Interview Nicolae Rațiu: “I think, from many of Simion's ideas, the economy would suffer seriously. It will isolate Romania from the countries of Europe”

Nicolae Rațiu is the son of the politician and diplomat Ion Rațiu. In front of a presidential tour reminiscent of the one from 1990 or 1996, times when Romania had to choose between the road to the West or the proximity to Russia, Nicolae Rațiu gave an interview for the public Hotnews.

HotNews.ro: Mr. Rațiu, how dangerous for democracy was we to have debates with an absent candidate?
Nicolae Rațiu: It's harmful to democracy but do you know who does this? George Simion. And he is the one who, undermines democracy. If there were no debates or if he had not been invited, then you would have been a real danger to democracy from the Government. But in this case, the danger to democracy comes from his attitude towards debates and the fact that he does not appear to them.

– In the presidential debate George Simion used your father's words. How did you get that?
-You know, he actually quoted, he said something like: “I will fight to defend your right not to agree with the fact that I have a different opinion than yours.” But the real quote is: “I will fight until the last drop of blood for your right not to agree with me.” And I protested, because I said that this is an abuse of an assertion that my father used and for whom he was known-which I know very well.

And what annoyed me even more was something else: the fact that Simion said about Georgescu that he is “the best president that Romania has never had”, which is a total absurdity. That quote was used for at least 25 years – if not 35 – about my father, after his death. That expression about “the best president that Romania has never had” belongs to him.

“Nicușor Dan has already proved what he can do”

– How do you see the future of Romania with Nicușor Dan? But with George Simion?
-As for George Simion I think he is a man who, from everything I read and from what I learned from people who have met him all his life, including some who have worked with him and then broke up with him, is an unscrupulous man. He has nothing honest in him. Says one and does the exact opposite. He is not a man of beliefs. I think it will bring chaos. Will isolate Romania from the rest of Europe. European countries will not want to deal with it.

I think, from many of Simion's ideas, the economy would suffer seriously. So far, Romania has received a gross contribution of over 100 billion euros, and the net is 63 billion euros – money invested in Romania.

No to never receive such money from Russia. People forget. People forget that, after the Second World War, when Romania was under Soviet occupation, before the Soviet Union left, the Russians robbed Romania of all the resources they could take. This is what Russia does and this will get Simion: a Russia that exploits Romania in any way possible. And his desire to maintain a neutrality in the name of sovereignty is, in fact, a form of being on the side of Russia.

The other scenario is that he will face a very difficult problem, because the Romanian economy is already in a bad state. It has a huge deficit, excessive public spending, and inflation increases.

On the other side, Nicușor Dan has already proved what he can do in Bucharest. When he took over the City Hall, the city was bankrupt. He managed, in the first term, to quickly find a solution for balancing the budget, brought external financing and put the city again on the waterline. Then he even had money to invest. If he can do this in a city of 3 million inhabitants, he can do this at national level with the support of the European Union, with money from the EU. Because money exists. There is also that new installment from the PNRR if you gather what remained of the current budget exercise 2021–2027, plus the new program, there are still 75 billion euros available for Romania. Do we give up on them and imagine that we will have a flourishing Romanian economy? That's absurd. We need this money.

You can see Nicușor Dan – how he works, as he speaks in interviews, in debates. It has a very clear vision for investments in key fields, where it is needed, to take the country before, working with our allies in Europe. It is a completely different image from the isolated future George Simion proposes.

– What advice do you have for undecided or not voting voters, given that the difference between candidates is only 1-2%?
-Well, I think an essential thing is to care and vote. This is the most important. Then, if possible, returning to your first question about polarization of opinions and the fact that people are no longer willing to listen to the opinions of others, I think it is important for everyone to inform them correctly about what is happening. To listen carefully to what is said – not necessarily on social networks, but in serious press.

“I welcome the end of the political correctness, but, I emphasize, the radical political correctness”

-In this context, if someone would ask you: Do you think it was political correctness?
– I hope it ended, at least, it was the extremes in terms of political correctness. Yes, I really hope it is. I am not at all in favor of radical political correctness. It's terrible. It goes too far, to the point where it gets to suppress the differences of opinion, the freedom of expression, the right to publish what you want and so on.

I always considered that this political correctness was a great loss for the comedians, because many of their jokes were a little political, but they were very funny. Now, however, any comment is immediately attacked, and people are out of universities because they have made statements that are not to the liking of a very correct political group – either students or teachers – who protest and ask for those to shut their mouths. I think that's wrong. So, yes, I greet the end – but I emphasize – the radical political correctness. I am a great supporter of freedom of expression, but I think there is a need for a certain degree of self -control in what we say and write. I repeat, self -control.

Again at the crossroads

-People are going to vote on this Sunday, just as they did on May 20, 1990, and the decision seems to be one that will influence the future of Romania on a trajectory longer than five years. Do you see any resemblance between what happened then and what is happening now?
– Romania was then at a crossroads. Either he was going to continue with his communist past, or to go to a democracy, a market economy and a democratic society. So, if you want, this was the 1990 road crossroads.

And what I say is that, to a certain extent, we have a similar type of crossroads today. It is not labeled as such, but I see two options: one is to continue on the European road, following the European democratic values ​​and traditions and also to stay under the NATO security umbrella, or the other option is to throw everything out the window – to get out of the EU, to get out of NATO, and to go to Russia.

In 1990, Iliescu said he was supporting democracy, but he had just become “democrat” a week before. He had just become “Democrat”, you know, a week before. He and those around him – my father and, in fact, Radu Campeanu – had lived their whole life in Democrats and truly believed in democratic values ​​in the West.

Iliescu wanted, in fact, to continue with the existing regime, only that he adjusted him a little, in Perestroiki style – What Gorbachev named “Communism with human face” And to get involved in the market economy, because that's how the money from the West came. But on the other hand, he said that we should not let the Westerners buy our land, not to give them too much. So there were clear limits. That is why Romania remained practically in a state of stagnation for six years and only in 1996 it really started to move in the correct direction.

And if you want, and in 1996 it was a real crossroads: do we choose the “democracy” version of Iliescu or the version of the Democratic Convention? (no Emil Constantinescu) and in 1996, people voted for the Democratic, Western Directorate. Because, in the 1990s, it was not clear whether Romania would go to the West under the leadership of Iliescu and his people.

For six years, he has flirted with the idea of ​​keeping warm ties with Russia and, meanwhile, attract as much money from the West, to borrow from there to put food on the table and increase popularity. That was then.

Today, we have a crossroads of similar roads, maybe even clearer in a way. Because in 1990, the people generally went with whom it seemed to take down Ceausescu – namely Iliescu – which, in fact, was an aberration. But, as is always the case with the Communists with the Russians, in general – you cannot trust what they say. They will never respect their promises, if that does not suit them.

– Regardless of the result, what will stay with us after this Sunday?
– Romania will remain a beautiful country. The sun will continue to shine. But from a political and social point of view, the country will be either in a dark and pressing state, or in a bright and optimistic one.