Who are the real "Presidents" of Europe?

President Martin Schulz, president of the European Parliament. President Jose Manuel Barroso, president of the EU Commission. President Herman Van Rompuy, president of the EU Council. Three Presidents, but who leads the EU and Europe? What are all those presidents doing and why it is necessary for us to have them? How much do we know about their work and how it affects our lives? And finally, are they really the true "rulers" of Europe, or just EU officials?

When we are talking about the "EU elites" you do realize that we are talking about our national elites, our leaders. All our national governments put together. Mr Hollande, Mrs Merkel and Mr.Cameron, together with the rest of our leaders, their accolades, the people and lobbies who support them, finance their campaigns and so on. 

There is no separate "EU elite." The EU officials are mainly appointed and influenced by our governments and only the MEPs are directly elected by us. The problem is that we do not know what is being discussed behind closed doors in all those EU Council summits that our leaders attend. What deals are being made between them, what do they compromise without our permission of our national interests and sensitivities. Personally I want a stronger EU Parliament to take control. I say no to "inter-governmentalism" in EU and those agreements that we have no say at all. What I want is a transparent democratic union that listens to its people and serves their interests.

But that I am afraid is only going to happen through the EP. The Council that represents our governments is, as it stands right now, more powerful than the EP. Just look at how Merkel speaks about Europe and its future as if she represents us all. But no, she represents only the Germans that elected her surely, why she is taking the lead in Europe? Because Germany has invested so much in the euro project, more than others some will say. Yes, but they benefited the most as well, don't forget that. 

I would want an elected representative, or one of the already appointed officials preferably Mr.Schulz, the E.P.'s President to speak for me and represent me, not Merkel or Holande.  At least he represents the only elected by the citizens body of EU. Our national leaders like Mrs Merkel have no legitimate authority to speak on behalf of all Europeans, never mind shaping their lives and dictating their future. So you see the problem lies with our national governments and the long ago established European elites that do not want to let go of their interests and influence on the continent and on other nations and regions of Europe.
 
We do not want any Merkel, Cameron or Hollande to promote their country's interests, we need someone who can understand the issues and problems of all EU states and speaks for them, promote solutions that are benefiting all. Not of the rich elites or the rich nations only. We have too many "Presidents" in EU and Europe and we pay them fat salaries, but none of them seem to be allowed to do their job without interference from our national "Presidents."

When the EU and Europe is a battlefield of national interests, with the leading European powers wanting to take the reigns of the continent, how can we ever move forward? When all they do is manipulating and ordering smaller and poorer states how it is best to govern themselves and follow their rules. And not just that but still lingering in post WW2 attitudes, engaging in intrigues on who is gonna gather more supporters to have it his way, I do not see much European solidarity going on out there!

"Where there are too many roosters clucking, it is slow to dawn," says a Greek saying! And that is exactly true for EU and Europe right now! And that is why the European project is failing and we are going around in circles. Can we ever make Europe speak with one voice and assert itself globally, when too many roosters are calling from its ruling posts?

ACTA, SOPA,PIPA...A threat or not?

As a blogger, I can not support the mentioned laws (ACTA,SOPA,PIPA). And while I understand the arguments that support this idea, the property rights and loss of revenue of the creators, I fear the way it could transform the internet and how we use it.

The reality is that once we set those new rules up, inevitably there will be many loopholes that we haven’t explored. Then there will be always people that will find a way around them,or ways to break the rules. Then we will have to apply new laws, to regulate the regulations. Then more regulations to regulate the regulations of the regulations…

So can we eventually find ourselves having a total censorship on what goes on line, published, shared or even said? Can those laws and regulations be the first step of internet censorship, starting from the obvious and righteous and then moving further?

The Americans want to protect their intellectual properties, but then why are we developing technology that can copy and share music, videos  either privately or on-line? What is the difference of someone buying a CD of an artist or a film DVD, then make a copy of it and share it with his/her friends, than someone downloading legally a tune on-line and then share it with his/her friends?

What if this law is expanded further, to include magazines and articles from the press, what is being published on-line and how it is shared? Freedom of information and freedom of expression is one of the advantages of the internet revolution. Why halt it? Besides, if you do not want people to copy your work, do not upload it on-line!

We have invested and we continue to invest hugely on technology associated with the internet. I-Pods, I-Pads, I-Phones and so on. Why allow people to have all those, if you do not allow them to freely buy, share, comment, copy and write stuff on-line? And if they can not do that freely, then why invest in a technology that must be used in a limited way? Never mind the limitless websites that will have no purpose of existing anymore, or the companies that provide fast speed internet services; why have it if you can't up-load or down-load stuff freely?

So what if these laws continue to evolve and include not only what is being copied and up-loaded, but what will be written on-line too? As a blogger I dread the fact that one day I won't be able to reach people in all corners of the earth and stimulate their brains with an alternative point of view, that is not being given on the mainstream media. That one day there will be so many regulations that my blog or my articles will be found unsuitable for the general public to read or copy.

We criticize Hungary for the recent legislation (I do not agree with most of them either) or China for having an internet policy and censorship, but are they trying to set up a legislation to control what is being said on-line in the West too?

If we think that our national media are not national at all ( there are about 6 multinational companies that own and control the bulk of newspapers, magazines and TV channels in the whole world) then how free our media are anyway? We did have the scandal in the UK with Rupert Murdoch’s tactics, then who tells us that our media are accurately giving us the news as they happen?

Why not allow everyone to write, read and share news and articles of whatever they want on-line, free and without borders, as an alternative source of information that is banned or classified by our mainstream media, that God knows to whom they answer to? Perhaps people like Murdoch or our Governments? Will we have only the Murdochs of this world shaping our reality?

It is double standards. We criticize Hungary and China only because they put their hand to the main stream media and those people with money that own them are annoyed. Yet we do not seem to be as bothered about the other media (blogs) that have something to say but get no recognition simply because they are challenging the status quo of this system we live in.

Yet Europe was not reacting in such way about Italy and Berlusconi all those years, not "until the knife hit the bone" as we say in Greece. He was corrupt, everybody knew that, and he owned nearly all media in his country. That puts in question on how free was Italy's media all those years. But when in comes to Hungary everybody is pontificating about the "freedom of the press."

To conclude, I totally understand that American artists want their work safeguarded and raise more revenue. They put pressure on the American Government to pass those laws and pressure their allies in Europe to do the same. But aren't they making enough money already? They dominate the music charts and the blockbuster movies. The biggest celebrities and stars are from America.

So I wonder if the American Government is taking the rest of the world in ransom, in order to secure their dominance in the entertainment industry? And for that, they are happy to limit even more what we can and we can't do online? I do not care if I won't be able to download stuff from the internet, I never had and I never will.

But if one day a law is passed that stops people from visiting this blog, or any blog or website that allows people to share ideas, information, news, things they love and their creativity, then I will have a problem with that and I believe everyone should.

So what safeguards our right to have a free internet, if we allow some governments to limit what we do online bit by bit? What will come next then? Think about it.

Can we have a renewable energy efficient Europe by 2050?

The current Danish EU Presidency has pledged to promote for a “sustainable” Presidency, promoting the idea of a sustainable energy efficient Europe, by 2050 if possible.

I really hope so, I really want to see this happening! But I do not think that Europe will manage to switch to 100% totally renewable energy by 2050. I mean look at us; we are having difficulty deciding over what is the best way to tackle the current economic crisis that it is in our door step NOW!! Can we agree on something that will be totally implemented by 2050?

And with the record of many EU states signing up for something but never making the effort to implement it, I hold little hope. Some states are having difficulties absorbing EU funds, or passing all EU laws because of corruption, political idleness and ignorance of the government officials of EU laws.

First we need a fully functioning union, common policies in many other areas to ensure states agree, promote, implement and stick with the decisions taken. We need a quicker way to take decisions and a tool to make sure that those decisions are binding to all states! Yes I am talking about federalism again!

We need to agree on pan European level where can we draw renewable energy from, and in what ways. We got sun and wind in the southern states, wind and sea currents in the northern states. If we could set up European companies to develop and exploit all these resources so that each country benefits first and then share those benefits with the other member states, then that would be the first step.

We could also create new subjects in our universities and encourage our youths to study and explore new professional paths in the renewable energy sector, and promote it as a life-style for all citizens. Create new jobs and professions in this new green sector, so our youths can be absorbed right after they finish their studies; no point of studying something but there is nowhere to go and get and job!

Those new European companies that will be set up will have investors from many, if not all EU states, not just the rich few. We want this to be beneficial for all countries and to kick-start the interest in all states, because if it is seen as something that is “cooked” only by Germany, France, Britain or Denmark and Sweden, it will harder to convince the smaller countries’ citizens to have the same enthusiasm about this new project.

They also need to see it as something of their own, something that is good for them and that they have so much to benefit from it too. Jobs for their children, prosperity, growth, money, better life-style, healthier living conditions (smoke free) etc. So why not attract investors and government involvement from all EU states? And create a new EU body to overseer this new group of companies and the work that they do in each country. But also the actions that our governments take to hasten the implementation of this new plan. In other words, in my opinion the EU as a group of nations should start creating its own kind of "public sector" companies, where our national governments fail to create them!

They won't totally control the new sector, we do not want the centralization and sluggish management of our familiar national public sector companies. But the EU I think should start investing funds to create this new sector, nurture it and help establish it. Kick-start the process. Look for investors, attract interest and support in each country.

We could cut funds from CAP for example, we spend so much in it; way too much in my opinion. We could form a common defense policy so that we won't have individual defense budgets in each state, rather spend or invest collectively! Share the load and invest all this extra cash in this new sector!

Countries like Greece for example spend too much in their defense. If Europe could secure its borders with this new common defense policy and a better united attitude towards Turkey, Greece could invest all this extra cash with the advise, supervision and cooperation of its other EU partners in producing solar energy. The sun in the Aegean can be used n so many other ways by the Europeans, apart from tanning!

My ideal future economic model for Europe!

Our leaders are debating, attending summits trying to find a solution for the current economic crisis. They want to decide which way forward, what to do to save the euro and the European economy. The citizens are looking up to them desperately, in hope of any good news, something that will lift the heavy load of austerity from their shoulders.

In my opinion it is all in vain, simply because our leaders do not have the guts to do what needs to be done: change the economic system of the Continent! Our economies are capitalist, Market based and overall I accept capitalism as a style to base our economy on. But this type that we have as we've seen recently simply does not work for me, not for the ordinary citizens!

We have given the Markets and the Banks all freedom, they have become way too powerful and in fact they are endangering our societies and their coherence. Market economy is plain gambling.

Some powerful people are gambling on countries, companies, commodities and some of them grew to be so powerful, that can make whole countries go bankrupt. They own more money than many of the smaller nations of this World. So how can you stop or regulate such people, make sure that the future of our children is not in the hands of the powerful few?

We see the "peripheral" European states being pushed into the jaws of the IMF, that has done so much damage in the economies of Africa and Latin America. Who decides which country is worth investing in, keeps its AAA, which one must be downgraded and with what criteria?



The current economic system, the Market based free and unregulated capitalism, is set up by gamblers; a culture of easy money! Who controls the Markets, the IMF and the rating agencies? They all are based over the other side of the Atlantic, if you ever wondered.



Wouldn't be fairer to establish such institutions across the globe and have a variety of standards, not just an one sided point of view? We must acknowledge the influence of various lobby groups, investors and supporters of the campaigns of each political party. The lobbies that surround the EU headquarters in Brussels, also play an important role.

For example with money from Europe and the EU subsidies, Greece has now a powerful farming lobby that is not allowing any real change in the country’s economy. But if you look at the map of our Continent, Greece is a mountainous country with very few patches of green, mainly found in Thessaly, Macedonia and Thrace. Yet farming is traditionally one of the main economic sectors of this country, but it is necessary to to diversify it for a more stable economy.


Instead of having some countries leading Europe, sucking up all industrial and economic activity in the Continent and leaving the smaller states fighting for scraps, wouldn't be nice to have a stable economic model for all? Not an elitist one with few rich countries supporting the "peripheral" ones, after having them on social welfare in the form of subsidies for decades.

A solution would come in the form of a federal Europe, with a collective Government that invests in every country and allows it to exploit its natural resources. For jobs, stability, progress and prosperity of its own people first and then to supply the rest of Europe with the best of what each country can provide. Fish from the north, vegetables from the south, minerals from Greece, agriculture from other greener spots of Europe, wood from Scandinavia, etc.

Look at the European map and see which countries are greener; France, Poland, Romania, Hungary. We should be forwarding CAP funds over there and make them the breadbasket of Europe. Greece can still produce only what other regions can not because of climatic restrictions. Then it can provide Europe with its mineral resources, wind mills, solar panels for energy and other resources.

Why not help or encourage Greece to set up a green renewable industry, instead of remaining a limping farming country? Investments in Greece can transform its economy in becoming more industrialized and compatible with those of other Euro-zone countries. 

We can not compete with France as we do not have a huge land mass like they do, that can be farmed. Them and Poland and Romania have vast farm lands. Establishing a well organized farming industry in the new states can kick start their economies, until they decide to invest in other fields later on. Once their economies stabilize they can diversify it.

Perhaps because the farming lobby in the old 15 EU states is too strong, little change is taking place. Just like the fisheries lobby is too strong in Iceland and keep the country out of EU. People that are milking the system and benefiting form the current status quo, are protesting to any change. And our media often are being paid to serve the interests of these elites and form a sympathetic public opinion. 


Europe should provide and protect its people. We must have equality among the member states and investments focused on where they are needed, to exploit the continent’s natural resources collectively. We can have stability, growth, peace and prosperity for all Europeans, not just a bunch of lazy marketers and bankers.

Why I agree with Sarkozy on the FTT.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy has made it quite clear he is determined to forge ahead with a controversial Financial Transactions Tax (FTT), even if it means his country is the only one to implement it. It seems likely then, that some form of FTT will be introduced in 2012, though it remains to be seen whether such a tax will be at the level of the EU, the Euro zone, the new “Euro-zone Plus” group…or just France.

The European Commission has been pushing for an eventual EU-wide tax, and its proposal was presented to European finance ministers last year by Tax Commissioner Algirdas Šemeta.

Commissioner Semeta commented on the Debating Europe website topic on the issue (here),  answering to some comments, that the financial institutions will just pass the charges to the customers.

It is important to be clear on the scope of the proposed FTT. We want to tax the trading of financial instruments like securities, bonds and derivatives, not the day-to-day financial activities of ordinary citizens or companies. The conclusion of insurance contracts, mortgage lending, consumer and business credits or payment services will, for example, not be included in the scope of this tax. More than 85% of all the transactions to be taxed are transactions within the financial sector, where, for example, one bank trades with another one. So, there is no direct client immediately identifiable to whom the banks might want to pass on the tax incurred.

 Thus, citizens, private households and SMEs will not be directly affected by the tax, unless they themselves invest on financial markets. However, they might be indirectly affected by an increase in capital costs and lower financial asset prices in case financial institutions want to recover the cost of the tax from business with their clients not linked to financial markets. But these effects will probably be limited as the tax rate proposed is low and would in the first place fall on financial companies. 

Even if the bank was to pass on the FTT to its client, such as a private household, the additional charge would be rather low. In case a private household was to intervene on financial markets, for example through buying or selling shares, it should only be charged an additional 0.01 to 0.1% of the transaction volume. If a private household wanted to purchase, for example, shares in the amount of €10,000 his bank might charge a €10 FTT for this transaction. Of course, the more frequently a person traded (with the help of his bank) on stock exchanges, the more frequently the investor would have to pay the tax.

  

It is, indeed, expected that the shareholders of the banks and the investment bankers will have to shoulder parts of the tax, for example through lower dividend payments and reduced bonuses paid out. This effect would not be unwarranted, as a golden rule of sound public policy requires that those benefiting from a public policy should also be those that should pay for its provision.

Another point was that financial institutions will just move to places like Switzerland, where there is less regulation. Mr Semeta replied: 

The FTT proposal should be seen as a key step to making progress on a global solution to taxing financial transactions. A global FTT is the first best solution. The Commission has always been in favor of an FTT at the global level and we think that it would make sense to support this position by leading by example.

We believe that if we can show that such a tax works also at a (sufficiently broadly defined) regional level and generates substantial revenue without harming the overall economic development, then other regions of the world will follow. However, any “local” FTT needs a number of anti-avoidance and anti-relocation measures. 

We want to set a good example to promote the FTT at the global level – as has been asked from us by the European Parliament and the heads of state of the EU Member States. The Commission is not the only one to advocate this idea – there were many supporters at the Millennium Development Summit in NYC recently, for example, but it is true that there is no universal consensus.

We will continue discussing this with our G20 partners. I think the sounder, more solid the evidence of the potential benefits of such a tax we can provide, the greater our chances are of convincing them to work with us on a global FTT.

Nevertheless, already with the legal proposal of the Commission there are a lot of potential loopholes that have been closed. Actually, relocating a transaction (for example, from Frankfurt to Zurich) does not really help in circumventing the payment of the tax, as it is not the place where the transaction takes place that determines tax liability but the place of establishment of the parties in the transaction.

Next argument that was expressed by debaters on the website was the case of Sweden and its experience in the late 1980s. The imposition of a FTT on equities and bonds was a total disaster as trading simply moved overseas. Mr Semeta commented: 

Sweden introduced a 50 basis points tax on the purchase or sale of equity securities in January 1984. A “round trip” transaction (purchase and sale) resulted therefore in a 100 basis points tax. The tax applied to all equity security trades in Sweden using local brokerage services as well as to stock options. The fact that only local brokerage services were taxed is, in the literature, seen as the main design problem of the Swedish system.

We studied different countries’ experiences and we designed the tax carefully to avoid the kind of failure Sweden experienced. The Commission’s proposal includes in particular the following features:

• It has a much broader tax base;

• It makes a link to the residence of financial institutions at EU level;

• It considers financial institutions of third countries with a branch established in the EU or even without such a branch, i.e. makes them taxable; in the latter case when they interact with EU counter-parties (subject to certain conditions).

To put it in other words: Sweden covered local brokerage services whereas the EU FTT would cover transactions by broadly defined financial institutions established in the EU, including pure third country-based institutions when they interact with EU counter-parties. In case of the EU FTT, an easy evasion is not possible if there is a link with the EU territory. Joint and several liability rules ensure enforceability. In addition, a possible move from equity trades to other financial instruments would not be an option under the EU FTT as financial instruments are comprehensively covered.

Moreover, an EU framework provides for a coordinated approach in the EU which should mitigate the problem of relocation and distortion of competition.

The final comment was that the FTT actually does not bring any extra revenue, in fact it shrinks them. Mr Semeta replied: 

The Commission’s extensive analysis show that the implementation of an FTT at EU level, provided that the negative impacts of major risks identified would be minimized, could raise around €50 billion per year, largely depending on market reactions. Also, in case the profits of financial institutions were negatively affected, some offsetting knock-on effects on profit taxes could be expected. The tax will, thus, help to generate revenues for the public budget which could be used for different purposes.

There is indeed a degree of uncertainty on the revenue from an FTT, because it would be a new and innovative tax, and as asset prices underlying these transactions are volatile. This mainly holds for shares and derivatives thereof. Hopefully, also the market volumes for government bonds should decline once budget consolidation progresses. This risk can be managed by using cautious projections for the budget.

When it comes to estimating the effects of such a tax on GDP, a lot of uncertainty exists as well. The figure of 1.7% refers to a deviation of GDP from its baseline scenario in the long run. Thus, it describes a cumulative effect over several decades, while the revenue estimations provided refer to annual revenues. Also, some of the assumptions underlying the concrete model run (such as the design of the tax and the way how enterprises finance their investment activities or how the revenues generated will be recycled) introduced a significant bias in the estimation. 

Correcting for these effects, the more appropriate figure might therefore be in the order of 0.5 to 1.0%. In any case, we should not forget that such figures are derived from macroeconomic model simulations which are specifically difficult when it comes to analyzing financial markets.

My personal opinion was always “make the financial sector pay!” Someone needs to regulate this sector and it is about time to do so, as we have seen what non-regulation of the Banks and the Markets can do. What should be done with any revenues raised? We should use them to erase and pay off any debts of the debt ridden countries. First in Europe if the FTT is passed, or the whole World if this plan takes a global dimension!


As for if the UK will be able to avoid the FTT, I insist that they should not. Enough with this elitism. Elite countries, nations, people, clubs and institutions. Enough with the tax havens and financial centers of the world. Some countries are only separate states from other nations just to serve the role of a tax haven for the rich, while the rest of us are trapped and pay their share. (San Marino from Italy, Monaco from France, Liechtenstein from Switzerland, ect).

What these countries are actually doing, is forcing some countries and its people to be poorer from all this tax revenues lost while others are becoming richer, thus contributing to the global inequality. The sole role of their existence is to be a safe haven for the money that is in some cases stolen from the people.

This money belonged to the people of those countries as taxes that were diverted in Swiss (and other tax havens') bank accounts. Taxes of the rich people that should go to the state, while the ordinary citizens have to bare the weight of paying their share. This can be only called a criminal activity and Switzerland is a part of this.

In a similar way, Britain plays its part in this Matrix of financial games and inequality, as they are “one of the most important financial centers in the world.” So they should own up to it and start playing fair. Their wealth is down to their role as one of the countries that has made itself available to the global financial elite. Becoming in this way a place where the financiers are allowed  to play uncontrollably their games, making profit for themselves.

Bring on the FTT and thank God that some politicians have the guts to suggest such bold moves that  if passed, they will probably be the first step towards a much fairer Europe.

Dividing and ruling our societies.

One of the main effects that the current crisis in Europe and the euro-zone had in all the badly affected countries, was the public sector vs private sector debate. Privatizations were encouraged and many of the social benefits were targeted and cut.

To achieve that, our leaders practiced the very successful tactic of "divide and rule". Dividing the public and turning it against each other, making each side blaming the other for the country's bad economic state. The public sector was targeted, in order to gain public support for the drastic cuts that it was about to endure.

We have witnessed such debates in both countries. While in Ireland the debate has somewhat subsided, as there are no more cuts in salaries announced in this year's budget, in Greece that the public sector is severely hit the debate still goes on.

Our leaders put the blame on the people for the country's bad economic state. Mr Pagalos in Greece, a member of the Greek Parliament and the former PASOK government, and Mr Ahern in Ireland the former Taoiseach both blamed the citizens for the mess.

And while this is partly true, the only blame I could put of the people's shoulders is that they keep voting for thugs like the above. Not for doing what they are encouraged to do by the current capitalist system, that is spend money and keep consuming.

In order to gain public support in Greece for slaying the public sector, they kept underline its faults and abuses that they have encouraged over the past decades in the first place. All they want to do is sell out all national assets and companies. To do that they slander a whole group of people, that were just sucked in by the system our Governing elites have created.

Yes Greece has an overgrown public sector. But it is the only sector that a Greek could have a secure and stable career path, since no other industries were developed in the country. If you are not a farmer, a tourism industry employee or a customer and sales services staff, you have limited options of making a living in Greece.

There are no industries left in the country as most of them have left to relocate in places like Bulgaria or China. The little industrial activity that is left in Europe is being sucked up by the northern, industrialized, rich European states.



The Greek public sector certainly needed to be cut down, but not in such a drastic way. First you create other industries for people to find jobs in, then you fire public sector workers so they can find jobs in those new industries. Now that they are about to fire hundreds of thousands of people with such high unemployment already in the country, where will all those people go?

You are pouring more people on the dole. You will be having them on social welfare paying them for doing nothing, while they would love to work and contribute. How come is paying hundreds of thousands of new unemployed going to help the economy? Less people that work and have money, less taxes paid, more benefits to be paid out, less money in the country's market.

And to justify all the above and achieve them, our leaders made the private sector workers angry against the "lazy" public sector workers that work so little, earn too much and in a way they are responsible for the country's state. So everybody applauded when the cuts took place and the new austerity measures were announced against the public sector workers.

Now that the public sector workers have no more money to spend, they do not pour any money into the market. They do not use their money to shop, use taxis, go out dinning,travel or stay in hotels. In result, the private sector workers are feeling the pinch as well. Because once the money from the public sector workers are not being poured into their businesses to pay for their wages, their salaries now are being targeted by their employers and they have to take cuts as well.

Yes there was a lot of mismanagement in the public sector. But it was a systemic fault, it was simply bad management. Our Governments could have reformed all that but instead they chose to use the public sector as a lure for votes and support in each election. They were using it to ensure they stayed in power by promising a job to the desperate Greeks in the public sector, a secure career prospect.

The only fault that the Greeks have made, is not that they kept spending, nor that they wanted to go and work in the public sector, a sector with the only potentials in a small country. They only mistake that the Greeks and the Irish have made is that they kept voting for the same Governments over and over again.

Because unfortunately in a country like Greece that the public sector was an important part of the country's economy, its destruction means the destruction of the Greek economy itself. What they should have done is start those reforms years ago, gradually.





The citizens of the euro-zone countries that are in trouble, instead of turning against each other, they should turn against their political elites. They should unite and debate on how they can change attitudes, moving forward in the future.

British Veto and the future of the country in EU.

British PM David Cameron, has vetoed recently a suggested new E.U. treaty to heal the euro and save the euro-zone.

While all other 26 heads of states agreed to at least sit on the table and negotiate the treaty, Britain chose once more to show its true feelings about the single currency.

It is not the only country that had objections, as Hungary, the Czech Republic, Sweden and others were also skeptical. Yet they are the ones who refused to at least negotiate.

Understandably, the plan that the "Merkozy" duo is promoting might not be ideal for all countries. But at least this is the first move from our leaders to tackle the crisis, after a long time. Besides, each state individually can negotiate the proposal, to safeguard its interests.

Despite all, the U.K. chose to isolate itself within E.U. The result from Mr. Cameron's "NO" had deep impact both at home, throughout Europe and the U.S.A. Deputy PM Nick Clegg and many other pro-European politicians, were obviously unhappy. In addition, the current coalition forming the British Government between the Conservatives and the Liberals, showed its first serious cracks.

An open war of words took place between the British and the French, with French President Nicolas Sarkozy criticizing Mr Cameron and accusing him of being like an "obstinate kid". Even the Americans seemed surprised while Ireland, a country that is hugely involved in the British market, is planing to start talks with their larger neighbors "within weeks." Possibly to persuade the British Government relax their position.

Thus the argument the Tories are trying to win for the past few years, of Britain leaving the EU is back on the agenda. They are pushing the British government to give the public a referendum on EU membership, that most likely will be lost under the current crisis in Europe. Subsequently forcing the UK outside the EU.

As result the UK is going to follow Norway's example. Hence, the most important impact it will have on their country, is losing their seats in the European Parliament (EP) and their EU Commissioner.

While Norway is outside the EU, it still has to adopt a large part of EU law and legislation, as part of their EEA (European Economic Agreement) membership, plus contribute to the EU budget.

But they have no say on how these laws are shaped, as they have no seats in the EP and no Commissioner to promote their interests. Norway has failed in giving its citizens a voice in legislation that affects them directly.

They do pay less than if they were a full member, but as they are an oil rich nation it would not matter much if they paid more. In other words, in order to lower their payments towards the EU, Norway prefers to deprive its people's influence in Europe.

However in Britain's case, things are more complicated. With its nearly 60 million population Britain is one of the most populous countries in EU. They have the most seats in the EP together with France and Germany, so their citizens have a significant say in European affairs.

Historically, Britain always wanted influence in Europe. They repeatedly got involved in European affairs, wars and politics. Europe is too big and too near for Britain to ignore it.

Sadly just like the Norwegians and the Icelanders are victims of a very powerful fishing lobby, the Brits are victims of their capital; the City of London and its financial sector. The people do not gain much out of the policies this sector promotes, unlike the country's banks.

The City of London is a part of the matrix of banks, the markets and the rating agencies, that have lately caused so much grief in many parts of Europe. The British Government is trying desperately to secure their privileges, to the detriment of the ordinary people of Britain and Europe.

The stiff refusal of the British Government to support the euro-zone, shows that they have different plans for the common currency and the EU.

With British media brainwashing and misinforming the British public for decades, it is no wonder that the public have a very different view on how things work within EU. The whole situation, reminds of the usual power struggles between the main three European powers and the interests of their elites.

It is a pity that the whole country has been taken hostage of the interests of the few. But in the end, democracy has to prevail, if the wish of the British public is for their country to leave the EU. Hopefully they will realize that they are doing their country no favors, by standing with the interests of the rich elites.

Our Leaders have agreed; "We need more Europe!"..

Italy's, Germany's and France's Leaders have agreed in a recent Summit that if we want to get over this crisis we need more Europe.Again during this week our Leaders are having another Summit, trying desperately to solve the crisis that is engulfing Europe and save the euro!

More economic governance want some, tax harmonization and hard supervision of states that do not follow the rules by the book, are some other suggestions.

I say it was about time for them to do something about it. The thing that worries me the most is that they may eventually agree on something, but what will this something be and how will it affect us? Will we have the richer and most powerful states again "taking the lead" and tell all the rest of us what to do, according to their interests? Will we have lobbies that serve the rich elites, imposing more austerity on us? Will they agree on something that will solve the problems once and for all, or will they just paste over them again?


The EU represents mostly the elites and not as much the people, there is nothing new to this. There are voices though who try and work hard, most of them being in the European Parliament. There are people in EU and its system who want the best for the citizens, work is being done and ideas flow. But somehow, the rich elites of the rich countries high jack the whole thing and think too much in real-politic.  

So here comes Mrs Merkel who answers to God knows whom and says "Nein" to the eurobonds. The boat is sinking and she halts the whole progress. We are going around in circles over and over again, but this time they are very dangerous circles. And our Governments instead of acting fast, they keep listening to the lobbies and their advisers (bankers, corporates, economists) both on national and EU level, because the EU is a huge lobby. Meanwhile people in Greece are committing suicide and people in Ireland are emigrating.


We should have a strong European Parliament and a fully functioning democracy between confederate states of Europe. Become like what the U.K. is becoming. A loose federal, political and economic entity. The Scots have their parliament for their national affairs, but they also have elected representatives in the House of Lords as part of Britain.

It is not the case of building a new nation, a superstate, or a federal country like the USA. If that ever happens it will take centuries to be achieved. What we should be trying to build is some kind of federal political entity, that countries and nations would still be states, but would be governed both by the E.P. and their national parliaments. Even though problems and disagreements will still exist, hopefully through a democratic way we will be able to solve them.

 

If we could ever achieve that, it would mean democracy and equality among European countries. The rich Norwegians with the poor Moldovans, the developed Dutch with the underdeveloped Ukrainians, the philosophical Greeks with the more pragmatic Swedish, the laid back Italians with the punctual and control freaks Germans. All working together for stability and progress throughout our continent. But we have still to reach that level of selfishness and solidarity in Europe.


If we became more federal or confederate, then the rich powerful nations would not be able to dictate the poorer ones. We would decide the direction and future of our Continent together as a unit, with our directly elected representatives. For our national issues we would still have our national Parliaments in place. Right now as it stands, we have intergovernmental agreements that are being taken behind closed doors in the various E.U. Summits.

The other option of course is to go back to free trade, and reduce E.U. to something like EFTA/EEA. But then we will lose the E.P. and that will mean even less say for us in those intergovernmental agreements. Like what the Norwegians are having to deal with right now. They have to accept E.U. law and legislation as part of EEA (European Economic Agreement), they have to contribute with their taxes, but they have no say or representatives in the E.P. 

They have traded this right for less EU budget contributions. So their Governing elites can lobby and make deals with other EU nations that the citizens of Norway have little knowledge or say on them! That is not a fully functioning democracy in international level! 

Of course to achieve this plan we will need to compromise hugely a part of national sovereignty. Well are we really sovereign nations in a globalized world? Unless you become like Cuba or North Korea, you can not be fully independent while you have to be part of the World community and trade. By just joining the UN for example, you lose part of your sovereignty. We can not reverse globalization, but we can get prepared for it.

If our Leaders want more Europe, then let us have it our way not theirs. I do not want a Europe that there will be peripheral and core, rich and poor, developed and underdeveloped states. I want equality and democracy and that means binding our countries even closer together. If the rich countries lose their grip and power on European affairs, then this Continent can move forward united in progress.

Tainted Victory.

Unfortunately for Skopje, their so called victory at the International Court of Justice, except from being partial, it is also largely symbolic since the court not only didn't order Greece to alter its stance in the future but it also found that the ruling itself "constitutes appropriate satisfaction" for the FYROM, which proves the fiasco of both the lawsuit and the ruling.

However, what is most important is that there is no way Skopje will enter NATO before the name issue with Greece is solved. As NATO Chief Fogh Rasmussen clarified yesterday in Brussels, the FYROM still won't be admitted to the alliance until the name issue is resolved.

"I take note that the International Court of Justice has issued its ruling on a bilateral issue between Greece and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. 

The ruling does not affect the decision taken by NATO Allies at the Bucharest summit in 2008. We agreed that an invitation will be extended to the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia as soon as a mutually acceptable solution to the name issue has been reached."

The European Union is expected to keep the same stance, regardless of Skopje's aspirations. So, let them celebrate their "victory" now that they can because when they see that the doors remain shut, they will realise that it was all for nothing,  provided of course that Greece will finally stand up to the challenge.

MacedoniaHellenicLand.Eu
Sources: AFP, Focus News Agency,CBS News

Read more here.

Socialism in Europe under extinction?

 "Since the recent elections in Spain toppled Prime Minister Zapatero, only 4 out of 27 heads of government in Europe belong to the center-left. The Socialists also fared badly in the 2009 European elections, which saw the center-right European People’s Party dominating." That is what we read in the Debating Europe website recently. (http://www.debatingeurope.eu/2011/11/28/is-european-social-democracy-in-crisis/#comment-5747)

Indeed, in my opinion Socialism in Europe is critically endangered; like the Amur Leopards, very few remain in the wild. Haven’t you noticed that most of Europe is “blue” currently, in other words they have right/center-right wing Governments? And the few that do have left/leftist Governments, follow right wing policies. No wonder the people are angry and vote for right wing parties. Because if they can’t find social justice and security from the left wing parties then what is the point?

Not to mention that far right wing parties  and nationalism are on the rise in Europe. Because of irresponsible economic, social and immigration policies, the people want to return to what they knew best; a nation state!

If Europeans vote for right wing Governments then perhaps they are worthy of their fate, but then again what alternatives do they have since the Left is also promoting and supporting Capitalism? Most of the times they vote for right wing parties, is to get rid of the corrupt previous left wing Governments. Can we put the blame on the European voters?

In Greece previously they voted for the center-right party New Democracy, to get rid off the "socialist" party  PASOK, because of the constant scandals of corruption. When the New Democracy got elected, little has changed. The Greek public were witnessing more and more scandals so they voted back PASOK again with its new leader Mr. George Papandreou.

Only then to see austerity and a deep crisis hitting their country. Every worker's right they fought for during the past decades was scrapped, salaries slashed. Now they are having a Technocratic Government but we know for sure, that PASOK won't be in power anytime soon. In fact the media are already tipping New Democracy's new leader Mr. Antonis Samaras to be the next Prime Minister, after the emergency Government.

In Ireland after almost 15 years in power, the Fianna Fail center-left party loses the elections to the right-wing Fine Gael party. Again because of the scandals, the economic bubble burst and the destruction of the "Celtic Tiger" economic miracle, that infuriated the Irish electorate and thought it was time for them to go.

In my opinion they did the right thing. When a Government stays for too long in power, corruption settles certainly in. So we see again that the people voted for a center-right wing party to punish the existing Government in protest. The same we saw the same in Spain.

Without knowing it and out of desperation , anger, disappointment and a hope for a real change, Europeans willingly give power to conservative  parties. But this comes with the permission to the Right to chop their salaries, scrap their worker’s rights and establish a more American style Capitalism. And why the "socialist" Governments compromised and followed those policies already, do they answer to us or the Markets?

Has the Right infiltrated the Left and make it collapse from within, or could there be a plan to destroy Europe's Left and its traditionally strong leftist policies, by exposing it to the public's mistrust and anger? Perhaps there is too much corruption and nepotism in Europe that even the Socialists developed a "taste" for such Capitalism that is against the workers. Do we have a choice for Socialism at all anymore, or it is a thing of the past?

Where does this leave the ordinary folk and the workers of Europe, shall we accept our fate and allow our leaders to drive us to a Continent that has less Social policies? Some say that we can not afford a Social Europe anymore. Perhaps because we run out of regions of the World to exploit.

Were our social policies based on the poverty of other nations, or is it just the greed of our rich elites that always want more? There is a redesigning of our social structures as we speak, that is for sure. But are we going backwards when social issues and rights are concerned, are we losing the battles we won and what will be the new reality for the European working class in the future? Perhaps what is happening in Greece right now, is an omen of what it is to come for the whole Continent. Where Europe's powerful Right is leading us?

The EPP (European People's Party, Europe's center- Right) is the largest party in the European Parliament and they are in power in most European countries, notably Germany (the powerhouse of the euro-zone) with the Christian Democratic Union (C.D.U.). If they lead most of Europe, they have a majority in the E.P. and they keep winning the public's hearts and votes with the disastrous policies that the Left is following, what hope do we have for a Social Europe?

Obviously our leaders are following the American model, they are bowing to the pressure from the Markets and multinational companies to get rid of our social policies, in return of investments and loans. Do we want jobs but no worker's and social rights, or we keep our rights and we have no jobs and why can't we have both?