Women as a market from a Capitalist point of view.

We live in a consumerist society, in which our aspirations are defined by a collective set of values. These values are often either expressed or defined by our media, together with the numerous revenue enhancing advertisement campaigns that they run. 

That set of merits is ever changing according to the social, political or economic changes that a country goes through its history. By examining or studying a nation’s history of media, we can create an accurate profile of a society or the values its people adopt and why.

Print publications are the oldest form of mass media, with magazines playing a significant role. Their importance, form, content, narrative and "commerciality" have drastically been altered through the years, reflecting the changes taking place in our world.

As societies evolved, the role of men and women comprising them also did. Women in particular have been the focus of most major reforms. Gaining voting rights, or the right to work and own property, have been the most significant landmarks in the evolution of our modern societies. 

But according to many, that does not mean that women are not being subjected to pressure to conform to a different set of ideals. Their role this time is to be the driving force of the consumerist and capitalist system, by turning them into bigger and better consumers. 

This idea was expressed by an iconic feminist, Gloria Steinem. She is a political activist, author, editor, and all-around advocate for equality. Her ideas on the role of the media, especially those of the women’s magazines, help us understand that the reason women’s magazines look the way they look, is much less about readers than it is about advertisers. (1)

Advertisers simply won’t place advertisements in women’s magazines unless they write about their products. Other magazines may be punished if they write negatively about some product area, but only women’s magazines have to write positively or they don’t get advertisements in the first place. (1)

A lot that women liked very much has gone out of women’s magazines, like fiction and articles that just aren’t about products. Women’s magazine editors have to sneak in a couple pages here and there about something that isn’t a product. They are more like catalogs and should be given away free, according to Steinem. (1)

Fashion in particular has generally been conceived as a form of hegemonic oppression, exerting an obligation to conform that weighs heavily on the female population. Fashion photographs generate enormous dissatisfaction among women, because they create unrealistic expectations that most women are unable to meet. (2)

Feminists argue that media images of women are always directed at men and that women are encouraged to look at themselves and other women, the way men do. This view of hegemonic femininity, as the feminists believe, is incorporating masculine standards for female appearance that emphasize physical attributes and sexuality. (3)

Young girls in particular, often express unhappiness and dissatisfaction that the magazines portray an unrealistic female image, especially in terms of body shape. (4) The magazines’ editors’ claim, is that they cannot control the choices of photographers and art personnel. (5)

These artists allegedly perceive that a certain look will create the best image aesthetically and will be well received by their peers in the art world. So in addition to the advertisers who manufacture and sell beauty products, there are others in the industry that influence the images appearing in the media, especially photographers who want their pictures to be beautiful. (5)

There is also a lack of editorial control based on the direct and indirect influence of advertisers. The editors report that there is a strong connection between the editorial pages of the magazines and the advertisement ones, which are purchased by corporations to sell their products. (6)

Ultimately, advertising is the vehicle through which magazines and other media exist and they could not survive financially without it. So when the magazines are dependent on pleasing the advertisers, they struggle between the organization and the advertisers over how women should be portrayed. (6)

In this way, modern women are bombarded with myriads of advertisements that are promoted as role model for them to aspire. A role model who requires a lot of money to spend on cosmetics, plastic surgery, hair products, clothes and accessories, in order to fit in with the dominant image of a woman in our era. 

And so the struggle for women’s equality is partially driven not just by human rights, but also by the need of our capitalist system for more potential spenders. Ultimately women are perfect for that role, as to maintain the image that the media are promoting requires an ever increasing salary. 

In fact the late modernity unshackles women from the patriarchal past, when they had limited freedoms, rights, money and spending power. In post industrial times the “feminization” of labor, holds young women in high esteem as flexible, presentable and capable worker. Now the new feminine subject is economically independent, liberated from the domestic sphere, realizing the possibility of “having it all”. (7)

This commercialization of our gender, sexuality and race is very important to the capitalist, consumerist societies that we live in. We are all turned into buyers as well as billboards, for companies to advertise their products with. We unwillingly become trade-able commodities, as the population and its buying power or habits, are analyzed, categorized and exploited by the markets.

References:

1)      Gloria Steinem. Women who made History. Miss Omni Media. 

2)      Gender, Race and Class in Media. Gail Dines, Jean M. Humez. Sage Publications. 2003. Gender and Hegemony in Fashion Magazines. Page 314.

3)      Gender, Race and Class in Media. Gail Dines, Jean M. Humez. Sage Publications. 2003. Gender and Hegemony in Fashion Magazines. Page 315.

4)      The Gendered Society Reader. Michael S. Kimmel and Amy Aronson. Oxford University Press. 2008. Contested Images of Femininity. Page 371.

5)      The Gendered Society Reader. Michael S. Kimmel and Amy Aronson. Oxford University Press. 2008. Contested Images of Femininity. Page 372.

6)      The Gendered Society Reader. Michael S. Kimmel and Amy Aronson. Oxford University Press. 2008. Contested Images of Femininity. Page 373.

7)      Gender Youth and Culture. Global Masculinities and Femininities. Anoop Nayak and Mary Jane Kehily. Palgrave MacMillan Publishing. 2013. Gender relations in Late-Modernity: Young Femininities and the New Girl Order.

The return of the Cold War in Europe!

During the past few days, Europe is in shock and disbelief. The developments in Ukraine and its region of Crimea, would well suit a Hollywood film scenario: but no, what is happening there is happening for real.

The Russian leadership decided to "protect" the Russian speaking population of Crimea and Eastern Ukraine, by sending troops to annex the region.

These excuses that Mr. Putin and his government are presenting us with, are no different than what the Turks were supporting about them invading Cyprus. "We are doing it to protect our nationals from violence, therefore we are entitled to invade another nation and compromise its sovereignty by force".

Firstly we haven't seen any violence yet between the regions of Ukraine or among its ethnic groups. So where does this argument stand? Secondly, even if the crisis in the country escalated indeed, Russia should not have taken the situation in its own hands, without the agreement of any other UN member states.


The outcome of such actions could be similar to those of the Turkish ones in Cyprus, where the situation still hasn't been resolved after so many decades. The only difference here is that in Ukraine's case, because the West has interests in the region, they will make a serious effort to find a solution and compromise.

Even if the situation is as Mr. Putin describes it, that the crisis won't descent into a war between Ukraine and Russia, or that the troops in Crimea are not Russian soldiers but pro-Russian local self-defense forces, (The Guardian) his actions are still unacceptable.

The interests of both the Ukrainian and Russian people, do not lie with the interests of a few Russian oligarchs, but with a closer cooperation and relationship with Europe. What would be best for our continent, is for Europe and Russia to become closer partners even allies, putting the decades of the Cold War well behind them.

The citizens of these two nations would benefit more if they had similar benefits and rights to those of countries like Norway; free movement, better living standards, opportunities to study and and travel visa-free across Europe. What their leadership is doing, is creating a canyon between the EU and Russia with few chances for an ever improving relationship.

The Russian government simply is showing their true colors and nature. They do not have the best interests of their people in mind, rather they are still living in the past, in an era that should be put well behind us. The Cold War mentality should be abandoned by either side.

While Europe has a fair share of blame in the situation, by sticking way too close with the USA over the years and not seeking to solidify better relations with its neighbors and other global powers, Russia is totally wrong here.

Just because its middle aged leadership hasn't abandoned its Cold War mentality that they grew up in, wishing for things to remain as they are,or even worse go back to what they were before, the whole continent of Europe faces the threat of instability and turmoil. Perhaps that is what the Russians are trying to achieve and Ukraine is just the chess mat.

If Ukrainians want closer relations with the EU, they should be allowed to have them. Even if the day comes that the country is accepted in the EU, I do not see why this is such a bad thing for Russia. Millions of Russians will become EU citizens, as thousands are already, through the membership of the Baltic states.

Russia might lose territories to have under their "influence", but they are going to have influence in the EU itself, since millions of EU citizens and thus voters, will be of Russian origin. And what is this issue of splitting Europe in parts and spheres of influence? 

We are one continent and it will be wise to bring all of Europe's nations together, from Iceland and Portugal to Ukraine and even Russia itself. I do not believe that a Russian EU membership would be good for either party, but a closer relation and cooperation between the two would certainly benefit both sides.

The Western nations and Russia must abandon this mentality of carving Europe and the world in parts, according their interests. Last time we did that, the consequences were bad for all of us. Besides, we can not engage in war between us.

Europe is still trying to recover from the economic crisis, a war right now would be disastrous. It took us decades to achieve what we have and a new war could spell the end of our efforts.

Any sanctions we could impose to punish Russia for its actions, as proposed by many European governments, won't wear the Russians much. Sadly they are not Iran, they have vast resources and they can live with them. Besides, we are the ones who rely on their oil and gas.

I am afraid the only solution left to end this tug-of-war between Europe and Russia, is for the Russian population to do what the Ukrainians did and change leadership. Only if their current administration with its outdated mentality and policies is ousted and when Europe forms an independent from the USA foreign policy, we can eventually see stability in our continent. From the West all the way to the East.

An interview with Gay Mitchell MEP, on past, present and future of the EU.

In a recent interview with Gay Mitchell MEP, we discussed about the impact of the economic crisis in Europe, the Irish EU membership and the future of our continent. 

Mr. Mitchell strongly believes that Ireland became truly sovereign the day it joined the EU. “Everyone should think of what it was like before the country joined the block, when the value Ireland’s currency and interest rates were set by the British Chancellor of the Exchequer,” he says. 

“Our biggest export was people,” he adds.  There are 800 thousand people of Irish descent living in Britain to this day, who left during those years. “We had an economy which actually provided cheap food for Britain,” he describes. 

Mr. Mitchell recalls when he became a member of the Dail (Irish House of Representatives) in 1981; there were very few descent roads in the country, no financial services sector and though Ireland had an agricultural industry, it lacked the food industry that it has now. 

Today Ireland has pharmaceutical and information technology industries which are very big. “We export to the EU more computers for business use than the USA does,” he says. 

Ireland has also a booming tourism industry and the EU enabled the country to diversify its economy. “We have one Commissioner plus one Minister at the table in the EU council, on the same basis as Germany and France,” he explains. 

Of course bigger countries have a bigger vote, but the European way is trying to find consensus and agreement. Still Ireland has a disproportionate vote regarding its size.

The Secretary General of the EU Commission is Irish (Mrs. Catherine Day), plus the one before her, as well as the Chief operating officer of the EU Foreign affairs (Mr. David O’Sullivan). Ireland has recently had the rotating presidency of the EU Council for 6 months. “When did we ever have that influence in any international organization,” Mr. Mitchell asks. 

He believes that EU membership has changed Irish society. But additionally it preserved its cultural elements. When Ireland joined the EU, people supported the view that their language is part of who they are and wanted to keep it. 

So the Irish language became one of the EU official languages, while all-Irish speaking schools were established in Dublin. “Europe gave us that” Mr Mitchell explains, when a lot of his generation have lost their Irish because of the way it was taught in schools.

“In my heart I do not believe that Ireland has seen its best days yet. The Celtic tiger years were phenomenal for our country, but our best days are ahead of us,” he states. 

Ireland has been in the EU since 1973, yet it is still not a net contributory to the budget and it won’t become for a number of years. The country receives a lot of money out of the Common Agricultural Policy. 

Each time the Irish ministers boast that they fought a great fight in Europe, to get this money for Ireland. When things go wrong they claim that they have to implement laws because “Brussels” requires it. 

The EU takes decisions through the Council of ministers, the European Parliament and under the proposals of the Commission, in all of which all EU member states are represented. 

When there are talks about the economic crisis people hear the words Troika, the EU, European Central Bank (ECB), and the EU Commission. But they do not hear how the ECB and the European Commission provided a lot of the support which member states got. 

“We got to stop doing that to ourselves and start explaining to people what the EU is about. It is not about us getting money and transfers. I look forward to the day when Ireland is actually a net contributor, because that will be our membership fee for a very good facility,” Mr Mitchell explains. 

“I spend a lot of time visiting schools, speaking with trade union groups, NGOs and business people, explaining to them how the EU works and what it does,” he adds.

In the economic area Europe has to solve the problem of Eurobonds. “And I think that euro-bonds will come about. If we are going to have a single banking supervisory mechanism which we will have, it is sensible to have EU bonds that we can all avail of,” he also says. 

The Germans will write the cheque and give the guarantees for this, so the rest of us we’ll have to get our house in order to qualify. It is important to make it possible for the Germans to sign the guarantee. It will save a lot of money and make a big difference. 

“I also think that any ESM funding directly from banks, has to be retrospect. It is only fair to do so, plus our macroeconomic discipline is measured on our debt being a percentage of our GDP. It is done in the same basis across the whole of the EU. If on the Greek or the Irish balance sheets for example, are things that are not on other balance sheets then that is an unfair comparison. That needs to be resolved,” he explains. 

But that is not the only problems that the EU faces at the moment. Under the crisis there has been a rise of nationalism and far-right political parties. One of the oldest members which always had a difficult relationship with the EU, Britain, is holding a referendum on its membership by the end of 2017.

“I understand Mr Cameron’s dilemma but in Britain it is difficult to debate the EU, just like it is difficult to debate neutrality in Ireland. I hope we never find out through some very bad circumstances, that we really haven’t spent the money that we should on our own defense forces to protect us,” Mr Mitchell says.

Likewise, Britain in the EU is in a very precarious situation. Mr Cameron has said that he favors Britain remaining in the single market, even if the people voted to leave the EU. The rules governing the single market will be decided by a Commission, a Council and a Parliament, in which Britain will have no input but whose rules it would be required to follow. That does not make any sense. 

Britain should be leading Europe. They have the political and the diplomatic skills to do it. And more Europe would actually suit them better, but they can’t see that. 

Another key issue for Europe is the rebirth of the social market economy. It is not a socialist or a liberal invention, but a Christian Democrat one. Its ethos is not based on a religious element, but on four principles: enterprise and social justice rights and responsibilities. 

“We just stopped talking about social justice. I am in politics because of that and the reason why I spend so much time in the development committee. Anybody can talk to you about it, as a great line to get elected on. But with every right comes a responsibility. We have a responsibility for ourselves and to each other, and if you want social justice you have to encourage enterprise,” Mr Mitchell says. 

“If someone gets out of bed and goes to work every morning then they should be encouraged to do that, because that creates wealth. And if you can’t go to work part of that wealth should be used to help you,” he describes. 

But when you go to avail of the public services, in which we put a huge amount of the tax payer’s money, we have to have accountability. Because there are so many votes in the public service, there should be some kind of protected entity. 

Mr. Mitchell believes that that is the base of a new type of social market economy launch. We need a rebirth of the social market economy, because that is what happened at the end of the WW2. 

Konrad Adenauer, the first post-War Chancellor of Germany, said at the time that the European project is about people, not about money. Business people in Europe need to create an ethical environment in which to operate.

“I am pro business, because business creates wealth. But when we create wealth we got to distribute it well, have good public services and give people a fair opportunity. So all of us who are in the mainstream of politics, we need to think about this and start talking about social justice,” Mr. Mitchell explains.

Europe will have elections in May 2014.  Mr Mitchell believes that who we send to the EU Commission and to the EP, matters. “First thing citizens got to do is turn up and be committed. Also get on to the committees that are relevant to their country and express what their view of Europe is,” he says. 

He brings as example the Irish legal system. Everyday people see one or two judges reported in the papers for a number of serious offenses. They don’t hear about the other judges. But if they were not there, we would live in a jungle. The job they do is important. 

It is the same with MEPs and TDs. “It is not all about the ones who are in the media on a particular day. But about the guys who turn up and do their committee work, network and carry influence, who are measured, have a descent view of what is good for Ireland for Europe,” he continues. 

Whoever people are going to chose, they should chose the ones who are going to participate because they will have a real say for 5 years. 

Ireland is a country that has always been and still is in its majority, a pro-European nation. Yet in the last referendum on Lisbon Treaty, as well as many previous ones, the Irish citizens voted against them.

“I think De Gaul was right. He said that referendums are funny things, because when you ask people what they think, they do not answer the question you ask. In elections of that kind you can have people protesting, because they think they can,” Mr Mitchell notes.

Sometimes in a referendum people vote no, because they want to punish the government. Not all had to do with Europe during the referendum. Nevertheless there was a concern about Ireland losing its Commissioner.

The Oireachteas (The Irish National Parliament) committee collected evidence and they percolated all these issues, which later they identified. Then the Irish government went and renegotiated them. 

“I like the idea of Ireland and all the small states having a commissioner. The Germans, the Brits and the French gave up their second commissioner. But if we get to 35 commissioners, what portfolios will there be and will we end up having a commissioner for something obscure,” Mr Mitchell mentions.

Perhaps if the EU had only 20 substantial commission jobs, with every country having one by strict rotation, potentially that would be a better way. “People chose the former and for now it is probably right,” he notes. 

If there is ever a huge number of Commissioners, there may be a question of revisiting, yet this is not being pushed on Ireland by any party. The Irish people themselves might come to this stage later on, when this is no longer a concern. 

Gay Mitchell believes that his biggest impact in European politics was in the development of dealing with the 3^rd world. He was recruited by the assistant secretary general of the UN, to advice her on disaster risk reduction.

Gay Mitchell is an Irish politician and was elected Member of the European Parliament (MEP) for the Dublin constituency, on 11 June 2004. 

He is a member of Fine Gael, part of the European People's Party, and a former Teachta Dála (TD) for the Dublin South–Central constituency from 1981–2007. 

He does not plan to run for this May’s European elections.You may find more information about his work on his website here.

The second part of the interview will be published on OneEurope. 

Why a Greek citizen is not eligible to vote in Greece?

The list of the outrageous and peculiar political decisions that European leaders are taking is growing, as the European elections are approaching.

The Greek PM, Mr. Samaras and his government have revoked the voting rights of Greek citizens living abroad and the Greek citizens (in my opinion), which are second generation immigrants that were born in Greece, by legal migrant parents.

(Prime Minister Antonis Samaras’ New Democracy-led government said it will not allow Greeks living abroad, nor second-generation immigrants living legally in Greece, to vote or stand as candidates, revoking a 2010 law without debate The National Herald).

It seems to me that the Greek government is afraid that the more voices and opinions will be heard during the European and local elections, the more the result will be out of their predictions.

The 2010 law that would allow these individuals to vote has been revoked without a debate. As a Greek of the diaspora, I feel that such decision is outrageous and shows the true colors of Mr. Samaras' government.

I understand that just like the British MP, Mr. David Cameron, that has to deal with the challenging popularity of the euro-skeptic party UKIP, Mr. Samaras has to deal with the rise of Golden Dawn. Both Prime Ministers are so forced to implement right-wing laws, in order to satisfy the rising nationalist sentiments among their country's populations and keep their party's votes.

But revoking the right of citizens to vote is down right undemocratic. I will not be able to vote for a Greek MEP to represent me in the European Parliament for the next 5 years, because my country won't allow me to.

And by European law I won't be able to vote for an Irish or any other European candidate that I chose. Because there is no legislation to allow such thing, or it is as complicated as one could imagine to do so for and Irish MEP. So my voting rights as a European citizen are limited.

The Greek government is obviously afraid of the voting power of the Greek diaspora, that are informed about the economic crisis that troubles the country from another point of view. They follow the developments in Greece through European media, while living in various other political systems and so their judgement is not blurred by the Greek media.

The Greek citizens that still live in Greece, have been subjected to years of misinformation, propaganda and lies from the Greek political elite, in order to maintain or change the current balance of power in the country.

So if the Greek state gave power to its diaspora, the outcome of the elections would potentially be unpredictable for them and obviously that is something they can not risk.

The other infuriating issue is that the children of Greece's legal immigrants, won't yet again be able to vote in the Greek elections and practice their democratic rights. Being born in Greece by non-nationals that legally migrated in the country, should logically make them Greek citizens, eligible to vote. Not in Greece.

And before I continue I would like to make a distinction between the meaning of a Greek national and Greek citizen. Many Greeks and if fact many Europeans are confused about these two and I do not blame them.

Their governments have never bothered to explained the difference to them, so they can always have a card to play their divide and rule game. Poor against rich, public against private sector, native against immigrant, in order to divide public opinion and manipulate it.

A Greek national is somebody that is "of Greek blood", an ethnic Greek whose one or two of his parents is of Greek origin. A Greek citizen on the other hand, is somebody who stayed in Greece for a significant amount of time or was born in it, paid taxes, contributed to the community and was of course a legal immigrant into the country.

As long as these individuals are legally residing in the state for a period of time that the Greek law defines, that makes them Greek citizens and they are entitled to their voting and other full rights, that any Greek citizen must have. I do not understand why certain people think that by allowing a foreigner that has been living in Greece for a decade or so to vote, makes them less Greek and it erodes their "Greekness."

Of course that is an issue that does not exist just in Greece but in many European countries and it must be explained to the people. People who live legally in a country for so long, should be entitled to citizenship and equal rights like every Greek citizen or national.

Both the Greek state and the EU in general must create a pan-European common and clear immigration policy, that will protect the rights of both EU nationals and EU citizens. It will allow only the number of immigrants and with the qualifications we need in Europe, but it will grant them with rights and protect them as citizens, workers and of course human beings.

So far we had irresponsible immigration policies that served nobody but the capitalist elites and their need for a cheap working force with no rights. Illegal immigrants, or seasonal migrants in Europe play this role and these policies should be tightened or revisited. Combined with an economic crisis, they are becoming a dangerous mix that pushes Europeans to the arms of the far-right and euro-skeptic parties. 

What is happening right now in Greece is disgraceful. The Greek government is fearing the change in the well predictable Greek public opinion, that new voters would bring.  If the new Greek citizens have a different opinion or political affiliations than the ordinary Greek national, they can have an impact in the elections.

I personally welcome new voices in the Greek political life to be heard, as Greece needs it desperately. The Greeks, as most other Europeans are voting along family traditions, political ideologies, or personal interests and acquaintances to help them achieve personal and petty financial or material ambitions.

New voters means new ideas and voices that could break this vicious circle and alter the political scene of a country, for the better. If of course these new votes are not linked to naturalization promises, in order to vote for a certain political party.

Rumors have emerged in the past in Greece, of bribed Greek naturalization processes in exchange for loyalty to a certain political party that represented the establishment. These practices alter the result of the election and of course undermine the democratic process, that exists in Greece only by name as it seems. 

Either Mr. Samaras and his government, are fearing the rise of Golden Dawn in the upcoming elections or the influence of new voters, the outcome of their decisions are down right unacceptable and wrong. No government or politician that respects the very word "democracy" and the people who they are supposed to serve, should proceed with the implementation of such laws.

How "European" of you!

The past week I have been reading some very infuriating news stories from across Europe. It proves that sadly nationalism and euro-skepticism are here to stay.

If the European leaders want seriously to maintain the European institutions and project, they will have to show leadership and skillful decision making at last.

The first story comes from a non-EU state, Switzerland. We are very used to the Swiss conservatism and xenophobia, but this time the decisions that this country made, will have an impact in the free movement of people policies in Europe.

In a referendum today, the Swiss decided to put a cap on the number of people entering their country, in an effort to stop "mass immigration." The proposal for the referendum was proposed by the right-wing Swiss People's Party.

About 50.3% of the population voted in favor for the proposed legislation, which will mean that the country will have to abandon its free movement of people treaty with the EU, potentially putting at risk other deals with the organization on trade.

The issue here is if the EU do the same for the Swiss. If EU citizens are not able anymore to move freely in Switzerland, why should after all the Swiss be able to move freely to other European countries? Hopefully the EU will not allow this discriminatory policy towards some of its citizens to be implemented, without applying the same rules on Swiss citizens.

The Swiss are happy to allow capita and money from other nations flowing freely in their country, but when it comes to people, they become a bit choosy! I wonder if they will proceed with free movement limitations for the rich tax evaders that want to settle in their country, or such limitations exist only for the poor EU nationals.

If they were not a tax haven, they wouldn't be as rich and so migrants from poorer countries would not want to go to Switzerland. Now that the visa limitations have expired for Romanian and Bulgarian citizens, we are witnessing Britain having a difficulty dealing with it and Switzerland treating us with their good old xenophobic self, by wanting to limit the free movement of EU citizens.

The problem here is that while they are priding themselves about their democracy, sometimes when the decisions they are making are based on populism and their worse self, then their democracy become a "mobocracy". And that is a deviant form of democracy.

The real problem here is migration from the newest EU states, or the crisis hit nations of the euro-zone. And that aspect makes this development even more infuriating, as it is simply racist. When it suits some countries to implement certain laws and legislation they are happy to do so, until populism sets in. Such attitudes are of course not only a Swiss phenomenon.

Most EU nations battle with immigration and populist, right-wing or left-wing parties are mushrooming across Europe. Their growing power is fueled by the economic crisis. Even the country that is considered to be the "heart of Europe," has this week been the ground of a similar story.

Belgium decided to send "burden" EU citizens mainly from Romania, Bulgaria,Italy and Spain, a letter asking them to leave the country. The reason being that they are an "unreasonable burden in the country's welfare system".

The issue that I find peculiar here, is the fact that Belgium has some of the most generous welfare systems in Europe. While in Greece and other countries welfare payments are not being given to job seekers indefinitely, in Belgium they enjoy the benefit of long term social security.

This generosity of the Belgian social welfare system, is what attracts people from other EU and non-EU countries. The real solution to their immigration problem would be to reform their social security policies, making less attractive to "burden" migrants.

But this would also mean that the Belgian "burden" citizens would not enjoy the very generous pay-outs and which Belgian would support such reforms? Where would the Belgian social welfare recipients go, to avail of the very generous support, especially now that Switzerland is closing its doors too? Alternatively Belgium will have to break EU law and apply different legislation for Belgians and another for other EU nationals.

The problem here is that Belgium is what the capital regions are in every country. The capital cities are always enjoying  more affluent social services and infrastructure, than the peripheral regions of a country. Belgium does not produce as much as it did in the past and in fact it is one of the net recipients from the EU budget, because it hosts the majority of the EU institutions and the European "capital," Brussels.

In other words, the wealth of the country is not just "Belgian" to keep it just for the Belgian citizens. And let's not even talk about the fact that a lot of that wealth comes from their ex colonies, during the era of the country's colonial expansion.

I do not disapprove the right that every country has to protect its interests, democratically decide on its laws and practice what it thinks it is best for its citizens. But either it is Belgium, Switzerland, Holland, France, Greece, Germany or many other European nations, we observe a lack of real solidarity between them.

Each nation pursues only its interests and they succumb to the rising populism and pressure of extremist political parties. Instead of helping the countries of origin of these immigrants, or reforming their own social security policies to make them less attractive, they decided to go for the easiest option to deport-even if they ask politely- the migrants.

If Europe actually helped countries such Romania, Bulgaria or even Greece, Italy and Spain by encouraging job creating and investing in them, then their citizens would not be forced to migrate. The example of Italy itself is something that Europe must avoid at all costs.

During the unification process of Italy, the northern part of the continent invited the rest of the country to unite with them. But instead of practicing solidarity, they have exploited them politically and economically, forcing them eventually to migrate to the northern part of the country and all over the world. And while it was Northern Italy that predominantly wanted to unite the country, they are now the ones who want to secede from the South.

That is exactly what is happening in Europe too. Even though the Belgians claim that what they are doing is within the laws of the EU and they are right of course, they are missing the point. People will stop coming to Belgium and become a "burden," only if they have jobs in their countries.

Of course I could not leave out from the list of recent euro-skeptic incidents, the developments in perhaps the most euro-skeptic countries of all: Britain.

British Conservative MEPs have cried foul over a proposal to create a permanent European Parliament sub-committee to deal with the single currency, saying it would have “major implications for the UK to regulate its financial services sector” and represented an attempt to “curtail” the influence of British MEPs.

Syed Kamall, the leading British Tory MEP in the European Parliament, said such a development would be divisive and dangerous. "To create a separate committee that only euro-zone MEPs may belong to sets a dangerous precedent. It is a case of divide and rule,” he said. (EurActiv.com)

I guess the British understand better the practice of diving and rule, since it is a policy that they have been applying for a long time. The funniest thing in this story is that the conservative MEPs, who would be excluded from the proposed sub-group, fear that important decisions could be taken behind their back.

Then why Britain is having a referendum to leave the EU, since if they do, that is what exactly going to happen. The British wish to stay in the single market, without being a full member of the union. But if they want to stay in the free trade zone, they will have to comply with policies that will be decided by the EU Commission, Parliament and Council in which they will not have any delegates, as they will have left the union!

In other words the rest of Europe will decide policies that the UK will have no say on, but it will have to comply with. It is laughable and ridiculous! One would start to believe that the British leadership does not know what it wants anymore. Here he have the British PM Mr. David Cameron pleading the Scottish people not to leave the UK, because together they are stronger (or because England has access to the Northern Sea oil reserves).

But they reject the exact same argument for the case of themselves leaving the EU altogether.The union is stronger if all states stay together and cooperate. The British conservatives not only do not want the EU to proceed with further integration, they threaten to leave the club unless they get what they want, yet they still wish to have a say on what the EU should do or not, with or without them. I guess De Gaul was right after all!

A excellent example of US foreign policy towards Europe!

The latest development in the Ukrainian crisis, offers us a glimpse of what is really going on behind closed doors on a diplomatic and geopolitical level, while people in the streets of Kiev are fighting for their country's future.

In an alleged "leaked" telephone conversation of the new American top diplomat for Europe, Mrs. Victoria Nuland with the US Ambassador in Kiev Mr. Geoff Pyatt, Mrs Nuland suggested that it must be the UN who should "glue" the developments in Ukraine and "F*ck the EU!"

This incident throws a light in many issues that are taking place in Europe and the world. It is clear that no development, being in Ukraine, Syria, Brazil, Greece or elsewhere, is meddling free from the great powers of the globe.

Either it is the USA, Russia or Europe, all are trying to serve their interests in the region by pushing an agenda, while opportunistically grabbing any chance or social upheaval in key nations like Ukraine to achieve their goals. The Americans want to push the country into the arms of the West, while the Russians understandably oppose the expansion of American and European influence into what they believe it is their sphere.

In other words the protests now are not just about what the Ukrainian people want, but also about what the big powers and players in the region are after. This will mean that whatever the initial protests back in November were about or wanted to achieve, it will be now much more difficult to accomplish since America and Russia are actively engaging.

The Ukrainian people are not fighting just to overthrow their leaders, but from now on-if not from the beginning- they will be fighting to help establish a new status quo in the region. This can have potentially very dangerous or disastrous consequences for the country and the EU-Russia relations.

Sadly for the Ukraine, it lies in a very strategic location and is a country with vast resources, both natural and human. Those important assets are the main reason of the country's suffering and why the Russians, Europeans and the Americans are so engaged in the protests and developments in the country.

The most obvious threat is of course that Ukraine might split up, or even worse that this split won't be a peaceful one. Secondly if Europe takes the side of America, though it will be stupid to do so after what was said by Mrs Nuland and the recent NSA scandal, it risks a serious blow with its already strained relations with Russia.

We must not forget that Europe still relies heavily on Russia for its gas and besides, the more the EU expands the more shared borders it has with Russia. It is not wise to be always on each others' throats. If Europe starts speaking with one united voice in the global political  scene, it can be a serious contestant and player in the world.

The Russians will respect Europe only if we show unity and solidarity among us and do not be afraid to stand up for our interests, either we do so towards Russia, USA, China or any other global power that may arise in the future. The EU and Russia ought to come closer and in the same time Europe should distance itself from America a bit.

Our continent should start actively pursue its own interests, while having its voice heard in the world and its region. It is clear from this new scandal and from the Snowden revelations on the NSA activities in Europe, that America is not always in the same boat with EU, nor that our interests are always best served by being so closely attached to them.

America has its own agenda that is not always in-sync with Europe's. In other words it is time for the EU to affirm itself both as global player, but also against Russia and America and stop them from imposing their will over our territories.

The Americans obviously wanted Europeans to impose sanctions against Ukraine and because of Europe's slow response, the US diplomats get frustrated. They do not understand that the EU has 28 member states, each with a different view and it is hard to come to a decision quickly.

Besides any sanctions against Ukraine could push the country further away from the EU. If these proposed sanctions are targeting Ukraine as a country or the Ukrainian people, in a time that they need our help the most, they could have the opposite result than the desired.

If we target the country's political and diplomatic leadership and place sanctions against them, this could also cement their ties with Russia. Since Europe is punishing them for something they did not really have a choice over, since Russia has still a great economic and political influence over the country, then we give them no choice but to run to "mother" Russia for protection.

The Ukrainian leadership rejected the EU-Ukraine free trade deal, because it had no choice. The Russians basically have blackmailed them to achieve their goal. The Ukrainian people are right to protest and their dedication is admirable and inspiring for the rest of Europe. But if things happen too hastily, the result could be a greater violence escalation.

What Europe could do perhaps, is not trying offer a "carrot" to the Ukrainian leadership in order to lure it into its sphere of influence, rather offer this carrot to the Russians so that they let Ukraine go, or at least ease on them. In other words, good EU-Russia relations are key in solving the conflict and America is not helping by being hasty and acting like a bully.

Finally Europe must stand for human rights, either it is within the EU or in its neighboring countries like Ukraine. If the EU stands for its own citizens, it will always remain a beacon that will attract the citizens of all European nations, including Ukraine. In other words Europe is right to wait before it intervenes, but it should engage with the Ukrainian and the Russian leadership immediately as a mediator though not as America's envoy.

Rather as a friend, neighbor and collaborator of both sides and with the best interests of the Ukrainian people in mind.