62 years after the Franco-German reconciliation within the European community through the Élysée Treaty, and six years after strengthening this cooperation through the Aachen Treaty, France and Germany—two founding nations and political-economic engines of European construction—share the same set of strategic priorities for the European Union’s future, both domestically and globally. They exhibit a “complete overlap” in their strategy for Europe’s competitiveness, focusing on regulatory simplification, though differences in “political culture” persist between Paris and Berlin, as well as between their leaders. This joint approach was detailed by France’s and Germany’s ambassadors to Romania, Nicolas Warnery and Peer Gebauer, in an interview with CaleaEuropeană.ro marking the anniversary of the Franco-German reconciliation more than six decades ago. The ambassadors expressed confidence that Romania would remain a strong partner and ally of France and Germany within the EU and NATO.

Full interview

CaleaEuropeană.ro: Dear Ambassadors, today we are celebrating the 62nd anniversary of the Elysee Treaty, but also the 6th anniversary of the Aachen Treaty, which brought Germany and France together on a path of reconciliation and partnership for Europe. For most of the EU’s history, France and Germany have been perceived as the powerhouse of the European Union, the giants driving the EU forward and forging unity through crises. Now, the EU is confronting both domestic and foreign challenges. We’ve seen these challenges: disinformation, extremism, economic problems, some of them arising from its most important founders. Where does this anniversary moment find the German-French partnership and the European Union as a whole?

© CaleaEuropeană.ro/ Diana Zaim

Nicolas Warnery: Well, by definition, an anniversary comes every year, so we might have the feeling of some kind of routine as this anniversary comes back again each year. But it would be a big mistake to think that, because this very specific relationship is extraordinary. At any level, every day, on any subject, we talk about many things in the capitals, in Brussels, in NATO, and in the European Union, essentially, everywhere in the world. I served in Africa, I served in Asia, and my German colleague was always my closest colleague in these regions and on these topics. So, we must never forget that. And something extraordinary happened – did you realize that a few weeks ago, when there was this terrible hurricane in Mayotte, it was the Bundeskanzler, the Chancellor, who represented France in the European Council? I thought I made a mistake. I read it again, I checked, and it was correct. I didn’t know myself, so you see how extraordinary it is. In this very specific period, we are living through now, with so many challenges, we have much to discuss, many compromises to reach, and many common positions to find. I’m sure about that.

Peer Gebauer: I couldn’t agree more. I think this anniversary is always a good occasion to, first of all, be grateful for what we have achieved. I think the French-German reconciliation is an extraordinary historical achievement that cannot be valued highly enough. After centuries of being opponents, and enemies in bitter wars, we have finally overcome this opposition, joined forces, and achieved so much already. So, it [Elysée-Day] is always a very special day, and it makes me very happy. Thank you, Nicolas, for doing this together with me, for celebrating this day here in Bucharest, and for doing so also within the framework of this interview. As for your question, yes, of course, France, Germany, and Europe as a whole are facing a number of challenges. But I think we are ready to tackle them, we are ready to address them, and we can best do this if we continue this very important French-German cooperation.

CaleaEuropeană.ro: You mentioned Chancellor Scholz representing also France at the last European Council, and I must say that over this history, we had, on the one side, Chancellors Adenauer, Kohl, Merkel, or Scholz, and on the other, Presidents De Gaulle, Mitterrand, Chirac, or Macron working together with a common vision or, despite different views, still managing to collaborate. We see how they have forged compromises for European integration. But that impetus, or maybe just that impression, has faded away over recent years. If we take examples such as tariffs on electric cars, the Draghi report on the future of European competitiveness, nuclear energy, common debt in defense, and others, how do you see French and German leadership? Do you see it as more divided, and how does this affect the European Union? 

© CaleaEuropeană.ro/ Diana Zaim

Peer Gebauer: The impression that we have a greater division now might be somewhat incomplete. There are so many decisions and issues at stake. I would say that 99% of the time, Germany and France are completely in sync when it comes to dealing with developments in the Middle East and Syria, for example. When it comes to supporting Ukraine or EU enlargement, we are very much on the same page. In general, it is a phenomenon that only when there is disagreement or differing views, it makes the news. So, the impression then is that Germany and France are not in agreement anymore. I think we basically are. The fact that we are having discussions on some issues is completely normal. Friendship and cooperation don’t mean that you automatically have the same opinion. It means that you have a process of finding common ground in areas where we are working, as you mentioned in your question. I sense that we are not in a difficult situation regarding the French-German partnership and cooperation, but we are in constant need to see how we can best contribute as two countries, as a German-French engine, to the development of the European Union. And we are doing this. Nicolas has pointed out this agreement of representing one another in the European Council if the other leader is not available. And there are so many other formats where it’s just unique how closely we cooperate that I have no doubt that we are in good shape when it comes to our joint cooperation in the future.

Nicolas Warnery: We are covering so many subjects that it’s pretty normal to have 10% or 20% on which we disagree. But the important thing is not whether we disagree or agree. The important thing is to have a method that has existed for quite some time: to discuss every day, as I mentioned before, at any level, everywhere, on any subject, and to reach compromises. We may not always achieve common positions, but we reach compromises that allow us to share them with other partners, either in the European Union or in the Alliance, and we just manage to find common positions. So far, we have never failed to do so. The method is there. The will is there. Of course, personalities and individuals are very different. How many chancellors have you had since the ’50s, and how many presidents have we had? So many different situations have occurred, but they always managed to work together.

CaleaEuropeană.ro: There was a time when we had just one German chancellor and two French presidents, and now we have the same French president who is perhaps preparing for the third chancellor in his era. And I mentioned that because my next question is about the electoral moments, to put it this way, because we have 2024 coming with significant change for Europe, and it was a year that everyone considered the biggest electoral test. Then we would move forward with policies and projects. Although the pro-European majority was saved in the European Parliament, also thanks to pro-European forces from France and Germany, we now have these new EU institutions’ leadership, with leadership from Germany, from France, and so on. Both the founding countries of the EU, together with the other four, but these two particularly, France and Germany, were hit by the erosion of liberal democracy, to put it this way, and were attacked by extremism, by disinformation campaigns, and so on. We’ve seen that moderate, centrist and liberal establishment has lost traction, while the extreme right has gained political weight both in Germany and in France when we look at the European Elections. Now we have German snap elections, so another electoral event that is very important, and in Paris President Macron is struggling to keep up a powerful government, a pro-European and stable majority in France. These moments of democracy face issues from the pressure of disinformation and extremism in France and Germany. Should we feel worried about them? Will it affect Europe moving forward?

© CaleaEuropeană.ro/ Diana Zaim

Nicolas Warnery: I guess our three countries are facing the same kind of situation. We had elections, or we will have elections, or we might have elections again in our case. We are in a sort of very intense democratic period, which is good, but which is tricky because, you are right, there is this populist wave, these populist speeches, and these hybrid attacks. Now we all know that there was a hybrid attack, at least here in the Romanian election in November, just like there were also attacks in France in 2017 during the first election of President Macron. It was not the same kind of attack, but it was something. Everybody has forgotten that. It’s a bit different, but it’s probably the same actor because, obviously, it was the Russians. They stole, if I can say so, emails from the internal mail system of candidate Macron, who was not President at that time, and they put it on the internet just the day before the election. It was nothing too specific, but it included exchanges between personalities, little conflicts, little things like that, and it served as proof: we entered your house, we did what we wanted, we stole what we wanted, and we put it on the internet. It was a kind of hybrid attack. Also, just like we suffered other attacks, I mention that because it’s important: it’s not only Moldova, Georgia, or Romania—it’s everywhere in Europe. We had David’s stars painted on the walls of Paris, we had small coffins placed at the Eiffel Tower, and we had rumors about things in hotels linked to refugees, etc. So, we suffered, I insist, a few months ago in Paris, from hybrid attacks that we think the Russians originated. We are all facing this kind of thing, and we are all facing, coming back to your precise question, the populist speeches about the weakness of the European Union, NATO, the danger of war, etc. We must stand by our values; we must remember what is at stake: the security of our countries, of our continent. We must stick to our solidarity within the European Union, within the alliance. We must insist with the Americans — there is a new leadership, you know who’s arriving — we must insist on the importance of having the Ukrainians and Europe at the table of negotiations, if there are negotiations this year, which is a possible scenario. And we must never give up our values, our protection, our defense, our will to protect ourselves, because if we lose this will, we will lose everything—our freedom, our sovereignty—and it will be terrible, simply. We are facing difficult times, yes, all our free countries, but we are facing them together.

Peer Gebauer: Absolutely. It would be unwise and false to simply give in and give up, as you’ve outlined. If you look at the European elections you have been referring to, of course, we have also seen a rise in anti-establishment parties. Nevertheless, our institutions — in this case, in Europe, were able to forge a new government, a new leadership, and a new Commission, which is now operational. It faces many challenges and, of course, has to deliver, but it shows that despite this shift or the rise of anti-establishment parties, nationalist, and populist movements, our systems are strong enough to still make room for decision-makers to take responsibility. And again, the most decisive point in this challenging time — and it is a challenging time — is to now make sure that our leaders deliver on the very needs of their populations.

Nicolas Warnery: There is one paradox: when you look at the history of the European Union, it is often during times of terrible challenges and difficulties that we have been able, paradoxically, to make progress. I don’t know exactly how or why, but that is the result of our history. It seems to be part of our tradition.

Peer Gebauer: It is. And another observation I always make is that whenever you look at Europe at any given point in time, you have a feeling as if Europe has never been in a more terrible situation. Throughout my life, whenever I looked at the state of Europe, people would tell me, “Oh, it’s terrible right now; this is a big crisis”. But if you take a bird’s-eye view and look at Europe over the long run, you will see that it has been, over the decades, an extraordinary historical success—bringing peace and stability to Europe. We must not forget that when looking to a specific moment in time, you might see only problems. But looking at a broader period in time, you will see the effects of what we have achieved in Europe and European integration. It is a remarkable achievement, and we must ensure that it remains that way.

CaleaEuropeană.ro: Touching on that, isn’t this also, let’s say, the effect of seriousness of political discourse? Recently, we saw the president of Finland, Mr. Stubb, saying — and he’s probably right — that Europe’s “vacation from history” is over. Europe now needs to answer the call of becoming more sovereign, more strategic, and more economically robust. Of course, the terms may differ: Germany prefers to speak of economic security and France of strategic sovereignty, while others simply refer to security as a whole. But in essence, they mean the same thing. So, when we see political leaders adopting this gravity in their discourses, how can we think differently, that this is not the worst moment in history? And, as you know, there was a joke a few years ago: “Welcome to the European Union, where for every crisis we have a summit”.

Nicolas Warnery: We are facing difficult times, that’s true. But what can we do? Did we choose to have a war of aggression in Ukraine? Did we shape the new conception of American policy? Did we vote in November? No. We are facing the reality in front of us, and we have to react properly. That’s our task; that’s our mission. 

Peer Gebauer: And you are right, of course, Robert, when you say it’s not a time to just ignore the challenges and think, “Well, we’ve always been able to manage it, so we don’t have to do anything”. Yes, we have to do a whole lot to be able to successfully overcome these challenges ahead of us. So, indeed, it is a specific moment in time, and I don’t want to downplay that. But the point is that we often underestimate the EU’s ability to deliver. And that’s something that should give us some confidence. But again, it should not generate a feeling of ‘I don’t have to do anything!’. It should incite us to take bold and decisive action.  The Finnish president, of course, is right when he says, “Now is the time to deliver”.

Nicolas Warnery: And the same applies to climate, to the oceans, to demography, and to any other major issues we are facing, not just security and not just Ukraine.

© CaleaEuropeană.ro/ Diana Zaim

CaleaEuropeană.ro: I’ve identified, let’s say, four layers or topics that are very much discussed these days and that are important when we look both at the European and transatlantic stage. We see some keywords like competitiveness, defence, Donald Trump, Ukraine, the rise of extremist forces, and the power of disinformation. My first question is linked to the Mario Draghi report on the future of European competitiveness, which everyone or some people tend to see as the problem fixer in the European Union. We have the Budapest Declaration on the European Competitiveness Deal that all the leaders of the EU endorsed. But when this report came out, we had President Macron, I believe he was in Berlin, who warned that the EU might die if we do not take this moment and this report very seriously with the issues that it provides, like energy, defence, the chain of supplies, and so on. Meanwhile, some German lawmakers were saying that France is trapped in a Franco-French geopolitical mindset. So, this is another layer where we, as the press, as mass media, as think tankers, see that France and Germany are not on the same page. I want to know from you, where are the pieces where France and Germany align in this drive forward for European competitiveness, and where don’t they? Where do you align when it comes to the EU competitiveness?

Nicolas Warnery:  I think it’s more a difference in terms of political culture. Our president is facing the situation on a daily basis in France. He knows that to stimulate and motivate his people, the French people, he sometimes has to dramatize the situation, because France is facing difficult times. He knows that it’s probably the best way to motivate. So, when he sometimes makes strong statements, it’s probably also for internal reasons. It’s not to provoke anyone, but to stimulate people. And the second factor is that he likes to promote ideas and provoke debates within the Union, NATO, the G7, etc. So, for these two reasons, he provokes certain reactions. I don’t really see, on this topic, differences regarding the real issue itself. I’m not sure there is actually a difference. Of course, probably your chancellor does not have the same kind of behaviour or the same kind of political culture. It’s different. For example: we have a terrible difficulty in France in regaining what we excelled at years ago—the tradition of compromise in internal policy. We are not able to achieve it anymore in the National Assembly, apparently. You still have this tradition. So, it’s normal that the reaction is not the same.

© CaleaEuropeană.ro/ Diana Zaim

Peer Gebauer:  I would agree with you, with what you said. It’s often a matter of style, a question of style. Different politicians have different styles. There are also German politicians who use more outspoken words to maybe wake people up or to make their point more clearly. I wouldn’t put too much importance on differences in communication styles. When it comes to the Draghi report and competitiveness, I think there are several key elements that you’ve also outlined where we are fully in sync. There’s a tremendous need to deregulate and “de-bureaucratize” our systems. We have overdeveloped our regulatory frameworks. Why? Because we have always felt there’s a good reason for adding another element here and there to ensure even more fairness. While it has always been well-intentioned, the result is an overburden of bureaucracy that hinders our competitiveness. There’s an agreement among all of us that we need to cut back and to cut back boldly. The second element is, of course, that we need to strengthen our European industrial base, including our European defence industrial base and our overall European capacity. We have come to realize that relying on supply chains, in particular when you are dependent on countries that are politically at odds with you, might backfire in times of crisis. So, there is obviously a need to not rely on Russian fossil fuels or Chinese technological products, because you never know when there’ll be a cut in the supply chain. This is something we are very decisively working on. It is a topic for Germany, for the whole of Europe. Right now, we see what’s going on in the Republic of Moldova. Dependence on Russian fossil fuels backfires. We had to learn our lesson, and fortunately, it was possible for us to cut back to zero reliance in a rather short period. That’s the reality, and that’s something we all need to do to become less dependent on others. De-risking is a term that is often used for that, and I think this is crucial.

Nicolas Warnery: Our priorities are clear now. Our priorities within Europe are simplification, because we are now in a system of complexity which people reject. Sovereignty, industrial and defence security, energy, and the need to protect our liberty, our freedom, and our democracy.

Peer Gebauer: You can see there is a complete overlap in terms of strategy.

CaleaEuropeană.ro: Maybe when we look at the Draghi report, we have some special keywords. I mean, they are all there: cutting the red tape, reforming, and fresh money. Everyone focused on fresh money because Mario Draghi said that we need an incentive for investments of over 800 billion. Considering that we have a seven-year multi-annual budget of 1,000 billion and need just 800 for one year, that’s quite a lot. So, it’s not just about fresh money, as I get it from you. It’s also about simplification. 

Peer Gebauer: The fresh money, well, it would be very easy if you could just print the money and have it, right? But this is not an economically feasible move. In order to spend money, you need to have an economic base that enables you to do so. This is why it is a bit more complicated to make sure that, at the same time, you are investing in your future, but you are not just printing money while destabilizing your monetary base. So here we are —politics is complicated —but there are smart minds in Europe that will certainly make good decisions and take us forward.

Nicolas Warnery: The goal is to invest, to regain our complete sovereignty in terms of industry, defence, agriculture, and energy. So, yes, fresh money is important, but so is the will to act. We have agreed that in order to generate money, we must first produce. We need to produce to earn, to export, and then to generate revenue. Money does not come from the sky; it comes from our labour, our work.

CaleaEuropeană.ro: The reason why I insisted on money and fresh money is because the discussion about strategic sovereignty when it comes to defence also lies a lot in the public debate on money. And we know that there is a new era, of course. We have the first EU Commission for Defence. We expect more initiatives coming up, like the first white charter on defence that the Commission needs to propose within the first 100 days of the new mandate. We have a lot of leaders that say we need to prepare for a war-footing economy. Even President Macron said that last year. In 2024, the former President of the European Council, Charles Michel, had the same idea. The Polish Presidency of the EU Council, with its motto “Security Europe”, has said that one thing they want to touch upon is the common financing of defence. Also, seeing the second Trump administration with the 5% new guideline, which is a lot, and seeing what NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte said a few days ago in the European Parliament — that either we invest more or we need to take Russian classes or go to New Zealand — of course, he was very plastic. But the fact is, these things are sufficient incentives to believe that we will have a super budget on defence or a common financing based on the model that you, France and Germany, created with the recovery from the pandemic?

Nicolas Warnery: We are already shifting to a war economy. We are slowly, perhaps too slowly, but we are shifting from a peace economy to a form of war economy. It’s a transition, and we should go faster, in my opinion. I agree. By war economy, I mean that we are not at war ourselves, but we are helping a friendly, neighbouring country that is at war. Therefore, we have to adapt our industry and our armies to a situation of war in the neighbourhood. This is what I mean by war economy. Russia has already fully adapted and shifted to a war economy. Ukraine, of course, has done so as well. And if we want to continue helping Ukraine, we have to shift ourselves to this kind of war economy or deterrence-oriented economy. That’s for sure. This means we have to sacrifice certain things —holidays, consumption, luxury goods, or other non-essentials. And in every country, we are going to make this shift, I guess.

Peer Gebauer: You’re referring with your question to this issue of how to best finance the expenditures that are needed. I don’t think there is just one perfect solution. We need the money, that’s obvious. As I said before, it doesn’t fall from the sky, as you’ve phrased it. You cannot simply turn on the printing machines, print money, and expect this to buy you something in a sustainable way. Whether each member state individually invests its own money into defence or whether we all pool our resources together, this is a discussion that is ongoing in the European Union. In the end, there might be a mixture — I don’t know. But the point is, we need to have the money first. So, we must ensure that our economic strength is bolstered. This is absolutely crucial, tying back to the issue of competitiveness. And then, of course, just having money — whether it’s individual countries’ funds or joint European funds — is not enough if we cannot buy anything. We need to place significant emphasis on establishing and further developing our European industrial base, particularly our defence industry, which is now a key focus. These are the elements we are concentrating on. The issue of how to spend the money, whether through shared resources or individual expenditures, remains to be seen. I’m sure that the option of increasing debts will also be on the table. This will be all sorted out. But this alone is not enough. I believe the issue of strengthening our industrial base is far more important.

CaleaEuropeană.ro: To link the budget to the industrial base in order to establish, let’s say, a well-rounded circular economy where you not only have the money but also invest in buying European. Buying European with European money.

Peer Gebauer: Absolutely. Having a strong European defence industry, industrial champions – we already have a few, but we need more, and they need to broaden their industrial base – is the way to move forward. By the way, Romania is, of course, a partner for French and German defence industries, because this country has a great tradition in the defence industry and the capacity to produce. So, these are things we are working on. It is very important in this context to make Europe strong.

CaleaEuropeană.ro: And the fact that we have a strong relationship also in terms of military presence, for example, France is conducting and leading the NATO battlegroup, which will soon become a brigade this year, as I understand, and additionally, Germany is also present here.

Nicolas Warnery: There is a link between the military aspect and the armament aspect. It’s all linked, like Peer mentioned a few minutes ago. So, we have to develop common programs, produce equipment locally that was invented elsewhere, repair it there, maintain it there, and progressively develop common equipment, ideally speaking. The goal is to build a European industry of armament.

CaleaEuropeană.ro: For sure, Europe has proven how capable it is, because if we look at the financial support, the same amount or maybe more than the United States, the EU has supported Ukraine. Financially, there are more than 130 billion euros that were poured into Ukraine, and the EU helped Ukraine with that. Also, right now, Europe and the European Union signal that they are ready to cover Ukraine’s needs if somehow the US stumbles following the new Trump administration. At the same time, President Zelenskyy considers that European security guarantees without the US umbrella are not enough. From this point of view, do you think that Europe and the US will be on the same page when it comes to NATO, Ukraine, but also Russia and China, because we also need to deal with these two? Do you think that there is momentum for peace talks this year? You mentioned this earlier in a few answers ago. Is there a moment for these discussions, and how do you see the relationship with the US on that?

© CaleaEuropeană.ro/ Diana Zaim

Peer Gebauer: When it comes to the US, the new US administration, of course, we’ll have to see how this plays out. We will certainly provide ideas from our end and continue to be supportive of Ukraine. You’re mentioning Zelenskyy’s point that when it comes to a security umbrella, it’s a bit of a different angle compared to simply supporting Ukraine. This concerns how to guarantee a potential peace scenario or a ceasefire scenario. Then, of course, the US, given its military might, is a very crucial element from a Ukrainian perspective. Let’s see how things play out. We all know the various perceptions or expressions from the US administration. The incoming one, Trump, had earlier stated he might solve this issue in 24 hours, but I think the new line is a bit broader. The newly designated special envoy for Ukraine, General Kellogg, has spoken about maybe this year, or in a few months. We will see what drive the US administration can develop. I very strongly believe that this new incoming US administration will try to be a bold mover of things. We have seen it recently in the Middle East that already the arrival of a new administration might have been helpful for generating progress in a deal regarding ceasefire and hostage release. So, let’s see how this plays out. I think there’s a window of opportunity for moving ahead. But the conditions for finding a ceasefire solution, of course, will have to be worked out very precisely. Particularly with Ukraine, you cannot decide on Ukraine without Ukraine. I think this would be a big mistake.

Nicolas Warnery: Yes, I think the Trump administration already understood before taking office that a quick deal, or an easy deal, would be a tricky deal. They cannot reach that kind of solution very easily. But if there is a negotiation, it has to be with the Ukrainians, with us Europeans, because we will be part, probably, of the security guarantees offered to Ukraine, and, hopefully, with the Americans themselves. We will all be in the same boat. But there cannot be a deal made like that between two persons somewhere apart from Ukraine or Europe. It is not possible. It is simply not possible. It will not work. It should not work.

CaleaEuropeană.ro: We will all be on the same boat, but how do we work together on the same boat with a partner, I’m speaking about the United States, which, at certain moments, has put us on a reactive or defensive stance. How can we build trust with the United States when someone like Elon Musk wants to play with Europe like his own backyard? We’ve seen how he’s spoken about Germany, about France, of course.

Nicolas Warnery: We have to be strong and united. Mr. Musk has not been elected by anyone. So, he’s just a businessman, and he has to respect our national and European regulations. I think he will. This is part of his communication strategy. I mean, he’s a man of communication. I’m not sure that show-off is the proper term, but it’s some kind of posturing or setting the stage for negotiations before actually entering them. But when we do enter negotiations, I’m sure he will be realistic.

Peer Gebauer: We see a change in communication. Absolutely. It’s as you said: people have different communication styles. So, the incoming administration has a different style of communicating. The key for us is to ensure that our interests are met and respected by being strong. This is very simple and very clear. We are already working on that. We have to do as much as we can. But if we are economically and militarily strong, then we will be a valuable partner. And we will make sure that any administration on the other side of the Atlantic will see the added value in cooperating with Europe.

CaleaEuropeană.ro: Well, I must say that usually, when I did these types of interviews, the last question was usually the cherry on top of the cake. And it was about Romania’s accession into Schengen. But now, since we fulfilled in Schengen, we don’t have that question anymore. And also, thanks to France and Germany, Romania has managed to achieve this success. However, I have to say that we ended 2024 with President Steinmeier’s speech dissolving the parliament and calling for snap elections, he warned about malign and foreign interferences against democracies, citing Romania’s elections and the annulment of the presidential elections. At the Conference of Ambassadors that you mentioned, President Macron once again invoked that Romania’s top court had to take an unprecedented move in annulling the elections because of Russian foreign interference and state-acted foreign interference. As top diplomats of Romania’s most important European partners, how do you assess what’s happening now to and for Romania? Are you worried or do you see Romania capable to wave down anti-NATO and anti-EU shocks?

© CaleaEuropeană.ro/ Diana Zaim

Peer Gebauer: Nobody has a guarantee for anything in terms of the development of an individual country. I wouldn’t, you know, think too much about worst-case scenarios. I think Romania has proven over the years to be an extremely valuable, reliable, and constructive NATO ally, EU partner, and friend — individually for France, for Germany, but of course also in NATO and the EU. And every indication I have tells me that we are on a good track to continue to have Romania as a partner in this sense. This is absolutely important. And Romania has, over the last years, I think, impressively improved its foreign policy standing. We’ve spoken about Schengen. I mean, it’s a great success, well-deserved and should have come earlier. You had to work hard, you did your homework, and you were rewarded. The CVM has been lifted a few years ago. OECD accession is on an excellent track. Visa waiver now, another check in the box. Romania is a sought-after partner when it comes to negotiating and talking about issues like the Black Sea, Moldova, and the developments in Ukraine. So, this contrasts a bit with the fact that there is an anti-governmental sentiment in Romania. It makes one wonder. So, it’s interesting why these developments are nevertheless not fully acknowledged by more people. Why is this the case? I believe one element we’ve touched upon numerous times is malign interference from our enemies — Russia, to name the foremost — which is twisting the truth, fueling discontent here and there. But of course, there’s also an element of politics on the national level, whether Romanian, French, or German, and of course, on the European level as well., We need to address people’s needs more effectively. And I think “simplification” was the term you’ve used for President Macron’s speech. We need to concentrate more on what’s really relevant. Perhaps we have put too much emphasis and focus on side topics. But right now, it is not the time to focus on whatever might be less important. Concentrate on security, on the economy, and on making sure that our democratic systems stay resilient and safe.

Nicolas Warnery: I would say, just in a few words, that I’m confident Romania will not leave the European Union or NATO, especially considering that the only country to have left the European Union a few years ago is regretting it very much.

Finance Minister Tanczos Barna is attending his first ECOFIN Council meeting, which will address a number of key topics for EU economic and financial policy, with a focus on competitiveness, regulation, economic governance and support for economic recovery. Member states are also expected to endorse the Council’s recommendations on Romania’s medium-term budgetary and structural plan.

“It is a huge opportunity for Romania that, as a result of the negotiations, we have a 7-year budget deficit adjustment period instead of 4 years. This smooth reduction of the deficit, at a slow speed that does not produce imbalances, allows the implementation of a massive investment budget. We need to provide predictability in the fiscal system, manage public finances efficiently, keep the running costs of the State and its institutions under control, and have a leaner State that works for the citizens. At the same time, by approving the Fiscal Plan, we eliminate the risk of suspending european funds. Thus, we will continue to invest in highways and roads, hospitals, schools, water and sewage systems and we will be able to maintain an economic growth trajectory“, wrote the Minister of Finance shortly after the ECOFIN meeting.

Medium-term plans are the foundation of the new economic governance framework. Integrating budgetary, reform and investment objectives into a single medium-term plan creates a coherent and streamlined process.

Read also: European Semester: European Commission approves Romania’s medium-term plan. It “sets out a credible budgetary path”

• Romania’s medium-term plan assessed positively by the European Commission. The European executive considers that Romania’s plan meets the requirements of the new framework, setting a credible budgetary path to ensure that our country’s debt is placed on a sustainable downward trajectory or maintained at prudent levels.
• The European Commission has assessed that the measures included by our country in the medium-term plan met the criteria to justify an extension of the budget deficit adjustment period from four to seven years.

European Union economy and finance ministers meet in Brussels on Tuesday, January 21, for the Economic and Financial Affairs Council (ECOFIN), under the Polish presidency of the EU Council.

The Council is expected to adopt recommendations regarding medium-term fiscal-structural plans in the context of the implementation of the economic governance framework.

The Council is also expected to adopt recommendations for member states that are currently under an excessive deficit procedure to take effective action to correct their deficit within a given time period.

Calea Europeană expresses solidarity with journalists attacked by representatives of extremist forces in the Romanian Parliament and calls on Romanian state institutions to safeguard press freedom, emphasizing their duty to uphold democratic values and the rule of law in a country that is a member of the European Union and NATO.

The acts of aggression against journalists, including colleagues from Antena 3 CNN and Euronews Romania, represent a direct attack on press freedom, one of the fundamental pillars of democracy. In the context of Romania’s EU and NATO membership, such incidents not only undermine democratic values but also harm the country’s international reputation.

Press freedom is a right enshrined in Romania’s Constitution and an essential principle of the rule of law that must be prioritized for protection. Extremist actions occurring in a space dedicated to democracy, such as Parliament, raise serious concerns about tolerance for radical discourse and the dangers it poses to society. In this regard, Calea Europeană urges Romanian state institutions to implement strict measures to prevent similar incidents and to hold perpetrators accountable.

In the spirit of democratic values, Calea Europeană reaffirms the importance of a free and independent press, which is essential for the functioning of genuine democracy.

Without press freedom, there is no democracy!