By Renata Ciomanu
Romania’s partial accession to the Schengen area is an interesting topic with contrasting evaluation both in the public and among experts. Some say the country simply did not fulfil criteria for a full accession, others are echoing the rejection comes from certain member states and is fuelled by economic interest. One thing is sure: political agenda cannot be left out when examining the decision.
Most Romanians believe that Romania has benefited from accession to the EU. More than half of the participants in a survey claimed that the country had more to gain from integration than it had had a negative impact. However, it is interesting that older people, including those with lower educational qualifications, and those living in rural areas and people living in Moldova claim that Romania has had more to lose. But the majority, the middle-aged and the young, including those with higher education, clearly believe that it has only been negative and that Romania has won nothing by joining the EU.
As far as the accession to the Schengen Area – making free movement of people, services and capital inside the EU possible – is concerned, a lot of people think that this is a source of all kinds of frustration. 80% of the population thinks that Romania would benefit from being a fully-fledged member of the Schengen Area, but only half of them think that the possibility even exists. Many analyses show that Romania was not included completely in the Schengen area because it did not fulfill all the necessary criteria, but the majority of the analysts are of the opinion that Romania has met all the requirements, but some European states are blocking full Schengen access for economic reasons.
Political or Objective Rejection?
According to the director of INSCOP Research, one of the opinion polling firms, the majority of Romanians, are of the opinion that partial accession (without land borders) to the Schengen area was defined by certain European states, with only 30% of them believing that Romania has not fulfilled all the conditions for joining the land borders. According to Remus Stefureac, the frustration of the population on this issue remains high and fully justified, given that neither the blocking of access to the Schengen area for many years, nor the partial accession has been credibly explained by some states which are hostile to Romania. However, he believes that this sentiment is reinforced by the fact that at present only one country, Austria, is blocking accession with land borders, with the majority of the Member States and all the European institutions once again expressing their support for full accession.
In the meantime, there are, of course, some specific cases that support these analytical findings. The Ministry of the Interior has drawn up an emergency draft regulation under which individuals under house arrest or under judicial control can be monitored by electronic bracelets, one of the objectives of the measure being to reduce the number of people fleeing the country to evade prison sentences. The emergency regulation amends the Law on Electronic Surveillance, which only provided for the use of electronic surveillance in those categories from 1 January 2026. The measure is necessary because of Romania’s accession to the Schengen area bordering on air and sea borders, which would prevent the people awaiting their judgment from escaping the country.
Brain Drain: A Central Problem
Romania’s partial entry into the Schengen area has also brought about great difficulties: the labor force that has so far found a livelihood in Romania will go to the European labor market. At the moment Romania is the second country in the world ranking after Syria, from which the workforce is leaving by mass, obviously, joining will not help the ongoing, serious situation. In practice, the Romanians left the country before joining Schengen, and now those who came from other countries, namely migrants, have started to leave. One analyst said that brain drain is slowly becoming a national feature, being overshadowed by another worrying factor: the reorientation of foreigners currently working in Romania for the European labor market. Specifically, these are non-EU nationals who are now on the way to Europe, where they are catered for with better pay and better working conditions.
The EU is not Innocent in the Matter, Either
There is no answer to the problem the situation poses. Although it is suggested that Romania has some work to do, there are also those, who blame the EU, saying that the reception of refugees in Europe is only further increasing the problem. The other suggestion that was raised in the Romanian press is to reconsider the principle of solidarity, to have a European budget that is too tight for the objectives set, to clarify who should bear the costs of the changeover and the financial support of ordinary people. It is believed that we can talk about European money in vain if ordinary people do not feel their personal presence in their community, in renovated schools, in new hospitals, in better ways, in lower bills, in the aid of small companies.
In the meantime, the Alliance for the Union of Romanians (AUR) has launched a memorandum opposing the re-election of Ursula von der Leyen as President of the European Commission. The initiative was the result of an international conference called ‘Make Europe Great Again’, which was held in Bucharest at the end of April this year. The memorandum was presented a month later in Brussels by the candidates for the AUR elections to the European Parliament, Cristian Terheș and Adrian Axinia. Mr. Borhes also spoke of the abuses at EU level, with the President of the European Commission dismissing the candidates against Ursula von der Leyen. As said, all conservative candidates were absolutely excluded from the debate, so that Ursula von der Leyen would remain the only representative of the European false right and enter into a debate with the left. “Here we are today: five years ago the EU was led by Ursula von der Leyen and we see where it ended: more bureaucracy, poverty, less freedom and prosperity and less security. We express our indignation at the fact that genuinely conservative candidates have been excluded from the debate on the position of President of the European Commission. I’m the one who opened the world-wide contract, in this case, with the companies Pfizer and Moderna. We still do not know exactly what it is all about,” said Cristian Terhes at a press conference.
Europe: A Progressive Autocracy?
Adrian Axinia said the European project is suffering because of a lack of democracy. He believes that Europe is currently under an autocratic regime and that the party no longer wants Ursula von der Leyen to lead the European Commission. According to Axinia, von der Leyen has introduced the progressivism that has characterized Europe for five years and which has become a dominant ideology and has been encouraged until it has suppressed the traditional values of a Christian and democratic Europe. “Ursula von der Leyen has allowed the EU to be hijacked and run by faceless bureaucrats who often have more power than democratically elected MEPs. The EU is more fragile than ever against the war; we have no foreign policy response. The corruption scandals at the top of the EU have shown how easy it is for EU officials to be bribed by countries in the Middle East,” said Adrian Axinia.
The same day, there was a demonstration against Ursula von der Leyen, organized by Belgian civilians, which was also attended by the AUR.
