument for placing Romania into an inferior category. If Romania sees itself obliged to alienate its agricultural land, under EU pressure, because – we are told – of our modest economic-social situation, does the EU still have the right to place us into an inferior class of countries? Could it be that precisely such masked and tacit discrimination leads to forced categories? And could this be the source of the scepticism regarding the future of the EU, present even in the main European countries?
Confronted with such serious interrogations, most politicians from Romania, belonging to all orientations, “defend” themselves using a childish explanation: “things may be as you say, but we have no choice! Because the European state that do not belong to the EU fare even worse!” But why should we compare us to what is below us? Why not trying to close the gap between us and the stronger states of the EU? Why accept our modest condition of “predominantly agricultural” country instead of developing a modern industry? Only because – as our passive politicians frequently say – the super-automated character of modern industry does not favour the creation of jobs? Jobs can increase by promoting the main condition of the automated industry, which is scientific research! Why ignoring this essential field of modern society? Why do our politicians, as ruling authorities, overlook the success achieved by young Romanians in the international scientific events? Why, as result of this ignorance, these wonderful youths are left with no other option than emigrating to the countries that usually oppose the accession of our country to the superior structures of the EU?
The ruling authorities, jointly with our MEPs should not ignore the truth that the temporary deficit of our economic-social condition compels us to have higher aspirations. So we should not accept, regardless or temporary risks, the condition of a second- or third-hand country, fit for being deprived of its agricultural, creative and scientific potential in favour of other states, which had a more or less colonial past. The cult of work, of creation, of day-to-day effort in favour of next generations is our Pole Star that should guide our whole national destiny!