Turkey in EU?

There is a lot of heated debate whenever we discuss Turkey's entry in the EU. What are the real issues behind Europe's reluctance in allowing Turkey to join?

Islam and it's large population are two of the obvious reasons, Greece and the Cyprus issue, but also the lack of freedom of the press, minority issues and the very powerful military elite of the country are also serious issues.

I myself consider Turkey a European nation. For centuries Greeks, Romans and other European nations roamed the region that today is called Turkey and Turkey's flirt with Europe started since the days of the Ottoman Empire. Culturally they are very close to us Greeks, since our ancestors belonged in the Byzantine and Ottoman empires, living side by side with what today is the Turkish population for centuries.

Islam as a religion is not an issue for most Europeans, since we are more and more an agnostic breed of people. Besides Turkey is a secular country and extremist Islamic movements are not as present as in other Muslim countries.

The real problem that Europeans have with Turkey's EU membership related to Islam, is the growing Muslim population in Europe. Many Europeans fear that Turkey's EU entry will bring more Muslim immigrants into their countries and will contribute to a radical change in Europe's demographics. So that in the future the European population will see its native Christian population shrink. And with it, the European values, culture and way of thinking.

But Turkey has already a lot of these European values and way of thinking. It is not fare to categorize every Muslim country the same, as they are all so different from each other. Besides, from what we have seen so far from the case of  states like Poland, Romania and Bulgaria, immigration from these countries was not always as large or permanent as feared.

Many migrated for some years to western European states to work and make a lump-some, before returning back to their countries. Turkey's economy is doing rather well, better than many other EU Candidate Member States. Will the Turks flood Europe en mass once they join? Surely we will see more immigrants from Anatolia for a while, but if we curve immigration from other Muslim states, it can be balanced.

The full support of USA and the UK for Turkey's entry in EU is a thing that makes me a skeptic though. If the Americans and the British want it so badly, it can't be that good for the rest of Europe. They emphasize on what a great asset Turkey will be for our economies and the European Market. But does this translate as something necessarily good for the ordinary citizens?

The European Project should be something more than a huge Market and an economic experiment. Can Turkey offer solutions to European integration, do they have anything new to offer apart from what the Americans are advising us for?

Another issue of course the shift of power within EU. Why is Britain so keen for Turkey to join, while the Germans and the French are not? Turkey has a huge population and growing. If they join the voting power will shift. Especially if the Turks form with the Brits a similar Axis like that of the Franco-Germans, the EU could be transformed in what the British and Americans desire it to be.

Just a free trade market, not a political or a military union. I guess that is why Germany and France are not so keen and I do not believe that the Islam is the main issue, rather a secondary one. And I totally understand Germany's and France's fears and reluctance.

The only positive argument I find here, is the Turkish workforce that we may need. They are young, educated, numerous and hard working. I would much prefer to have immigrants from Turkey, a secular Muslim state, than Pakistan or Afghanistan in my country.

A major thorn in Turkey's EU accession is of course the attitude of the Turkish elite towards Greece, Cyprus and other Balkan states. Sadly there can be no favorable solution for them on the Cyprus issue, if they continue with their current policies. If they want accession, they will have to recognize the Republic and allow the Greek and Turkish Cypriot sides in reaching a compromise themselves. It should be the EU actually that must get more involved and play its role in reaching an agreement between the two sides.

As for Greece, Turkey's entry in the EU can be most favorable. Both nations suffer from having to invest heavily in their military budget in order to "protect" from each other. Two allied NATO nations that must protect from each other, how odd is that? But once Turkey joins, a war between them will be unthinkable, just as it is for Germany and France. Their economies will be so entwined and people will once again be able to move freely across the borders.

The Greeks will be able to resettle in cities like Istanbul and Izmir and the Turks in Crete and Thessaloniki, beginning a new era in the two countries' relationship. For sure they won't pose a threat to each other anymore, something that NATO membership has failed to achieve.

But can Europe "digest" Turkey? While they have a growing and promising economy, the western tip of the country is as European as the rest of the Balkans, but the eastern tip is way behind the rest of the country. In large parts it is controlled by separatist groups in the Kurdish region. It will take ages to bring the two sides of the country in the same level.

With the current economic crisis Europe has so many other things to work on, so Turkey is left out in the cold. Many predict that the Turks might get fed up and turn their back to Europe and that they will try to form alliances in the Middle East. Well I doubt if they are gonna turn to Iran, if they want to stay allies with America. They have neighbors like Armenia Georgia and Syria, nations not as friendly to them.

And the Middle East as a region is fragmented as well between pro and anti American sides. Could Turkey gain their trust and manage to unite them all? Especially since the Arabs do not have the best view of the Turks, and the Turks do not see themselves as Arabs. There is also the Kurdish problem. A challenging task indeed.

The "bridge between East and West" argument translates to me in "Oil Pipes from Caucasus" and their control. Turkey has a great strategic location. Europe needs oil. We are desperate to secure more sources of it and perhaps be less dependent in countries like Russia that have a hold on us, or any other less stable states from the Middle East and Africa. But can Turkey offer us that?

Wouldn't it be more preferable, instead of playing such dangerous geopolitical games in the region, to invest in a greener, energy efficient European economy?If we want to find a solution to our energy needs, perhaps meddling in the Middle East and its nations' affairs, is not the way forward. And so perhaps that is not the reason that Turkey should join the EU.

Of course major reforms must take place in the Turkish society before they can join. Their military elite must be weakened and overall they must become less authoritarian and more trusting towards their neighbors and Europe. The reforms that the EU has asked for must continue, especially those considering the freedom of press and certain minorities. They really need a minor social revolution, in order to change some issues that Europe is skeptical about, in their own time and gradually.

Overall I think this saga will continue for decades to come and loads of things can change during this time. Even Turkey. I hope they join one day, but not for the Markets or the oil that they have to offer Europe. If they join to be committed to Europe and the vision of an independent, prosperous, stable and federal continent, with common strategies and policies in the military and financial spheres, then they got my vote. Good Luck!

Future Governance of Europe. Nations, Feudals or a Federation?

Our leaders have gathered in Brussels to discuss, or rather argue on how to handle the current crisis. They rarely agree on anything and never take our opinion into consideration on whatever they agree in their summits in Brussels, even though it directly affects us.

The truth is that even though they want to keep the E.U. as a single Market and a place to trade, they do not really want to hand over the reigns of their countries into a new political union that is emerging in Europe.

The problem in our continent today is that we do not know what we want to do with it. We do not know how to manage our resources, how to cooperate with each other and how to work collectively.

And if we take into account the political reality in every nation, that is each dominated by a rich established elite, then it is clear to see that Europe is being ruled by elitism. Both on European and national level.

But that is not much different from the times that our nations were ruled by oligarchs or feudal lords. The difference is that today they are not land owners that govern us, rather rich bankers, businessmen, technocrats and marketers. It is not land they are offering for our hard work, but goods and services.

Our elites' interests are not necessarily our nations' interests. In a globalized world, the nation state is generally an outdated idea for those who thrive from the global market. And some of them have accumulated so much wealth, that are able to influence national governments, or even threaten their very existence. Yet through media manipulation, they are persuading us that what is generally good for them is the "good of the country." 

In the globalized economy, a free and independent state can not really exist unless it becomes another Cuba. Once you enter the Markets and become an open economy, there are certain rules you must abide with, in order to keep receiving credit. Thus your "independence" is relative.
 
Another factor that influences European politics, is that our continent today still bears the marks that WW2 has left behind. Our political, social and economic models were established on the aftermath of the war and our collective ideology and culture have also their roots there. Our political elites were established around the same time and reflect the ideology and politics of that era.

Global players influence and dominate now the policies that small nations follow, or large multinational organizations like the EU are promoting. That is what our political and economic capitalist system is dictating,a free open market and an overall neo-liberal agenda.

And to achieve that, this system has established in every country that wants to be part of it, a political and economic elite that is coming together, cooperating with the elites of other nations. The only thing though they agree on is that they have to preserve this system. Who is going to receive the Lion's share is what dominates European and global politics.

In Greece like in many other countries, we have two or three main political parties dominating and ruling the country. Political dynasties that have been established after the great post war shake up, that are somehow still relevant in our political and social psyche. But for how much longer?

The squabbles of many countries in Europe today, still reflect the overall attitude that one nation had for the other during or after the war. This political reality is very damaging for our future and for any effort to progress and reform.

The E.U. was created as an initiative of one group of European leaders and thinkers, during the '50s. They envisioned a Europe that would never see another war again. Today the European governments have long left this track and are focusing in making our continent a great market, but for the benefit of their "national" interests. They generally lack any collective vision for the continent. Each country represents simply it's own interests.

Many great motto exist like "United in diversity", "Europe for the people", to add prestige to the "European project." But you only have to wait until a crisis or an EU Summit to see the lack of unity or any consideration for the interests of the ordinary citizens of Europe.

The main power that rules the E.U. still lie with our national governments, plus the strong industrial and financial lobbies of our continent that they represent and serve. The Euro-Parliament has not the authority or jurisdiction to make the EU fully democratic and federal. These powers are being passed to the unelected by us EU Commission, or the EU Council that is all our governments put together.

In fact what EU is right now, a fine mess of the combined effort of all our governments, to control, shape, and influence the policies that apply to all of us in Europe. There are strong business lobbies in EU and in our countries individually, whose interests are placed above the common good of the people. Our leaders are often placing their personal aspirations above Europe's common future as well.



The funny thing is that the same people who despise EU and call it undemocratic, are the same ones who do not want to see it democratic, by proceeding to some kind of federation. When we try to implement reforms that will push with its democratization as an institution and make it transparent to its citizens, they protest in fear of losing their national interests. In many cases their actions simply mask theirs or some rich individuals' personal interests.


What do you want your country to be? A small feudal state that is controlled by rich European or national oligarchs, or to belong to a federal Union of nations that can decide on their affairs united, be more powerful and less susceptible to manipulation? Both from inside and outside of your nation's borders.

It is decision time for us as citizens, but also for our leaders and leading elites. Our actions will influence the future of our continent and our future generations, so we've got to be responsible.I am afraid that we have no other alternatives, in a globalized world.

State Owned, or Privately Owned?

One of the greatest dilemmas in our societies and one of the main friction points between the main political ideologies, is the ownership of the public services. Should they be state owned, or must everything be liberalized and owned privately?

Until recently in most European countries, the main services were public. Telecommunications, health, education, pension schemes. The last few decades we see a surge in privatizations, everywhere in our continent. Is this the right way to move forward?

The public in general are very skeptical about liberalizations. Yet if you think about it, we are all customers of many private companies of telecommunications, one sector that has been deregulated widely in most of Europe. Most of us have subscribed with cheaper than the State owned services and companies, so why are we still complaining? 

Some do not have telephone landlines anymore, rather we receive our phone services through a modem of the digital TV and internet. There is a variety of companies offering a variety of services and different prices and budget bundles, so we have a lot to chose from. In other words deregulation is not necessarily something bad, but something that we all use and profit out of it.

Let us not be hypocrites, we all shop around and find the best quotes and sign up to the best offer. But perhaps it is when we have to deal with its side effects, like the loss of jobs in the public sector or their relocation out of our country, that we protest about it.

In Europe most of us have embraced capitalism and its free market, but can we do anything to protect ourselves from the negative effects of liberalization, while still reaping its benefits? 

If we privatize everything, then what will we be paying our governments for and what will be their responsibilities towards us if we can't hold them responsible for anything? They will provide us with very little if anything. And since many companies merge and buy each other off, if one big multinational corporation buys a whole sector, it can end up owning the whole health system for example of one country.

Small countries are particularly vulnerable here, since they have small public sectors and for a large multinational company is so easy to buy it off. But that will mean that gradually small nations may lose their independence and sovereignty not to another nation, but to a large corporation. Some believe that without a state intervention, they will be "freer!"

If we take the above in consideration, then we certainly free ourselves from the "evil" of state government but we throw ourselves at the mercy of rich private owners! To me that is going backwards to a new kind of feudalism that is not linked to land ownership rather to goods, services and commodities.

And as large corporations care little for anything if there is no profit to be made out of it, what will they do once they have full control of one sector? If one private this time company is owning a whole sector, aren't we going back to square one, where we had to deal with the monopoly of the state companies?

In other words we will need to place strong and effective rules to stop this from happening and protect the markets of the small nations, from being monopolized by large multinationals.

But can we liberalize everything and where do we draw the line? Some services and goods are a human right so why give it to the hands of a few, when if nothing else they should be free and available to all? Take water and sanitation services, education, pensions or social security for example.

If the state decided that it does not want to provide me with a pension, then it should not be taxing me as much and raise my salary. If I have a higher salary, then I can seek out a private pension scheme. Many claim that in the future the state will not be able, or should not provide its citizens with social protection and pensions.

We all must realize this and seek out a private pension scheme for security and better services, that the private sector is rumored to offer when compared with any public company. But even these private schemes are not safe. They can also go bust and all the money that you paid all those years, can just end up in the pockets of some devious folk that gambled with it or invested it badly.

The health,welfare and education of your people is the best investment you can make as a statesman. A healthy and educated population is an asset for the future, as it is productive and it attracts more  investments.

If you allow private companies to provide such basic rights to your people, then your nation is dependent on the interests of these providers and only the rich can get the best treatments or education. This of course will create an unchangeable, unequal society of those who can afford better health and those who will have to compromise to disease, because they can not afford it.

Privately owned education is still an issue and the status of its degrees or diplomas are not equally recognized as the state run universities in many countries. So while one spends a lot of money to attain a degree, he or she can have trouble in finding a job that will offer the same salary expectations with someone that holds a degree from a state run university.

And if the privately owned educational institution goes bust in the future, there are no guarantees that your degree will still be of any value in the business world.

Also what if at an old age you are informed that the life insurance company that you had a contract with, was bought off by another or went bust. Your money do not worth anything anymore and you must agree into another pension scheme or receive nothing at all. Can there be any guarantees that you are going to get a pension, even with a private insurance?


If we have a look to the U.K. when they liberalized their postal services, we will see that private companies are interested only in what is profitable. They are keen to provide service to large towns and cities and mainly packets and parcels that bring more profit. They are not really interested in postcards or letters addressed to small villages or isolated regions of the country.

They have to wait a disproportionate amount of time to receive these kind of services and in fact in those regions, the state owned mail services kept their market.

Rail way prices are extremely high in the U.K. and there is a fine mess with parking regulations, since each company tries to fine as many people as they can to raise more revenue. The traffic wards are pushed to stick to a quota of fines to make the business profitable. I do not think that this can be considered as "better service" rather an unjust money making business for some, while it should be in place to make sure that citizens abide by traffic laws.

We are being transformed into manic consumers, while we are being convinced that our "freedom" is our ability to keep buying and seek out new deals and budget services. It is another thing to try and provide better "services" and another thing to try and fleece people off their money in any way you can.


Even worse this economic system that we have adopted is expanding to new markets. Countries like India, Brazil and China are joining and adapting fast. So we in Europe not only are being fleeced of our money but our jobs as well, since the capitalists want always cheaper workforce and we with our higher living standards and demands, have deprived them from it.


To conclude deregulation in certain sectors has led to a booming of new technologies and industries the past few decades. In telecommunications, transportation and other former state owned sectors, privatizations were hugely beneficial. In some other sectors like the postal services the transition was not very successful and was handled badly in many countries.

But privatization can not be used as panacea for all sectors, especially those affecting the social structure of a society. Not that we should approve a "nanny" state that provides all and creates dependency, condemning certain social groups to chronic idleness. The state should encourage innovation and allow privately owned companies to blossom, but it should give equal importance to SMEs and local businesses as well, not just multinationals.


State intervention is needed, together with a free market so that each can control and influence the other. We do need some state laws to "regulate the deregulation,"or we ourselves will end up being treated as commodities in the end.

It ain't anything new.Relations between Europe and Turkey.

At the zenith of Ottoman power, no Christian state could match it. In the sixteenth century, the French came to the Porte as supplicants and Elizabeth I was so desperate for an alliance that she told Sultan Murad III that Islam and Protestantism were kindred faiths.

In 1623 a French political theorist placed the “great Turke” above all the rulers of Christendom, second in power only to the Pope. Defeat at the gates of Vienna in 1683 is often taken as the moment when the rot set in, but in fact the empire performed respectably against its enemies for much of the eighteenth century as well.

Only during and after the Napoleonic wars did the balance of power unambiguously against it, which was why successive sultans devoted so much energy to centralizing the state and modernizing its institutions. The main challenge they faced came from Christendom’s successor, Europe.

 Initially the empire lay outside the so-called Concert of Great Powers. But in the Treaty of Paris which concluded the Crimean War in 1856 it was recognized for the first time as forming part of the “Public Law and System of Europe”, a curious phrase that implied its entry into a broader civilization. Europe stood for a set of values and the Ottoman empire was being asked to sign up to these much as the European Union has recently required its successor to do.

Another article of the 1856 treaty spelled out the price of membership, the sultan declaring his intention to improve the condition of his subjects “without distinction of Religion or Race” and to make manifest his “generous intentions towards the Christian population of his Empire”.

As this odd combination of commitments suggests,“Europe” stood for a strange mixture of ideas-freedom of worship and equal treatment for all, on the one hand, and special solicitude for Christians on the other; respect for state sovereignty, and at the same time, concern for the rights of the individual.

With time, other ideas bubbled out of Europe as well- the rights of individual nations to independence, as manifested in the rise of Italy, France and Germany; the expansion of free trade and the notion of an autonomous market; the redefinition of religion as a matter of private individual conscience. Into the Ottoman lands poured Europeans of all nationalities- businessmen and investors, soldiers and relief workers, reporters and government advisers.

Salonica changed faster and more dramatically than ever before: as the nineteenth century progressed, it became simultaneously more “European” and more “Oriental”, more closely integrated in the empire, and more threatened by nationalist rivalries, more conscious of itself as a city and yet more bitterly divided. But all these paradoxes and apparent contradictions were nothing more than the manifestation of forces evident in the empire as a whole, an empire transforming itself in the shadow of Europe.


from the book: "Salonica, city of Ghosts". By Mark Mazower.

EU blue cards and Immigration in Europe.

I think it's about time EU and all it's members should take action against illegal immigration. Old EU members are struggling with immigration and probably soon the new ones will start having the same problems too.Immigration is a sensitive issue to many and people usually falsely accuse EU for the rise of immigrants in their countries.

We need to control who is going in and out and how many we can integrate, depending on each country's culture, economy and mentality.Not all countries have the same capacities to accept or integrate the same numbers of immigrants.Some European economies at the moment are hard hit by the financial turmoil and when unemployment soars, it is unwise to encourage immigrants to enter the country.

Immigration will never stop among humans. It has always existed and it is within our nature to look for a better life. Most greatest cultures in the world have been created by constant mixing and interacting with neighboring tribes. So to think that one can stop immigration completely is simply silly. But immigration can be disastrous for a nation if left unchecked and we have may examples in history to prove that.


The solution could be closer if we promote the EU Blue Cards scheme. Other regions of the world like Canada, Australia and America attract educated and skilled immigrants, while we are left with the non-skilled immigrants in Europe. Europe attracts just 5% of the skilled migrant workforce, while the USA for example about 50% of it.

These countries curb the immigration flow when they have not enough potential immigrants of a high level of education or skills and that is why their immigration policies work, while Europe's fail. Their economies are more competitive and growing, but ours are limping. Illegals and low skilled immigrants do not contribute much into our society,as they hardly get any jobs and many live off our welfare system.

They are mainly useful  to the companies that employ them for pitiful wages and make huge profit by exploiting them creating inequality in Europe. And when these companies move to China we are left with thousands of unskilled immigrants that do not want to go back or move to any other country, simply because our welfare system is too generous. But we can not afford it anymore.

We need to educate and integrate the immigrants we already have, help them get a job and start contributing to the local economy and society. If we introduce the Blue Cards system, we can control who comes,who goes,where he goes and attract how many we need,of what skill and which country needs them.We should have a common immigration policy in EU.



The EU Blue Cards system in my opinion, will provide Europe the chance to allow the right amount, of the right skills workers to enter the European market. Making it more competitive like Canada's or America's.

Establishing EU embassies abroad could also help. Immigrants won't chose to risk the illegal way to enter Europe, rather visit these employment centers and enter Europe legally. They apply, they are sent to the country that needs them, according their skills and education.

Companies that employ illegal immigrants should be fined. Illegal immigration, is actually promoting the exploitation and violation of human dignity and should be stopped. People smugglers and human traffickers are providing with human "stock," companies that want cheap labor. I am using the term "stock," because having humans cramped like sheep in a boat or a truck in the year of 2010, is disgraceful.


Due to Europe's messy immigration policies, many Europeans are starting feeling uncomfortable with their immigrant population, and we see a rise of the Far Right movement all over Europe. I will remind you, it took a deep financial depression, an immigration problem and a fundamentalist to create World War Two, and now we have two of the above.

It is not racist to control your immigration policies, it is wise. In this way you make sure the immigrants are integrated into your society and not being seen as "freeloaders" when they receive social welfare, you make sure there are jobs for the majority of the population both native and immigrant. Thus you do not create divisions in the society between the two communities.


Europe's policies are just creating second class citizens and do not help the integration of immigrants, as we see in countries like France or the UK. These countries always boasted for their openness and ability to integrate their immigrants, but they failed. We need a new approach, update our immigration policies and make them fair to everyone.

Multiculturalism; how's it faring in Europe?

Multiculturalism in modern Europe seems to be the norm, but sometimes is misunderstood. It does not just about having foreign workers doing the jobs the natives do not want to do anymore. It is something that should add to the community and the country, not only it's economy.


We all know that immigrants in general "do the jobs that the natives do not want to do", thus contributing to the local economy, by being hard working. Having foreign workers gives a country an advantage in attracting multinationals' investment. It means that any company will be always able to find cheap workforce in the country and people that will be willing to work for less.

Comparing the impact of immigration in the two countries I am most familiar with, some observations are very clear. In Ireland the mix of immigrants and foreign workers is not just from poor or non-Western countries. We have immigrants and students from all over Europe both east and west, the USA, Canada,Australia,New Zealand, Japan etc.

Partly because the English language and the links to USA and the UK, the proximity to the main European markets and their low corporate tax system, Ireland attracts many multinationals. Thus people from all over the world, that have made a positive impact in the Irish society. Ireland from one of the most conservative nations in Europe, transformed and continues to be transforming fast to become one of the most dynamic. The majority of immigrants in Ireland are also legal.

We see quite the opposite in Greece, that has about one and a half million legal immigrants, but is claimed that there are as much as 3 times that number of illegals in the country. Due to its position on the borders of EU and the Schengen area, it is the entrance to Europe and EU for many illegal immigrants.

They contribute nothing to a host nation, not economically, or socially. Their goal is not to stay in Greece, but to move on to richer nations of Europe. Another difference between Ireland and Greece is that the vast majority of immigrants in Greece are from non Western countries, from poorer regions of Europe and the World.

The immigrants from western Europe are usually pensioners that are not as active socially and politically and contribute little to the local economy as they pay little taxes to the state. So in Greece the new-comers in their majority are from less progressive nations and although they contribute to the economy of the country hugely, socially they have  little or even sometimes negative impact.

It is not their fault, rather the Greek government's incompetence to create a fair and constructive immigration policy. But also the EU's, for its failure to create a pan-European immigration policy. So in Ireland they have a mixture of western and non Western immigrants, that contribute both economically and socially in the country.

The Irish coming in contact with French, Spaniards, Dutch, Scandinavians, Germans, Americans, Australians and other more progressive nations, have caught up with them in many social issues, they are open minded now and more progressive.

The Greeks on the other hand, not only they haven't had such an injection of fresh new ideas and brain power from more advanced nations, but due the huge numbers of immigrants, they are becoming more xenophobic and closed up as a society.

Greece only now is revisiting it's immigration policy, in the worse period it could happen. Since it's economy is in tatters, people are angry and stressed about their future To give more rights to foreigners and encourage immigration to a country that is sinking is simply mad. These kind of changes usually happen when the economy thrives.

Multiculturalism is not just having foreigners to work for us, or to see many people of different colors, religions and backgrounds walking among us in our streets. It should also mean an active citizenship, exchange of new, fresh ideas between the communities. So the host nation will not just benefit from it's immigrant population hard work and economically.

The nation could also benefit from multiculturalism with the exchange and interaction with it's new citizens culturally and socially, enriching their everyday lives and mentality. That of course requires a successful, functioning and reasonable immigration policy.

Immigrants should not be muted and deprived of their political or social rights, rather encouraged to have an active citizenship and be politically active in their adopted country. Any nation that will listen to their voices and fresh ideas on social issues, could gain an advantage. And not by just giving them a voice, but from also keep them active, avoiding their victimization, forcing them into a life on the social welfare.

Mr. Juncker's Revelations on the Greek Crisis.

Mr. Jean-Claude Juncker, Luxembrourg's PM,  made a famous comment on the Greek crisis: ''The Europeans were aware for years of the mismanagement of funds in Greece. But it was in their interest to perpetuate this situation, because of the waste of money through Greece, other European countries benefited from huge amounts of unnecessary buying and selling."

Indeed, it was so obvious the situation that the country was being driven by corruption and political kickbacks from foreign countries, that they were quick to warn an unnamed Greek prime minister about the situation. Only to take the disarming response from him: "What do you expect? We are a corrupt country!''
The ridiculous in this case is not what Juncker said, but what reactions caused by what he said.

For those who heard the news for the first time, of what really happened in the country and how Greece owes so much money, the revelations of Mr. Juncker left them with an open mouth. For those who knew what Juncker said and were trying desperately to break it to the general public, what left them with an open mouth were the reactions of those who did not know.

This is because after the''revelations'' of Mr. Juncker, the Greek media and the citizens instead of addressing or understanding  the substance of the statements,  went on an incredible "witch hunt" to identify who was the Prime Minister that said ''we are a corrupt country.''

In the words of Juncker, lies a great truth. What was happening in recent years in the Greek political scene was totally coordinated (if not directed) by the leading EU countries, France and Germany.  All the debt of Greece, is not only due to the "corrupt" Greeks but also to the cunning European partners.

Normally statements like these, would gather all Greek political forces against the European cunning. The statements of Juncker, exposed the plot which was taking place in the past years, promoted and controlled by foreign European governments, but clearly accepted by  the Greek government.

Therefore one would expect that all Greek political parties would mobilize, to push for a sharing of the debt of the Greek state, but also the responsibility of the excessive amount of debt. Instead the political parties once again are trying to mislead public opinion.

Each party tries to win voters by different statements instead, completely ignoring how we can win as a country, if properly exploiting the  statements of Juncker. The restructuring of the debt with all those countries involved to the creation of it, should be the main concern of the whole political powers of our country right now.

This gives us the opportunity to demand, based on the revelations of Mr. Juncker, from the EU to adjust its policy towards the debt of Greece. And stubbornly insist that the debt was not only due to our mismanagement, but also due to the interests  of other countries. Then maybe we can achieve something substantial.

We can also start turning the opinion of other European nations and their leaders, underlining that Greece is not the wasteful and naughty child of the European family that simply squandered his fortune. But the child, that some others led to this disastrous plan.

The responsibility lies with all those countries, that for all those years were wasting Greek funds and the Greek politicians that were earning huge amounts from illegal and fraudulent transactions.

 source: http://omoios.blogspot.com/2010/10/blog-post_13.html
Translated from Greek by Christos Mouzeviris.  

Thessaloniki. My vision for the city.

Thessaloniki is strategically located in the northern Greek region of Macedonia, around the gulf of Thermaicos. During it's long history it has always been the capital, or the second most important city of any state it belonged. Until now, it is one of the most important cities not only in Greece, but in the whole Balkans. Although in my opinion it could do so much more, in pan-European level.

Thessaloniki is located near the resorts of Chalkidiki, with some of the nicest beaches in Greece.Yet they remain undiscovered and undeveloped even in some regions. It is also near many Ski resorts in Greece especially the natural ski platform of Falakro Mountain near the borders with Bulgaria, so it offers opportunities for tourism both in summer and in winter.It is not by chance that it was in Thessaloniki that EU leaders gathered in a summit to discuss the future and possible EU membership of the western Balkans.

Thessaloniki has two universities, one international film festival where many international stars appear each year and the alternative gay film festival. An opera house where artists like Pavarotti and Ian Gillan of Deep Purple gave concerts with Thessaloniki's Municipal Orchestra. The T.I.F. (Δ.Ε.Θ.) Thessaloniki International Fair, where companies and businessmen gather form all over the world to trade every year, plus a Casino and hotels like Hyatt Regency and Kepinski .

The British Council, the Goethe Institute and the French Institute are already settled in town,with thousands of students each year promoting English, German and French language and culture to it's youth. Most young Thessalonians are multilingual, speaking at least one other language than their own.

There's also a Zoo, many hospitals and especially the Trans-Balkan Medical Center, the largest hospital in all the Balkans and a European research institute CEDEFOP. But most importantly the city's  port.

The port of Thessaloniki was used during the Yugoslavian war from EU and NATO troops to send staff and equipment to Yugoslavia, and is still used by KFOR troops to this day. It is one of the most important ports in the Balkans, and the second after Pireus in Greece.

The future holds a more strategic role for the city, since the oil pipe coming from Turkey and feeding Europe will pass north of the city. Thessaloniki is close to the Middle East, Turkey, the Balkans, the Black sea and eastern Mediterranean and as Greece is a European country, it could play major role in the future that could benefit both Greece and Europe.


Thessaloniki was always a melting pot with Jews, Armenians, Turks, Slavs, Romans together with other Europeans inhabiting the city together with the Greeks. During the two World wars there were even convents of catholic French nuns in the city, giving the name of some of the streets like Frangon Street and regions of the city like Depot, where the French had their camps and military store houses during the wars. Hence the name Depot, from the French term.

Thus Thessaloniki has all that it takes to create a strong European community, with students from all over Europe going to study there. But also European companies and businesses that want access to the Balkan and Middle Eastern markets can settle there, without having to risk the instability of the other regions. Even a European army could be based in Thessaloniki once it is created, and have control of European borders from the East.

The western part of the city which is rather undeveloped could be the base of all those new companies and new developments. A new larger international airport could make Thessaloniki a major transition city in the Balkans. The existing airport of Thessaloniki is also a military one and once the new airport is opened, it should be reversed into being a Greek and European military airport. Becoming in that way a place of military importance for Europe.

Thessaloniki is also the capital of Gastronomy in Greece, with rich cooking traditions and loads of influences from all the people that passed from the city during the centuries. Restaurants, Cafes, Buildings, Churches, Patisseries ,Boulangeries, Delicatessen from all over Europe could be established there in a newly built region of the city, since Thessaloniki has loads of space for further expansion and development, in contrast to Athens.

So the Thessalonians and all the visitors will have the chance to "taste" Europe, in one of the most southern cities of the continent. It will create a cosmopolitan vibrant city. I think Greece needs other Europeans to enter Greece and push positive reforms in the country and development. A new way of thinking, more progressive and "open" attitude.

Many reforms must be made to achieve this goal and above all continue with the transformation of the city. Finish the Metro system for example and the sub-marine highway that will link the two sides of the town, reducing traffic in the City center. Together with other infrastructure developments, it will take a lot of time, money and effort. But in the end, I think it will worth it.

Designing a New World, with outdated practices?

I have a theory is that in this globalized world each country and a region plays it's role, to keep the balance of power in this world in place. Not the right and fair balance, but that of the greedy world elite that was established after WW2.

In a globalized economy money and capita flow around the world and each country is meant to have it's share,some more some much less. Each state must set up an economic model that will play a role in the global financial system.

Some will have their workforce low-paid so companies from all over the world can move there and escape paying high wages of the countries that they are established. What better way in having always a low paid workforce that do not ask you for higher salaries, don't strike and it is grateful for any type of working conditions.

Some regions like Africa on the other hand are meant to be poor. They are so rich in resources that if they got their act together and developed their economies , the goods that they sell to the rich nations would cost more. So they would eventually be richer than them.


Other countries like Switzerland are to be forever "neutral" and rich. Because there lies the money of all the tax evading rich and corrupt politicians,stolen by the taxes of people. That is how the country is rich and like some other tax havens around the world (Monaco,Liechtenstein,and many small island nations in the Pacific) will remain so.

Have a look at countries like Argentina. It used to have a thriving economy, that could challenge USA in the South America. What happened there? A dictatorship that they have never recovered from it. The same happened in Spain and Greece. In the case of Greece the Junta was supported by USA, and they have admitted to that.

If you want to control a country or a region, promote or establish a junta or a totalitarian regime. In that way you have control of the region and even if the regime is kicked out, the damage that is done to the country lasts for decades.

Now-days we see the total control and aggregation of power from the parliaments to the banking sector and rating agencies. The fates of the citizens are in the hands of financial speculators and our governments are listening to their advice, rather to the needs of the people. Who gives the power to some financiers to "rate" nations, advise investors which countries are good to invest or not?

Thus making whole nations, their people and their resources something to trade with in the stock market, a place that you can make or lose money. How ethical is to decide which nation can receive money to support a good economy, and who should face decades of poverty or even total destruction?

Wonder about all this and you will realize that we are living in a virtual reality.A Matrix, just as the movie was mentioning. It is time to wake up and refuse to be property of the global markets, the bankers and the financiers of this world. I dream of a world that is equal, prosperous, is advancing in the future united and is looking after all the people sharing this planet.

They dream of a world divided and whoever opposes them or does not agree with them, endures the mud throwing of the media that are controlled by them. A world that they control and run for the benefit of the few.

Europe for example is ruled in an undemocratic way. With "intergovernmental-ism," that people have no knowledge of what their governments compromise for their behalf, when in international summits. Rich established elites and lobbies in every country, make sure that the status quo remain on a national level.

But most of our elites are interconnected, through EU and other organizations, the banking system and global trade. So it is not hard to see how apart the national level, there is a status quo on an international level. No wonder our leaders prefer to save the banks and let them go unpunished, rather place all effort in solving the financial and social issues that trouble our countries.

If we want to make our voices heard and our interests secured, then the only option is to join them in their game. They desire globalization to maximize their profits? Well we are going to give it to them but with our own wishes taken in consideration. By uniting our voices and demanding more democracy on European and global level, we can achieve that. Hold them accountable and have a say in international politics, not just local.

A more democratic EU, Europe and international organizations is the first step of transparency. We can have a say in the New World they are trying to create. We should not allow them to use the old practice of divide and rule, if we all get involved and cooperate together we are stronger.

A pan-European T.V. channel/broadcaster for transparency?

Wouldn't be great if we could have more transparency of what is going on in Brussels and the EU? People are in general unaware about the actions of the European Parliament and even a lot of the do not know who their MEPs are.

We need to allow them greater access to European politics, for democracy and the guaranteed success of the European project.

It is about time that people had an idea on what is actually being discussed in the European Parliament, as many decisions that are being made there affects them directly. The best way of achieving this in my opinion is the formation of pan-EU media.

Recently the Europarl TV was launched, a brilliant idea to reach EU citizens directly. The national Governments' lack of enthusiasm in informing the citizens how the EU works, can be at last dealt with. But then again the internet is great, but most people I know just download music,movies and videos from it, socialize in social network sites, or just keep in touch by e-mails.

Not as many actually go on-line to watch a speech given by an MEP in the EP. Besides there is the older generation that we need to attract too,or others that are the so called "technophobes" and those people do not use the internet for their information.

A pan-European T.V channel is more suitable for the European citizens.One that everyone can have access to it. There is Euronews of course for news and other topics,and the French/German T.V. channel ARTEL, but only about 7 million viewers in EU out of almost 500 million regularly watch them.

It will be a channel that if the public want to watch it , will be just one zap away. If they do not, then they won't. So no one can accuse EU of promoting its so called "propaganda." Because there are people that see every move by the EU of promoting and introducing itself to it's citizen's as one.

There could be (let's say the name of the channel is EUTV) EUTV ITALIANO, EUTV SVENSKA, EUTV SLOVENSKO, EUTV ESPANOL, EUTV HELLENIC, EUTV EIRE,EUTV SUOMI and so on. One channel for every language of EU, partly financed by EU, partly by the states.

It will broadcast the same context but translated in many languages just like Euronews is doing right now. The context will include movies, news, soap operas, cultural events, cartoons, documentaries etc from all EU members, along with EU news and broadcasting from the European Parliament.

In that way people of one country will get to know the culture and all the events taking place in another EU state. Besides with more and more expats living in another EU country, what better way in staying connected with the country of their origin?

Thus citizens of all ages and backgrounds could have access and an understanding for the EU activities and updates. In my opinion citizens deserve this.We pay and spent money for other ridiculous things , we should start working in gaining the trust and interest of the citizens for a change. I am sure it will pay off in the long term. 

For direct European democracy and transparency, the television can become a great tool for information and stimulating an active participation in European politics, an active citizenship.

Tags:

About the Cultural Capital of Europe

I was wondering why we never see ,watch or hear any updates from the Cultural Capital of Europe events in our national media. Every year one or two cities of Europe have the honor of being the Cultural Capital of the continent.

But we as citizens, have never the opportunity of watching on our national television any acts, events or news from the Capital, unless we are living in the city itself. What is its purpose then?

Just another way for the local Municipality of making money or receiving funds from the EU budget? Isn't it supposed to have a purpose other than giving money to the City Councils? God knows how those money are used. Isn't one of its purposes for Europeans to getting to know the city, its history, its culture,and the country it belongs as well?

And of course to promote and celebrate European culture, that comes in so many ways, in all its countries echoing from centuries old traditions, depending the city's history. It should be considered a great cultural event, but it is actually only the Eurovision Song Contest that gets our attention once a year. And I would not actually call this contest the best example of European culture.

Wouldn't be nice if we did watch events from the Cultural Capital, and get to know other cities or regions of Europe, coming in contact with other European cultures, way of living, arts, history, an so on? How do our leaders expect the EU project to succeed, if they leave people indifferent and they do not inspire them to follow and embrace the project?

It could be a great tourist attraction opportunity as well; judging by the need for extra cash in most countries in Europe now-days, what better way to promote your cultural wealth and attract tourists?  People would watch, read, or experience all the best that a city has to offer, become more curious about it and book a holiday there, either during the events, or in later years.

It could also lead to a booming of arts and crafts in every region of Europe, if the money that were invested in each city were not only used for reconstruction, but also to create and support local artists and cultural communities. Never mind creating a sense of belonging to all EU citizens, by allowing people from one side of Europe to watch how other European people live their lives and celebrate their traditions.

To conclude, for me the EU should also be about people, history and of course the various cultures of Europe. Either our leaders like it or not, the EU project is about the people of Europe too, not just its elite. The sooner they understand this, the better results we will have in the European project.

The current European Capitals of Europe for the 2012 are the cities of Maribor in Slovenia and Guimaraes in Portugal by the way. How many of you did you know this?

Europe's Common Agriculture Policy.

The Common Agricultural Policy is a very divisive issue in Europe for so long.  Even after so many decades since its creation, Europeans argue in every EU budget about it. In every debate on the future EU Budget European leaders bicker over it. This policy has been one of the most successful, but also one of the most controversial in Europe. The CAP has changed a lot since it started in 1962, and continues to change today. The latest proposals, for the CAP after 2012, have 3 priorities: a) a viable food production, b) sustainable management of natural resources and c) balanced development of rural areas throughout the EU. The CAP's budget is spent in 3 different ways: a) Income support for farmers – who receive direct payments, provided they live up to strict standards for food safety, environmental protection and animal health and welfare. These payments are fully financed by the EU, and account for 70% of the CAP budget. b) Rural development – measures to help farmers modernize their farms and become more competitive while protecting the environment, and to keep rural communities thriving. These payments are part financed by the member countries, and account for some 20% of the CAP's budget. c) Market support – for example when bad weather destabilizes markets. These payments account for less than 10% of the CAP budget. The aim of the CAP is to provide farmers with a reasonable standard of living, consumers with quality food at fair prices and to preserve rural heritage. (http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/faq/index_en.htm#2) However, the CAP receives a lot of criticism. It amounts for about a third of the EU budget and some of the new states complain that they do not receive as much as they should. Many states like the UK want to totally scrap the policy. They claim that is harms the environment, it is unfair for the developing countries and it harms any development or competitiveness of their products and agriculture. They also note the amount of wastage that this policy creates, its ineffectiveness and the corruption or lack of productiveness it promotes, by encouraging European farmers not to produce and have access to easy money.    While I understand there are many faults in the policy, I do not believe that the solution is to scrap it all together. Simply keep reforming it. For starters we need to start spending less on it. The farmers may protest in every cut, but realistically they can not be the only ones who benefit from a third of all European budget. There are many other sectors that we need to start investing in. Europe's economy, as each country's individually must change. We need to invest in new industries and that can only happen by redirecting some funds from programs that we overspend, like CAP. We also need to start forming a European economy and to start finding solutions collectively. The Agricultural sector's issues should be dealt in a pan-European level. We should invest where we have potentials for profits, as a group of nations. Now that of course is a very bold change and it will require a very strong leadership to achieve. Because it is understandable that people will protest. Many of them will have to change gradually lifestyle, career and see their job prospects, environment or options for work change. If we look at a European map, we can easily recognize where there is potential for Agricultural growth and investment and where not. Also if we take in consideration the different climates of Europe, it is easy to see where we can cultivate what and in what quantities. And there the investments should be diverted. Until now, many farmers were receiving CAP funds while they did not bother to cultivate their land. They were inactive farmers. Just because they owned a certain amount of land they qualified for the subsidies and that was it. Because of certain quotas, some other farms were producing too much and they were forced to destroy some of their production; that is such a waste. As we deal with everything with bureaucracy and in such large proportions, we often lose the touch with reality and what would be best for us. And because CAP was one of the first and most successful EU policies, it is outdated and in need of constant reform to keep up with the ever changing reality of the European economy. Some people who benefit hugely by it do not want to lose the goose who lays the golden egg, so we are having to deal with a policy that is not fully functional. And every effort for reform, is blocked by strong farming lobbies from the benefiting countries. That does not mean that CAP must be scrapped. Rather deal with that sort of exploitative interests. I totally agree that the new states must start receiving more form the policy and become equal partners in it. Look at Poland and Romania, two countries with vast farming potential. Yet we prefer to waste valuable resources in farms of the "Old 15," just because they are spoiled in having it easy and do not want to see competition coming from the East. How can we build on European "solidarity" like this. I do believe that CAP helps us keeping our products competitive against other regions that are enhanced by Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO),  those that come from America for example. If we scrap CAP we will have to either to adopt GMO crops too, or rely on other regions to produce our food. But we will have no chance of influencing the practices that our food is produced with. Just look at the recent horse meat scandal. We have to know where and how our food is produced and under what standards. Only with a functioning European Agricultural policy we will be able to know what goes on our table. And we also need to protect our farmers from the evils of globalization. How can the farmers in a small EU country like Ireland, can compete with a huge country like Brazil in beef production for example? If we scrap CAP totally, we are forcing the Irish farmers into a disadvantageous position. We should keep parts of CAP intact, but withdraw all the policies that do not work anymore.  Countries with an interest for the spread of GMO, each for their own reasons, perhaps must compromise to the will of the majority of the European public opinion. They have an agenda, so they try to convince us for the need to scrap CAP. But our collective interests are not necessarily best represented by these few countries. Since we have one single market in EU, there must be a unanimous agreement into the promotion of GMO. There is absolutely no point in some countries allowing them, while other blocking them. The Single Market can never work this way. By investing in innovation and research, we can create more efficient ways of growing crops and create opportunities in diversifying our economies in all spheres, including agriculture. We have some of the best universities in the world, all we need is to pour money into the appropriate projects, to see the European project blossom and rip the full benefits.

EU defence Policy, and Frontex.

Starting with 2015 the American military base with terrestrial interceptors in Romania will be functional, followed up by the one in Poland in 2018. They will be part of a whole anti-missile system, along with satellite, ground and sea radars. The shield is meant to protect Europe from a possible attack from Iran, and not only.

But what will we have to give back or compromise in order to receive America's protection? Why can't Europe form its own defense mechanism and not rely on others for it? The idea of an European common defense is strongly supported by France and Germany. And I think it is about time to seriously consider it.

There are those of course that claim that we do not have any enemies,nobody is going to invade Europe so why do we need the army. Then we deffinately do not need U.S.A to protect us from anyone. Why do European governments allow them to install their missiles on European soil?

Is it for money or favoritism by the US Government? Perhaps this arrangement is an exchange for other business or financial preferences and investment. But such deals do not come without price. Europe can not form its own independent foreign policy in some areas. Our relation with our neighbors for example, the Russians who strongly protest over the missile installments, can never be bettered as long as we turn missiles towards them. 

What do we show to the Russians in this way? Why do we still keep living in the Cold War era and only because we keep needing a bogey man in the West, so that we can explain the vast amount of money that we spend on weaponry in Europe, and not in schools or universities? 

And all that so that a few arms companies can profit out of these deals. While our relationship with our neighbors the Russians is ever on a roller coaster.  I do not support all that they do or represent, but in the end of the day we have borders with them and we rely on them for our gas and oil not the Americans. 

We should seek to have better relations with Russia, and end the cold war. No one will attack Europe if we stick together, especially the Russians that make vast amount of money out of Europe through our trade for their gas and oil. Why on earth would you attack your best customer? As for Iran or anybody else, why would they attack a united Europe? Can any state have hopes of winning a conflict while having to face all European states together?

In my view a common EU defense will give us the autonomy to decide our own foreign policy.And that is something that we need. We are not talking about creating one single army to replace all national ones, rather a small highly equipped and trained to implement them. National ones will still continue to exist as normal. The European army will exist simply to offer assistance to any state in need.

With the possibility of facing not just one army but a highly organized European one too, together with the possibility of a more European reaction, who would actually attack any European state? The very existence of a common European army and defense policy would be our best form or defense, that we would rarely need to use it. More European solidarity and support for one another, would be our answer to any potential threat.

Some others that oppose the creation of a common European defense also point out that we need the "Anglo-American" intelligence and that by using theirs, we do not have to pay to create a new army from scrap. We should rather let the Americans protect us and invest these money to other causes they claim.

Well each NATO country contributes to its budget so why not use this money to support our own army. Why do we need other nations' intelligence and we can't create one of our own? We got involved in wars that we should not have (Iraq and Afghanistan), because most of us are in NATO.

Many that support NATO claim that it has kept peace in Europe and provided us with protection all these years. In my opinion the organization is a remnant of the Cold War days. When Europe was divided in two and half was under the protection, but also the control of the US and the other half under the Warsaw Pact, controlled by the Soviets.

Today Europe is being uniting again and its does not need the protection of any third powers. Protection from others equals dependency and how can Europe become a bigger player in the World without clear, united, firm and independent voice in all political, military and economic fields.

The NATO alliance has become from a defense mechanism to a tool to promote the interests of some Western powers' elites. Notably the oil and arms industries' elites. Some countries especially the new EU members in central and eastern Europe think that by joining will receive lump sums of money, military training from USA and protection from Russia. Why can't a united Europe provide them with all these?

They also want to give a message to Russia, that their dominance over them is over; that they have gained their freedom from them. Well by becoming dependent from another power, the case of freedom is relative. They have just changed "protectors," same theater scene but different actors. Why not combine and unite our resources and potential and instead of seeking protectors, become equal partners to them. 

Another point for the creation of a common defense policy is that an army is not used only in cases of war. But also during natural disasters and for controlling of the borders against illegal immigrants, drug, weapon and human traffickers into Europe. In cooperation with FRONTEX they must guard our outer borders since we have none inside the union, because of the Schengen area agreement.

Fancy a job creation? How about being able to work in any EU border as a patrol officer or any other qualification needed, anywhere in Europe's borders? All countries should contribute either financially or by providing equipment and with volunteering staff, since it is not only up to the countries on the borders to safeguard them. If one country has weak borders, we all take the consequences.

I believe that Europe should get out of the NATO alliance and create it's own defense system, so that we will be more independent from USA militarily and politically. Not that Europe and America should drift apart totally in those spheres. But what I envision is a more equal partnership between Europe, Russia and the US.

If Europe wants a stronger voice in the World political sphere, it should stop just being its largest market. Many EU member states have a neutral status but they already participate in all EU peace keeping forces (Ireland and Sweden for example). Contributing to Europe's defense is no different than protecting their own borders. Borders that are increasingly coming down between European states.

The European common defense policy will have a military body that will not replace the national ones rather implement it and assist the national armies in case of emergencies. This body that will be only for defense purposes, will be comprised by volunteering officers and soldiers from all member states.

It will be allowed to participate in peace keeping operations but only after the European Parliament's agreement and under the request of the UN. In fact the European Parliament should be given the command of the European army and the control of the European common defense policy's budget. Nations that still want to opt out will be able to do so if the public opinion is against it, but they can not block the rest of participating.

This is a plan that has still a long way to go until it is materialized, but hopefully it will be soon enough. Because most Europeans still feel that Europe has other priorities to deal with, instead of investing in another "common" policy. Plus they are weary and cautious of any plans for the "militarization" of Europe. What they do not realize is that as long we rely on others for protection, we do not have any choice in which conflicts we can get involved or not.

Bazaar "L'Europe"...!!!

Many euro-sceptics are shouting and demanding that Europe and EU does not proceed into a political union,and nation states do not lose their autonomy and "freedom". To me that is interpreted as "no to a fully functioning European Parliament, if any at all". No governance on European level, rather just trade. An EFTA/EEA kind of thing.

Well if we ignore the fact that any parliament is the base for a functioning democracy, and they accuse of EU not being democratic enough (how odd is that? Accusing for lack of democracy but then you reject the best democratic tool is being given to you), do we really want a Europe that is just a big market?

A big bazaar that companies and multinationals can sell their products and buy things. And we have NO say over what is happening in that market. A market that will affect us all directly since we are this market, while the rules and laws of this liberal "open" market apply to us all!

That is what is Europe at the moment,and see what problems we get. Problems that we have no way of controlling, since our governments do not necessarily advise us of their decisions and how they are going to affect us. The problems are being discussed on an intergovernmental level.

Leaders from all European countries participate in summits and forums, discussing ways of moving forward. But we are not informed on what is being discussed or asked for our opinion.

Isn't it better to have a stronger European Parliament with more responsibilities, roles, controls and since we can vote for our representatives and participate into the decisions taken in it, have a voice and say in the decisions?

A very important thing would be to be able to see what is being discussed in it. Rather being kept in the dark and rely on our national politicians who are most likely to blame their failings to EU. If you think about it, our governments and the bodies they form or nominate like the EU Council, or the EU Commission are the ones who control the EU at the moment, while the EP is weaker than it should.

So our governments fail us twice,one in national and one in European level. But unfortunately Europeans are not yet ready to accept that they belong in federal-like entity. Thus we are going politically in circles, always lingering somewhere in the middle and covering up our problems. When the solution is far more simpler.

We have created the EU and it has offered us so many benefits. But like all things, it must evolve to be ever successful. With a changing world and different circumstances in every decade so it also must change.

But what we are doing is patching things up, unwilling to allow the EU to evolve into what it was meant to be by its founding fathers. Nationalism, protectionism and conservatism prevails and the interests of the few political, industrial or financial elites of each country are being served. Not those of the citizens.

To conclude, for me if EU/Europe is to stay just a big market, I think I will oppose it. I want to have a say in Europe, as much I want to have a say in my national affairs. But if EU is to continue it's existence, and either we like it or not it will, then I do not want my country to be just a supermarket stall in this huge market.

I do not want my nation to be something that some speculators will advise investors of how much they  can make or lose  money out of it, which are the best countries to invest in and so on. I do not want my country to be treated as shares in the stock market, as it is at the moment.

I do not think EU is democratic at the moment, or that citizens have a real say in it. The point I am trying to make is that if EU continues to exist, I do not want it to be just about making profit, an open market, with no consideration of it's people and their needs or wishes. If we want to make EU democratic, we will have to support a stronger Euro-parliament. For us the ordinary citizens, there is no other option.