Pro-western mayor Dan takes early lead in presidential election runoff
The vote was held months after the cancellation of the previous election plunged Romania into its worst political crisis in decades.
After 2.8 million votes had been counted, Mr Simion was ahead by a whisker with 50.09%, while votes for Mr Dan stood at 49.91%, according to official data.
When voting closed at 9pm (7pm UK time), 11.6 million people – or about 64% of eligible voters – had cast ballots, according to official electoral data.
About 1.64 million Romanians abroad, who have been able to vote since Friday at specially set-up polling stations, participated in the vote.
After polls closed on Sunday, Mr Dan told the media that 'elections are not about politicians' but about communities and that in Sunday's vote, 'a community of Romanians has won, a community that wants a profound change in Romania'.
'When Romania goes through difficult times, let us remember the strength of this Romanian society,' he said. 'There is also a community that lost today's elections. A community that is rightly outraged by the way politics has been conducted in Romania up to now.'
Turnout was significantly higher in Sunday's runoff and is expected to play a decisive role in the outcome. In the first round on May 4, final turnout stood at 9.5 million, or 53% of eligible voters.
Romania's political landscape was upended last year when a top court voided the previous election in which far-right outsider Calin Georgescu topped first-round polls, following allegations of electoral violations and Russian interference, which Moscow denied.
Standing on the steps of Romania's colossal Communist-era parliament building after polls closed, Mr Simion predicted a significant victory over his opponent, which he called a 'victory of the Romanian people'.
Mr Simion said that Mr Georgescu was 'supposed to be the president' before last year's election was annulled. He also called for vigilance against election fraud, but said that overall he was satisfied with the conduct of the vote.
Shortly after 6pm, Romania's ministry of foreign affairs spokesperson Andrei Tarnea said in a post on X that the election was subject to a 'viral campaign of fake news' on the Telegram messaging app and other social media platforms, which tried to influence the electoral process and had 'the hallmarks of Russian interference'.
Networks of co-ordinated disinformation have emerged as a pervasive force throughout Romania's entire election cycle. Romanian authorities debunked the deluge of fake news, Mr Tarnea said.
Mr Simion appeared alongside Mr Georgescu at a Bucharest polling station on Sunday and told reporters that he voted against the 'humiliations to which our sisters and brothers have been subjected'.
'We voted against abuses and against poverty,' he said. 'I voted for our future to be decided only by Romanians, for Romanians and Romania. So help us God.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Western Telegraph
25 minutes ago
- Western Telegraph
Three die as Ukraine and Russia exchange drone attacks
Russia's defence ministry said air defences intercepted or destroyed 112 drones across eight Russian regions and the Russian-occupied Crimean Peninsula. A drone attack on the Rostov region, on the border with Ukraine, killed one person, acting governor Yuri Slyusar said. Further from the front line, a woman was killed and two other people wounded in a drone strike on business premises in the Penza region, according to regional governor Oleg Melnichenko. Emergency workers inspect a damaged car close to the residential house that was destroyed by a Russian missile on Thursday (Efrem Lukatsky/AP) In the Samara region, falling drone debris sparked a fire that killed an elderly resident, regional governor Vyacheslav Fedorishchev said. According to the Ukrainian air force, Russia launched 53 drones and decoys at Ukraine overnight into Saturday. It said that air defences shot down or jammed 45 drones. Eleven people were wounded in an overnight drone strike on the Kharkiv region, governor Oleh Syniehubov said on Saturday. The reciprocal drone strikes followed a day of mourning in the Ukrainian capital Kyiv on Friday, after a Russian drone and missile attack killed 31 people, including five children, and wounded more than 150. The continued attacks come after US President Donald Trump on Tuesday gave Russian President Vladimir Putin a shorter deadline – August 8 – for peace efforts to make progress. Trump said on Thursday that special envoy Steve Witkoff is heading to Russia to push Moscow to agree to a ceasefire in its war with Ukraine and has threatened new economic sanctions if progress is not made.
The Herald Scotland
4 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Trump said he ordered 2 nuclear subs moved after Russia nuclear threat
President Donald Trump said on Aug. 1 he ordered two nuclear submarines to "appropriate regions" in response to Russia's nuclear threats. "Based on the highly provocative statements" of Russian spokesperson Dmitry Medvedev, "I have ordered two Nuclear Submarines to be positioned in the appropriate regions, just in case these foolish and inflammatory statements are more than just that," Trump wrote on Truth Social. "Words are very important, and can often lead to unintended consequences, I hope this will not be one of those instances."
New Statesman
4 hours ago
- New Statesman
How Britain lost the status game
Photo by Stefan Rousseau/AFP I've always been a bit puzzled by the 1956 Suez Crisis. The idea of Britain, France and Israel plotting together but being defeated by the honest, righteous Americans does feel, nearly a lifetime later, a little strange. But the most baffling thing about the Suez Crisis is the idea that it was a crisis. It's always described as this a great national humiliation which ruined a prime minister, the sort of watershed to inspire national soul-searching, state-of-the-nation plays and a whole library of books. And yet, compared to the sort of thing which literally every other European country had to deal with at some point in the 20th century, it's nothing. Britain was not invaded or occupied; Britain did not see its population starve. Britain simply learned that it was no longer top dog. That's all. The event and the reaction don't seem to go together. But this, of course, is to see the world from the perspective of today. Now, we all know that Britain cannot just do what it wants – that the US is the far more powerful player. At the start of 1956, though, large chunks of the map were still coloured British pink (or, come to that, French bleu), and the median opinion at home was that this was broadly a good thing. Suez was the moment when the loss of status we now date to 1945 came home. I wonder, in my darker moments, if we're going through something similar now – a less dramatic decline, perhaps, but a potentially more ruinous one. The loss of empire, after all, was mainly an issue for the pride of the political classes. Today's decline in status affects everyone. Consider the number of areas in which the current British government seems utterly helpless before the might of much bigger forces. It's not quite true to say that Rachel Reeves has no room for manoeuvre – breaking a manifesto pledge and raising one of the core taxes remains an option, albeit one that would be painful for government and taxpayer alike. But her borrowing and spending options are constrained by the sense of a bond market both far flightier than it once was, thanks to an increase in short term investors, and less willing, post-Truss, to give Britain the benefit of the doubt. The thing that much of the public would like Reeves to do – spend more, without raising taxes – is a thing it is by no means clear she has the power to do. Over in foreign policy, Keir Starmer has offended sensibilities by making nice with someone entirely unfit to be president of the United States, and whose actions place him a lot closer to the dictators of the 20th century than to Eisenhower or JFK. The problem for Starmer is that saying this out loud would likely result in ruinous tariffs, or the collapse of NATO before an alternative system for the defence of Europe can be prepared, or both. Again, he has no space to do what his voters want him to do. In the same vein, consider the anger about Britain's failure to act to prevent the horrors still unfolding in Gaza. It is not to imply the government has handled things well to suggest that at least part of the problem is that – 69 years on from Suez – the government of Israel doesn't give a fig about what the government of Britain thinks. The things the public wants may be outside the realm of things the government can actually deliver. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe Even in less overtly political realms, the British state feels helplessly at the mercy of global forces beyond its control. The domestic TV industry, a huge British export, is in crisis thanks to the streamers. AI will change the world, we're told, and it's very possible that isn't a good thing: and what is Westminster supposed to do about that? And with which faculties? In all these areas and a thousand more, people want their government to do something to change the direction of events, and it is not at all obvious it can. Ever since 2016, British politics has been plagued by a faintly Australian assumption that, if a prime minister is not delivering, you should kick them out and bring in the next one. That is not the worst impulse in a democracy. But what if Britain is so changed that delivery is not possible? Researchers have found that social status affects the immune system of certain types of monkey – that the stress of lower status can, quite literally, kill. It already looks plausible the electorate might roll the dice on Nigel Farage. This is terrifying enough. But when it turns out he can't take back control either, but only trash what's there – what then? [See more: Trump in the wilderness] Related
