Slavoj Zizek îl citează, în deschiderea unui editorial proaspăt din Guardian despre erodarea democraţiei în UE pornind de la Slovenia, pe Nicolae Ceauşescu, cel care a exprimat perfect următorul paradox:
“In one of the last interviews before his fall, Nicolae Ceausescu was asked by a western journalist how he justified the fact that Romanian citizens could not travel freely abroad although freedom of movement was guaranteed by the constitution. His answer was in the best tradition of Stalinist sophistry: true, the constitution guarantees freedom of movement, but it also guarantees the right to a safe, prosperous home. So we have here a potential conflict of rights: if Romanian citizens were to be allowed to leave the country, the prosperity of their homeland would be threatened. In this conflict, one has to make a choice, and the right to a prosperous, safe homeland enjoys clear priority …
It seems that this same spirit is alive and well in Slovenia today. Last month the constitutional court found that a referendum on legislation to set up a “bad bank” and a sovereign holding would be unconstitutional – in effect banning a popular vote on the matter. The referendum was proposed by trade unions challenging the government’s neoliberal economic politics, and the proposal got enough signatures to make it obligatory. (luat de aici)
Citatul ar fi mers şi mai bine cu politica de liberă circulaţie a românilor (a Estului) prin Europa. Libera circulaţie a fost, practic, unul dintre marile cerinţe ale Revoluţiei. Au trecut 23 de ani şi primitivismul tabloid atacă în continuare figura imigrantului estic. Cu Schengen, ipocrizia e cît casa. Ca să-l parafrazăm pe Ceauşescu, Vestul ni se adresează cam aşa: avem nevoie de prosperitate, dar cu muncitori la negru – dacă devin “albi” nu mai sînt rentabili. Valabil şi pentru muncitorul din interior care munceşte deja
