The unknowns of the Romanian presidency on duty, an opportunity for reflection for Europe

The presidential term of the European Union that is about to start will see very important issues on the negotiating table: first of all the definition of Britain's exit from the Union up to the topic of Serbia's entry into the Brussels forum. In such a delicate period the rotation scheduled to hold the presidency of the Union will touch Romania, a country with great internal difficulties and with some European standards, to which will be added the difficulties that the Romanian bureaucrats will encounter in order to deal with such intense problems. difficulty. Bucharest is grappling with the most serious protest since the fall of the dictatorship in 1989. It is estimated that the Romanian people's demonstrations against corruption, the laws that provide for the decriminalization of some crimes and against the abuse of power have gathered in the squares even 600,000 people at a time. Romania became a member of the union in 2007 and progress made against corruption, the country's evil endemic, stopped for about two years with the rise to power of the socialist party, whose leader was ineligible for a conviction for the crime of electoral fraud. The Romanian situation represents a clear situation of how Brussels failed to impose its constituent values, something which is also common in the countries coming from the Soviet bloc, and how it can not even make them respected. Continue to admit the presence within the Union of nations that enact laws that do not respect European values ​​is very dangerous, both because of the disruptive effect that contributed to the affirmation of populism, and because the perverse mechanisms of the distribution of power they do not provide for suspensive rules for those countries that do not meet European standards. Up until now, it has only been close to a situation like the present one, but with the establishment of Romania as president of the Union, a new level of the effects of the legal mechanisms of Brussels is reached and the absolute lack of countermeasures studied to face the verification of eventualities of this kind. The fact that this coincides with the moment in which the exit of Great Britain will have to be managed, assumes an even more peculiar value that recalls the urgent need to revise the European laws, both for the management of power, and for the acceptance of new members and also for the elaboration of effective sanctioning mechanisms towards those countries that do not adapt to guarantee civil and political rights, freedom of the press, mutual support among member states and the fight against corruption. As can be seen if these assumptions existed effectively, the list of European members would be shorter and this would only be a benefit to the functioning of the Community institutions. The fundamental question is whether the countries that have been governed by dictatorships have developed a real democratic sense such as to produce political classes capable of identifying themselves with the founding ideals of Europe. If this did not happen, it is also the fault of Brussels, which, in spite of enlarging its economic zone, has tolerated the entry of unprepared countries and with the sole intention of exploiting European contributions, without providing for a protection mechanism that could sanctions until expulsion. A weak government like the Romanian one, even if assisted by the specialists of Brussels, can manage the British exit, which foresees a series of norms that will inevitably fall on all Europeans, without incurring some problem of which it is already accused? The question is lawful and should not be underestimated, as it is not to underestimate the possible lack of ability to listen to the other members, a non-strange lack in executives who have proved to be insensitive to the demands of the oppositions. A lot of subjects to think about for Brussels bureaucrats.