To keep the Irish Corporate Tax, or not to keep?

The Irish corporate taxation system is one important asset for the country. The country's economy is based on it and gives it an advantage, by making it very attractive for overseas multinationals.

Ireland is an English-speaking European Union member with an open economy, plus it has lower corporate tax rates and so it has managed to become from one of the poorest nations in Europe, to one of the richest.

But the country's taxation system often brings Ireland under fire, from some of its European partners that believe that it gives an unfair advantage to the country. They would prefer to create a harmonized taxation system across the EU. Many in USA also believe that it harms their country's economy, as it is mainly American companies that take advantage of the Irish corporate tax system.

If we want to be honest about it, low corporate taxes serve mainly the multinational corporations. Though it boosts the economy of Ireland by the exports of goods such as lap-tops, it creates few job positions and the companies contribute little to the Irish state. Most of the income earned is taken out of the Irish economy and shipped back to the multinational's country of origin.

A lot of the companies are so-called "ghost" companies that only register Ireland as their base, to avoid paying high taxes back home. The rent near empty buildings and they employ very little staff, if any. The reason why the Irish public is so protective of them, is because their Government and media are portraying the taxation system as an important national asset.


Of course Ireland's taxation system does offer an advantage to the country and contributes to its economy. But if they actually developed industries and stable economic factors, their country's economy would benefit more. Multinationals are concerned only about their profit. They may locate their bases in your country for a period of time, only to move them a few years later when they find a country that is more attractive to them.

Instead in relying on pocket money from the corporations and bow to their demands, wouldn't it better to be able to rely on exports or any other "real" economy type? The problem is that it is very difficult for a small country to achieve such thing, especially when it lacks the infrastructure and the funds to do so.

Also the Irish political elite serves the global capitalist elites. They gave away all rights of the Irish oil and gas resources, that could have given the country a more stable income, which could then be used as investment to diversify the Irish economy.



What should happen in Europe is further economic and political integration.The Germans and the French who are the main critics of Ireland, should not ask the Irish to abolish their corporate tax rate unless they change the way they do business too.

Ireland and all small countries are very susceptible to the economic or political influence of their big neighbors. So they must strive to make deals and business with multinationals to attract capita, in order to maintain their sovereignty.


When Ireland gained its independence from Britain, it was left in a very bad financial status. They went from boom to bust and they remained dependent to the British economy for decades to come. Even the "Irish" pound was pegged to the British, linking Ireland's economy to Britain's.


If we want to secure small nation's financial future and harmonize Europe's economy and taxation, then it is the richer countries that must make the sacrifice and reform their economies first. If they monopolize all industrial and financial development in the continent, then smaller states are forced to come up with a taxation system that will attract foreign multinationals.

Or even worse, they will have to become tax havens and invest in their banking sector. If we could establish a European Investment Bank or Fund, together with a EU body that would coordinate these investments, then we could divert cash where is needed to create new jobs and industries across Europe.

In that way all countries would benefit and they would have a secure source of investment, that would spread equally throughout the Union. When we are allowing small European nations to seek and strike deals with multinationals, we are actually forcing them to compromise some of their sovereignty for them. They will have to pass certain laws that will allow or attract the corporations to invest, in order to maintain their position as a favorite investment hub.

So these nations are not entirely sovereign anymore and in a European context it allows third parties or countries, to have access and be able to influence their laws and of course in extend many EU laws.So how can we have an independent or unanimous agreement on EU policy, when each state is trying to protect and promote their interests. But in Ireland's and many other smaller states' case, these are the interests of the multinationals.

When Ireland agrees with American corporate companies to establish branches in its soil for example, it is relying on America to keep finding Ireland a profitable and convenient place for them to invest. To do that the Americans will place some demands that Ireland must defend and promote, sometimes even against EU law and regulations. No surprise then why some countries like Britain always wish to block or opt out of EU regulations.

And it is not just Ireland that must find as solution to its economic problem, the lowering of its tax rates for multinational companies. Many countries across the EU are doing the same and even France itself has a peculiar taxation system that favors foreign investment. 

Wouldn't it better to set up European owned companies, either large or SMEs that will be funded by this new European Investment Fund, in many different European countries? Thus helping European businessmen, developers or inventors from all over the continent to keep creating jobs, promoting stability and equal opportunities for all European citizens.

What good is to point the finger to each other like France and Germany are doing to the Irish, if they do not give them any alternative. Ireland now more than ever needs to find and keep any resources it can to save their economy. If the scrap their lower tax rate, they will lose the investments from the multinationals and with no alternative solution from their European partners, their economy will be in deeper trouble.

If the rich European nations do not want to share with the Irish and include them in their industrial and economic development, then they will have to allow them to rely on foreign investment and so to keep their low corporate tax rates. 

The solution to this problem lies on a European level. No country should be pushed to change its taxation system if its partners are not willing to do the same or support each other. If Europeans want to harmonize the continent's tax rates, as it should happen at some stage, then they will have to compensate the Irish by creating jobs here and fill the gap. Otherwise they will forever have to sustain the Irish economy with subsidies and further bail outs.

Greece's relationship with Western Europe over the centuries!

Recently there is a great spite towards Greece from many European nations, because of the crisis break-out in the euro-zone, that threatens to spread to the rest of the block.

Let us trace back in this article the relation between Greece and the rest of Europe, from the Ancient Times to the modern and most recent ones. The reason? Partly to remind, expose, explain and understand the long relationship between them.

We will have to start from the Antiquity, when the Greeks colonized the south Italian peninsula, southern Galatia (France) and parts of Iberia (Spain) along with their colonies in the Balkans and the Black Sea. They established city states and colonies, trade ports and centers of culture that some exist even today.

With the rise of the empire of Alexander the Great, we see Greeks united for the first time under one ruler and expanding their sphere of influence and territories to the East. With the constant wars between the successors of Alexander though, the Hellenistic kingdoms had weaken and one by one fell under the occupation of a new super power, Rome!

Since then, Greece will never be a free and autonomous state until the liberation of the nation from the Ottoman Empire. During the Roman Empire, Greece will decline while Rome and other of its territories will flourish. With the Romans the Greek culture will spread in almost half of the European continent while Greek artifacts and treasures will be transported to Rome.

The Romans will not allow any further Greek cultural or political independence! Greece will also be the battleground for many wars between the aspiring Roman rulers and their civil wars they started, weakening even more Greece to the point of deprivation.

During the Roman Empire, but also during the Hellenistic years the Greek peninsula will receive attacks and raids from Celtic and other European tribes. Especially during the times of the Great Migrations in Europe and the collapse of the western Roman Empire, we have the appearance of many new tribes invading the lands of both Eastern and Western Roman Empires; the Goths, the Slavs, the Avars all looking for new fertile lands and riches to steal. Greece becomes a popular destination for their raids.

With the dominance of Christianity the Greek spirit suffers its biggest defeat and irreversible decline. In the beginning conversion to Christianity was voluntary but once the Christians became the majority they made sure that the "ethnic" Greeks as they called them were converted.

They attacked and destroyed many Pagan Greek temples, art and holy sites, notably the Parthenon. Later during the Byzantine Empire they would force immigration from Greece to Asia Minor and vice versa in order to weaken the Greek "ethnic" pagan spirit.

Despite all this Byzantium thrives and it is the most powerful and wealthy region of Europe for more than a millennium. Slavic tribes still pose a threat coming from Europe, but they are being converted to Christianity, coming in contact with the Greek Christian Orthodox heritage of the Byzantine Empire. For this purpose the Byzantine Emperors assign two Greek disciples from Thessaloniki, Cyril and Methodius, to convert the Slavs and stop them from being a threat to the Empire.

But the threat from Europe was not over. Greece continued to be raided by the European Vikings from the north and the Moors from the south! The biggest blow though came from fellow Christians. The Crusades may have started in order to regain the Holy Lands from the Arabs, but during the so called Forth Crusade they sacked Constantinople stealing artifacts, all the city's wealth, destroying its monuments, its library and transporting everything to the West.

They created Latin Kingdoms in the region and by dividing the Byzantine Empire not only they contributed in its decline, but also in its future surrender to the Ottomans. Inevitably, they pushed the Greeks to being for centuries under Islamic rule and to the further decline of their culture.

During the Ottoman occupation many Greek scholars will flee to Europe, participating in that way in the European Renaissance. The European powers will oppose any change in the European borders and any separatist or freedom movement.With politicians like Klemens Von Metternich and the Austrian Hungarian Empire, any chance of freedom for the Greeks or other Balkan nations under the Ottoman rule was impossible.

The Orthodox Church and the Patriarchate cooperated with the Ottomans and in fact it was them who preferred to fall under the Islamic rule, than to ask for help from their fellow Christian Europeans. Because since the events of the Crusades centuries earlier, they mistrusted the "Francs" or their Catholic cousins.

Meanwhile European archaeologists, collectors and "Indiana Joneses" of the time raided Greece to steal its artifacts, its last remaining wealth from the Ancient Times. They chopped and transported a lot of the monuments they found, from the Elgin Marbles of the Parthenon to the Dionysian statues that where named "Ta Eidola" (The Idols) from the city of Thessaloniki.

The statues are currently housed in the Louvre in Paris, France. Efforts are being made to return these to Thessaloniki. These statues have traditionally been the symbol of the city, since antiquity. Only after they were stolen by the French in 1864 did the White Tower rise to prominence as the symbol of the city.

They traded with the ancient Greek artifacts and treasures, making a fortune out of their activities. But at least their contact with Greece's art, culture, philosophy and heritage led to the Philhellenism movement in Europe. Also, in contributed to the change of the public opinion of the European populace and the support to the cause for Greek independence! The most famous among its supporters, was of course Lord Byron.

After the liberation of Greece from the Ottoman Empire though, the geopolitical interests of the big Powers of Europe in the region did not stop. Soon after the Balkan Wars the Greek territory expanded by gaining lands not only from the declining Ottoman Empire but from the colonial Powers of Europe too; The Ionian and the Dodecanese Islands belonged to Italy and Britain, with the Dodecanese uniting with the rest of Greece just in 1947!

During the wars with Turkey the European Powers originally favored Greece in its attempt and operations to regain some of the Asian Minor territories. Only to betray Greece with a shift of their interests that lead to the Greek Asia Minor Disaster, the destruction of Smyrne (today's Izmir) and the exchange of populations between Greece and Turkey. While Smyrne burned and the Turks were killing civilians, the Western "allies" of Greece remained with their ships in the city's port...watching! They did not get involved to save the civilians.

Two World Wars followed soon after the bloody wars that Greece had to endure in order to regain its territories. In both wars Greece tried to remain neutral, only to be dragged in both by the Entente and the Alliance of France and Britain in the WW1 or Italy during the WW2.

In both cases Greece was not given the choice or the luxury to remain neutral, paying a huge price in lives both of civilian and military population, but also enduring an economic disaster and further deprivation. Raw materials and foodstuffs were requisitioned and the collaborationist government was forced to pay the cost of the occupation. That gave rise to inflation, further exacerbated by a "war loan" Greece was forced to grant to the German Reich which severely devalued the Drachma.

Requisitions, together with the Allied blockade of Greece, the ruined state of the country's infrastructure and the emergence of a powerful and well-connected black market, resulted in the Great Famine during the winter of 1941-42, when an estimated 300,000 people perished in greater Athens.

It is important to mention the very important role of Greece in the war, delaying the Nazis in Crete and giving time to the Russians to prepare, while the Soviet winter was creeping playing a decisive role in the outcome of the WW2! Germany never compensated Greece for the damages during the Nazi occupation.

As if all the above was not enough, Greece had to endure a bloody civil war right after WW2. The big Powers and winners of the war (Britain, USA and USSR) sat down in Crimea and divided Europe in half. Greece falls in the British pro-Western slice and any communist elements are expelled after the Civil War.

The British actively participated in the operations, fighting on the side of the National Army against the Communists. All this so Greece will remain in the sphere of influence of the West!

One would think that after all the exploitation, the raids, the theft, the wars, the invasions that Greece endured from the European nations, it would eventually find peace and recognition. Well no! The European powers established a kingdom in Greece with royal family coming from Denmark.

When they were ousted, the USA helped a military junta to be established in Greece during the early '70s, that led to the "Metapolitefsi" years and the restoration of Democracy. They established in this way a political elite that rules the country to this day, based on corruption and money coming from the West.

After a couple of decades of progress and prosperity, the EU and NATO membership and the adoption of the Euro we now see the European and American press categorizing Greece among the PIGS (Portugal, Ireland,Greece and Spain) nations. Even daring to demand its islands, the Parthenon and all its natural resources in order to repay the debt that Greece has accumulated over the years.

For a crisis that did not originate in Greece but in the USA and their irresponsible finances. For doing what the capitalist system that the Americans and the Europeans have established demands: excess debt and a consumerist attitude. All European western nations are heavily indebted, but Greece is the one to pay the price. Plus it is not allowed to exploit its natural resources on its own, or to develop heavy industry like its northern European "brothers".

According to all the above, who has given more to Europe than the Greek people and who has suffered more than them? Yet the European countries believe that the Greeks are lazy, thieving and corrupt. Well with a re-examination of history, we realize who is the thief and raider in Europe!

The easy option: Suspend the Schengen, bravo!

What a lovely act of unity, an inspirational example of Europe and its leaders acting in solidarity when dealing with difficult issues. What have we been witnessing for the past few weeks, when the crisis hit north Africans took to the boats to enter Europe, was the selfish and nationalist reaction of each E.U. state.

Trying to protect their own interests instead of seeing the problem as a European one, they took their time and lots of debate to find a solution to a common problem, only to come to a decision that protects national interests first.

It is well known that the southern and eastern E.U. states receive the bulk of illegal immigrants that want to reach the European labor market. But of course they are not necessarily the desired destination. Most immigrants that reach Malta, Greece, Italy and Spain desire to start a new life in the more developed northern or western states, Germany, France, Britain, the Benelux and the Scandinavian states.

The problem is not national one, rather a European one. One would think that the response should come with a united front. Bit in every occasion the problem was mainly dealt on a national level, with only some help coming from FRONTEX. Each country defended its own immigration policies and the countries that did not have external borders with non EU/ Schengen states, were not as willing to share the problem.

So recently Mr. Berlusconi and Mr. Sarkozy kick-started a new debate on suspending the Schengen Agreement, at least temporarily in response of the mass exodus of the Arabs from North Africa. It is not unheard to do so, and it will not be the first time that it happened. A Schengen state is permitted by articles 23 to 31 of the Schengen Borders Code, to reinstate border controls for a short period if deemed in the interest of national security, but has to follow a consultation procedure before such an action.

This occurred in Portugal during the 2004 European Football Championship and in France for the ceremonies marking the 60th anniversary of D-Day. Spain temporarily reinstated border controls during the wedding of Crown Prince Felipe in 2004. It was used again by France, Finland, Germany, Austria and Malta at some stage on different occasions regarding security concerns during sport events, terror attacks in London or visits of important religious or political figures.

But here we do not have a problem that will last a few days or weeks. We do not know how long it will last, or how many people will attempt to enter Europe. We are not dealing with fans of a foot ball team, rather with desperate refugees that need to be treated humanly. Also we need to decide if, how many and in which countries will we allocate them. It is impossible for one single country to bare the weight of such humanitarian crisis, especially since it is a European problem.

Slowly many other states shared Berlusconi's and Sarkozy's views and in meetings they debated the temporary suspension of the Schengen Agreement. Instead of discussing the possibility of dealing with the issue in a united front, they preferred to reintroduce border controls in the internal borders of EU states.

Alternatively we could be coordinating all efforts at the borders of EU/Schengen and sharing the responsibilities and the decisions, but the Italians decided to grand visas to many Tunisians without the agreement of the French. The French stopped them at their borders with Italy, since most of them being French speakers, headed to France as soon as they got their visas.

That shows what a farce Europe's immigration policies are and the cracks in European unity. The Schengen Agreement is one of the symbols of a united Europe and E.U. one of the main rights of every EU citizen is the freedom of movement.

Rather than sending more patrols to the outer EU borders comprised and funded by all E.U. states, they preferred to act on the populist reactions and wishes of the public. Threat of more immigrants, quick close OUR borders! Our leaders decided to suspend one of our main E.U. citizen rights "temporarily", expecting that they will make a better decision later on, or that the crisis will simply pass.

We have had enough of seeing another of the European symbols, the euro, with a doubtful future. We experienced the divisions of the European public opinion, over the loans needed to stabilize the euro-zone and the sharpening of the gap between the rich and poor in Europe. Now we see Europe reinstalling its borders and not just in one state but potentially all of them.

This could definitely could lead to the redesigning of the Schengen Agreement and changing the way we travel for good. Is Europe imploding back to what it was before, turning to a more nationalist, conservative and protectionist continent?

Because if you have immigration problems, you simply deal with them not by redesigning the freedom of movement, but the immigration policies of Europe. Meanwhile, what will be the new changes on the terms we will be traveling from now on? Remember what happened after the terror attacks in the UK and the airport regulations that followed.

Europe's Day. 09/05/2011

It is this time of the year again. The time of the year that will leave many people indifferent, few celebrating or commemorating, but most people confused and wondering. It is the 9th of May, Europe’s Day.

Excuse me, does Europe have a special day in our calendar and what does it stand for?

Why should I be bothered at all and what does it mean for me? Is it something that only few bureaucrats in Brussels find an opportunity to pat themselves on the back, for their achievements?

Either want to admit it or not, many of us have had those questions in our minds. No matter where you stand politically, what your ideas about EU or a united Europe are, you have to realize the meaning and the concept behind such an idea.

What we are celebrating is not the creation of a super-state, an empire or the next superpower and many mistakenly believe. We are celebrating the creation of an organization that promotes co-operation , prosperity, development, peace and dialogue, in many fields like culture, finances, climate change, politics and social. It affects us all in our every day lives, directly.

We are celebrating the idea of a peaceful continent, working together for the development and progress of all in it, something that has never been previously achieved, thought of or inspired. In fact, Europe has incited the same aspirations in many other continents and parts of the world, since it’s success is an example for many other regions.

That is one reason why Europe should be proud and commemorate this day. The day that 50 years ago or so, European leaders sat down and put their differences aside and agreed to create an organization that would bring the continent together. Start a dialogue to solve the differences, not war. When the same leaders realized that much more could be achieved by working together, than against each other.

If that is not a reason for you to celebrate, well think of much of the stability, wealth, progress and opportunities for your personal development that you enjoy today in Europe. Many of these achievements make your life a bit easier, either on national or European level, would have never been possible without EU.

To be able to travel, study, do business, work or live in any EU country, without restrictions hassle or red tape procedures. Or to have your rights secured and recognized in all states, no matter your nationality, race, religion or sexual orientation. If that is not good enough for you, having access to different projects or funds that may help you set up a business, expand it or re-educate or train yourself and your staff so your business is more competitive.

Or simply have roads ,ports and stations built or upgraded in your community with funds from EU. The list could go on and on.

The possibilities and chances that EU membership offers to any of us is certainly a reason to celebrate, for without them our lives would be much different. It is hard to appreciate something good when it is there, but take away and you will be shocked of the difference that it makes in your life. The least we can do is to remind ourselves of what we have, by celebrating and commemorating the day.

It is also a great way in creating a feeling of “togetherness”, a feeling of belonging and sharing. A reason to be proud of your nation being one of the countries that belongs to this unique organization and it is considered to be democratic, developed, respecting the rights of it’s citizens, contributing to the development and stability of Europe.

It is an opportunity not to put aside our national identity as many fear, but to celebrate our second one that we all share, the European one. EU is not trying to scrap any national identities, otherwise why its motto is “United in Diversity” and the 23 official languages that are all recognized in EU.

The only excuse I would give to anyone that feels detached or unaffected from the celebration of this day, is the inability or indifference of our national governments to underline the importance of this day to all citizens.
To explain it’s meaning, inciting the interest and appreciation of the public. And that is also the root of many of the public’s misunderstandings or negative attitude towards EU. Because even if you are a skeptic about the project, there is no reason why you can not participate in the commemoration.

If it is not what you think it should be, the EU gives you so many chances to express you opinion and have a say on what Europe must become in the future. And we have to admit, how many national governments actually do that?

Proper “euro-skepticism” as they call it, is not rejection or opposition to anything related to EU and it’s works, but constructive criticism that can lead to progress and corrections. Any other attitude is not "skepticism", but simply narrow-mindedness, ungratefulness, and propaganda.

So next time that the 9th of May is the day, you do not have to sing the “Ode of Joy”, be dressed in blue from head to toe or wave the EU flag. Simply go to any happenings for the day near your area, meet and talk to people from all over Europe living there. Share your ideas, express your disappointment if you wish and discuss how the EU has failed you.

Or you can just exchange and discuss topics about your culture, country, what you love about the country you live or come from and about living in EU. Also how it has helped you and your country and what must still be done for EU to develop, or what vision do you have for it for the future. That is what the 9th of May should be all about and how you must celebrate it.

Happy Europe’s Day to all. Enjoy the day and the debate, be proud and have a vision for the future. You are part of Europe, so this is your day either you like how the current EU works or not.

Osama Bin Laden is Dead.Who's going to be the next Bogey-Man of the West?

This morning US President Mr. Barack Obama announced the death of Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan.
While the American population cheers, the stock Markets gain and everywhere the news bring a jubilee.

So what now, who is going to be the next "threat" that we are going to need protection from?

We used to fear the Soviets and for that so many weapons and defense mechanisms were built. A huge amount of money invested by the Western Allies and NATO, in the constant power struggle between the two super powers.


Even today, the Americans use "The Russian threat," or the threat by Iran to force the establishment of American missiles on European soil.

And that despite the former Russian President Mr. Gorbachev having his 80th birthday gala party in London, with many Americans, western celebrities and politicians being present. So I really do not see why we are still threatened by the Russians. As for the Iranians, could they really harm Europe?

A few months ago I was watching one of my childhood favorite movies, Rambo. To my amazement, in one of the many sequels of the movie, "Rambo" was fighting on the side of freedom fighters, the poor and brave Taliban against the Soviet oppression. That movie was filmed during the '80s.

A few decades later and it is the Taliban, the brave freedom fighters that are one of the worst enemies of USA and the West. It is well known that the Americans supported and financed the Taliban against the Soviets. And Osama was one of the people who took part in the operations, with the blessings of the Saudis.

Hollywood is a huge propaganda machine and it is there to remind the Americans, but also all their allies of America's military superiority, and our need to be protected by them. The movie industry has been used in all wars, including the two World Wars for propaganda.

The Nazis were propagating against the British, with movies that hailed the brave Irish against British oppression. And the British were doing the same, by using the Nazi victims as means to convince the British public to support their country's entry into the war.

Do we need our societies to have a bogey man to fear, in order to give our consent to the mass investment and waste of resources on weapon production for our defense mechanisms? While we could be investing them on health, education and eradication of poverty instead.

Why have a constant state of war and military actions, invasions of third countries that do not accept or agree with our western values and beliefs? Or the invasion of a country to exploit its resources, to open new markets so that we can export our capitalist ideologies and products to millions of people.

Our military industries are gaining hugely from all these operations. And the only way our governments can justify the wastage of so much money and resources on weaponry, is to have a "boogey-man," a constant threat that we need to be protected from. Then it was the Soviets. Now it is the Taliban and the Muslims.

Osama's family was living happily in the USA before 9/11. Yet they were allowed to escape after the terror attacks. And according to the media, Osama was "found" living in a 1 million $ villa in Pakistan. How can someone live in a huge villa in a country that is allegedly allied to the US, for so many years and albeit the billions used in operations to find him in a country next to Pakistan.

And despite all the alleged million dollar technology and intelligence weapons that USA claims that it possesses, they have missed a huge mansion near the capital of a neighboring nation of Afghanistan.

Will any new Islamist groups arise, making the Muslims the new Soviets, or will someone else take their place? How long until we realize that the real threat might just come from within. How many soldiers are we going to lose in wars that offer us nothing. Most of these conflicts just serve the elites of our countries, in their constant effort in finding new resources to exploit.

I much more fear the terror coming from the Markets and the Banks. In their constant effort to make profit, they rip nations apart, their economies and their people. Perhaps we should start fearing them more, than any of the so called "extremists."

Who's to blame? The propagandistic role of our media.

What is the position of our established media, in the on-going recession in Europe and the crisis in the euro-zone? The crisis is deepening in our continent, not only on a financial but also a political level. Yet the public do not know who or what to believe anymore.

Many articles often focus on blaming the EU or different European nations, the European Central Bank (ECB), the euro and anything that the populist mind might want to indulge in.

Our media in Europe love to scapegoat and turn our focus not on the epicenter of an issue, rather sell copies by indulging us in a blame game. Though they never put any blame on where they must.

One needs to start questioning how democracy is faring in Europe and EU, yet we never read articles questioning the very political and financial system we are in. A health-check on Capitalism for example and the role of the Markets, but also our own governing elites and those of USA would do wonders.

No one has so far complained about the fact that the crisis was exported from the USA, their bad debt and irresponsible banking system being shared by Europe. Has any of our media blamed USA in the same tone they do for the EU and like to stigmatize certain nations; aka using the word "PIGS" to describe countries like Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Spain.

Has anyone openly questioned the role of the Markets and the Rating Agencies? We accept their operation without objection, but we don't really know who they are and who controls them. What are their criteria when "rating" a country?

The EU institutions are being heavily criticized on their handling and involvement of the crisis. But how much of the crisis handling is their fault and how much are our national governments behind the decisions taken in Europe? It is no lie that Germany being the biggest economy, is prescribing austerity for the peripheral economies of Europe for example.

But nobody dares to point the finger at the establishment of this world. The "Western" capitalist system, the Markets and of course the Banks. Instead the media focused mainly on the euro-zone and its weaknesses. The euro as an idea is not the problem, the way it was set up by our Governments is.

The euro would work just fine, if everybody played by the rules and we had established a more integrated European economy, plus we had achieved further political integration. 


When we read "Brussels has decided that," who is actually "Brussels" and "the EU"? Two thirds of the decision making bodies (EU Commission and EU Council) are controlled and appointed by our governments, so I see no foreign bodies dictating our nations. The third one is voted in power by us, the citizens (European Parliament).

It is rather the rich and powerful elites of some countries, telling the elites of the smaller ones what to do. So instead of putting the blame on "Brussels," perhaps we should learn to blame our own governments and political system first. It is also time to rethink our special relationship with America, how Capitalism works and how we are being governed.

Our media love blaming the EU as usual, but they never question the capitalist system, the international relations between USA and European elites, the role and the corruption within our national governments and of course those of the Markets. It seems to be unholy to question these establishments for any of the western media.

If we realize that the majority of all major media corporations are owned by 6 major multinational companies, then we can get an idea of what is really going on. Instead of unifying the European public opinion, they are dividing it with either slandering the nations in trouble (PIGS), or accusing EU of bullying the smaller nations.

The bullying is coming in fact from the richer nations' governments, who bow to pressure coming from the Markets and the rating Agencies, in order to keep their financial status and reputation intact.

If we keep this attitude, not only EU will fail with any chance of a political renaissance in Europe, but we will become slaves of the rich global elites and the Markets. We also run the risk of a total economic and political disaster in Europe.

By dividing the European public opinion or distracting it from questions that need to be asked, the global capitalists achieve their goal of having a conservative Europe. They turn one nation against another with populist rhetoric, but also against the idea of a united, strong Europe.

Our media are disorienting the public opinion with petty nationalist propaganda, ethnic, cultural or economic superiority and a sense that our national governments are actually working for the "nation," but not theirs and the global capitalist elites' interests.

Journalism today seems to be detached from its original cause, that is to inform and stimulate readers to think about an issue, revealing sensitive information. Our media are in the hands of few rich businessmen and any dissident voices that challenge the current status-quo are silenced. Can we start thinking for ourselves?

France becomes the first country to ban the burka.

France is officially the first European country to ban the Islamic face cover gowns for women, the burka and the niqab.

Protests are almost sure to happen, not only in France but in many other countries, both European with a significant Muslim population and of course the Islamic nations.

Was the decision right and what is the French leadership trying to achieve? France has the largest Muslim population in Europe of about 6 million people. What are the messages that are trying to pass to its youth?

Humans are creatures that communicate with their facial expressions and eyes, so making a woman to wear those two garments is certainly dehumanizing and limiting her in every social interaction, apart from those with her fellow sisters in Islam.

Of course that is the whole purpose of it, because according to the Islamic teachings women should be modest and "liberated" in this way, from being preyed on by men. The disturbing thing is that in 2011 there are still women that feel that this is a social norm.

Europeans have liberated their women decades ago, although the fight is still on for a full equality between the two genders. We have also loosen the power of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, freeing our spirits from any moral enslavement and limitation that Christianity has tried to place upon us.

Should we allow certain conservative doctrines of Islam to spread in Europe, keeping European citizens under their archaic influence? Either you are European by birth or by the naturalization process, you are a citizen of this continent. You can be Muslim and European, but only if you share some basic values with the general population.

Turkey can be a leading example of a more secular version of Islam. Perhaps we could even encourage the various secular Islamic elements or communities in our continent, to work for a European version of Islam. One that would be compatible with the overall values that identify us as Europeans.

Of course not all Muslims support such extreme forms of their religion. We can not brush them all with the same brush. They come from many different countries, that themselves follow very different versions of Islam and have their own distinctive cultures.

The solution would be to encourage them to explore their "Europeaness" through education, intercultural dialogue and more participation to the "commons," eradicating any radical elements among them. Thus giving them a greater say and involvement in our societies.

But do they really want to integrate, or see themselves as Muslims first, then anything else?Also do we want them to do so and have them as more engaged, vocal members in our society?

No matter what, a total ban of those garments can not be part of the solution. It will harden the stance of the Muslim communities in Europe, as they will feel they are being targeted and discriminated against.

Banning any signs of any religious expression, attracts more attention to the cultural differences and in fact it feeds any radical elements. It  provides them with more arguments to turn the Islamic community more defensive of such practices and identify them as inseparable elements of their identity.

Education is a key tool to tackle the more conservative practices of Islam, but it will be also necessary for the Muslim communities to be engaged and mobilized in this effort. It is also up to them and in their interests to become integrated and an active part of European society, not limiting themselves by doing the jobs that the natives do not want to do anymore.

They can leave their mark in our continent in a more constructive way, that being just a labor force. But that will need some change in their overall mentality. In Italy they banned recently any crucifix idols from their schools. The Catholic citizens of the country did not protest or threatened anyone in such extend, that the Muslims often do.

They can't understand that if they want to live in Europe and call themselves Europeans, they will have to leave some cultural aspects of their countries of origin behind. If not, they will always be "guests" in our continent, no matter what their passport declares.

It is simply a rejection of the European values and way of thinking, to staunchly resist any kind of modernization. The fact that everyone is free to practice any religion in Europe, does not mean that it should be accompanied with practices that clash with our secular society.

On the other hand, the difficulties that European countries are having when it comes to integrating its immigrant communities offer some clues. Do we really want to integrate our immigrants into our societies, or we are just covering our labor needs with immigration?

 But then why allow a population of 6 million to enter your country, if you do not wish to integrate them and why allow an increasing flow of immigration from Muslim nations?Perhaps we should be looking elsewhere, in regions like Latin America that culturally is closer to us, to cover our labor force needs.

Can there ever be a successful multicultural model that does not segregate the various communities? One solution would be to allow everyone to practice what they want, just like in America. But then what would be our own, distinctive European identity and what will it mean to be a European?









You do not become European citizen just so you have a passport and the right to stay in the country. One of the obligations you have when holding a European passport, is to make an effort to integrate and be a constructive member to your community.

You do not have to convert to Christianity just to fit in, but you certainly need to understand and accept certain values of your host country.Blend your values and traditions of your country of origin, with those of your adopted country and you won't feel an outsider ever again.

Japan's tsunami, made me rethink European nuclear energy issues.

With the latest shocking and dramatic developments in Japan, the issue of the use of the nuclear energy comes in the spotlight again. One of the most developed and rich countries and the third largest economy of the world, is being hit by a massive earthquake. Followed by a massive tsunami, that leaves at least 25 thousand people dead or missing.

As if this humanitarian tragedy was not enough, the world is gripped by the developments of the region's nuclear power plants as their reactors' melt down. Radioactive particles are reaching Europe and many other regions of the world and we soon realize that this is not just a Japanese disaster, it is potential a global one!

How was Japan so confident that even though it lies in one of the most geologically unstable regions of the planet with earthquakes being common on a daily basis, to develop nuclear energy plants? Even the word "tsunami" is Japanese and they are so common in the region, as in the Pacific in general.

The international community showed so much trust in Japan to be a safe place, for such potentially dangerous type of energy. It's not that Japan is not worthy of it or should not have it, but perhaps we should place stricter nuclear power management regulations and an overseer global organization.

Why was Japan freely allowed to develop and explore it and not just that, but locate some of its plants on the east coast of the country that is in risk of tsunamis? Perhaps the nuclear power development ability, is being seen as a club of the powerful nations and a prestige development that Japan could not resist.

Maybe the reasons are financial because of the cheap energy, it allows more money for the economy. But then again why does the West fuss so much over Iran's uranium enrichment, claiming that it will be dangerous for us as Iran is a "rogue" nation, but not for Japan. Is it because we do not want a strong and prosperous nation in the region, that is hostile to our protected "child", Israel? We make sure we watch Iran's efforts, but we never made sure that Japan built its plants somewhere away from the sea.

Can we dictate which country can have freely nuclear power plants for energy? There must be an agreement that if a country has nuclear reactors, it must locate them in an area that is not prone to powerful earthquakes, and keep maintaining them in order to limit any Chernobyl style accidents.

In 2004 Lithuania agreed to close the power plant of Ignalina, in the city of Visaginas. Due to the plant's similarities with the Chernobyl, Lithuania closed the plant in order to enter the EU. By 2009 the plant was completely closed and plans to built another one were hindered by the economic crisis. So the EU pulled its weight and forced Lithuania to close one of its reactors.

Why the international community never intervened to make sure Japan and other rich and powerful nations also follow the rules? It seems only small and developing nations are told how to handle their nuclear ambitions. But what about Japan, America, France and Britain, does anyone keep an eye on them, making sure they are keeping their plants up to date?

Nuclear energy has its benefits, but we humans are not able to control such powerful source of energy. Our greed and arrogance make us prone to repeat the same mistakes. Can we have confidence in the future of a safer nuclear energy management? Perhaps it is time to have a greener, sustainable energy revolution in Europe.

 If we can't cope with nuclear energy and its responsibilities (nuclear waste, maintenance, location, suitability, etc) then I prefer a safer future for our children. Who knows the true extend of the nuclear disaster in Japan and for how many years will it affect the region? Ukraine still suffers from Chernobyl. Perhaps we are not ready to handle such powerful "gift".

To close this article, I would like to express my condolences for all the victims in the double disaster in Japan, and my support for the families and people affected.

How to integrate 27 strangers? Education and integration in Europe.

One of the main goals and visions of the European integration, is the creation of one federal Europe. There are many who oppose this and support a nation state approach.

Unemployment, the economic crisis, negative press and of course the reluctance of our national political elites to let go of power, have seriously damaged the orientation and the purpose of this cause recently. 

So far they attempted to create a pan-European identity or culture based on the American model. A United States of Europe, inspired and copied from USA. Our leaders try to integrate the populations of Europe following the American "panacea".


In my opinion instead of trying to "Americanize" Europeans, it would be better to "Europeanize" them! Why make them feel less for their national history, heritage, music, culture and lifestyle? It would be better to project each others' cultural elements on each other!

One way of achieving the above is by teaching European history and the benefits or obligations of EU membership to all our pupils, in schools across the continent. In this way, we create engaged and conscious EU citizens as soon as they leave school, instead of having an apathetic population.

If we explain to our students how the EU works and what it does for them, then not only they would be informed but also be able to take advantage of their EU citizenship. Then populism and nationalism could not settle as easy in their conscience.

European history with all its bad and good pages, is what unites us and we should learn from it. Our collective history shaped the continent, but our individual shaped each nation. I think the best way to understand each other and learn about each others shortfalls, is to actually examine both our collective and national history.

So that we will be able to reach to the root of a problem in each country and potentially even solve it, while working together. Share knowledge and experience to sooth any differences and inequality that stand in the way of further integration.


 How do you expect to integrate 27 (and soon more) total strangers? Before the Soviet block collapsed, my generation hardly knew that countries like Latvia or Estonia even existed. We never learned anything about them because they were in the Soviet block. Suddenly they regain their independence and they join the EU.

But all I remember of them  when I was in school is that these countries were located where the U.S.S.R started on the map.  How many of the European population really saw 2004 as the year of European reunification? How many knew the history of those "new" nations? It is not as if Lithuania suddenly sprang out of Russia. But people just saw them as poor ex-communist populations that joined EU to work for us or receive subsidies by our hard earned taxes!


If we studied about our history and each others culture, we would both keep our national heritage, but also project it to another 500 million Europeans across the continent. And of course enrich our culture with another 27 elements!


So far not only we failed to promote European integration, but we failed to integrate the immigrants in our societies too. Many European countries are struggling to integrate their immigrant populations. Instead of having separate religious schools for immigrant youths, we should be putting our kids together from a young age, not segregate them. Religion should be taught in a more generic and academic/philosophical content, instead as a dogma that must be followed.

In the case of other European immigrant children, we could promote a more multilingual education. Why set up separate language schools that youngsters must attend to learn their native language, but not have optional classes within the state schools in areas with high populations of expatriates? They could opt in for classes of their mother tongue in the same school for example.And not just them, but any student that wished to learn a new language.

The teachers of those classes could come from any EU country but should be employed by the state that the immigrants reside in. So far in most cases, it is the responsibility of the country of origin to send teachers to the expatriate populations across Europe. Why we make immigrant children feel different from a young age?

To conclude, European integration must go hand in hand with the education of its youth. Being a pupil in a European school should be an exciting learning experience, that offers the best qualifications for the future. But also exposes the young in a more collective way of thinking, cosmopolitanism, tolerance and active citizenship.

Craic Agus Ceol

March the 17^th is St Patrick's Day in Ireland; a four day festival of fun, drink, Guinness and of course, the parade. A display of colorful dressed people, flags and shamrocks, everything that symbolize “Irishness”. The whole country joins in a huge big party. Will you come and join us?

Well if you actually knew that this particular day had any significance in Ireland perhaps you would. But what if you are not Irish and you live in another country, would you?


That is because very few people know anything about the public or national holidays of another EU/European country. Every year loads of tourists flock to Dublin of course, but imagine if the Parade and the events here in Ireland or parts of them, would be broadcasted in all EU countries.

Wouldn’t that promote the events in Dublin and more people would fly over to take part? What better advertisement to have, than reaching out to the nationals of the countries nearest to you, show them what is currently happening in your country. A city break for fun, drink and cultural events and with so many low cost air lines in Europe, the perfect get away for a few days!

Similar events from other EU countries could be broadcasted all over Europe. What about the Patra, Xanthi or Naoussa carnivals in Greece, the Venice carnival and so on! In that way, not only we promote tourism within EU, something that we need now with the loss of so many jobs due the current economic crisis. 

But we also learn a bit more about each other, our culture and lifestyle, national holidays, share the events that happen in our cities. We create a common interest, a common culture and sense of belonging. It does not have to be a full length documentary, a few clips in our national broadcasters’ news would be sufficient.

We could stimulate the interest of our citizens with something different to relate the European project with. Apart from finances, banking and trade, there could be culture, fun and showing off your heritage, thus placing the foundations of unity and solidarity among the different populations of Europe. So why isn't this initiative happening yet?
 
Happy St Patrick's Day to all!!