💾

Romania’s ongoing political crisis is entering a more critical phase, with a collapsed government, an unresolved battle over the presidency and a growing conservative-nationalist challenge to the political order that has dominated the country for years.

At stake is not just who governs Bucharest, but whether Romania’s institutions can recover public legitimacy after the extraordinary cancellation of the 2024 presidential election.

The crisis dates back to November 2024, when independent nationalist candidate Călin Georgescu—to the surprise of many—finished first in the opening round of the presidential vote.

Citing alleged electoral irregularities and intelligence—evidence that still hasn’t been disclosed to the public—claiming Russian interference in favor of Călin Georgescu, Romania’s Constitutional Court subsequently annulled the election.

The court’s decision, therefore, erased an election result already delivered by Romanian voters and triggered one of the most serious democratic controversies in the European Union.

Romania’s democratic clampdown deepened even further in March 2025 when Georgescu was barred from taking part in the rerun presidential election. The Constitutional Court upheld his exclusion, leaving the person who had won the original first round unable to compete when Romanians were sent back to the polls for a second time.

The sequence of events became, for a broad cross-section of Romania’s population, undeniable proof of what many observers have begun to describe as “managed democracy”—meaning elections across the EU are “legitimate” only until voters choose someone “unacceptable” to the ruling establishment.
It didn’t take long for news of the crisis to reach across the Atlantic. Vice President JD Vance used his 2025 Munich Security Conference speech to accuse Romania of having “straight up canceled the results of a presidential election based on the flimsy suspicions of an intelligence agency and enormous pressure from its continental neighbors.”

The U.S. State Department’s subsequent Report on Human Rights Practices also leveled criticism that the annulment represented political interference and an unusually severe restriction on disfavored political speech. Elon Musk, for his part, in several posts to social media attacked the Romanian state’s treatment of Georgescu and described one official connected with the process as a “tyrant.”

How can a judge end democracy in Romania? https://t.co/9MFhlq6YwQ

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) March 10, 2025

This guy is a tyrant, not a judge https://t.co/ghE9X4W5G3

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) February 20, 2025

The episode resonated well beyond Romania because it touched a wider fault line running through European politics. Nationalist movements challenging Brussels on sovereignty, mass migration, security, green policy, cultural questions, and foreign affairs increasingly argue that institutional mechanisms are being weaponized to contain alternative political forces that can no longer be easily defeated—and may even be winning outright—at the ballot box.

Romania’s own long-established, ruling elite class has since begun to fracture. Prime Minister Ilie Bolojan’s Brussels-aligned government was brought down on May 5 after the Social Democratic Party (PSD) abandoned the coalition and joined nationalist AUR and other opposition forces in backing a no-confidence motion.

The result was overwhelming—281 lawmakers voted to remove the government, compared with only four against, well above the 233 votes required. The scale of the defeat exposed the government’s lack of legitimacy and revealed how quickly the firewall around Romania’s nationalist opposition had begun to crack.

Especially noteworthy was the decision by the PSD, long one of the pillars of Romania’s establishment, to cooperate with the Alliance for the Union of Romanians (AUR). Whatever the parties’ differences, that cooperation showed that excluding AUR indefinitely from parliamentary influence was becoming increasingly difficult.

President Nicușor Dan, so far, has failed to find a legitimate replacement. His nominee Adrian Veștea went before Parliament in June but secured only 189 votes—44 short of the 233 needed to install a government.

The failure prolonged a political vacuum that has continued into August. Bolojan remains interim prime minister, while Dan has held repeated consultations with former coalition parties in an effort to maintain fiscal measures and secure Romania’s remaining EU recovery funds.

The government’s paralysis has placed greater scrutiny on Dan himself. The right-wing S.O.S. Romania party formally initiated a constitutional procedure seeking his suspension under Article 95, alleging serious violations involving the separation of powers, government formation, the judiciary and democratic oversight of the intelligence services.

S.O.S. leader Diana Șoșoacă said more than 400,000 Romanian living in the country and abroad had expressed support for Dan’s removal. She also claimed that 155 parliamentarians had indicated agreement with the suspension initiative, although the names of lawmakers outside her party were not publicly disclosed.

The accusations against Dan include claims that he has blurred the constitutional boundaries of the presidency by involving himself too directly in judicial affairs. Critics have also objected to his public comments concerning the Constitutional Court and his consultations with magistrates.

Another point of contention is Dan’s insistence on constructing what he has repeatedly called a pro-Western governing majority. His opponents argue that the Constitution requires the president to facilitate government formation rather than impose ideological tests on parties capable of assembling parliamentary support.

Dan, for his part, has defended his approach as an effort to maintain Romania’s strategic orientation and produce a workable government. His supporters say the country’s position on NATO’s eastern flank, next to Ukraine, makes political and foreign-policy continuity especially important.

The intelligence services have become another sensitive issue. Critics point to the absence of permanent civilian leadership at the Romanian Intelligence Service while proposals have circulated to expand the security apparatus into areas including corruption and tax enforcement.

Such controversies carry particular historical weight in Romania, where memories of communist-era surveillance and the political power of the security services remain deeply embedded. Measures that might be treated elsewhere as routine institutional disputes can therefore trigger much deeper fears of political control.

A separate 2026 rule-of-law report cited by critics has further intensified the argument over Romania’s Constitutional Court. The Civil Liberties Union for Europe report was cited as arguing that the court had effectively changed the law in its handling of electoral candidacies, raising questions about legal certainty and the scope of judicial power.

The same report raised concerns over procedural protections for excluded candidates and discussed structural reform of the Constitutional Court itself. It also highlighted problems involving media independence, opaque political financing, and poorly defined anti-disinformation measures that can potentially restrict legitimate speech.

Those findings have strengthened the case made by Georgescu’s and his supporters that the 2024 election annulment, described by many analysts as a constitutional coup, was never merely about one TikTok campaign. They see it as a confrontation over who ultimately sets the boundaries of acceptable politics—Romanian voters or institutions increasingly tied to a globalist, Brussels-centered political consensus.

Romania’s crisis has moved beyond constitutional theory, as its political breakdown now collides with an economy facing some of the heaviest fiscal pressures in the European Union.

Earlier predictions that Fitch could push Romanian sovereign debt into junk territory did not materialize this August. Fitch instead maintained Romania at BBB-, the lowest investment-grade level, while keeping a negative outlook and warning that prolonged political instability could undermine deficit reduction and jeopardize access to European recovery money.

The reprieve should not be confused with economic security. Fitch expects Romania’s economy to contract by roughly 0.6 percent in 2026 and projects a budget deficit of about 5.9 percent of GDP—an improvement from previous years, but still exceptionally high for a BBB-rated state.

S&P has likewise kept Romania at BBB- with a negative outlook. Both agencies have pointed to the ongoing political fragmentation, financing pressures, and the difficulty of sustaining fiscal consolidation while governments rise and fall in Bucharest.

For ordinary Romanians, warnings like these translate into something much more tangible than ratings-agency terminology. They mean higher borrowing costs, increased pressure on household incomes, weaker growth, and further uncertainty over the country’s economic future. That helps explain why anger at political elites has persisted even as officials insist Romania remains firmly anchored inside the EU and NATO.

The nationalist political revolt in Romania also forms part of a wider European trend. From the AfD in Germany and Marine Le Pen’s movement in France to populist forces in Italy, Austria and elsewhere, parties demanding national sovereignty, stricter immigration controls and, increasingly, remigration have forced issues once excluded from respectable debate into the political mainstream.

Romania’s version of that revolt has developed around Georgescu and AUR, whose supporters increasingly compare their struggle with the movement that formed around Donald Trump in the United States. They view sovereignty, national identity, demographic security, economic accountability, and a nationally oriented foreign policy not as threats to democracy, but as core issues that any genuine democracy must be free to decide for itself.

The Romanian establishment—and by extension its backers in Brussels—now faces an uncomfortable problem: attempts to isolate Romania’s traditional, nationalist, and patriotic electorate have not only failed to make it disappear, but have made it much stronger. The collapse of the governing coalition and the cooperation between PSD and AUR have shown that the old cordon sanitaire is becoming harder—if not impossible—to maintain.

The post Romania’s years-long crisis of democratic legitimacy deepens appeared first on Remix News.

Around 80.5 percent of asylum seekers from North African countries were accused of one or more offenses in Switzerland, underlining the massive amount of criminality present in this foreign population. The data comes from the State Secretariat for Migration (SEM).

For asylum seekers as a whole, the rate of criminality is much lower, with only 12.5 percent having been accused of one or more offenses. Nationals from Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia are therefore extremely overrepresented compared to other asylum seeker groups.

North Africans also have little chance of having their asylum applications accepted by Swiss authorities, with 99 percent of all applications rejected, according to Swiss newspaper Blick.

‘He grabbed my ass, I told him to stop’ – 18-year-old African asylum seeker goes on a rampage at Swedish bathing area

In 2024, a “24-hour” rule was introduced for accelerated asylum procedures for North African countries, which enables Swiss authorities to process asylum claims with a low chance of success more quickly. Applicants can still appeal the decisions, which can significantly increase delay in reaching a final decision.

“Criminals must leave Switzerland quickly. This is a priority of the asylum strategy,” said SEM spokesperson Daniel Bach.

However, the process is often delayed by the actions of asylum seekers, including refusing to provide fingerprints and failing to show up for deportation appointments.

Switzerland: African migrant committed incredible 46 crimes in 13 months, showed his penis on trains, stole in multiple cities, and sexually assaulted a woman

Many applicants also obstruct the accelerated procedure: they refuse to provide their fingerprints, do not show up for appointments or quickly leave Switzerland. In these cases, their request can be filed without formalities.

Authorities are now working to implement new measures to quickly deport asylum seekers, including the “systematic use of coercive measures against the perpetrators of repeated offenses.” Authorities are also planning to introduce stricter rules for administrative detention.

Switzerland: African male on the run from police after dragging a 5-year-old girl into a playground toilet and sexually assaulting her, right after beating her 69-year-old caregiver

The SEM also wants to increase cooperation with North African countries and recently signed an agreement with Morocco to accelerate the of asylum seekers ordered to be deported and help facilitate their return.

‘Put a stop to immigration from Stone Age cultures’ – New data shows foreign women commit domestic violence at a higher rate than Swiss men

The post Switzerland: 80.5% of North African asylum seekers have been accused of one or more crimes appeared first on Remix News.

Alejo Carpentier, profundo conocedor de los orígenes, esencias y comportamientos de la identidad del Nuevo Mundo, autor del concepto identitario que llamó “lo real maravilloso americano” —que además estilizó en su novelística—, afirmó que el “descubrimiento” de América, que se materializa en 1492, era el acontecimiento más trascendente de la

Fault Lines How I Became a Subaru Socialist By the time Bernie Sanders ran for President, in 2015, I was financially secure. But the previous decade had left a mark. August 18, 2026 Illustration by George Wylesol This is part of a series of columns about young people and the

Sign up for our newsletter about national security here. At the CIA, they’d started an office pool on when I’d be fired. President Trump would be sworn in for his second term at noon; the smart money had me gone by 12:15. But the smart money hadn’t counted on Trump’s

The case represents a new front in President Trump’s mass deportation drive: arrests at airports of people who have active immigration cases and no criminal history. Listen · 9:43 min Galina Bobreneva and her husband, Brent Jindra, at their home in Redwood City, Calif.Credit...Gabriela Bhaskar/The New York Times Published Aug.

“They assume that my ambition is positional. They assume that my ambition is a title or a seat. And my ambition is way bigger than that. My ambition is to change this country.” The words were delivered slowly, deliberately and with some steeliness by Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Her audience, crammed

This content is for members only. Visit the site and log in/register to read.

One Nation leader Pauline Hanson has filed an application with the High Court for leave to appeal a Full Federal Court ruling that upheld a finding she unlawfully racially discriminated against Greens Senator Mehreen Faruqi under Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act.

The case stems from a September 2022 post on X, then Twitter, in which Hanson told Faruqi to “piss off back to Pakistan” after Faruqi criticised Queen Elizabeth II and the British Empire following the Queen’s death. The Full Federal Court dismissed Hanson’s appeal on 27 July 2026.

Hanson is now asking the High Court to consider whether Section 18C, as applied to political communication, is constitutionally valid and whether its operation impermissibly burdens the Constitution’s implied freedom of political communication.

The case matters because Section 18C does not require a statement to threaten violence or incite criminal conduct. It prohibits conduct reasonably likely to “offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate” another person because of race, colour or national or ethnic origin.

The Full Federal Court confirmed in July that Section 18C is constitutionally valid and does not impermissibly burden the implied freedom of political communication. It also found that Hanson’s post was not protected by the Act’s Section 18D exemption for conduct done reasonably and in good faith.

The court found that the post fell within conduct prohibited by Section 18C, but Senator Hanson has vowed not to forfeit the fight.

“I’m taking this fight to the High Court for every Australian who feels they are being silenced and to keep their opinions to themselves,” Senator Hanson said on Saturday in a media release.

“Too many Australians are afraid to speak honestly about immigration, race, religion, Indigenous policy and other important issues because they worry they will be called racist, dragged through a complaints process or taken to court.

“That is not how a free country should work. Australians choose their government. The government should never get to choose what Australians are allowed to say.”

Justice Angus Stewart, who heard the original case, acknowledged that Australian political debate can involve deliberately offensive, exaggerated and angry speech, and that restrictions on such communication can burden political freedom.

Australia has no entrenched constitutional Bill of Rights guaranteeing broad freedom of speech. Instead, the Constitution protects political communication through an implied freedom that operates as a limitation on government power rather than as a personal right to free speech. That makes judicial scrutiny of laws such as Section 18C particularly important.

“I don’t mince my words,” Senator Hanson said. “I never have. People know exactly where I stand. But speaking plainly about political issues should not put you in court. The Full Federal Court accepted that my comments were close to the core of political communication protected by our Constitution.

“It also accepted section 18C casts a wide net, sets a relatively low bar and places a significant burden on political communication. Yet the law was still upheld. This is why I am asking the High Court to hear this case.”

Senator Hanson said she believes all Australians should be able to disagree, argue, and say things other people don’t like.

“Freedom of speech means nothing if it only protects words everyone agrees with.”

She said it’s not about giving politicians special rights, but rather, it’s about the right of everyday Australians to take part in the political debates that shape their own country without being frightened into silence.

A healthy “democracy” does not require citizens to agree with one another—or even to speak politely at all times. It requires sufficient freedom for citizens to argue, criticise, offend and challenge one another without the government becoming the final arbiter of permissible political expression.

“Millions of Australians feel like they have been told there are things they are simply not allowed to say anymore,” she added. “I hear from them all the time. I will not be silenced, and I will take this fight as far as I can for Australians who feel they no longer have a voice.”