Calin Georgescu Romania - How worried should we be?
Discussion
https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20241125-far-ri...
A bit scary that an anti EU/NATO candidate has won the first round but he's only got 22pc of the vote but perhaps the rest of the country will unite against him in the final round?
Should we be worried? Surely Romania don't want to go back to the cold war?
A bit scary that an anti EU/NATO candidate has won the first round but he's only got 22pc of the vote but perhaps the rest of the country will unite against him in the final round?
Should we be worried? Surely Romania don't want to go back to the cold war?
andymc said:
KAgantua said:
It is a bit worrying - Romania are a big country, and no Romanians I have ever spoken to seem very vocal about wanting to go back under Russian control.
How will the UK car washing industry cope?Net migration has been unusually high since 2021. The Office for National Statistics (ONS) estimates that net migration to the UK reached a peak of 764,000 in 2022, up from 184,000 in 2019 before the pandemic (ONS, May 2024).
BikeBikeBIke said:
Becaise you don't think he'll win?
Or you don't think he'll leave Nato and the EU?
Or you do think he will leave Nato and the EU but that won't be a problem?
Both 2 and 3 for me. Or you don't think he'll leave Nato and the EU?
Or you do think he will leave Nato and the EU but that won't be a problem?
Given that we’re outside of the EU I don’t think we should care who is in/out(and FWIW my guess is that the net beneficiaries know which side of their bread is buttered. Like Orban)
Re: NATO it seems counterintuitive to be in a club with members who have fundamentally different political views
Countdown said:
Re: NATO it seems counterintuitive to be in a club with members who have fundamentally different political views
My assumption is that Putin could potentially get to Moldova. If so he'll be in there without a fight and a Romania that wasn't in Nato would be unlikely to put up a fight which means Putin's got as far as Serbia in a one-er.Even as things stand Ukraine need all the friends they can get especially their neighbours if they lose access to the sea.
I guess since Feb 2022 anyone leaving "our" side seems a reason to be nervous.
Romania is no longer a dictatorship, nor will the election of this individual to the Presidency make it one.
In all discussions around the election of foreign Presidents, it's probably best to understand what President actually means in the context of that specific country. Not all Presidents are the same as American, or French, or any other kind of president we may be familiar with.
So, and trying to stay within the scope of what I presume the OP meant in the thread title (i.e. the effect on the UK and our wider alliances), I've cherry picked the following bits about the role's responsibilities and powers regarding foreign and defence policies:
"In foreign affairs:
Undertakes state, official and working visits overseas.
Concludes international treaties negotiated by the Government and submits them to Parliament for ratification.
Appoints and recalls ambassadors and diplomatic envoys on the advice of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs (following such advice is not mandatory).
Receives letters of credence from foreign diplomatic envoys.
Approves the setting up, closing down, or change in rank of diplomatic missions.
In defence issues:
Exerts the role of Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces.
Presides over the Supreme Council of National Defence.
Declares mobilisation of the Armed Forces, subject to prior approval from Parliament (or, in special circumstances, subsequent approval).
Acts to repel armed aggression towards the country.
Institutes the state of siege or the state of emergency (nationally or locally, with subsequent parliamentary approval)."
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_Romania
My rudimentary conclusion is that, given the constitution of Romania appears to be mainly a Parliamentary democracy with a non-political Head of State above, possessing limited powers, with what appears to be a good set of checks and balances, I'm not overly exercised about the election of this guy, or anyone else to Presidency of the country.
When people make posts about "he might do this, he might do that", it's really not helpful or productive unless you have a basic grasp of the specific system he'll be operating in. To me it seems that this is a President who reports to Parliament, and not vice-versa. He will not set the country's foreign and defence policies, and he will not have a personal veto over things like NATO and EU membership. Parliament appears to be Sovereign.
Romania looks to be a robust Parliamentary Republic at first glance. Would that the UK were such. It seems to be a requirement in Romania that the President is not a member of any political party. An excellent idea, and one which I've long argued should the case in a British Republic - Heads of State should be elected, and non-political.
In all discussions around the election of foreign Presidents, it's probably best to understand what President actually means in the context of that specific country. Not all Presidents are the same as American, or French, or any other kind of president we may be familiar with.
So, and trying to stay within the scope of what I presume the OP meant in the thread title (i.e. the effect on the UK and our wider alliances), I've cherry picked the following bits about the role's responsibilities and powers regarding foreign and defence policies:
"In foreign affairs:
Undertakes state, official and working visits overseas.
Concludes international treaties negotiated by the Government and submits them to Parliament for ratification.
Appoints and recalls ambassadors and diplomatic envoys on the advice of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs (following such advice is not mandatory).
Receives letters of credence from foreign diplomatic envoys.
Approves the setting up, closing down, or change in rank of diplomatic missions.
In defence issues:
Exerts the role of Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces.
Presides over the Supreme Council of National Defence.
Declares mobilisation of the Armed Forces, subject to prior approval from Parliament (or, in special circumstances, subsequent approval).
Acts to repel armed aggression towards the country.
Institutes the state of siege or the state of emergency (nationally or locally, with subsequent parliamentary approval)."
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_Romania
My rudimentary conclusion is that, given the constitution of Romania appears to be mainly a Parliamentary democracy with a non-political Head of State above, possessing limited powers, with what appears to be a good set of checks and balances, I'm not overly exercised about the election of this guy, or anyone else to Presidency of the country.
When people make posts about "he might do this, he might do that", it's really not helpful or productive unless you have a basic grasp of the specific system he'll be operating in. To me it seems that this is a President who reports to Parliament, and not vice-versa. He will not set the country's foreign and defence policies, and he will not have a personal veto over things like NATO and EU membership. Parliament appears to be Sovereign.
Romania looks to be a robust Parliamentary Republic at first glance. Would that the UK were such. It seems to be a requirement in Romania that the President is not a member of any political party. An excellent idea, and one which I've long argued should the case in a British Republic - Heads of State should be elected, and non-political.
BikeBikeBIke said:
My assumption is that Putin could potentially get to Moldova. If so he'll be in there without a fight and a Romania that wasn't in Nato would be unlikely to put up a fight which means Putin's got as far as Serbia in a one-er.
Even as things stand Ukraine need all the friends they can get especially their neighbours if they lose access to the sea.
I guess since Feb 2022 anyone leaving "our" side seems a reason to be nervous.
Is that any different to the US/Nato getting as far as Russia’s border by having Finland or Ukraine as members?Even as things stand Ukraine need all the friends they can get especially their neighbours if they lose access to the sea.
I guess since Feb 2022 anyone leaving "our" side seems a reason to be nervous.
One thing the last few years has highlighted is the huge hypocrisy and different standards of behaviour we tolerate from our allies and call out in our enemies. A pox on both their houses as far as I’m concerned.
Skodillac said:
Romania is no longer a dictatorship, nor will the election of this individual to the Presidency make it one.
In all discussions around the election of foreign Presidents, it's probably best to understand what President actually means in the context of that specific country. Not all Presidents are the same as American, or French, or any other kind of president we may be familiar with.
So, and trying to stay within the scope of what I presume the OP meant in the thread title (i.e. the effect on the UK and our wider alliances), I've cherry picked the following bits about the role's responsibilities and powers regarding foreign and defence policies:
"In foreign affairs:
Undertakes state, official and working visits overseas.
Concludes international treaties negotiated by the Government and submits them to Parliament for ratification.
Appoints and recalls ambassadors and diplomatic envoys on the advice of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs (following such advice is not mandatory).
Receives letters of credence from foreign diplomatic envoys.
Approves the setting up, closing down, or change in rank of diplomatic missions.
In defence issues:
Exerts the role of Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces.
Presides over the Supreme Council of National Defence.
Declares mobilisation of the Armed Forces, subject to prior approval from Parliament (or, in special circumstances, subsequent approval).
Acts to repel armed aggression towards the country.
Institutes the state of siege or the state of emergency (nationally or locally, with subsequent parliamentary approval)."
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_Romania
My rudimentary conclusion is that, given the constitution of Romania appears to be mainly a Parliamentary democracy with a non-political Head of State above, possessing limited powers, with what appears to be a good set of checks and balances, I'm not overly exercised about the election of this guy, or anyone else to Presidency of the country.
When people make posts about "he might do this, he might do that", it's really not helpful or productive unless you have a basic grasp of the specific system he'll be operating in. To me it seems that this is a President who reports to Parliament, and not vice-versa. He will not set the country's foreign and defence policies, and he will not have a personal veto over things like NATO and EU membership. Parliament appears to be Sovereign.
Romania looks to be a robust Parliamentary Republic at first glance. Would that the UK were such. It seems to be a requirement in Romania that the President is not a member of any political party. An excellent idea, and one which I've long argued should the case in a British Republic - Heads of State should be elected, and non-political.
Thanks, that's the reasoned reply I was hoping for. I'll chill out.In all discussions around the election of foreign Presidents, it's probably best to understand what President actually means in the context of that specific country. Not all Presidents are the same as American, or French, or any other kind of president we may be familiar with.
So, and trying to stay within the scope of what I presume the OP meant in the thread title (i.e. the effect on the UK and our wider alliances), I've cherry picked the following bits about the role's responsibilities and powers regarding foreign and defence policies:
"In foreign affairs:
Undertakes state, official and working visits overseas.
Concludes international treaties negotiated by the Government and submits them to Parliament for ratification.
Appoints and recalls ambassadors and diplomatic envoys on the advice of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs (following such advice is not mandatory).
Receives letters of credence from foreign diplomatic envoys.
Approves the setting up, closing down, or change in rank of diplomatic missions.
In defence issues:
Exerts the role of Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces.
Presides over the Supreme Council of National Defence.
Declares mobilisation of the Armed Forces, subject to prior approval from Parliament (or, in special circumstances, subsequent approval).
Acts to repel armed aggression towards the country.
Institutes the state of siege or the state of emergency (nationally or locally, with subsequent parliamentary approval)."
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_Romania
My rudimentary conclusion is that, given the constitution of Romania appears to be mainly a Parliamentary democracy with a non-political Head of State above, possessing limited powers, with what appears to be a good set of checks and balances, I'm not overly exercised about the election of this guy, or anyone else to Presidency of the country.
When people make posts about "he might do this, he might do that", it's really not helpful or productive unless you have a basic grasp of the specific system he'll be operating in. To me it seems that this is a President who reports to Parliament, and not vice-versa. He will not set the country's foreign and defence policies, and he will not have a personal veto over things like NATO and EU membership. Parliament appears to be Sovereign.
Romania looks to be a robust Parliamentary Republic at first glance. Would that the UK were such. It seems to be a requirement in Romania that the President is not a member of any political party. An excellent idea, and one which I've long argued should the case in a British Republic - Heads of State should be elected, and non-political.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff