Romanian hard-right presidential candidate challenges election defeat
May 21 (Reuters) - Romania's defeated hard-right presidential contender George Simion said late on Tuesday that he would challenge the ballot's result, alleging interference by France and Moldova, after a centrist victory was met with relief by many European leaders.
Centrist Bucharest mayor Nicusor Dan recovered ground to win the country's presidential election run-off on Sunday, securing about 54% of ballots cast against 46% for Simion, who had pledged to put Romania on a path inspired by U.S. President Donald Trump's politics.
Simion had earlier conceded defeat, after initially saying he won.
But late on Tuesday he said in a post on X: "I officially ask Constitutional Court TO ANNUL Romanian presidential elections."
European Union and NATO member Romania was plunged into a constitutional crisis in December when its top court annulled an ongoing presidential election that another hard-right candidate was on track to win, citing suspicions of Russian meddling. Moscow denied the allegations.
In his X post Simion said he was challenging this month's result, "For the very reasons December elections were annulled: EXTERNAL INTERFERENCES by state and non-state actors." He added that "Neither France, nor Moldova, nor anyone else has the right to interfere in the elections of another state."
The Romanian electoral commission did not immediately respond to an emailed request for comment.
On Sunday Pavel Durov, the founder of the Telegram messaging app, accused the head of France's foreign intelligence agency of asking him to ban Romanian conservative voices ahead of the country's elections, saying he refused the request.
France's DGSE foreign spy agency denied the allegation.
In a post on X referring to Simion's comments, Durov said he was "ready to come and testify if it helps Romanian democracy."
Romanian news website Biziday also cited Simion accusing Moldova of interfering in the ballot by buying votes. The Moldovan foreign ministry did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
23 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Boris Johnson: ‘Feeble' defence budget will leave us at Russia's mercy
Boris Johnson has said Labour's 'feeble' spending on defence leaves Britain at the mercy of Russia. The former prime minister told The Telegraph that Rachel Reeves's claims that defence spending would rise to 2.6 per cent of GDP by 2027 had left him 'very puzzled' and that the Chancellor's reluctance to pump more money into the sector suggested she did not view it as a priority. On Wednesday, Ms Reeves said defence spending would rise to 2.6 per cent by April 2027, but did not confirm whether it would climb higher, as demanded by Nato. 'This is feeble,' Mr Johnson said. 'They [Labour] have wasted a big opportunity. 'My view is that this Government is completely failing to show the leadership that is needed to defend Britain and defend Europe. 'Labour are congenitally hostile to defence spending. Their grass roots are still basically Corbynistas who think Russia is a great thing. Those views are still highly influential in Labour.' At the start of this year, Sir Keir Starmer pledged to send British troops into Ukraine in the event that a ceasefire between the two warring nations was negotiated by Donald Trump. A ' coalition of the willing ' was also established between European nations, with the UK said to be leading the group that would establish a road to peace in Ukraine. However, talk on both of these subjects appears to have gone quiet. Mr Johnson, who was prime minister when Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in Feb 2022, and has remained close with Volodymyr Zelensky, the Ukrainian president, since leaving government, said: 'What's happened to the boots on the ground initiative? 'As with Ukraine, the way to peace is through strength. If you talk to people in Ukraine or the US, they will say leadership on protecting Ukraine is now being offered by Germany and France.' Mr Johnson also said the Chancellor's increase in the welfare budget was 'out of control' and that such sums should be invested in defence instead. At a summit in the Hague later this month, which Mr Trump will attend, all Nato members will be expected to agree to committing 5 per cent of GDP on defence. Mark Rutte, the Nato secretary-general, has called for all alliance members to get to 3.5 per cent by 2032 and 5 per cent by an unspecified date. Earlier this week, Mr Rutte told The Telegraph that if Nato nations failed to achieve this percentage, then they needed ' to start learning to speak Russian '. Ms Reeves told the Commons: 'A new era in the threats we face demands a new era for defence and security. That's why we took the decision to prioritise our defence spending by reducing overseas development aid so that defence spending will now rise to 2.6 per cent of GDP by April 2027, including the contribution of our intelligence agencies. 'That uplift provides funding for the Defence Secretary, with a £11 billion increase in defence spending and a £600 milllion uplift for our security and intelligence agencies.' However, Tory sources claimed that by adding the single intelligence agencies budget in with the defence budget, it was eating into what money was left for the Armed Forces and did not account for 2.5 per cent of GDP on defence. 'Labour have taken money from a different department and pretended it was going to the Armed Forces,' one said. However, a Labour source accused the Tories of 'getting their numbers wrong' and insisted Wednesday's announcement was 'not a cut to defence' based on the Nato qualifying spend.
The Guardian
40 minutes ago
- The Guardian
MPs call for inquiry into how RedBird Capital is funding £500m Telegraph deal
A cross-party group of MPs and peers has called on ministers to investigate how a US private equity company is funding its £500m takeover of the Telegraph. In a letter sent to the culture secretary, Lisa Nandy, last week, the MPs said there was a risk of 'potential Chinese state influence' in RedBird Capital. They said the firm's chair, John Thornton, sat on the advisory council of China's sovereign wealth fund and had high-level meetings with Chinese Communist party figures in 2024 and this year. RedBird Capital announced last month it had agreed a deal to buy the Daily and Sunday Telegraph, ending two years of uncertainty over the future of the titles. The MPs' letter said there was 'a lack of transparency regarding the source of the funds behind this acquisition' and that it was 'conceivable, and increasingly likely, that funds could be sourced directly or indirectly from foreign state actors' including China. A source close to RedBird said there were no Chinese state funds involved in the deal. The letter to Nandy was signed by six Conservative MPs including Iain Duncan Smith and Tom Tugendhat, the Labour MPs Alex Sobel and Marie Rimmer, the Liberal Democrats' Christine Jardine and the Scottish National party's Chris Law. The Tory peers Kevin Shinkwin and Catherine Meyer and the crossbenchers Frances D'Souza and David Alton were also among the signatories. They called on Nandy to 'initiate a full and transparent investigation into the acquisition', consider its national security implications and review Thornton's 'suitability in owning and controlling a UK media outlet'. It is understood that although the proposed deal will eventually need regulatory approval, no proposal has been submitted to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) for review yet. Only a commercial agreement in principle has been reached. While RedBird Capital has been in talks with additional investors in the US and UK, the deal is fully funded and not contingent on them coming onboard. RedBird Capital will become the sole controlling owner. The US private equity group is buying the Telegraph titles from RedBird IMI, which took control of the newspapers in November 2023 after agreeing to pay debts owed by the previous owners the Barclay family. RedBird Capital contributed a quarter of the funding to RedBird IMI, with the other three-quarters funded by International Media Investments (IMI), a company owned by Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan, the owner of Manchester City. Sign up to Business Today Get set for the working day – we'll point you to all the business news and analysis you need every morning after newsletter promotion Sheikh Mansour is vice-president of the United Arab Emirates, and concerns over the consortium's links to Abu Dhabi prompted a campaign against the takeover that culminated in the UK government introducing a law in March last year blocking foreign states or associated individuals from owning British newspaper assets. This forced RedBird IMI to put the titles back up for sale. Under the legislation, which is still going through parliament, ministers said they would allow foreign states to own stakes of up to 15% in British newspapers. Subject to the legislation, under RedBird Capital's acquisition IMI would be reduced to a minority stake in line with the new cap. The MPs and peers' letter said allowing the sale to go through would make a mockery of the legislation, adding: 'Those who have invested in RedBird should surely be known before any final sale approval can be allowed.' The DCMS was contacted for comment.
The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
Geert Wilders collapsed the Dutch government. He wanted power, but had no idea how to govern
Earlier this month, Geert Wilders decided he had had enough. 'No signature for our asylum plans. No changes to the coalition agreement. The PVV is leaving the coalition,' he posted on X. After 11 months, he was withdrawing support for the Dutch prime minister Dick Schoof's rightwing cabinet, forcing the Netherlands back to the polls. The decision put an end to Wilders' far-right Freedom party's (PVV) first spell in power. Following an unexpected victory in the 2023 elections, the PVV joined a government for the first time in its 18-year history – alongside the conservative-liberal People's Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD), the centrist New Social Contract (NSC), and the agrarian-populist Farmer–Citizen Movement (BBB) – although Wilders's coalition partners did not let him become prime minister. But the promise to drastically reduce immigration and implement a strict asylum policy proved difficult to deliver due to numerous constitutional and legal restrictions. The Netherlands now faces a familiar question: What is the 61-year-old politician trying to achieve – and how? Looking solely at his political platform, the answer seems relatively clear. With its emphasis on immigration, national identity, sovereignty, more direct democracy and stricter law enforcement, the PVV is a fairly typical radical rightwing populist party. In the European parliament, the PVV belongs to the Patriots for Europe group, alongside Marine Le Pen's National Rally, Viktor Orbán's Fidesz and Matteo Salvini's League. Within that circle, Wilders is one of the most prominent and pioneering ideologues, introducing a highly alarmist caricature of Islam as a totalitarian ideology of conquest. 'Walk the streets of western Europe today … and you will often see something resembling a medieval Arab city, full of headscarves and burqas … Mass immigration is rapidly changing our culture and identity. Islam is rising, and I do not want Islam to rise! Islam and freedom are incompatible,' he proclaimed in his keynote speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Budapest in May. In Wilders' worldview, Israel is the primary defender of western freedom against Islam and therefore deserves unconditional support. 'If Jerusalem falls, Athens, Paris, or Amsterdam are next,' he said in the Dutch parliament last week. 'Western mothers can sleep peacefully because the mothers of Israeli soldiers lie awake.' Wilders' anti-Islam crusade soon clashed with the Dutch constitution, which guarantees freedom of religion. To join the coalition, he put his most extreme positions 'in the freezer', as he described it – including a ban on the Qur'an and the closure of all mosques. Instead, he focused on curbing asylum migration from Muslim countries, repatriating Syrians and supporting Israeli military actions in Gaza and the West Bank (he consistently refers to the latter as Judea and Samaria). Yet, even in these areas, he faced setbacks. Under pressure from parliament and public opinion, the Dutch foreign minister, Caspar Veldkamp, has recently adopted a slightly more critical stance toward the Israeli government – much to Wilders' displeasure. In justifying the fall of his cabinet, Wilders mainly blamed resistance from his coalition partners, the bureaucracy, the courts and the media. But the truth is, he also has himself to blame. Nearly 20 years after its launch in February 2006, the PVV is still hardly a political party in the conventional sense. Exploiting a loophole in Dutch electoral law, Wilders chose not to allow any formal members into his party. As a result, neither PVV ministers nor parliamentarians are actual members of the party. Ultimately, he has failed to build and lead a professional political organisation that is capable of governing. Wilders adopted his party's unusual structure partly out of fear of attracting opportunists and troublemakers. But according to many observers, he is also a deeply suspicious and solitary figure by nature, someone who prefers total control and avoids consultation. His permanent security detail, a result of a fatwa, has likely reinforced these traits and made it even harder to establish a party structure. 'If I wanted to speak to a candidate, it had to happen in a hidden hotel, on the sixth floor, with six policemen in front of my bedroom door,' he once claimed in an interview. As a result, the PVV remains entirely dependent on Wilders' personal political instincts. While parties such as National Rally, League and Fidesz have large organisations with tens of thousands of members, local chapters, professional offices and well-funded campaign machines, the PVV is little more than Wilders' small, tightly controlled entourage. When he wants to change direction, there is no party congress or critical internal faction he has to convince. This is an undeniable advantage in today's volatile political landscape, but its cost is high. First, the PVV remains poor. In the Netherlands, only parties with more than 1,000 members qualify for state subsidies. The impact of this underfunding is evident in its amateurish election campaigns, low-quality videos, clumsy communication and a lack of skilled personnel. Second, the party operates in near total opacity. Its hierarchy, finances and candidate selection process are a mystery not only to outsiders – politicians, journalists, lobbyists – but even to its own supporters. As a result, many potential candidates and volunteers shy away. Who is willing to risk their reputation for a career in such a controversial and opaque organisation? Who dares to become a minister or junior minister for a party that revolves entirely around the unpredictable whims of one man? When Wilders was required to nominate ministers, he discovered he had no capable candidates with administrative experience, an understanding of the Dutch political system or knowledge of the constitution. He had never invested in training his own people or building a network of future administrators. In desperation, he appointed a few loyal early followers such as Marjolein Faber as minister for asylum and immigration; she subsequently got herself embroiled in a scandal for refusing to sign off on royal honours for individuals who volunteered to help asylum seekers and falsely stating that Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy was not democratically elected (she retracted her words). Other PVV ministers also stood out mainly because of their blunders and incompetence. After the cabinet's collapse, his party's ministers seemed almost relieved when speaking to the press. They had been cast in roles they couldn't fulfil and never truly wanted. Wilders claims he wants to become prime minister after the next elections. But does he truly mean it? There is little evidence that he is taking the country's governance more seriously. After the failed experiment of the past months, future coalition partners will also take this aspect into account – this week the VVD ruled out entering another coalition this with this 'unbelievably untrustworthy partner'. It seems that Wilders, the solitary ideologue, is really more interested in opposition, where the burdens of responsibility are far lighter. Koen Vossen is a political historian and the author of The Power of Populism: Geert Wilders and the Party for Freedom in the Netherlands
