Event report

Key points of the event: The live event on Facebook was conceived as an open dialogue between MEP Vlad Gheorghe and special guest Marius Manole, followed by a structured debate conducted by the Romanian Champions at debates (Ana Coman, Miruna Cozianu, Teodor Grama and Edmond Vrânceanu and Dragoș Ghimpe (moderator). Social media users were able to intervene throughout the event and after it ended, via comments or live emails during or after the debate at vlad@vladgheorghe.ro Topics discussed: • The rule of law and the benefits of respecting it • The notion of the rule of law and counter-examples of the current period, but also in the history of totalitarian regimes • European funds and to what extent they should be conditional on respect for the rule of law in the member countries • Corruption and abuse • Euroscepticism and national identity • Citizens’ rights to fight corruption Ideas resulting from open dialogue: • Monitoring and enforcement of the rule of law in the Member States must remain a core value and an important principle for the European Union, as it prevents totalitarian slippages and actively protects human rights, the rights of children, women, victims of all kinds, and combats racism and discrimination of all kinds. • It is appropriate to conduct information campaigns for young people, where the notion of the rule of law is not only a legal term but a principle understood by the nature of the benefits it brings: the right to free expression, free press, democracy and everyone’s equality before the law. It needs to be explained so that it becomes so important that it’s worth protesting for him, going out on the street and wanting to be respected. • Negative examples on the continent, such as Belarus, Russia or Turkey where people disappear, are arrested for protesting or posting an opinion against the party or leaders on social networks, should be used as arguments in favour of the rule of law. In Romania and parallel to living in communism can have significant relevance and impact in understanding the benefits of the rule of law and of the European Union. • The European Union is not only a single market for goods and services, it has been built on principles and values. That is why her future must be one of rights and freedoms and justice. • The granting of European funds to the Member States, one of the significant advantages of this union, is important to be conditional on respect for the rule of law. But ideally it would be if there was a way that citizens would not suffer for the stupidity or corruption of their leaders. The main points of disagreement between the participants were highlighted in the debate which was based on the premise that the European Union must make the granting of European funds conditional on respect for the rule of law in the member countries. The pros and cons that emerged from the structured debate are: • The European Union should make the granting of European funds conditional on respect for the rule of law in order to make governments and politicians stop thieves and abuses. This conditionality can be an asset in negotiating respect for the rule of law because politicians will be “publicly illustrated”, they will not be able to keep their promises made to voters and will no longer be able to hide corruption, financial fraud, misappropriation of funds, discrimination and other actions that violate the rule of law under the press • The European Union should be firm when it comes to respecting the principles and values on which it was formed. Membership comes with many advantages, but also obligations, and when the latter are not respected, it is normal to disappear or be withdrawn until problems are solved and some of the advantages. The more gentle the European Union’s response to the rule of law is or comes too late, the longer a state of affairs is perpetuated in troubled states that over time becomes the exception, normality. • In order to avoid radical measures such as withdrawal or non-granting, the European Union has a duty towards its citizens to inform them of what the rule of law means, how slippages of governments and politicians can be sanctioned internally and what is the importance of voting in this equation. Citizens need to know their rights, they need to know that protests, street exits, petitions and the exercise of the right to vote can change corrupt politicians, demand justice to do their duty and can positively influence the evolution of their country in all respects. • The European Union has a principled duty towards its citizens and it is not appropriate that the sanctions from it for politicians should be passed on to them. People need to be protected and constantly informed about the benefits offered by the European Union, but also about the more unpopular measures they need to take and the motivation behind them. • Euroscepticism, extreme nationalist trends may arise with the imposition of sanctions or the conditioning of certain advantages for Member States. That is why the European Union must pay close attention to each situation and resort to radical measures only when all forms of dialogue or negotiation have failed. And even then to minimise the impact on the ordinary citizen and explain the imperativeity of such measures. Ideas resulting from comments from participants: • The future sounds good if we have a democratic and young vision. • Young people can change the country for the better. If the EU informs them of the importance of the vote and if they participate in the electoral process, they will make a difference. It would be good to find them at the forefront of communication by the European institutions • The most vulnerable states are countries where the level of corruption is very high. European funds are not the only sources from which politicians can steal. And if they are cut, the corrupts will continue to steal more from the citizens of the country and will be able to hide and justify their abuses by using the European Union to the sole fault of the situation they actually created.