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?

Eurasian Union dreams Putin. And the Turks design their own too!

Turkey’s President Mr. Abdullah Gul, put forward his vision for a democratic Middle East with its own E.U.-style structure and functions. He never of course commented on what will happen with Turkey's E.U. membership bid that has been pending for decades.

Is Turkey fed up of waiting and decided to set up its own club, or does President Gul see a place for his country as a “bridge” between the two regions? Perhaps this is another bluff to send a message to Europe. Are the Turks turning to the East to establish their influence and what will all this mean for us?

Either way, it’s not the only time that recently we’ve heard of plans for new organizations, modeled after the E.U. Last month the Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, announced that he wanted to see a Eurasian Union set up by 2015 incorporating Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan, with its headquarters in Moscow.

Some in Europe and E.U. fear such moves and are suspicious of them. Perhaps they always see as threat whatever comes from Russia and the East and if they can not be part of it, they are becoming skeptical. Perhaps they do not want to let go Turkey out of their sphere of influence and are afraid of Turkey or Russia becoming too big and powerful.

I do not see why Europe should be afraid when other regions are forming blocks. There are blocks of nations all over the World: ASEAN, AU, MERCOSUR, NAFTA, you name it. So what if the Russians and the Turks want to create their blocks. Mr. Sarkozy created the Mediterranean Union. If any leader can satisfy his ego and leave a legacy by creating a new "Union" of nations, so be it!

What does the Mediterranean Union has achieved so far anyway? Do we ever read about what it does, how it works and what are its functions? While the E.U. is often scrutinized and blamed for being undemocratic, no one cares about what does Mr. Sarkozy's brainchild focus on and how it influences us. So will those two new "Unions" be just another club of nations cooperating, or can they ever challenge E.U./Europe's hegemony?

On the other hand, such initiative by the Turks will perhaps be the solution to the Turkish E.U. membership saga. If we do not want them in, then set them free and be honest with them. Are we afraid that two new strong blocks in our neighborhood will mean more competition? Perhaps that will give us a kick up the back side to get a grip, solve our differences and proceed with necessary reforms.

We should also re-approach Russia, our relationship with this country and not fear them.Our attachment to the hip with America is not good for us. We should have good relations both with America and Russia. Be an equal partner to them, not their sidekick and little toss-ball. We should pursue more independent foreign policies from USA, reestablishing our relationship with the Americans but also Russia, Turkey, China, Brazil and India.

All European nations should join the EU, that means both Ukraine and hopefully even Belarus. Russia and the EU should renegotiate immigration, freedom of movement, free trade and other bilateral agreements, while the Russians should expand their influence in central Asia. In that way, though Russia will never be an E.U. member state, it will contribute in the increasing European influence in the central Asian region. With Turkey we could do the same for the Middle Eastern Region and the Southern Caucasus.

If we keep good  relations with those two nations, re-approach them and set up new, crystal clear bonds of alliance, friendship and cooperation, I believe that it can be a win win situation for all. If we do not want Turkey in E.U. we should form a different close kind of relationship with them. Allow them to expand their influence in the Middle East, and through them we could increase our own influence without us having always to intervene.

What we should give Turkey and Russia back of course is another matter. I guess that is a topic for a good debate. If the Norwegians enjoy all E.U. citizens' rights without being a member, then perhaps that is a suggestion.

Of course we will have to guard our interests and make sure that those two new "Unions" if they ever materialize, do not pose a threat to us. It is down to us to get a grip and start thinking as a unit, supporting each other, backing up each others' interests and protect each others' borders. If we are truly united then no one could challenge Europe.

We do have so much going on for us and we should be engaging in a positive and open manner with our neighbors, not be skeptical or suspicious of them. There is no need to impose our will and interests on our neighboring nations or blocks. We can achieve so much more if we have them as allies.

Will they of course want to cooperate with us? Well Europe is Russia's most important customer when it comes to gas and oil. And if we were not too pro-American perhaps the Russians would behave differently towards us. Their interest in the rest of the continent was always there.

Some E.U. countries of Eastern Europe that were under the Soviet thumb might think differently. But things have changed now. Europe if becomes truly united, it has no need to fear Russia anymore. Turkey has long standing trade and historical ties with Europe as well, why do we always have to push them away?

Technocratic Governments in Europe?

Italy and Greece have new Governments. Their previous democratically elected Prime Ministers were replaced by technocrats; economists and bankers to be more precise.

One of course would think how "democratically" elected was Mr. Berlusconi, a man that seemed to be more like an oligarch. He run the country as he pleased, he was a part time politician as he admitted himself while focusing on his romances and bunga-bunga parties. He manipulated the public opinion since he owned most of the country's media!

He is replaced by Mr. Mario Monti, a pro-European Economist much hailed in E.U. and Europe. Mr. Papandreou, after a disastrous handling of the crisis in Greece, was replaced by Mr. Lucas Papademos a former Vice-President of the European Central Bank. He has the approval of many E.U. Officials and other European leaders and politicians.

What I find amazingly peculiar is the fact that now we have unelected Prime Ministers, not politicians but technocrats, replacing the leaders that the people chose to lead them. What does this say about Democracy in Europe? The Governments that the people vote in their Parliaments can not deliver in securing the country's interests while solving and addressing all the issues that the public is facing. Perhaps then we are in a much deeper crisis and not just a financial one, but political, social and moral as well.

Do we need the Technocrats to come and save us or do we need a reality check on how Democracy is being implemented, if we have a real Democracy at all in our Continent? Our national politicians have all let us down and the promotion of unelected Technocrats in the driving seat of our countries, is seen as the solution to our political system's shortfalls. I do not doubt that they are going to do a good job, but who do they represent?

Will they represent the people, the citizens of Italy and Greece and their interests and what are their agendas, influences and motivations? We do not know much about them, in which circles they belong or why they were chosen to lead their countries. They both seem to be well known in the European power brokers' circles and it makes sense to pick them to solve a pan European problem. But why our national Governments were unable all those years to deal with those issues and make the necessary reforms gradually in order to better their countries.

Perhaps our democratic system is corrupt beyond repair, or so dysfunctional that in order to heal it, we need not so democratic solutions. What does the future hold for Europe and its states? Will one by one be forced to replace their democratically elected Governments with Technocratic ones and who will control those new Governments? Perhaps we are experiencing a political experiment in Europe. If it succeeds in Greece and Italy, more countries will follow until these new type of Governments will be the reality. Are Technocrats better than politicians? How can we control or have a say on what the Technocratic Government will be doing, since we won't be voting for it and they won't be answerable to us anymore. 

It is no lie that we needed change, we needed a political reboot in our Continent. But I was hoping it would take place in a democratic way, it would be approved and supported by the citizens. We had a political elite established in most of our countries since WW2 and they got used in being in power so much, that staying there was more important than working for the betterment of Europe.

Will this new style of Government work? Only time will tell. But to me this is a very sad development. We have a new type of Government to save us from the evils of Democracy! It is scary if you think about it. I was hoping for a democratic solution, I was hoping to see the European Parliament empowered and in constant cooperation with the national Parliaments working for shaping a new Europe.

In the Arab countries they are fighting for more Democracy, transparency and freedom. In Europe we are giving away our Democracy, transparency and social justice. We are trying to assist the Arab countries in their battles to achieve Democracy. Who is going to help us then in our battles for transparency and social equality?

Liar, Liar!

French President Nicolas Sarkozy was caught calling Israel's Prime Minister Mr Netanyahu "a liar!" During the recent G-20 Summit in Cannes France Mr. Sarkozy, while on a private conversation with U.S. President Mr Obama and unaware that the microphones were switched on said: "I cannot bear Netanyahu, he's a liar."

Enabling reporters in a separate location to listen in to a simultaneous translation, the plot thickened when Mr. Obama reportedly replied: "You're fed up with him, but I have to deal with him even more often than you," according to the French interpreter.

To me this is hilarious and fascinating for many reasons. First we get a glimpse on how our politicians work or think of each other. Not much differently than classroom schoolchildren. With their strops, fake friendships, alliances, back stabbing comments. Then we get a glimpse on America's relationship with Israel, only now we also see that this does not always mean a perfect relationship.

America is supporting Israel no matter what, to support and protect its interests. What we did not know is that each US President, does not always "feel the love" for each Israeli Prime Minister. And perhaps that Israeli Governments and their policies do become a bit of a pain sometimes for the US and the West.

We can only imagine what goes around a diplomatic table, when our leaders meet in those "summits" or state visits. It can't be much different from when we, ordinary citizens meet with our colleagues at work, with everything that goes in those meetings. Wasn't the former Czech Prime Minister Mr. Topolanek, that was photographed naked around one of Italy's former Prime Minister Mr. Berlusconi pools? Politics, power, money and fornication go hand to hand it seems.

Has America's and Europe's unconditional "love" for Israel, made them the spoiled child of the West? Perhaps even if our leaders are tired of their politicians' antics, the Israeli elite are abusing their position of power. Did you notice how the USA reacted when Palestine joined UNESCO recently? They just withdrew their funding from the agency.  Either you do as we think it's best, or we are withdrawing the only powerful and most successful weapon we've got; our money.

Lately, Israelis got so overconfident that they suggested an attack on Iran to stop their nuclear ambitions. As if things were not fragile enough in the Middle East and our economies in a top shape. Yet they still want to drag us into another conflict with the Arab countries, as if we were not hugely involved in their affairs already.

But if Netanyahu is a liar, what does this say about his country, Israel's policies, interests, our leaders who support Israel, USA and Europe's choices and alliances? If our leaders are "forced" to work with a liar, cooperate with him and support the regime in his country, I do not see much justification in their claims about the region.

So, there we have it. One politician who is confirmed as a liar by his own colleagues. I wonder are there any honest ones in Europe or the World. How many things we do not know about, but we have to pay for and suffer the consequences I wonder. Due to out "lying" politicians, we can rest assured that our World won't change for the better anytime soon.

The kiss of Death for the Euro, or a bluff?

After months of announcing to the Greek public new cuts, austerity measures and the worsening state of Greece's economy, here comes a bomb from the country's Prime Minister. Mr. Papandreou decided to give the Greeks a referendum on the EU/IMF bail out plan.

One would think that such actions would take place right in the beginning of the bail out negotiations, not now.

Mr. Papandreou lied to the Greek public many times before, like when he reassured them that Greece has money and no bail out would be needed. He also promised them no more austerity cuts after the first ones were announced.

Then after trying so hard to stamp out any protest or opposition, he announces out of the blue a referendum. Of course after a mounting pressure by his European counterparts, he then withdraws the referendum option while fighting for his job.

Was his action a gaff, a bluff or a well calculated act? Some claim that it was a mistake to plan a referendum. But suddenly, the focus of the crisis in Greece went from the austerity cuts, the suffering and fight for survival of the Greek public, to if Greece will stay in the eurozone or even EU itself.

His actions certainly act as a blackmail to the Greeks, by giving them two options. Either you accept the austerity measures, or you are out! Of course we knew that he won't go ahead with it, simply because we knew that the outcome would be a secure NO.

The Greek public for the record never questioned their country's EU membership. They just can't take any more cuts. But by voting NO they would unwillingly put in question the country's future in the euro-zone and EU. So either you say yes and "democratically" accept the cuts, or you are out of the club.

Others claimed that he tried to show himself seemingly caring for his people and give them a "democratic" choice. So where was democracy in the beginning of the crisis, when salaries were slashed up to 40% and taxes rose to 23%?

Why didn't he practice "democracy" then, instead of using lying, bullying and propaganda in order to make the Greek Parliamentarians to vote for the austerity measures? And not just once, but for two bail out packages, the second just to repay the first one.

Another opinion says that in this way he just tried to blackmail Greece's European partners, threaten them so they can ease on their demands of Greece. He knew that if the Greeks were given a referendum, they would vote NO and that certainly would mean the end of the country's euro membership. And if Greece leaves the euro, it is most likely that the rest of the "peripheral" euro-zone members will follow suit. 

In that way the euro currency's own future is put in doubt, if the Greeks decide to leave. By casting a doubt over Greece's euro membership, he actually tried to threaten his European counterparts and make them back off their irrational demands. If that is the case, then it certainly indicates the real state of the European "Union," where the rich and powerful members are definitely bully the weaker ones.

What is going on in Greece right now is a pretty frightening scenario. It is no different from Britain during the early '80s and the "Thatcherite" policies. We hear on the media on a daily basis, about new cuts and austerity measures, plans to reform the country, different scenarios of potential disaster.

Jobs to be cut, sell out of all national companies and resources. Merging of hospitals, universities,ministries and local authorities, in an effort to  weaken any social services and coherence. Imagine the stress that the Greek public are going through. Which of the global media ever focused on this aspect of the crisis?

Greece is forced to sell out its national assets to its lenders. It is doubtful that the austerity measures are to shape up the Greek economy, rather to satisfy the global markets and economists and end the so called "European protectionism." By that of course they mean the European and Greek social model, that is loathed by many global financiers.

Greece's social policies were outdated of course and needed to be reformed, but not by impoverishing the people. All it needed was a determined and skillful leader, that Greece lacked for sure. Now the Markets attack the euro and its members, in order to force reforms that will favor the capitalist system and its powerhouse, the Markets themselves.





Recently in Ireland they discovered a “mistake” which revealed that the country has an extra 3.6 billion euro in its accounts. Yet no consideration to redesign the up-coming new austerity plan for 2012.Since the country has an extra 3.6 € billion, why doesn't the Irish Government put it towards the debt and lift some weight of the backs of the people?

As if austerity must be placed on the shoulders of the citizens at all costs. Money appear and disappear by “mistake” in Ireland and the Prime Minister of Greece lies on the country's finances. So are there any doubts still, that this crisis is designed to transform Europe's social policies, starting from the least progressive members like Greece?

We do not have a democracy in Europe, rather an intergovernmental institution that is elitist and relies on lobbyists and international financial institutions, rather the will or the interests of the citizens. Any actions coming from any Prime Minister in Europe, are not a "mistake." They are a well orchestrated theater that send signals to the real players of the European economy, or to confuse the European public opinion.