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.

Why push for a common EU language?

Various people believe, that Europe should have a common language. And for some of them the "Esperanto" language is ideal to be the future language of EU and Europe.

If any language should dominate Europe in the future, will do it gradually, naturally and because people will chose it to be the "lingua franca."

And this language already exists; it is English. I do not see why we need to start teaching a manufactured language to our children from scrap.

It will take lots of money to train and educate enough teachers to speak the language perfectly, so that they will be able to teach the millions of young Europeans. Never mind the millions of euros needed to spent printing books for every school across the EU.

This could be a waste of money, especially now that there is an economic crisis in our continent. It would be preferable to see this money being spent in supporting other projects like the Erasmus, that are far more important.

Even if we do agree on Esperanto being our common future language we must start doing it now, as soon as possible so it can establish itself with the future generations. But there is just no will in the current economic climate, or the capability for something like that for the foreseeable future. Until then, more and more people across Europe will speak English and it will be far more difficult for Esperanto to take over.

But why it would be a good idea to have a common European language? Well firstly we must make it clear that we are not speaking of a replacement of our national languages, rather the establishment of a second official pan-European language.

Most Europeans would be against the replacement of our national languages by a single one. My native language is Greek,a language that survived for thousands of years and I do not see why we should abandon it now. The same sentiments have most people of Europe.

We could have though, a second official language in our continent. Either that is English (that it would make sense, since most of us communicate in English) or any other existing European language like French or German, if the British decide to withdraw from the EU.

A second official language that will exist in all member states and will allow even more free movement in people, goods and services. I would love for example to move to Finland, but since I do not speak Finnish it is difficult. There would be very few companies and job opportunities there that would employ me without me speaking the native language.

If there was a second official language,people could move to any European country more easily without having to learn the national language beforehand. That would be of course a temporary situation to help people in their new beginnings. But they would be obliged to learn the native language after they moved and decided to stay for good in that country.

In the beginning they could find employment in all available jobs apart from state and government posts, the army,police, public sector position and as high ranked executives. Once they learned the native language,they could be employed everywhere and have equal employment rights.

And that so that they will be motivated to learn the native language, if they want to have a better future and become fully integrated in their adopted country. We must value the diversity of European languages and wish it to remain so. But having so many languages across Europe, though it enriches our collective heritage it also makes it more difficult for people to move around.

By living and working in a number or other countries, European people not only will be learning more languages and coming in contact with other European people and cultures. They will also gather more working experience like new skills, new way of thinking and doing business. In that way we will create a multilingual, diverse and highly skilled European workforce but also a more "European" populace.

Both Europeans but also immigrants in Europe will be able to find employment across Europe, and companies will find it easier to establish themselves in another country and attract workers to employ. Immigrant workers won't be bound to a few countries, jobs or cities that can find employment by using old colonial languages only. When the language borders will break,then the borders of Europe will truly collapse.

Pan-European TV Channel, more European movies please!!

I grew up in a Europe that most of the films come from on single industry: Hollywood. We in Europe not only are well able to make good films, but we have a large market to promote them. Funny isn't it? The largest market in the world, can not be dominated by internal film "products".

I also think that Hollywood has become a mass propaganda machine, not just for America but for the whole capitalist system. We mostly see films about their lifestyle, trends, values, way of thinking.

 We are being "Americanized," while we should be promoting and safeguarding our own values. Our American "cousins" are getting a huge advantage in dominating the world, by exporting their culture. And not just that, but they are getting a lot of revenue by dominating the film industry.

It is time to promote "Europeaness" and Europe in every chance we get. Our European culture,cities, countryside and lifestyle. Not to dominate the world as the Hollywood tries to do, rather to get to know each other and get that feeling of having something common. European movies in many European languages.

We have already many Film Festivals in Europe, we could start linking or synchronizing our film industries and create a base. Perhaps in Cannes in France, or any other city that hosts a well established film festival: Berlin, Venice, Dublin, Thessaloniki.

How about a common T.V. channel? A pan-European T.V. channel to broadcast not just news like the Euronews, but also programs, movies, documentaries,music, cartoons, events from all over Europe, even soap operas, T.V. series and so on.

Imagine what great initiative that would give to young European directors, artists, cartoonists, documentary producers, actors, music groups, if their work could be promoted not only in a national but pan-European level. The bigger the market, the more success and impact.

I was talking to an Irish taxi driver once. He told me that his son wanted to be a cartoonist, but for that, if he really wanted to make money out of it, he was thinking of moving to Japan! If we had a market over here, somewhere that young European artists can promote their work, our children would not have to move elsewhere.

The role of the EU Commission and national interests.

In  the aftermath of the Irish rejection of the Lisbon Treaty during the first referendum, one of the main points of concern of the Irish people was the loss of their Commissioner.

In the Treaty there was initially a plan to have a set number of Commissioners and not all countries would keep theirs. At any time, some countries would be left without a Commissioner, but there would be a rotation of the countries without one in every new EU Commission formed.

Taking into consideration the fears of the Irish electorate,  it was decided that each country will keep it’s Commissioner, after the Treaty was passed.

But what will that mean? The E.U. Commission by default, should not represent national interests. Therefore each state’s Commissioner, should not promote his/her country’s agenda. So while the Irish (and many other nations shared the same view) wished to keep their Commissioner, I am wondering what impact this will have in the future both of the Commission and EU.

First of all, the Commission will keep growing. Now we have 27 Commissioners, when Croatia and Iceland will join we will have 29. If the West Balkans join we will have 5 more Commissioners bringing their number to 34.

And if EU expands further to include Norway, Switzerland , Turkey, Moldova, Ukraine, the Caucasus Democracies and so on, we will have an ever growing number of Commissioners. That means that we will have to create more and more positions for them and not only them, but the myriads of their secretaries, spokes persons, assistance stuff etc as well. Who will pay for all their salaries? We will.

The second implication is that the Commission will act for ever as a chess mat for national interests. That means that not only the Commission will act against it’s original purpose, but there will be permanently a competition and antagonism of the member states, both in the Commission and EU. Some say that this is healthy and welcomed. But how can we achieve solidarity and unity this way?

That is the reason of the many failures of the EU so far, the internal ever lasting bickering of the member states that lead to inner squabbles, indecision, lack of initiatives and action. The EU is going in circles. And when more members will join, this antagonism will grow as well.We will thus need a very strong leadership in the Commission to deal with this and keep the peace, while keep the project working.

Do we need so many Commissioners? In my opinion no! The EU Commission should have a specific role, and that is not to lead the EU, or serve the national interests of each country. It should have a rather administrative role. Make sure that all member states comply with EU laws and legislation for example, to help member states follow the regulations. Or refer any member state that does not comply with the laws to the European High Court for prosecution or fining, and to propose EU legislation.

Not to represent the EU or take the whole task of decision making in Europe upon itself. For those purposes we have the European Parliament to vote for or against laws and legislation. We should have a permanent President elected by the people and a Minister of Foreign Affairs appointed by either the Council or the European Parliament.

I also do not understand the worry of the smaller countries, that by losing their permanent Commissioner, larger countries will have more say. The rules applies to all and even Germany, France and the United Kingdom won’t have a Commissioner for sometime in rotation.

But since the Commission is not what it should be and it is used for promoting national interests, then of course some countries are worried about losing out. My opinion is that the number of Commissioners should be specific and stable. So should their roles.

Only when we are ready to limit our national ambitions, the EU will work better for everybody. I do not mean to give up our national interests. Rather start thinking a bit more "European." The notion “I am pro-European because EU is good for my country” says it all I guess. I wish we could say “ I am pro-European, because I believe EU is good for all nations in Europe”.

Πρός όλους τους Βουλευτές του Ελληνικού Κοινοβουλίου.

Αξιότιμοι Κύριοι και Κυρίες του Ελληνικού Κοινοβουλίου,

Εκλεγμένοι από το Ελληνικό λαό, και έχοντας την τιμή να τον υπηρετείτε και να τον εκπροσωπείτε, επικοινωνώ μαζί σας για να εκφράσω την απογοήτευση και την απέχθεια που αισθάνομαι για όσα γεγονότα λαμβάνουν μέρος πρόσφατα στην πατρίδα μας.

Ενώ αντιλαμβάνομαι την όποια κρίση υπάρχει στην Ελλάδα, την Ευρώπη και τον Κόσμο, και την έκτακτη ανάγκη να σώσουμε την χώρα μας απο μια βαθύτερη οικονομική κριση, τα τελευταία μέτρα που πήρε η Κυβέρνηση σας είναι σκανδαλώδη. Έχετε κυριολεκτικά ξεπουλήσει όλον τον εθνικό πλούτο και κάθε εθνική αξιοπρέπεια σε ξένες πολυεθνικές εταιρίες, ενώ βυθίζετε τον Ελληνικο λαό σε μακροχρόνια πτώχεια και θα τολμήσω να πώ σε γενοκτονία!

Με τα μέτρα αυτά, πώς περιμένετε ο ελληνικός λαός να επιβιώσει, και η νέα γενιά να κάνει νέα ξεκινήματα στην ζωή και οικογένεια, όταν δεν υπάρχουν δουλειές στην χώρα μας, οι μισθοί κατεβαίνουν αντί ν'ανεβαίνουν ενώ παράλληλα οι τιμές των βασικών ειδών κατανάλλωσης συνεχίζουν νάνεβαίνουν μήνα με το μήνα.


Και όλα αυτά για κάτι που δεν ευθύνεται ο Ελληνικός λαός, αλλα εσείς και οι προκατοχοί σας τις τελευταίες 3-4 δεκαετιες, έχοντας καταφέρει να κάνετε την Ελλάδα περίγελο στην Ευρώπη αλλά και τον κόσμο περισσότερο από μία φορά. Έχοντας ξεπουλήσει όλα τα εθνικά θέματα όπως την Μακεδονία, και έχοντας αφήσει την χώρας μας, μιά χώρα με τόσες δυνατότητες, έρμαιο των ξένων συμφερόντων.


Η κρίση στην οποία βρισκόμαστε ξεκίνησε σε άλλα μέρη του πλανήτη αλλά επέκταθηκε και στην Ελλάδα απλά από την διαφθορά και πλεονεξία των τραπεζικών και της πολιτικής ηγεσίας της χώρας μας, και αντί να τιμωρήσετε τους υπαίτιους, βάζετε τον Ελληνικό λαό σε τέτοια υποτιμητική και εξευτελιστική διαδικασία. Είμαι σίγουρος μετά από υπόδειξη αυτών που έχουν συμφέροντα από όλο αυτο το φιάσκο.


Είπαμε να κάνουμε την Ελλάδα μια σύγχρονη χώρα, μια χώρα που να είναι ένα υπόδειγμα στα Βαλκάνια, και όπως μας είχε τάξει προεκλογικά ο Κύριος Πρωθυπουργός μας, μια Νορβηγία του Νότου. Αν μας δίνατε και τους μισθούς της Νορβηγίας δεν θα είχαμε παράπονο.

Αντί αυτού οι μισθοί των Ελλήνων έχουν φτάσει στα επίπεδα μερικών κρατών της ανατολικής Ευρώπης, και δεν μας φτάνουν όλα αυτά, θέλετε να μας κάνετε και μια πολυεθνική κοινωνία νομιμοποιώντας τους μετανάστες, ενώ καλά καλά δεν υπάρχουν θέσεις εργασίας για τον Ελληνικό λαό! Ε θα μας τρελλάνετε τελείως! Θα έπρεπε να ντρέπεστε!

Τέτοιου είδους μεταρρυθμίσεις δεν γίνονται σε καιρούς που το έθνος αγωνίζεται για την ίδια του την ύπαρξη και ο λαός υποφέρει. Ας τις κάνατε όταν η χώρα ευημερούσε και υπήρχε πολιτική και κοινωνική σταθερότητα. Αλλά τότε μόνο κοιτούσατε να κατακλέψετε τον κόσμο!

Δεν γνωρίζω τις προσωπικές σας πεποιθήσεις αλλά εγώ προσωπικά αισθάνομαι υπερήφανος που έχω γεννηθεί Έλληνας και πάντα ονειρευόμουν μια Ελλάδα ισάξια των άλλων Ευρωπαικών κρατών. Δυναμική, ανταγωνιστική, με πολλές ευκαιρίες και ποιότητα ζωής και για τους Έλληνες αλλά και για τους μή αυτοχθονες πολίτες της χώρας μας. Με εσάς στα ηνία της χώρας αμφιβάλλω αν ποτέ δω αυτο το όνειρο να πραγματοποιείται!
Ελπιζω να γνωρίζετε τι κάνετε και να με διαψεύσετε στο μέλλον, αλλά μήν νομίζετε ότι ο Ελληνικός λαός τρώει κουτόχορτο! Δεν είμαστε εμείς Αμερικάνοι. Σας εύχομαι καλή επιτυχία στην θητεία σας και καλό κουράγιο και υπομονή σε όλη την Ελλάδα και τους Έλληνες.


Μετά τιμής,

The Eblana European Democratic Movement.

My view on the Greek Crisis.

With the recent developments in Greece, we read a lot about the situation there from our media, but are we seeing the true picture of the situation there?

 Is Greece just a corrupt failed country, that struggles to keep it’s economy in order? Or what is happening in Greece today is a well orchestrated attack, a financial war against the nation, that could spread to the rest of Europe?

Make no mistake, Greek politics are full of corruption, but one need to look at the modern history and geographic position of the country to realize the root of the problem.

Apart from the troubled and violent recent history of Greece, a huge role played it’s strategic geopolitical location. Greece has often been caught up in the conflict of interests of the known superpowers of each era, as it lies in an area of huge interest and importance, the Balkans. And it is known that they meddled with our internal affairs and politics. That helped a corrupt elite to be established, many times supported by external players.

The Ottoman and Byzantine remnants are also very crucial, as our political system is inevitably influenced by them. So we are caught in a situation that is being perpetuated and supported by corruption, and global political games.

Greece could be a very rich country as it has huge amount of resources. It’s climate, the fertile earth, the underground wealth and minerals, it’s landscapes, plus an educated multilingual youth, combined with it’s strategic location. If we add its links with Europe, the middle East and the former USSR states, it should be a investor’s paradise, a place that anyone would like to work and live. Sadly it has rather become over the decades a place that is almost ruled by no one.

But now we see a new threat to Greece’s sovereignty : the Markets. They have gained so much influence and power, that they threaten whole nations. And Greece, one of the weakest links in Europe and the “developed” western world, is just the first test in my opinion.

If their attempts are successful in Greece, more countries in Europe will follow. Our governments bow to the bankers and their demands, despite the protest of their people. The tax payers money is being used to bail them out, while they treat countries like companies. Each country is a corporation, that they think they can make it go bust or boom for their profit. Gamble with countries and nations, as they do in the stock markets.

In a way, Greece has been targeted by organized financial terrorism, and it is only to induce fear and submission to the Greek people. So they will bow and obey to the will of what the Markets and the investors demand, according to their interests in the region.

Greece is being dragged into high interest repayments that will cripple it’s economy and it’s people for decades to come, so that those people who orchestrated the crisis will make a profit, not just by the failure of Greece. But also the failure of it’s shared currency the euro in some extend.

Greece is being caught once again into a financial this time war, just because of it’s currency. In the past enslavement came upon a nation with bullets, bombs and tanks. Now days, enslavement comes with shares, bonds, and huge loans for bailouts. And Greece is just the beginning, we already see the list of potential targets. Portugal, Spain, Italy and Ireland are already in it.

Even if the blame lies mainly with the incompetence and mismanagement of the Greek political elite over the decades, in my opinion the same elite was just copying their European counterparts. Most European leaders were following the same policies, inspired by the other side of the Atlantic: cheap and easy money to spent, creating more money to spent by borrowings and lending, creating bubble economics.

Now it is the people that will pay the price and will be forced to take cuts, while being dragged into a blame game between public and private sector, creating divisions within them. Divide and rule politics of this new era.

My only hope is that the people of Greece and of Europe in general, will start reacting and pushing for reforms and not stand passively. Because the effects of this tricky era, will last for years to come and those effects will be difficult to reverse. You can free yourself from an occupier and an oppressor of your country. But how can you get rid of the huge debts that you are forced into?