Debate: This is Europe - Debate with the President of Romania, Klaus Iohannis
Date: WEDNESDAY, 7 FEBRUARY 2024
Speaker: Klaus Iohannis
Language: EN

Thank you for your very positive feedback. I thank the speakers of the political groups for their positions, and I appreciate very much the positive and constructive approach in all the views expressed here. But let me thank you specifically for one issue, most of all mentioned, which is the Schengen issue.  Romania is a very determined, a very strong and a very faithful member of the Union. We really believe that the Union has to be united, strong, secure, prosperous. To make this happen, we have to finish the European integration of all the Member States, including Romania. So let’s hope that we make the decisive step. We have the first step in place. It is a good sign, and let’s continue.  There have been then some issues and – I think you agree – it would go too far if I answered each and every question. So let me just point out a relatively small number of issues, and I think you expect me to be honest on these things. So I’ll try to be short and honest.  When I ran for president in 2014, for the first time, I promised to the Romanians a couple of things. I’m not a great speaker, and I am not excelling in promises, so I said I will keep Romania firm on the European track, on the transatlantic track. I will see about the economy as far as the president can do this to bring more prosperity. But one important issue, which was very dear to me – I promised to strengthen the rule of law, which I did.  We have less corruption. We have an independent judiciary. And this is not what I say – it is what the Commission says and what you said because you accepted the Commission’s report on the so-called CVM. And one important issue was not only to have an independent judiciary, a strong prosecution – it was also important to have independent regulators.  Well, I heard that one regulator had an issue with one business, and as everywhere in a democracy and the rule of law, people, if they feel that decision was not so good, go before a judge. This is what happened, and the judges decided that the decision was correct. This is what I understand if we speak about the rule of law: everybody has the same right. Everybody has the right to a fair trial, and everybody has to accept the result.  Now, many of you asked more or less precisely what I believe should happen in the European Union. I stated a number of issues in my opening remarks, but if it comes to it, what should we do with the Union to make it function better? Where are the problems? Where are the real problems? Where are the systemic problems and what can be done?  Well, some systemic problems and some important issues have been discussed in this House, on our streets, in the marketplaces, and in convenings. I think you just finished before I arrived a discussion about the common European agricultural policy. That’s an issue. We have a decision on this as of 2020, four years ago. So obviously, people ask me and I ask others, ‘Why did it take us four years and huge European protests to rethink some issues of the common agricultural policy?’ Maybe it could have happened faster.  We are talking about the environment, about climate change. That’s all correct. Personally, I’m very much involved in these issues. I am really convinced that we have to fight climate change, and I believe that we have to protect our environment, and we can do it. We proved it. We proved it in Romania, and we have a good policy in this respect. But we have to do more. Now we have the Green Deal, which is super. But let me tell you, if it is not sustainable and if it does not lead to economic growth, and if we do not take everybody with us, it will be a failure.  So,  First, our relationship with the European citizens. My impression – maybe I’m wrong – is that if the citizens are here, we are here. We are levitating a bit high. Maybe we should decrease and be closer to our citizens, because what we do is correct but we lost, almost lost, our ability to explain this to our people.  We are not really performing well when it comes to communicating our very good results. We are doing a super job and more and more Europeans believe the Union is failing. Well, this is about communication: communication between the voters and the politicians. So this is one issue where I believe we can and should do more and better.  Second, some of you asked about decision-making. It is about the architecture of the Union. How do we make it better? And we have to improve it, because if we take in Ukraine, Moldova and the Western Balkans, we will be a large Union, and this decision-making, especially in crisis, war, pandemic and energy crisis, has to be correct, transparent but fast.  So I believe that we have to work on our architecture. Some of it may be possible to change without opening the Treaties, but some issues have to be changed in the Treaties. They are not perfect. Since we have these Treaties – I hope you don’t mind me telling you – years have passed. We are a different Union and we work towards a different Union. I hope very much you agree: we work towards a better Union, so let’s work on this.  At least one issue – and you will know what I mention – it is not acceptable that one member is using a veto to stop all of us helping others. So if we’re not in a position yet to generalise a qualified majority voting, which may be defined different than it is now, not talking about the details, but at least we should have the courage to say ‘no veto’ and let’s take it out of the decision-making process. That’s something very concrete we should do.  Finally, our external image, well, I believe we have to be much better here. First, we have to integrate those who want to be with us and those we want to be with us: Ukraine, Moldova, Western Balkans. They try to become part of the Union, some of them for 20 years. I mean, are we serious? Are we? Do we want them? If we do, let’s go. If not, let’s say to them ‘no’. But dragging on, you know very well, never makes things better.  Somehow linked to this is how we act towards others. It is what we call foreign policy. Well, guess what? We don’t have one. This is strange, isn’t it? We have as many foreign policies as we have Member States, and maybe even more. Thanks, you’re right. Maybe this is the reason why our foreign policy weight is way, way, way smaller than our economic weight. This is not good for us because economic policy and foreign policy have to go hand in hand. So we should work on these two: extension and foreign policy. Now, the elections are upcoming. Each of you is going to fight for a seat or a principle or a value. That’s correct. Every party comes up with concepts, with ideas, with policies. You will accuse each other of being, well, the wrong guys. You will fight for as many votes as possible. That’s absolutely fair. That’s the essence of democracy: campaigning, profiling, trying to be the best. Please do so. You sitting here are the best. This is why you sit here.  But please, if you fight each other, don’t fight Europe. If you fight for votes against your opponents, still fight for European Union. And if you fight with the other party and tell them they are not the right guys, please do not fight against the European solidarity. Because without this we are doomed. So no matter who is winning – and I hope the best are winning – let us uphold our values, our principles, our unity, and our solidarity.