Markus Andrews

Romanians are casting ballots Sunday in a tense presidential runoff between a hard-right nationalist and a pro-Western centrist in a high-stakes election rerun that could determine the geopolitical direction of the European Union and NATO member country.Sunday’s race pits front-runner George Simion, the 38-year-old leader of the hard-right Alliance for the Unity of Romanians, or AUR, against incumbent Bucharest Mayor Nicusor Dan. It comes months after the cancelation of the previous election plunged Romania into its worst political crisis in decades.Polls opened at 7 a.m. (0400 GMT) local time and will close at 9 p.m. (1800 GMT). Romanians abroad have been able to vote since Friday at polling stations set up in other countries, and more than 730,000 have already cast ballots.Romania’s political landscape was upended last year when a top court voided the previous election after far-right outsider Calin Georgescu topped first-round polls, following allegations of electoral violations and Russian interference, which Moscow denied.Years of endemic corruption and growing anger toward Romania’s political establishment have fueled a surge in support for anti-establishment and hard-right figures, reflecting a broader pattern across Europe. Both Simion and Dan have made their political careers railing against Romania’s old political class.Most recent local surveys indicate the runoff will be tight, after earlier ones showed Simion holding a lead over Dan, a 55-year-old mathematician who rose to prominence as a civic activist fighting against illegal real estate projects.Turnout is typically higher in the final round of Romanian presidential elections, and is expected to play a decisive role in the outcome on Sunday. In the first round on May 4, final turnout stood at 9.5 million, or 53% of eligible voters, according to official electoral data.Dan founded the reformist Save Romania Union party in 2016 but later left, and is running independently on a pro-EU ticket reaffirming Western ties, support for Ukraine and fiscal reform.The presidential role carries a five-year term and significant decision-making powers in national security and foreign policy. The winner of Sunday’s race will be charged with nominating a new prime minister after Marcel Ciolacu stepped down following the failure of his coalition’s candidate to advance to the runoff.After coming fourth in last year’s canceled race, Simion backed Georgescu who was banned in March from standing in the redo. Simion then surged to front-runner in the May 4 first round after becoming the standard-bearer for the hard right.Simion, also a former activist who campaigned for reunification with neighboring Moldova, says he would focus on reforms: slashing red tape, reducing bureaucracy and taxes. But he insists that his main goal is to restore democracy. “My platform is to return to democracy, to the will of the people,” he said.The AUR party he leads says it stands for “family, nation, faith, and freedom” and rose to prominence in a 2020 parliamentary election. It has since grown to become the second-largest party in the Romanian legislature.To his critics, Simion is a pro-Russian extremist who threatens Romania’s longstanding alliances in the EU and NATO. But in an Associated Press interview, he rejected the accusations, saying Russia is his country’s biggest threat and that he wants Romania to be treated as “equal partners” in Brussels.“I don’t think he is a pro-Russian candidate, I also don’t think that he’s an anti-Russian candidate,” said Claudiu Tufis, an associate professor of political science at the University of Bucharest. “I think what is driving him is … his focus on what I call identity politics.”In the first-round vote, Simion won a massive 61% of Romania’s large diaspora vote, with his calls to patriotism resonating with Romanians who moved abroad in search of better opportunities.Hours after voting opened Friday, Simion accused the Moldovan government of election fraud, claims that were quickly rejected by Moldovan and Romanian authorities. “These statements are intended to sow distrust and hostility, with the aim of influencing the election process,” Romania’s Foreign Ministry said in a statement. More

Keir Starmer meets with Ursula Von der Leyen in Albania in 11th hour Brexit reset talksSir Keir Starmer’s government has been urged to be “bold in its offer to the EU” in order to “maximise benefits” from his reset plans, as MPs criticised his “secretive” approach.As the prime minister prepares to host the first UK-EU summit on Monday, where he hopes to make significant progress on a deal, a cross-party group of MPs warned that his efforts were being hampered by a “perceived absence of a strategic vision”.In a letter to Sir Keir Starmer, the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee said the lack of a “compelling political narrative” had left those outside Westminster unclear about British policy and unconvinced of the “strategic importance” of making the reset a success.Urging the government to be bolder, committee chair Dame Emily Thornberry said: “We should be clear about what it is that we want and act with a little less caution and a lot more confidence. If we do this, there is every reason to believe the EU will respond positively.”Starmer vows closer EU ties will be good for jobs and living standardsSir Keir Starmer has said that closer ties with the EU will be good for the UK’s jobs, bills and borders ahead of a London summit on Monday at which he could announce a deal with the bloc.The prime minister said: “In this time of great uncertainty and volatility, the UK will not respond by turning inwards but by proudly taking our place on the world stage – strengthening our alliances and closing deals in the interests of British people.“First India, then the United States – in the last two weeks alone that’s jobs saved, faster growth and wages rising. More money in the pockets of British working people, achieved through striking deals not striking poses.“Tomorrow, we take another step forwards, with yet more benefits for the United Kingdom as the result of a strengthened partnership with the European Union. It will be good for our jobs, good for our bills and good for our borders.“That’s what the British people voted for last year, and it’s what my government will deliver.”The Prime Minister announced changes to the immigration system on Monday (Ian Vogler/PA) More

A £25bn annual boost to British exports is at stake for Sir Keir Starmer as he tries to secure a Brexit reset deal at a crucial summit on Monday, analysis shared with The Independent reveals.Removing trade barriers on goods, including food and drink and electrical items, could result in a 2.2 per cent uplift in gross domestic product in the long run, boosting the economic growth the prime minister so desperately wants to deliver, financial analysts Frontier Economics found.And a separate assessment by the National Institute for Economic and Social Research (NIESR) warns that a failure to land a deal for easier trading could lead to a 2.7 per cent drop in exports by 2027, costing the UK economy almost £30bn.The impact on the British economy from such a deal is expected to dwarf that of the agreements recently signed with India and the US.Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer with President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen ahead of their bilateral meeting More

Sir Keir Starmer is facing calls from hundreds of MPs and peers to ban Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) amid a deteriorating human rights picture in the UK and after three Iranian men were charged with spying in London. Former Labour leader Lord Kinnock is among those urging the prime minister to outlaw the IRGC, warning “the human rights crisis in Iran continues to worsen”. It came as three Iranian men living in London were charged under the National Security Act, accused of engaging in conduct likely to assist a foreign intelligence service.Keir Starmer is facing calls to ban the IRGC More

Sir Keir Starmer has been accused of shutting European news outlets out of his much-hyped EU-UK summit on Monday. With the prime minister set to unveil his post-Brexit reset plans alongside Brussels leaders, the Foreign Press Association (FPA) has said “almost every European news outlet” with a foreign correspondent in London has been denied access to the summit. In a letter sent to Downing Street the FPA, which represents foreign journalists based in the UK, said: “Sir Keir Starmer, you state that you want a reset with the EU. You organise a summit between the UK and the EU to restart the relationship.Sir Keir Starmer has been accused of shutting foreign press out of Monday’s summit More

The Labour chair of the Commons foreign affairs committee has urged Keir Starmer to be “courageous” in resetting his relationship with Europe to tackle the “suffering” caused by Brexit. Dame Emily Thornberry, who was a member of the prime minister’s shadow cabinet in opposition, said economic growth had been “severely compromised” by trade barriers created by the UK leaving the EU. Brexit is on course to cost 4 per cent of Gross Domestic Product per year, according to official statistics from the government’s Office for Budget Responsibility. The Labour leader is scrambling to avert a crisis facing his much-vaunted Brexit reset deal with the EU, due to be unveiled at a summit in London on Monday. Sir Keir held 11th-hour talks with EU boss Ursula von der Leyen and French leader Emmanuel Macron on Friday on the fringes of the European Political Community (EPC) summit in Albania, amid fears an agreement to secure closer ties could be derailed with just days to go.Officials are in deadlock over issues including a demand from EU states for EU students to pay lower British tuition fee rates for universities, which could cost the UK an estimated £1bn, while President Macron is also leading a charge for demands that EU fishermen can fish in British waters as part of a deal to allow trade barriers to be removed.Dame Emily Thornberry says the government needs to be ‘going further’ More

Keir Starmer is poised to reverse controversial reforms to his government’s infamous winter fuel payment cuts as soon as June, according to reports. The move could allow the party to repair its damaged relationship with voters, and tackle the threat from Nigel Farage and Reform. Rachel Reeves’ decision to strip ten million pensioners of the payment within weeks of taking office has proven toxic for her party and was a key issue during last month’s local elections, which were disastrous for Labour.Discussion on the policy within No 10 has intensified after focus groups of voters showed Labour could be forgiven for the move if there was a full or semi-U-turn, according to The i Paper. Ministers are considering whether to give more pensioners the allowance, by increasing the £11,500 income cut threshold over which they no longer get the payment or by reversing it altogether, the paper reported.Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer (Leon Neal/PA) More

The debate over the assisted dying bill in the House of Commons has intensified, with MPs deeply divided over its safeguards and scope. While sponsor Kim Leadbeater insists the bill includes world-leading protections, critics argue it has been weakened, particularly after the replacement of High Court oversight with an expert panel. Concerns were raised by MPs including Naz Shah and Anneliese Dodds, who fear the system could miss signs of coercion or abuse.Supporters like Marie Tidball and Liz Jarvis shared moving personal stories, backing amendments that would expand access to those with neurodegenerative diseases. Meanwhile, some MPs who once supported the bill, including Andrew Snowden and Peter Lamb, now oppose it, citing concerns over rushed legislation and underfunded palliative care.When we asked for your views, readers echoed these tensions. In a poll, 56 per cent said the new safeguards were enough.Many argued for greater autonomy and compassion, referencing the suffering of loved ones and calling current restrictions cruel and outdated. Others warned of a slippery slope, adding that controls will never be infallible. Here’s what you had to say:Dementia concernsMy biggest concern is that these systems (UK and Spain, where I live) do not cover dementia, which, it seems to me, is a very cruel and prolonged death. A notarised living will, made while the mind was sound with a named medical proxy to make the final decision if necessary, would cover all protections. And truly, once all pleasure, all joy has gone out of life, why is it such a big deal to bring forward death, which is a certainty? Why condemn people to sit for extra months, knowing nothing, incontinent, when the end is inevitable? Surely, a properly appointed group of people, including medical professionals dedicated to this, makes much more sense than using a High Court judge whose time is needed elsewhere and who may well lack the expertise. Suggesting that this dilutes safeguards is, I suggest, making excuses to hold this up.no commentYou wouldn’t let an animal suffer like thatIf you have experienced a person close to you dying in the most unbearable pain, as I have, you would have no hesitation in believing in the right to die. You would not let an animal experience that sort of death, so why would you expect a human being to suffer? It is beyond comprehension.LilleThe Netherlands system works wellThe system they have had in the Netherlands has worked very well, and with no prosecutions for abuse of the system. My own brother-in-law, who had terminal cancer, opted for assisted dying months before he became bedridden. When he was ready, he sent for the doctors and died peacefully and in control of his pain and suffering. He went with a smile on his face and a joke at the end. Some people in the UK are raising problems that do not exist.TarquinI should have the right to die if I want toSensible processes for assisted dying are increasingly necessary for us all, not just the terminally ill. It’s my life, and I should have the right to die if I want to. And of course, many do just this every day. The conditions being imposed are just red herrings, in my opinion – either by those wanting to confuse the debate or by others thinking they are being kind and caring by insisting on restrictions. What’s needed is an open, full, ‘holistic’ assessment of why people want to die ‘early’, and offering them decent care (specialists assessing their mental state etc.), along with an agreement to help them die if that’s what they truly want. It’s their lives, after all – minimum conditions and restrictions. I’ve seen a family cruelly devastated by having to construct a complicated scenario to help their young, intelligent son take his own life after an accident that left him paraplegic (eight years of total misery) – with the parents having to be absent to avoid being charged. A totally insulting, cruel farce in this day and age.raywA jury is neededGiven that the judicial system has been, and remains, fallible, the title “judge” is not in itself an absolute. Judgment is of fact, provided all facts are apparent. Having a “committee” or group of differing aptitudes and skills allows for opinion variability and thus stronger reasoning. High Court judges analyse information given against statutory law. Others, such as clinicians, also weigh up facts and opinions with equal respect to the facts. Hence, a “jury” of a mixture of skills, including analysis and risk assessment, is a stronger option due to its variety of thought. This does not denigrate the office of High Court judges, nor individual judges’ experience; however, the ability to analyse and weigh up is not exclusive to the judiciary. Many other professionals are trained within their professions to do so.PiepowderControls will never be infallibleSo, “other amendments will require the doctors assessing assisted dying requests to have detailed training on domestic abuse, including coercive control and financial abuse…”? My relative is divorcing her husband of more than 20 years precisely because of domestic abuse, including coercive control and financial abuse. Had she opted, under such circumstances, for euthanasia, she would not have the second chance she now has. I am quite sure that there are other circumstances under which the ultimate choice would be the wrong one. “Controls” to prevent abuse of the system will never be infallible. Currently, those availing themselves of “assisted dying” have more protection than they will if this appalling bill becomes law. It should not become law.IndyReaderEfforts to water down the legislationThose opposed to assisted dying have lost the debate, and they know it. We’re now witnessing desperate efforts to water down the legislation – maybe to make it “unworkable”. They need to be called out on this. I’ve witnessed two loved ones – a wife and a mother – both have their lives needlessly protracted against their wills for weeks, in hospital settings, both in hideous circumstances where even palliative care could do nothing for them. Neither could take any effective steps to end it themselves, although both settled for refusing further feeding and opting to starve (which in my mother’s case took 17 days). It was almost as harrowing for their loved ones, who had to witness the process for weeks on end. If we treated dogs like that, we would be accused of animal cruelty.SteveHillGet on with itI find the whole debate rather ludicrous. This bill is almost irrelevant. At present, by the time the poor person gets all the paperwork done, they will be dead. Everyone is getting stressed by all the checks and balances. The actual percentage of people who might be pressured into taking a tablet is minuscule. I accept this is a big step towards addressing the real problem. Furthermore, a six-month ‘get out of life’ card is fatuous. My mother just died at 100. She spent the last eight years of her life sitting in a chair, unable to communicate or do anything for herself. She told us, while she could still talk, that she wanted to go. Having seen the terrible existence she went through, I am all in favour of a very simplified process. I want to be able to put legal papers in place now so that if I meet certain criteria, I can be legally terminated by my family. It is my life and my choice. Why on earth should a debate be needed? Those who want it – set it up. Those who don’t – do nothing. How simple can this be? In addition, can you imagine the cost of keeping my mother in a good care home for eight years? If the family has no money, it is the government that will have to pay. So there’s the incentive. Get on with it.RobSome of the comments have been edited for this article for brevity and clarity. You can read the full discussion in the comments section of the original article here.The conversation isn’t over. To join in, all you need to do is register your details, then you can take part in the discussion. You can also sign up by clicking ‘log in’ on the top right-hand corner of the screen.Make sure you adhere to our community guidelines, which can be found here. For a full guide on how to comment click here. More