Hard-right candidate secures decisive win in Romania's presidential vote
Mr Simion, the 38-year-old leader of the Alliance for the Unity of Romanians (AUR), was well ahead with 40.5% of the vote after 99% of votes were counted from Sunday's vote.
Bucharest Mayor Nicusor Dan was trailing in second with 20.89%, with the governing coalition's joint candidate, Crin Antonescu, in third with 20.34%.
Mr Antonescu conceded defeat, saying he believes it is an 'irreversible result.'
Eleven candidates vied for the presidency and a runoff will be held on May 18 between the top two candidates.
By the time polls closed, about 9.57 million people — or 53.2% of eligible voters — had cast their ballots, according to the Central Election Bureau, with 973,000 votes cast at polling stations set up in other countries.
The rerun was held after a top court voided the previous election in which the far-right outsider Calin Georgescu topped the first round, following allegations of electoral violations and Russian interference, which Moscow has denied.
In a pre-recorded speech aired after polls closed, Mr Simion said that despite many obstacles, Romanians 'have risen up' and 'we are approaching an exceptional result.'
'I am here to restore constitutional order,' said Mr Simion, who came fourth in last year's race and later backed Mr Georgescu.
'I want democracy, I want normalcy, and I have a single objective: to give back to the Romanian people what was taken from them and to place at the centre of decision-making the ordinary, honest, dignified people.'
Mr Georgescu, who appeared alongside Mr Simion at a polling station on Sunday in the capital Bucharest called the vote rerun 'a fraud orchestrated by those who have made deceit the only state policy,' but said he was there to 'acknowledge the power of democracy, the power of the vote that frightens the system, that terrifies the system'.
The presidential role carries a five-year term and significant decision-making powers in national security and foreign policy.
The decision to annul the election and the ban on Mr Georgescu's candidacy drew criticism from US vice president JD Vance, Elon Musk and Russia, which publicly supported his candidacy in the rerun.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
6 minutes ago
- Spectator
How Russia is preparing for Putin's meeting with Trump
Amidst contradictory leaks and rumours coming from the US administration, no one is quite sure what to expect when Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin meet in Alaska on Friday – not even the Russian press. Nonetheless, they seem rather less convinced that Trump is about to stitch up the Ukrainians than the Western media. Of course, there is satisfaction at the prospect of Putin's first visit to the US since 2015. Facing a campaign intended to try and isolate Russia, Putin had just sent troops into Syria to reverse what seemed then the imminent collapse of the Assad regime, and with US assets also deployed in the area, then-president Barack Obama had had no choice but to meet his Russian counterpart on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly. The scenes of a clearly uncomfortable US president were met with delight by the Russian nationalists. One hawkish university professor even had a picture of it in his office, and when asked why, he grinned and told me: 'That was a meeting Obama didn't want to have, but we made him. We showed him that Russia could not be ignored.' There is a similar sense among the Russian media that for Putin simply to meet Trump is already a win for Russia. However, there is distinctly less triumphalism over the prospects of a deal to end the war and a sense that they are not getting a clear steer from the Kremlin. As usual, when the Russian press is faced with a politically sensitive topic without such guidance, they fall back on selectively picking from foreign press reports and experts to allow them to write something without actually hanging their own editorial hats on their positions. There are times when this is harder than others, and then all kinds of fringe YouTubers and similar random commentators are pressed into service to make the 'right' point safely. Thus, the most upbeat predictions are attributed to foreign commentators. Nezavisimaya Gazeta, for example, finds some suitable American professor willing to say that 'everyone knows' Zelensky will have to surrender territory, as he has no choice given Ukraine's 'lack of manpower, weapons, strategy, finances and fighting spirit'. (Most Russians at the front line might question that assessment, especially of fighting spirit.) In Vzglyad, the leader of the marginal French Eurosceptic Patriots party, Florian Philippot, is quoted as saying that 'the Europsychos are hysterical at the sight of approaching peace'. By contrast, editorial comment tends to be much more cautious. The business newspaper Vedomosti warns that 'immediate results and breakthroughs, especially in the Ukrainian direction, should not be expected yet'. Western readers might be surprised to read that while their media is focusing on the 'will they/won't they' drama of a potential deal over Ukraine, though, in Russia this is not necessarily being treated as the main story. Indeed, the nationalist Tsargrad news outlet cites a pundit claiming that '99 mper cent of the time, the conversations will not be about Ukraine at all.' Instead, Fyodor Lukyanov, one of Moscow's main foreign policy interpreters, focuses in the government newspaper Rossiiskaya Gazeta less on what the summit may mean for the war, and more on what it says about Russia's renewed standing as a great power. He examines the prospects for a new relationship with Trump's America, as the two leaders meet in isolated Alaska, 'removed from third parties… one on one, the rest of the world watching the stage from the auditorium, spellbound'. Even so, on every side there are cautions not to expect miracles. In Izvestia, Andrei Kortunov, one of the dwindling band of relatively liberal foreign policy academics, warned that 'the anti-Russian consensus in the United States remains broad and relatively stable' so that expectations ought to be moderated. To him: The value of the planned summit probably lies not in reaching some specific fateful agreements but in giving a new impetus to bilateral relations. In other words, to set in motion the heavy gears of cumbersome state mechanisms, which without such an impetus will not budge on their own. In other words, this is just the start of a process, at best, and one which many will be eager to derail. As a commentator notes in Rossiiskaya Gazeta, in Alaska, there may be 'no British spies, Ukrainian agents or European 'well-wishers' eager to disrupt the dialogue'. Nevertheless, the Russian press is united in highlighting the degree to which 'Russophobes' in Kyiv, in Washington, in London and in the European Union are briefing against the meeting now and will seek to undermine any outcomes they don't like after. The overall sense is far from the jubilation assumed in much Western coverage. On Ukraine, there is cautious optimism, but also an awareness that even if a deal is struck in Alaska, there are still many obstacles to the kind of peace that would be a victory for Russia. Of course, there is also an awareness that even if a deal is derailed by Kyiv, that is advantageous for Moscow as a chance to frame Kyiv and the Europeans as the warmongers. Yet there is a wider hope, quite possibly unrealistic, that regardless of that, some kind of new relationship, perhaps built on sanctions relief in return for privileged access to the Russian market and natural resources, can begin to be built with the US. And as for the Kremlin, it seems to be keeping its cards close to its chest, not even showing them to its tame newspapers.
Spectator
36 minutes ago
- Spectator
Could the Arctic be key to ending the Ukraine war?
'It is in Alaska and in the Arctic that the economic interests of our countries converge and prospects for implementing large-scale mutually beneficial projects arise,' said Yuri Ushakov, Vladimir Putin's long-time foreign policy adviser and former Russian ambassador to the United States, at a Friday press conference in Moscow. His words pointed to Arctic economic cooperation being firmly on the agenda when Donald Trump meets Vladimir Putin in Alaska on Friday. For Trump, a massively important commercial deal of this kind is his typical negotiating strategy. It's the 'Art of the Deal' – offer something big, lucrative and tangible, then leverage it to unlock political concessions. It's the template Trump just used to broker a peace agreement between Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo, where economic incentives were bound up with resolving a long-running security dispute. An Arctic agreement between the US and Russia could revive energy collaboration between the two countries on a breathtaking scale. A deal would be massively lucrative for both sides. The Arctic contains an estimated 13 per cent of the world's undiscovered oil, roughly 90 billion barrels, and 30 per cent of its undiscovered natural gas. Russia controls around half of that, with explorers pointing to 2,300 million metric tons of oil and condensate, and 35,700 billion cubic metres of gas. It's a bonanza tailor-made for Trump's America First. Parlay US expertise and capital into these frozen assets and the pay-off would be staggering. The shipping upside is no less compelling. The Northern Sea Route offers the promise of slashing shipping times between Asia and Europe by up to 50 per cent. As melting ice slowly opens the Arctic lanes, that cut becomes ever more real: less fuel burned, no queueing at chokepoints, and avoidance of piracy hotspots. Pair that with a fleet of US oil champions and Arctic logistics savvy, and Trump suddenly holds a commercial deal that has the feel of an irresistible boardroom trophy. The US and Russia have been here before. In 2011 ExxonMobil struck a landmark deal with Russia's Rosneft to explore and drill in the Russian Arctic, including the Kara Sea. It was a project worth tens of billions, giving Exxon access to vast untapped reserves and giving the Russians US technology and expertise. Drilling began, but the partnership was suspended in 2014 when western sanctions were imposed after Russia's annexation of Crimea. Bringing it back to life, or using it as the template for new ventures, would be straightforward in commercial terms. The infrastructure, geological data and corporate relationships already exist. A revived Arctic partnership could go beyond oil and gas to include liquefied natural gas terminals, port upgrades, and joint development of the Northern Sea Route, binding the two economies together in one of the last great frontiers for energy extraction. There is no confirmation that the Arctic and Ukraine will be explicitly linked. Yet the logic is obvious enough and the hints coming from Moscow cannot be ignored. For Putin, the Arctic could be the sweetener that secures US agreement to a settlement on his terms in Ukraine. Moscow is unlikely to shift on the fundamentals: Crimea and the Donbas are written into Russia's constitution as part of its territory. Any deal would lock in those gains, demand Ukraine's demilitarisation and secure a buffer against Nato. Trump could claim an Arctic deal as a massive commercial win for the US and the end of a war which he insists was caused by Biden. Putin could gain Washington's help in pushing Kyiv to accept the deal. Trump's leverage is blunt. Kyiv's very survival depends on American weapons and cash. By threatening to cut them off, Trump can force Zelensky to the table on terms Kyiv has long rejected. For Trump, this is straight from his negotiating playbook: create a crisis point, hold the most valuable card, and make sure everyone knows you are prepared to walk away. For Zelensky, the choice would be between accepting a peace agreement that leaves Ukraine truncated, or facing a war without US backing. Ukraine's position is fragile. Its army is drained, its economy battered, and its war effort hinges on western aid. European and UK promises mean little without US firepower and financing. If Trump decides to pivot towards an Arctic bargain with Putin, Kyiv may need to fall in line or face the battlefield more or less alone. Zelensky can draw red lines, but without American support they'll count for little. The EU and Britain would protest loudly, but they lack the leverage to block an American/Russian deal. Brussels, London, Paris and Berlin have all made clear that no settlement should be struck over Ukraine's head, yet moral objections are no substitute for raw power. British, French and German support for Ukraine may not make much of a difference to the Russian advance if the war were to drag on without full US support. Kyiv would be furious about a deal on the Arctic linked to Ukraine. Zelensky has built his presidency on reclaiming occupied land and has vowed never to cede Crimea or the Donbas. A deal that locks in those losses would be denounced as a betrayal. London would echo the outrage, while Brussels would convene summits and issue condemnations. Yet despite the rhetoric, the Europeans would be powerless to change the outcome. The settlement would already be signed and control of US financing of the war firmly in Trump's hands. Beyond the western alliance, the reaction would be far warmer. Much of the global south sees the war in Ukraine less as a clash over borders, and more as a drag on global trade and growth. For China, India and Brazil, an end to the war, even entirely on Russia's terms, would be hailed as pragmatic diplomacy. Trump could present the Arctic bargain as proof that US-Russia cooperation can solve global problems, and this would help blunt criticism from Europe and the UK. The incentives for both Trump and Putin line up neatly. For Trump, it would be another Trump 'deal' in which commercial muscle underwrites a political settlement. Putin would keep his territorial gains and reopen the Arctic to US investment, and Ukraine would be left to make the best of a settlement it didn't shape. Britain and the EU would be reduced to a role of bystanders.
Scotsman
2 hours ago
- Scotsman
Nicola Sturgeon says her sexuality is not 'binary' as she addresses gay affair rumours
The former first minister said 'wild' tales of her secret relationship with a woman are untrue Sign up to our Politics newsletter Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... Nicola Sturgeon has said her sexuality is not 'binary' as she addressed rumours of a gay affair in detail for the first time. In an extract from her new memoir published in The Times, the former first minister said the 'wild' story was untrue, but admitted it did get under her skin. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad There have long been claims on social media that Ms Sturgeon is having a secret relationship with a woman. Nicola Sturgeon pictured with Catherine Colonna, the woman she was wrongly claimed to be having a 'torrid' affair with | Scottish Government / Flickr 'There were slightly different versions of the story, but the consistent theme seemed to be that I was having a torrid lesbian affair with the woman who was at that time the French ambassador to the UK, and who would later become the French Foreign Minister, Catherine Colonna,' Ms Sturgeon wrote. Variants of the story featured a 'violent encounter' between the pair involving an iron in Edinburgh's Balmoral Hotel, as well as the use of a house bought from Andy Murray's mum, Judy. 'Normally, I wouldn't have known nor cared about wild stories from the darker recesses of social media, and, if this one had stayed there, it would have been easy to ignore,' Ms Sturgeon wrote. 'But by late 2019 it was being openly talked about.' Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad She added: 'It reached a head in February 2020, when the social media site Guido Fawkes tweeted to the effect that a salacious story about my private life was only still secret because I had a superinjunction in place to stop it being reported. I was furious. It was a blatant lie. Not only was there no superinjunction in place, but such a legal remedy isn't even available in Scots law.' Ms Sturgeon said she and Ms Colonna laughed about the rumour when they met after lockdown. However, she also argued the saga raised 'serious issues'. She wrote: 'How do fake stories like this take root in social media? Did some Russian bot factory concoct a made-up story? Who knows? Then, of course, there is the blatant homophobia at the heart of the 'story'. 'For many of those peddling it, 'lesbian' and 'gay' are meant as insults. However, while the fact I was being lied about got under my skin, the nature of the insult itself was water off a duck's back. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad 'Long-term relationships with men have accounted for more than 30 years of my life, but I have never considered sexuality, my own included, to be binary. Moreover, sexual relationships should be private matters.' Ms Sturgeon's new memoir, Frankly, is published on Thursday next week. Elsewhere in the book, she said the day she was arrested as part of the police investigation into the SNP's finances - June 11, 2023 - was the worst day of her life. 'Being arrested and questioned by the police is an experience I'm not sure I will ever get over,' she wrote. 'When I eventually left the police station, late that afternoon, I was in a bad state mentally.' Ms Sturgeon was cleared as a suspect in the investigation in March this year. She wrote that being 'the subject of a high-profile criminal investigation for almost two years, especially having committed no crime, was like a form of mental torture'. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Her estranged husband, Peter Murrell, has appeared in court charged with embezzlement. The former first minister also opens up in the memoir about her miscarriage in early 2011. She wrote about being 'consumed by guilt' because of her conflicted feelings about the pregnancy, and her initial worry about the impact on her political role. 'We later resolved to try again, but I knew then that we had lost our one chance,' Ms Sturgeon wrote. 'I was desolate and heartbroken for myself, but more so for Peter. 'I was consumed by guilt all over again, convinced that it was all my fault, that the stress of worrying about the impact on the election had caused the miscarriage; that I was being punished for not wanting the baby badly enough, for having even wished it away. These feelings have never quite left me.' Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Ms Sturgeon said she believed the baby would have been a girl, called Isla. 'I don't want to give the impression that I am full of regret at not having children,' she said. 'I'm not. If I could turn the clock back and make it so, I would choose to have a child, but only if I could still do the other things I've been able to do too. I don't feel that my life is worth less.
