The Property and the Power of the Church in Europe.

During the past few years of the economic crisis, many weak points of the Greek society became apparent and obvious. All the cracks, all the mishandling. Of course the only ones who were asked to pay the price were the people who had nothing to do with it in the first place; the ordinary Greek families, the Greek middle class.

The rich elite, the Greek politicians and all their supporters or accomplices were not affected. Them and another surprising group of people, the Greek Orthodox Church! The Orthodox Church of Greece, like most Churches in Europe and the world, do not pay taxes to the state. I think because obviously they think that their property is not of this world but divine, given to them by God himself!

In Greece particularly, if you want to become a monk or a nun you got to have property. If you want to join a monastic sect, you got to offer them all property you have, all land and money. If you do not have anything to offer, well usually they let you wait or you never join. A friend of my aunt has MS (multiple sclerosis) and is bound to a wheelchair. His is devoted to God and one of his greatest wishes is to join a monastery and serve the God he believes in. He wants to find a purpose in his life. But no monastery will give him this satisfaction. He lives on social welfare you see.

The Greek Church owns a huge number of sites on Greek soil. And according to Greek law that favors this medieval system, any land that is owned by the Church can not be developed unless there is a church built in it. For that reason in the city I originally come from, Thessaloniki in northern Greece, in order to develop a piece of land and turn it in a huge shopping mall the COSMOS- MEDITERRANEAN, they had to built an orthodox church in the middle of it. Because that piece of land they wanted to develop, belonged to the Church fully or partially.

The thing that annoys me the most is the hypocrisy. How can any religion preach that if we have two coats, we have to give one to the poor, seeks to collect more and more property. And not just that. While the Orthodox Church has organized soup kitchens and charities to help the poorest during the crisis, it has not whatsoever offered any of its property to the state to help the repayments. Nor they offered to pay taxes and contribute to the country's recovery.

They are rather like the Pharisees that themselves seem to detest for crucifying Jesus Christ! Numerous scandals broke out as far back as I can remember with priests or monks getting involved in illegal financial agreements and transactions. The most recent and famous one, was the case of the Vatopedi real estate scandal where the monastery was trading low-value land for high-value state property in a deal with the New Democracy government of Prime Minister Kostas Karamanlis. The cost to the state is believed to have been at least €100 million. 

The battles for power between the Orthodox Church and the Greek state go back as far as my childhood. When the Greek state decided that it would be more appropriate to remove the statement of religion from our national identification cards, the Church saw it as the new cards of the "Antichrist" and they campaigned against the new proposed cards. No wonder nothing progressive blossoms in Greece and not just because of the Orthodox Church, but of the rather Byzantine mentality that modern Greeks have.

As if the Orthodox Church was not bad enough for Europe, we also have something worse and more sinister; the Catholic Church. In Ireland they are responsible for the raping, beating and abuse of thousands of children under their watch. And not just in Ireland, but in Germany, Belgium, Austria and many other Catholic countries all over Europe and the rest of the world. 

Because of the poverty that existed in Ireland years ago and after the end of British rule, the Catholic Church took the role of the leading force on the island. Families had no means of work and survival and many kids were sent to boarding schools to get some education or to reform schools to be "educated" for being wretched, corrupt and poor! Most schools in fact were controlled by the Church back then. Even rich families often chose to send their kids in boarding schools to offer their kids "proper and good" christian education.

The result was beatings, rapes and in my opinion broken whole generations of people. The trauma caused by the actions of those priests can never be compensated, not that there was any true effort made. Nobody was jailed, or paid for what he had done. The victims basically just got an acknowledgement, an official apology from the Church of Ireland and the Vatican. That's all. 

What I do find hilarious about the Catholic preachings is the fact that while the priests were prohibiting everybody else to have a satisfactory sexual life, they were the only ones who seemed to have one. They banned and condemned sex before marriage, gay sex even masturbation. Yet it was acceptable between them to rape young boys and girls! 

Human sexuality goes hand in hand with human creativity and freedom of thought! Suppress human sexuality and you suppress our ability to express ourselves, to think creatively and freely. You create unhappy people who follow rules, human robots who obey and can be controlled. The Catholic Church knows this and they still insist to promote those views. 

Even worse are their crimes in Africa, where they suggest that people should not be using condoms to protect themselves from AIDS, rather abstain from sex altogether! If it was into my power, I would charge such people for crimes against humanity. But then again who would be open minded enough to support such move and who would be rich and powerful enough to prosecute them?

If we take to account the properties that they also own around Ireland and Europe, always the largest and best estates, it is easy to see how they maintain their rule and influence over the European population. No, I am not against God himself, I am declaring myself also as a Christian. I just do not follow any dogmas, as I feel they are just political divisions that came to be because of the power mongering and politics of our "religious" leaders. And I do not really think that the Church today really represents anything divine! If they did, they would not give so much emphasis in material goods.

Of course not only the Orthodox and Catholic Churches are to blame for everything. Some protestant sects are as bad, like some Presbyterian and other conservative sects. Likewise many Muslim sects, the so called "new" religion of Europe. As Islam expands in Europe, the last thing we want is another ultra conservative, fundamental Islamic expansion and establishment. 

Us Europeans have fought hard to liberate ourselves from the clutches of the mind control of the established Christian dogmas. I accept Islam in Europe and Muslims in our lands, but I would like to see a more liberal, secular European version of Islam to match our values. I would never want to see Shariah law in Europe, I am against any extreme and fundamental religious doctrine, either Islamic, Catholic or Orthodox.

What I would like to see is a total separation between the State and the Church, with the roles of the second being limited in a more humanitarian and spiritual role. Totally separated by politics, education, property, finances and money. There should be no religious schools and the subject of religion should be taught with no books, just open discussions and readings from religious books of all dogmas. 

The Church should not own any property and if it does it certainly should pay tax on it, just like the rest of us. It should donate all of the treasures they got to the state and to the people they supposed to be serving and have them in a museum for all the believers to have access to. Or dedicate this wealth in building hospitals, schools, libraries, parks, and sport facilities that we and our children need.

I am not preaching for a Godless Europe. Rather a more spiritual one, in which religion will be there to answer all questions of the people about God and help them reach a level of knowledge and maturity. Whenever Europeans want to explore their spiritual side, the Church should be there to assist them. Not try to manipulate and control them.

How should Europe react to the worsening Syrian crisis?

For the past couple of years we are seeing a great animosity in our world. From our own economic crisis, to the turbulent uprisings in our own very neighborhood, with "the Arab Spring."

One after another, people in the Arab countries demand change in their societies and reforms. They want to get rid of the established elites and bring democracy in their nations. For the past one and a half year, Syria is the country that is in the eye of this storm of events in the region and the one that after Libya, has experienced the most violence.

Between 18,000 to 25,000 people have died already, between them 500 children. An outcry for the rest of the world, but still this carnage continues. Yet things are not as easy or straight forward as they seem. Russia and China, though critical of the Bashar al-Assad's regime and its actions, they block any foreign intervention especially from the West. Others like Iran, support the regime totally.

But we should not try to explain the events according our version or understanding of politics and social issues. The Middle East and Syria, have a different culture and if we examine their history, it was always violent and full of coups and instability that often was supported by powers outside the region.

For example in 1949 the democratic rule was overturned by a coup backed by America. And when a coup or a civil was comes to a nation, it leaves wounds that are very hard to heal. The country's old divisions between its religious and ethnic minorities have been ever since at odds in many occasions. Sunnis against Shia  Muslims, Kurds against Arabs, Christians against Muslims and vice versa.

And so because of  this mosaic of peoples, instability, need for social coherence, foreign intervention and with its important geopolitical position, Syria created its own peculiar to us political and social system. In this system certain clans gained more power and monopolized the country's politics. But why is the West so critical of this? The same happened in my native Greece where a similar situation exists, yet our partners seem to support and encourage it.

Nevertheless nothing justifies the violence and number of deaths that Mr. Bashar al-Assad's regime is bringing on to their own people. We are in the middle of a power struggle in the region that dates back centuries and is fanned by foreign powers, trying to protect their interests in the region.

So what should Europe do, to help the people of Syria? Is Syria the next Bosnia, and can Europe solve the crisis there with an invasion like in the Balkans?

We should be really careful in this conflict. The Russians have already sent troops down there and so have the Chinese and the Americans. Each one trying to protect their own interests. The Americans want a change of the regime, since the current one do not serve their plans for the region anymore. The Russians have a long trading relationship with the Syrians, especially with the arms trade.

They also have a naval base in Syria, the only one that remains outside their borders since the times of USSR and it is their only gateway to the Mediterranean. They are showing a great interest in the region, especially now that a huge amount of gas was found in Cyprus. The Russians are investing hugely on the island and they are prepared to defend their interests. Therefore they sent troops to the region, ever since Turkey started threatening Cyprus again.

So the Turks are in a power struggle with Russia, with the backing of their long standing allies the Americans. They also have interests in the region themselves, both in the Cypriot waters and the Middle East. A region that is located in their borders and they have long seen as an great importance. Turkey in the recent years have been trying to establish itself as a leading power in the region. They also support the Syrian rebels for all the above reasons, in hope to change the status quo in the country and promote their interests.

The Syrians on the other hand showed their teeth to the Turks, by shooting down one of their air-crafts that had trespassed their aerial space down. China, showing support for Russia have also got involved in the region. Can Europe enter such situation, we can not afford to enter a war right now. Our economies are not performing well at the moment and we have so many things to solve in our own back yard. But we do not want another Bosnia either.

I think we should only intervene under the UN lead, and only if we have to. The Russians won’t let go of Syria so easily, it is their only ally in the region. It is sad that the Syrian people must pay for the geopolitical games of power between East and West and the established powers of this World. But it has always been this way.

The Syrian situation is far more serious than the Yugoslavian war. It could implicate all major World powers, leading to a hot war that could spread in the whole region and even worse, become global. Can Europe be at odd with the Russians? We need them and unless we find alternative energy resources we can not be hostile to them.

And even if we do, Russia borders so many EU states and in the future they may become even more. We should re-establish new relationships with them, growing away from the Cold War days. But this requires effort and trust from both sides.

In my opinion we should give the UN full power and control over the situation, and if needed Europe will assist the UN and bring peace. But the question is, will the Americans allow it? They have ignored the UN so many times before. Europe is enough involved in hostilities and wars in the Arab world already.

Can Europe be seen to be siding with America once again and get involved in yet another conflict in yet another Arab nation? We could be giving more fuel to Islamic fundamentalists to promote their anti-Western propaganda, if we keep meddling in their affairs.

We should pressure the Arab League to take a more active and decisive role in the conflict. They have suspended Syria's membership in their organization so far, but perhaps they could get more involved. Their actions can not be seen as anti-Islamic or anti-Arab. They have to understand the importance of the situation and for once the Arabs must start uniting and speaking with one voice too, while getting more involved in global issues just as the Europeans are doing.

Europe has a great experience in negotiations and could play a decisive role as a peace broker, as a moderator for the conflict. We should not side with anyone in this conflict in the region.  I do not trust the Western media, after what they have been saying about Greece during the economic crisis.

Some say that the Christians of Syria are being attacked by those same rebels that the EU wants to support.  Why doesn’t Europe protect those people, are we using one-sided drama stories to justify our plans to expand our sphere on influence?

Europe should offer humanitarian aid in all sides of the conflict indiscriminately, we should be seen that we really care for the suffering of the people of Syria, not just for those who we support because our interests dictate so. We should not pour oil in the fire and side with either the Sunnis or the Shia, the Christians or the Kurds.

Diplomacy, aid, and the use of a united voice in the UN, while bringing on board the Arab League to try to bring knowledge and legitimacy in our peaceful involvement in the conflict, should be the preferred solution. For once Europe must start acting ethically, giving an example to the rest of the World.

The future of Euroland. Berlin, June 30th 2012.

Last Saturday the 30th of June, I had the honor to be invited in a workshop organized by the Euro-land-Citizens movement of the Newropeans magazine, in Berlin. The topic of this public debate was the future of the Euro-land (or euro-zone as most of us call it) and its democratization: "From the fiscal compact towards a Euro-land citizens pact!"

The initiative of such forum was taken to deal and discuss the European paradox; 300 million European citizens have no say in the decisions taken by our governments on the future of the euro-zone. The "Euro-land," is devoid of the least democratic institutions and processes to allow its citizens to influence decisions taken on their behalf. Lobbies of all kinds and external bodies, beyond any democratic control have more say in shaping the policies that define the euro-zone, than the citizens that live in it.

This adds to the socioeconomic current crisis  that engulfs the EU and Europe in a "undemocratic black hole." Under these conditions, it is urgent and essential to find alternatives to the current EU institutional procedures, because without the support of the people there is no democracy. Condemning democracy in Europe is also condemning its future.

The debate was performed in three languages, English, French and German, as the debaters and the attendees were from a variant background. People from Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Holland and Greece, from different European organizations, media, student groups, political parties and lobbies. 

The opening was officially launched by Mrs Marianne Ranke-Cormier, editor in Newropeans and its President, Mrs Margit Reiser-Schober. After a short introduction to the cause and purpose of the debate we quickly proceeded in the first panel that was moderated by Mrs Reiser-Schober and comprised by David Nadasi from the French Pirate Party and Mr Massimiliano Gambardella, from the Friends of Beppe Grillo. The topic was the rise of the far right and far left parties in Europe and the search for new political ways of expression.

Mr Nadasi described his party's initiatives for democracy, mainly on the web. To be honest I never really thought much of any Pirate Party in Europe, until their campaign against ACTA. To me it was something unnecessary, as we have far more important issues to solve in Europe than freedom on the internet and  exchange of data. But after listening to Mr Nadasi and what his party is aiming for, I am not as skeptical anymore. Their party also stands for freedom of information on the internet, which is going hand in hand with the pluralism of the media and offers an alternative voice on political and social issues.

I only wish parties like these presented themselves differently to the voters, otherwise I do not see them flourishing anytime soon in countries like Greece or Ireland. But as Mr Nadasi explained to me in one of our discussions during the breaks, more and more people are showing interest in his party and that will bring more voices and ideas into their ranks. Perhaps then they will become more successful with the knowledge and support of those people.

Mr Gambardella offered a real eye opener point of view, from his country Italy. The MoVimento Cinque Stelle (or the Five Star Movement), is a new political group in Italy trying to fight corruption and the old established political elite. Its leader is Mr Beppe Grillo, a popular comedian and blogger. They support the idea that politicians should not be re-elected for more than one term, and that to be a politician should not be a profession, there should not be "career politicians." Its members are getting paid a minimum wage for politicians and they are trying to incorporate this into the country's laws. They also refuse to take a single euro as reimbursement of election campaign costs. 

Another populist party, or something that could give food for thought? All mainstream political parties loath or are afraid of what Mr. Grillo and what his party are promoting or standing for. Young Italians, fed up with their country's chronic corruption are turning to parties like the above for new genuine ideas. And how can you not agree with them. Perhaps the Five Star Movement has a real point, when they want to scrap "career politics." 

Even though I personally detest populist parties as they are only offering false hopes to the citizens (if they ever get into power, their policies won't be as break through as they promised before the elections), I totally embrace any suggestion that wants to end the reign of career politicians. In Greece we are suffering from the same plague for decades no, and personally I would love to get rid of our political elite. It is one of the main reasons why Greece and most of Europe is engulfed by this crisis. The nepotism and corruption of people who practice politics as a career choice, brought our countries to the brink of destruction.

The second panel of discussions was comprised by me, Christos Mouzeviris-a Greek blogger living in Ireland, Mr David Nadasi and Thijs de Wolff a Newropeans and a former AEGEE (Association des Etats Généraux des Etudiants de l’Europe / European Students’ Forum) member. It was moderated by another Newropeans member, Mrs Veronique Swinkels.

Our discussions evolved around solidarity in Europe, what it means and how it should be expressed or implemented. We quickly came to the conclusion that solidarity does not mean charity. Solidarity means to share and assist when needed, but not in the form that it is done today. Share resources, knowledge, experience to create an equal, democratic, stable and prosperous Europe for all its states. Assist countries that are in trouble but without the stigma, the slander and the sometimes unfair demands in order to offer this help. It must be offered unconditionally, provided of course the country in need shows responsibility and takes action to deal with the problems that it faces.  

It was very heartening to hear from my fellow debaters that people in Germany and Holland, are starting to understand now that it is not the fault of some countries like Greece the problems we face in the Euro-land. People in Holland in particular are now aware that the major fault is this capitalist "Anglo-Saxon" banking system and economic style.

And they want to change that, or they believe that something better and fairer must be created and implemented. The citizens of these countries do not support their leaders' views or actions and they are aware of the heart of the problem. Why their national media are keep bombarding them with inflammatory propaganda, it can be only explained as their need to cover their country's weak spots and the real root of the problem: the corruption and failures of the capitalist system.

And those failures were discussed during the lunch break that followed and I was more than happy to see how other open minded Europeans realize that we are all in trouble. Some more, some less. But sharing ideas and views with a lovely German lady, I was amazed to hear her telling me not to be envious of the "pristine" German system.

 "There is a lot of hidden unemployment in Germany," she said "and our society has become deeply divided and unfair." She went on to explain the failures of the German system and how it creates two kinds of citizens, how the often perceived German punctuality and perfectionism sometimes hides tragic stories of unemployment. "For all this efficiency you see around you, people have been fired and forced to freelance at their profession. And we all know how hard is to make a living from freelancing," she said.

Similar stories came from a Dutch attendee of the forum, that made similar comments for his country and how its economy resembles that of Spain in many aspects. A bubble economy, with the property and banking market in deep trouble. The only difference is that Holland found ways to cover the problems with "hidden" measures and for the moment is not as hard hit. If the crisis continues though, the cracks will most certainly come to the surface. 

Another example of "hidden" unemployment came from this Dutch man, but this time it was focused on Britain. A neighbor of his is a pilot and travels often to the UK. There he said, "they have three employees doing the job of one!" Meaning that in British airports, there are more employees that needed to do the same job as one employee in Holland and other mainland European countries. In that way Britain brings down the unemployment figures. How long can they afford to pay such expenses?

He also mentioned the fact that the Brits concealed totally the near catastrophic collapse they had in their banking system recently (mentioning the Barclays incident). Instead they focused on the troubles of the Euro-land to divert the public's attention and reinforce the belief to them that they are better out of the euro. With all the above examples it is clear the feeling that this corrupt system can no longer be supported and the frustration of the public exists in all European countries. It was wonderful to see that the European citizens have far more in common than they believe and if they sit down and discuss about the issues, they can find potential solutions and new ideas. I wonder why our leaders can't.

We returned to the forum and this time we had Pedro Simoes, a Portuguese graduate of the LEAP Academy speaking to us about the future of the Euro-land in the world stage. He focused on the idea of a Euro-BRICS closer cooperation, on the eve of an upcoming summit next year. The idea is supported by many in Europe, as a way to deal with the current economic crisis. 

The BRICS countries, comprised by Brazil, Russia, India, China and the recently added South Africa are a group of countries that will play a major role in the future global economy. They are forming a global lobby themselves with ever closer cooperation, in ambition to influence the world trade and economy. Many of us in Europe believe that we should form a closer partnership with all those countries and promote trade, but also form closer cooperation in other spheres like education. 

With student exchange programs between all the above countries and regions, we could enhance our knowledge and experience and learn new ways of doing things or dealing with problems. Most of us in the room agreed that Europe should look beyond its relationship with USA and seek to form new partnerships with the emerging countries, though we also agreed that this should not mean that we must end our traditionally close cooperation with America. 

Breaking the Washington consensus that was formed after WW2 and gave USA full monopoly and power in this world is essential, so that we can have a multi-polar and fairer global community. Some monopolies that were formed must be altered and it is in Europe's interests to encourage, exploit and explore those new relationships that could offer the continent new resources, trade, education and technology partners, so that we can better our economies. You may want to find out more about this initiative on Newropeans webpage (http://www.newropeans-magazine.org/content/view/13253/439/lang,english/).

The last panel of the debate was attended by Anna-Maria Hetze from Newropeans magazine, Mr Bruno Paul from Democratie Agile organization in France and Jose Ferro, a Spanish living in Berlin. It was moderated by Mr Ralph Pichler of Newropeans. The focus of this debate was the future of the Euro-land Democracy. In this panel we discussed the roles of the European Parliament, Commission and Council, the roles of our national media and the need to create pan-European media. 

Our national media are often owned by the ones who are trying desperately to protect their interests and monopolies, promoting protectionism in Europe and securing the current unsustainable status quo. We need to have an independent pan-European selection of media, TV channels, newspapers, magazines, blogs, on-line magazines and so on, to provide the European citizens with a more spherical, independent point of view, while promoting a less nationalist one sided and often biased source of information.

The failure to watch what is being discussed in the European Parliament or in the summits of the Council of the European Union was also mentioned. Especially in the case of the Council it was noted that our governments are promoting intergovernmental-ism, alas taking decisions behind closed doors and making deals or compromises without our knowledge or agreement. 

That leads to competition among member states that are striving to be more independent or have more power and influence on one another. The effect is a new wave of neo-liberalism, with the markets and banks playing one nation against each other to achieve what they want. And of course promote their interests and  of those elites whose interests are serving, ignoring the citizen's needs and interests.

For me forums and open public discussions like the above are what we need to solve many problems in Europe, but unfortunately they are not encouraged by our governments or being reported by our national media. Of course that is done on purpose. Because they offer a chance to the citizens to share information, discuss solutions, ideas, express their frustration and learn real facts about the situation that affects them.

It broadens their horizons and it is the essence of real direct democracy, encouraging the citizens' participation in their country's and Europe's political life. If only debates like the above were broadcasted in our national media and a much larger number of people had access to what has been discussed, I truly believe change in European politics would come faster. 

But Europe is being ruled by a conservative elite that dreads any change in the current status quo; that is why civilized and creative debates like these, featuring ordinary citizens with interest in their country's and Europe's politics, are replaced by chaotic, patronizing debates featuring only established politicians and journalists. Definitely a time for change!

Does Europe need a new Renaissance?

In the recent years Europe comes on the spotlight of the global news, only for its economic woes and inability to cope with the ongoing economic crisis. 

Just like many times in the past, Europe is in the center of the global interest for all the wrong reasons. We have been there before so many times and as some say, we always recovered and became stronger. 

But how will Europe look like, if we ever get out of this new low we have reached? In the past after every dark page, there was a golden period; the Renaissance after the Dark Ages, new European kingdoms after all the invasions and wars. With destruction always came rebirth and Europe always remained one of the leading forces on this planet, a main contributor of human history as we know it.

Also, we should consider what would be the catalyst that will put Europe back into the reigns of any progress of this world. What sectors we should encourage to grow, what resources do we have to exploit and how we could put it all together? 

If we examine European history, our greatest achievements and contributions to this world were our culture, science and industries. In the recent years they all suffer in a bigger or lesser extend. Long gone are the days that we enjoyed European (French or Italian for example) music, films and art. The days that European fashion was in its heydays, our factories were producing, our products were sought after all over the world and prominent European literature and philosophy were influencing the way the world thought.

Europe today listens to American hit music and watches Hollywood films.  Our clothes and most of the goods and gadgets we purchase are made in China or India. There are very few prominent scientific discoveries or breakthroughs and very few well known writers, poets, thinkers or philosophers. We live in a fast consumerist and ephemeral society, largely influenced by the “Anglo-Saxon” or American way of living, while our economies are now based on services, banking, the markets and the monopolies of the few. 

Europe is the continent who influenced the most this planet, for good and for bad. Starting from the antiquity and the Greek and Roman miracles in drama, philosophy, astronomy and mathematics, other later European nations continued their traditions; French, German, Italian, Spanish, Austrian, Dutch, Flemish and Portuguese explorers, scientists, philosophers, scholars and artists contributed to the enrichment, expansion and the zenith of European culture in all four corners of the Earth. 

Later, after so many wars and strife Europe found itself at the heart of the industrial revolution, which fuelled and was fuelled by another two world wars. During this period that shaped the most our modern day Europe, we had great technological and industrial advances that unfortunately also came with great tragedies. After the wars Europe was devastated so it had to lean on and accept the help from America, in order to stand on its feet again.

That came with a price: our economies today are modeled after America and are relying on the banking sector and the markets, just like it was decided after the wars, during the cold war period. Our capitalist societies were formed during that time and 70 years later this system is in crisis. Europe is at cross-roads. But it is not just a financial crisis; it is a social, cultural and ethical crisis above all.

After the wars many of our fathers had to live in absolute poverty and deprivation and had to work really hard. So it was very easy to lure them and turn them into over spenders: all it had to be done was to pour bucket loads of cheap money into our economies and their  pockets, created in our banking system with credit and bad loans and that was it. People went mad and wanted to live our version of the “American Dream!” Be able to spend and have the lifestyle they watched for years in the Hollywood films. 

That was going on for decades in our countries. Due to globalization, a phenomenon that again seems to favour the richer of this world, we got rid of our factories and industries and moved them to China because of their very cheap work force. We became manic consumers that even the music we listen to is ephemeral and so we have created reality shows to satisfy our appetite for junk.

We even prefer to eat junk-food. Most of the young kids today in the developed European countries do not want to be doctors or lawyers anymore, rather popular celebrities, foot-balers and foot-balers' wives, pop singers and models. 

So how can we reverse all this decay and not only revive our economies but our culture as well, as those two seem to go hand in hand in Europe’s history? My opinion is to examine as a group of nations what natural resources we have in every country and exploit them collectively. We should set up pan-European bodies that will fund and invest in exploiting those resources, reinstall our industries and invest in new ones like green energy. 

But also invest in reviving and promoting our culture and heritage, our music, cinema, cartoons, art, fashion, architecture and literature. Subsidize the artists and scholars, not the bankers! Michelangelo was subsidised by the then rich religious elite of the time, in order to create his most famous artworks that we still admire today. What are we doing to promote culture to our kids and help them experiment with it and be creative?

We should be exploiting every potential recourse of growth and income we have, not just our banking, property and other financial sectors. Easy profit and money only created bubble economies and we saw the outcome of these recently. But if we want to achieve all the above, we will have to re-educate our youth and promote different kind of role models. 

With that, we should promote legislations that would help young people in Europe to express themselves, start business, start a family or become fully independent as soon as possible and that of course requires to combat youth unemployment. Only then our youth will reach their creative potential. We should establish tax reliefs for the young, not the rich few. New job opportunities in our new industries for all young people, all over Europe not just the rich “North!”

That of course will mean that many will lose their monopolies, especially in the rich countries. We will see a transfer and sharing of wealth, but not in a bail-out form as we are used to now. We won’t have the taxes of the workers of a few countries be used to keep unproductive and easy to manipulate the rest of their “partners.” Rather shared opportunities equally distributed across Europe and not just in few.

New education systems and universities that can be linked or cooperate with each other even more closely than now, will enable our young people to become young scientists. We could use those new scientists to expand our innovation and scientific research.

That in turn will create a new type of industrial revolution. Instead of wasting money in bailing out the banks, securing the interests of the few, keep the status quo and balance of power in place, we will have a collective renaissance across Europe. In all necessary fields: cultural, scientific, industrial and economic. Simply because they all have to go together, if the stability and prosperity is meant to last. 

An educated person with reasonable career opportunities does not easily make the mistakes that many in the hardest hit from the crisis countries like Greece, Portugal and Ireland did over the past decades. Tricked, manipulated and deluded by their leaders who answered to rich elites inside and outside their nations, with limited education and qualifications, is there any wonder that they messed up?

But our leaders instead of promoting growth and investments in all the spheres that I mentioned above, they are looking to promote only economic growth, in the form of bail-outs and support for the banking system. That unfortunately has negative effects in all societies and in Europe collectively. It creates divisions among the European populace and it impoverishes the receivers of this “aid.”

That aid that has as only purpose the exploitation of the natural resources of the weaker nations by the rich elites of the northern European countries. We can see that clearly in the case of Greece, where our lenders ask from us to sell to them heaven and earth, in return for their “generosity” and “support.”

Sixty years ago, while the ashes of Europe were still warm, some enlightened people dreamed of a better, different Europe. And that led to what we called today the E.U. the European Union. But this dream became a nightmare recently, simply because our leaders are so easily corrupted by money and power. They rich elites of some countries dictate the fate of the rest of the continent and drive them into the old feuds, divisions and nationalism, a dangerous mix to have with an economic crisis. 

So instead of unity, diversity, solidarity, and growth we have bigotry, nationalism, greed, protectionism and divisions. The dream of real European renaissance after WW2 was flushed down the drain with the help of billions of euro from the banks, the help of the markets and the rating agencies and the power mongering of our ruling elites. And even still, on the verge of a total and catastrophic collapse, they refuse to invest in our youth’s future rather save and protect the investments of the few.

To me they just reflect the decay that Europe suffers from; we are an old, tired and sick continent. The remedy to this situation is not just a financial one. It must include a cultural and industrial regeneration, a new renaissance that will mark a new path in our history. Hopefully we will be able to walk this path together, united in some form with the common good in mind. A utopia? Most likely. But the more our leaders waste time trying to preserve the interests of the lobbies they answer to, the more this utopia becomes more necessary and urgent!

The second Greek elections, June the 17th, 2012.

It just happened this year for me to be in Greece during the last three weeks before the elections; for some, they were the most important and critical elections of the country's recent history. The importance of the elections, gave them a referendum feel. It was not just a decision on which party the Greeks wanted to lead the country, it was a decision that would have far more serious implications not just for Greece, but for the whole of Europe too.

With the Greek political elite divided in pro-austerity and anti-bail-out parties, the outcome of the elections meant a potential drastic change in the country's politics and Greece's relationship with its European partners. It was bankruptcy, humiliation, poverty and deprivation on one hand and salvation, stability, the country's reputation and recovery on the other.

While the New Democracy, PASOK and some smaller parties supported the idea that the best way for Greece to recover from the crisis was to stick with the austerity measures and do not upset the country's lenders, others had a different point of view. Syriza and other radical parties, both from the right and left suggested that Greece should scrap the austerity deal and renegotiate. The Greeks are generally pro-European and they do want to stay in the euro. but then why all the fuss? Was Syriza wrong to put a question on the bail-out deal? Or was it just "fishing" for the public's support, grabbing the opportunity to become more prominent in the Greek political life by exploiting the public's anger over the austerity measures imposed on them by Europe? 

European leaders reacted badly in Syriza's rise and attitude and they threatened to stop lending money to the country. A move that according to what they supported would be catastrophic for the country. Understandably the lenders always want to secure their investments. That is why they always try to create conditions that will favor a profitable return of their money invested.

Because make no mistake: that's what is all about. The European elites and bankers were speculating all those years and experimenting with a currency that had no central governance. Now that it all falls apart, they rush to secure their investments scapegoating some countries and throwing more debt on them. A debt that must be repaid thus creating a division in Europe; this of the lenders and borrowers. The second will always owe money to the first, and the first will make profit out of the loans. If there was a real European solidarity, the loans they offered to the crisis hit partners of theirs would be interest free. By adding interest on the loans, they also add more debt. How can anyone call this "help" and put conditions to it?

They demand from Greece to stick to the austerity program and do not throw away the "help" it receives from its partners. For this reason the Europeans were trying to convince the Greek people to vote back to power the parties who were the reason that Greece is in the state it is. How is this possible? Now that the Greeks eventually woke up and realized what was happening behind their backs and how they were deceived by their leaders, they want to get rid of them. But this time it is the Europeans who force them to vote the same parties back in power.

Doesn't all this sound absurd? Well no if you are aware of the SIEMENS scandal that rocked Greece a few years ago. The German company was pouring money into both big parties-PASOK/ND- in order to fund their electoral campaigns in exchange for a secured favor when it came in public work contracts, notably in the Olympic Games preparations. The Greek governments were giving SIEMENS most of the public contracts, and they were making money out of those deals receiving Greek public money. So while the German political elite that answers to Germany's industrial and financial elite now blame the “corrupt” Greeks, it was them who where on the other side of the equation, fleecing the Greek public from their money.

In other words, German and other European elites helped the establishment of the two big parties in Greece. Those parties who lied about the country's economy before Greece joined the eurozone; those parties who sold out every resource of the country to foreign multinationals, who never proceeded to necessary reforms in order to modernize Greece, who lied to the Greek people and abused money coming from European funds. Yes there is corruption in Greece, it is no lie; but perhaps this corruption persists because it serves the interests of certain powerful people?

From all the necessary reforms needed to modernize Greece and make it more competitive, very few were implemented. Yet the "Troika" and the Greek government impose salary and social benefit cuts, tax increases and public spending cuts. This is not the way to reform a country, this is the way to lead it to its knees. All we needed was to reform out outdated taxation system, reform and shrink our public sector, make our economy more competitive. Not to pour an immense amount of debt to our children and grand children.

During the daily marathon debates on the Greek television, I experienced scare-mongering tactics from both sides; very similar to what I have experience in Ireland during the Lisbon Treaty Referendum, only much worse. In almost every morning show, news show, late night chat-show, newspapers and magazines the discussions were about what would happened if the Europeans stop giving money to the country. How much we needed those money and what would happen if we returned to the drachma, if we went bankrupt and so on. To me that is the root of the problem; the notion that we need European money to exist and solve our problems is false. Europe needs Greece equally badly, but why this relationship is not taking place on equal terms?

News about the worse stricken groups of people by the crisis were always on the top of the agenda. The case of an eight year old kid fainting at school because he was eating just boiled pasta for a week, as his parents could not afford to feed him properly anymore. Any case of crisis related suicide, or the refusal of the pharmaceutical companies to import medicines in the country fearing that they will never be repaid, leaving Greece with no medicines. The worse case was the fact that cancer patients were obliged to pay for their chemotherapy, a very expensive treatment. In the current economic crisis with no jobs and no money, if you get cancer your cure depends on your wallet! Not the type of reforms I would have dreamed of for Greece or any EU state!

Other documentaries brought to our attention the cases of Argentina and Iceland, what happened in those countries and how the population coped. "A total chaos" many commentators were saying, while the economists mentioned the fact that the countries are not able yet to return to the Markets. Those documentaries described how the supermarkets were left empty, the savings of the people worth half or much less and how anarchy was established there. They described different scenarios, of the military closing the borders of Greece to stop people getting out of the country in the case of Greece leaving the euro-zone, to prevent people trying to exchange euro notes in other countries. Or that perhaps military tanks in the country's cities would patrol outside its banks, to prevent people from attacking and looting them; images that brought back memories from the junta days.

With all this propaganda, stressful and unnerving debates and information, is it any wonder that the New Democracy (N.D.) and the pro-austerity parties eventually won these elections? The Greek public wanted to get rid of the two big parties, the N.D. and PASOK, because they are solely responsible for the country's demise to their eyes. They almost managed to achieve such thing, until the interests of Europe thought otherwise. You see they were making good business with those two corrupt parties, so why accept a change in the status quo? Besides if the Syriza won the elections, every deal that the previous parties signed would be in jeopardy, thus the Europeans would be in danger of losing their investments in Greece.

So we had Mrs Merkel the German Chancelor, Mr Schauble-Germany's Finance Minister and Mrs Lagarde-Head of the IMF, daily on our national television threatening us and making suggestions. Mrs Lagarde even dared to proceed in vile comments against the Greek people, when she does not pay any taxes herself. From all the above it was clear that there was an agenda, but what was it?

The French Presidend Mr Hollande stated in a recent interview in MEGA Channel, a Greek TV station, “there are forces in Europe that they would love to see Greece out of the euro-zone; don’t make them the favor.”To me that translates as such: Greece is being used as a scapegoat for the euro-zone crisis, when all of Europe is to blame, notably the elites of the most powerful nations in it like Germany. If they had set up the euro-zone membership rules better and created a more functioning true financial union, not just a currency union, Europe would not be in this mess.

Their sins come to bite them back now and they want to find a quick solution to the problem, by kicking Greece out. They do not want to do what it must be done in this case, meaning a true fiscal union, the creation of the euro-bonds etc. They just want to bully the Greeks and some other states to pay for all the damage, or they are threatening them with expulsion of their "club." Have you watched how they pushed Spain into another bail-out , a “light” bail-out as they described it, because they did not involve the IMF this time. The Spaniards did show more courage to stand up for their people, but of course they had stronger cards to play: they are the euro-zone's fourth largest economy and they did not waste so much money as the Greek corrupt elite did. Though Germany still would like to see Spain in the arms of the IMF and more austerity as in Greece.

So had the Greeks any alternative choice? Not really! Syriza and its leader could not achieve all that they were promising. They do not have the experience and given the situation it would be very hard to find cards to negotiate. Unfortunately Greece is not like Iceland. We are in the EU and the euro-zone and that comes with certain obligations and benefits. Nevertheless Syriza could really shuffle some feathers and I am really glad they formed a strong opposition in the Greek Parliament. Not that I support them or their policies; I find them rather populist. But at least they heated up the debate and forced the other large parties to promise re-negotiation of the bail-out deal, in order to counterpart the public's support for Syriza. Because such renegotiation is needed, especially now that Spain has managed to avoid such harsh austerity in order to receive money from its partners. And we have a socialist French President that also promised to put an end to Merkel's austerity obsession.

Now will Greece's and Europe's leaders keep their promises?The Greeks swallowed the pill and believed what the European leaders were telling them to do, for "their own good". Now the ball is with them, to prove them right and do not disappoint them. The Greek people compromised, so what will the European leaders do to meet them half way? Will they start the recovery of Greece's economy with the growth stimulus and support that they promised to them? We are waiting!

Η πολυπολιτισμικότητα στην Ευρώπη.

Είμαι Έλληνας και διαμένω μόνιμα στο Δουβλίνο της Ιρλανδίας. Από περιέργεια και ενθουσιασμό αποφάσισα να ταξιδέψω στην Ευρώπη πρίν λίγα χρόνια, αλλά η μοίρα όπως λένε τα έφερε αλλιώς και αποφάσισα να μείνω μόνιμα στο εξωτερικό.

Πριν αποφασίσω να φύγω από την πατρίδα μου, πάντα ήθελα να δω μια Ελλάδα εκμοντερνισμένη, κοσμοπολίτικη και «πολύχρωμη» ή αλλιώς πολυπολιτισμική. Όχι επειδή είναι «της μόδας» στην Ευρώπη. 

Αλλά επειδή προσωπικά πιστεύω οτι σαν χώρα χρειαζόμαστε να έρθουμε σε επαφή περισσότερο με άλλες εθνικότητες, και να μάθουμε να σκεπτόμαστε ως Ευρωπαίοι και πολίτες του κόσμου. Αν θέλουμε φυσικά να εκμεταλευτούμε την παγκοσμιοποίηση και τα προτερήματα που προσφέρει.

Η παγκοσμιοποίηση ειναι γεγονός πλέον και όλα τα έθνη προετοιμάζονται για το νέο «στάτους κβο» στον πλανήτη μας. Η διασικασία έχει ξεκινήσει πριν απο αιώνες με τις Ευρωπαικές κατακτήσεις και αποικιοκρατία, και εχει εξελιχθεί στην σημερινή μορφή της μετά απο διάφορες ιδεολογικές διαμάχες και πολέμους.

Αλλά ο πολυπολιτισμός δίνει προτερήματα σε μια κοινωνία, όταν οι κυβερνήσεις διαχειρίζονται τις αλλαγές στην κοινωνία αυτή θετικά, δίκαια και πάντα με την συμβολή της κοινής γνώμης. Όταν άρχισα να ταξιδεύω στην Ευρ΄βπη, είδα οτι οι περισσότερες Ευρωπαικές χώρες είχαν αποτύχει σε πολλά θέματα ως προς την εδραίωση μια πετυχημένης πολυπολιτισμικής κοινωνίας. Αυτό δεν σημαίνει οτι η ιδέα της πολυπολιτισμικτητας ειναι λάθος. Απλά λάθος την διαχειριζόμαστε στην Ευρώπη.

Και αυτό συμβαίνει για δεκαετίες, με μόνο αποτέλεσμα την άνοδο της ακροδεξιάς σε πολλές χώρες της ηπείρου μας, την αποξένωση και απομόνωση των μεταναστών και την «γκεττοποίηση» τους, αλλά και εγκληματικές τρομοκρατικές επιθέσεις όπως αυτή στην Νορβηγία.

Όταν επισκεύτηκα το Βέλγιο και είδα οτι η πλειοψηφία των νέων ανδρών Μαροκινής καταγωγής ήταν άνεργοι και βασιζόταν στο ταμείο ανεργείας για την επιβίωση τους, τότε άρχισα να σκεύτομαι τι μπορεί να συμβεί και στην χώρα μας. Τί νόημα έχει να δίνεις άδεια σε εναν μεγάλο αριθμό μεταναστών να εισέλθουν στην χώρα σου, αν ειναι να τους φέρεσαι σαν πολίτες δεύτερης κατηγορίας με άνισα δικαιάματα.

Άρχισα να καταλαβαίνω οτι ένα τέτοιου στυλ πολυπολιτισμικότητας δεν είναι τίποτε άλλο παρά ένα μοντέρνο είδος δουλείας. Οι μετανάστες ποτέ δεν γίνονται μέλη της κοινωνίας όπου ζουν, ακόμα και εάν αποκτήσουν την υπηκοότητα. Αυτό τους κάνει πιο ευάλωτους σε εκμετάλευση και τους καταδικάζει να κάνουν τις χαμηλόμισθες δουλειές σε μια κοινωνία.

Πολοί από αυτους αρχίζουν να εκμεταλεύονται το «σύστημα» και  θεωρούνται πλέον ως παράσιτα απο τον υπόλοιπο αυτόχθονο πλυθησμό. Και φυσικά με κάθε οικονομική κρίση οι μετανάστες και τα λάθη ή προβλήματα που φέρνουν σε μια κοινωνία είναι τα πρώτα που σηζητούνται. Το θέμα είναι γιατί μια χώρα επιτρέπει έναν μεγάλο αριθμό μεταναστών στη χώρα, όταν δεν έχει την δυνατότητα η την πρόθεση να τους δώσει ίσα δικαιώματα με τον υπόλοιπο πλυθησμό.

Για μένα προσωπικά, μια χώρα για να επωφεληθεί από τον πολυπολιτισμό θα πρέπει να έχει εντάξει τους μετανάστες απόλυτα στην κοινωνία ισότιμα. Με πολιτικά και κοινωνικά δικαιώματα, και ίση αντιμετώπιση. Απο την στιγμή που κάποιος εισεέρχεται σε μια χώρα νόμιμα, πληρώνει φόρους και συνδράμει με αυτό τον τρόπο στην οικονομία της χώρας αυτής, πρέπει να έχει και λόγο στο πώς θα χρησιμοποιηθο΄θν οι φόροι του.

Εξ'άλλου ποιό το όφελος των μεταναστών, αν τους φιμώνουμε και αποκλείουμε έτσι νέες πιθανές ιδέες και γνώμες, ή ακόμα και κριτική της κοινωνίας που ζούμε. Φυσικά μιλώ για νόμιμη μετανάστευση και όχι παράνομη.  Γιατί η παράνομη μετανάστευση συνδράμει στην εγκληματικότητα και το λαθρεμπόρειο, ή ακόμα και την παράνομη διακίνηση αθρώπων με σκοπό την εκμεταλευσή τους.

Η παράνομη μετανάστευση δεν πρέπει σε καμία περίπτωση να γίνεται αποδεχτή σε μία κοινωνία. Για τον απλό λόγο οτι ενθαρρύνει φαινόμενα όπως η βίαιη και παράνομη μετακίνηση γυναικών απο τρίτες χώρες εκτός Ευρώπης η Ευρωπαικής Ένωσης, με σκοπό την προώθηση τους στην πορνεία.

Μια κοινωνία θα πρέπει να δημιουργήσει μια ελεγχόμενη και πλήρως λειτουργική μεταναστευτική πολιτική, ώστε να ελκύει τα σωστά άτομα, με τις σωστές ειδιόοτητες και σπουδές. Σε αριθμούς που δεν θα επιτρέπουν μελλοντική ανεργεία και γκεττοποίηση, αλλά ανάλογα με τις ανάγκες κάθε χώρας για εξειδικευμένο ή ανειδίκευτο εργατικό προσωπικό.

Αλλά ίσως εέα άλλο θέμα είναι και η χωρα προέλευσης των μεταναστών. Σε ορισμένες περιπτώσεις κάποιες εθνικότητες , αντιμετωπίζουν δυσκολίες στο να ενταχτούν στην κοινωνία όπου ζουν, και αυτό μπορεί να οφείλεται και σε παράγοντες διάκρισης και ρατσισμού, όσο και προκαταλήψεις ή θέματα κουλτούρας της χώρας προελευσής τους.

Κυρίως υπήκοοι από κάποιες μουσουλμανικές χώρες της Ασίας,  αντιμετωπίζουν δυσκολίες στο να παντρέψουν την κουλτούρα της χώρας καταγωγής τους με την Ερωπαική κουλτούρα, και έτσι να ενταχτούν πιο εύκολα και γρήγορα στην κοινωνία όπου επέλεξαν να ζουν. Με αποτέλεσμα να καλλιεργούν αισθήματα μίσους η αντιπάθειας πρός την χώρα που τους φιλοξενεί. 

Πιθανές λύσεις είναι η εκδημοκράτιση των χωρών προέλευσης τους μεσω διάφορων θεσμών και προγραμμάτων, με την συμμετοχή και της Ε.Ε. και των κρατών μελών της, αλλά και των χωρών προέλευσης των μεταναστών. Κάμψη του αριθμού μεταναστών από τις χώρες αυτές και αναζήτηση πιο κατάληλου εργατικού δυναμικού που να είναι πιο κοντά στην Ευρωπαική κουλτούρα. Όπως για παράδειγμα πολλά κράτη της Νότιας Αμερικής.

Και τέλος, ενσωμάτωση των μεταναστών μέσω διαφόρων προγραμμάτων που να τους επιτρέπει να καταλάβουν την κουλτούρα της χώρας, αλλά και να φέρουν όλες τις κοινότητες που ζουν σε αυτή πιο κοντά. Οι τέχνες και ο αθλητισμός είναι δύο μέσα που θα μπορούσαν να χρησιμοποιηθούν κατάλληλα για την σύσφιξη των σχέσεων των μεταναστών και του εντόπιου πλυθησμού.

Η προσωπική μου άποψη είναι ότι θα πρέπει να έχουμε λιγότερη μετανάστευση στην Ευρώπη, αλλά με πλήρη ένταξη των μεταναστών αυτών στην κοινωνία μας και με ίσα δικαιώματα ως πολίτες. Η μετανάστευση του ανθρώπινου γένους, υπήρξε και θα υπάρχει πάντα και συνετέλεσε στην δημιουργία όλων των πολιτισμών του πλανήτη μας, συμπεριλαμβανομένου και του Ελληνικού. Το να πιστεύει  κανείς οτι απλά μπορούμε να σταματήσουμε την μετανάστευση των ανθρώπων είναι απλά ανόητο.

Αυτό φυσικά δεν σημαίνει οτί θα πρέπει να ανοίξουμε άλα τα σύνορα και να αφήνουμε την μετανάστευση στη χώρα μας ανεξέλενκτη. Αν κάτι τέτοιο συμβεί ποτέ θα είναι σε μια ουτοπική παγκόσμια κοινωνία, με όλα τα κράτη να έχουν το ίδιο βιοτικό επίπεδο και οι άνθρωποι να μεταναστεύουν απλά από ευχαρίστηση, για σπουδές η από ενδιαφέρον.

Προς το παρών κάτι τέτοιο δεν έχει επιτευχθεί. Και ούτε είμαι πρόθημος να υποβιβάσω τον Ελληνικό ή τον Ευρωπαικό πολιτισμό και τρόπο ζωής ώστε να πιστεύω ότι ο κόσμος θα είναι καλύτερος χωρίς αυτούς. Δεν επιθυμώ την αλλοίωση, όπως το βλέπουν μερικοί, του τρόπου ζωής ή του πολιτισμού μας με την άφιξη αλλοεθνών ανάμεσα μας. Παρά μόνο την εμπλούτιση του Ελληνικού πολιτισμού με αυτό των άλλων εθνικοτήτων. Αλλά αυτό μπορεί να εφιχθεί μόνο με υπεύθυνη και ελεγχόμενη μεταναστευτική πολιτκή, κάτι που προς το παρών η Ελλάδα αλλά και η Ευρώπη αδυνατούν να δημιουργήσουν.

Το γιατί φυσικά βρίσκεται στα συμφέροντα και την απληστία των ανθρώπων, που θέλουν να εκμεταλευτούν άλλα ανθρώπινα όντα και την αέναη επιθυμία τους για ισχύ και χρήμα. Μια κοινή Ευρωπαική μεταναστευτική πολιτική θα ήταν ένας θεσμός μεγάλης βοήθειας, αλλά όπως και οτιδήποτε άλλο στην ηπειρό μας, είναι πολύ δύσκολο να επιτευχθεί με ομοφωνία. Ειδικά όταν τα συμφέροντα των διαφόρων κρατών μελών, συγκρούονται και κρατάνε ακόμα το άρωμα της αποικιοκρατίας.

Κρίμα γιατί αυτοί που χάνουμε είμαστε εμείς. Η Αμερική, ο Καναδάς και η Αυστραλία έχουν δημιουργήσει επιτυχημένες ώς επι το πλείστο μεταναστευτικές πολιτικές, ώστε να προσελκύουν εργάτες με τις ειδικότητες που θέλουν, από τις χώρες που θέλουν. Εμείς στην Ευρώπη εν αντιθέσει αφήνουμε κατά βάση ανειδίκευτους εργάτες να εισέλθουν στις χώρες μας, και σε πολλές περιπτώσεις με πολύ λίγη μόρφωση.

Και διερωτώνται μερικοί γιατί η μετανάστευση στην Ευρώπη έχει αποτύχει. Μα αφού το μόνο που ζητούμε είναι φτηνό εργατικό δυναμικό και στην ουσία σκλάβους να κάνουν τις δουλειές που δεν θέλουμε να κάνουμε εμείς. Πώς εντάσεις στην κοινωνία σου έναν σκλάβο? Και τί οφέλη μπορείς να περιμένεις από αυτούς, εκτός από την ακούραστη εργασία τους? Όταν όμως δεν τους χρειάζεσαι άλλο τότε τι γίνεται? Απλά τους εντάσεις στα ταμεία ανεργείας εις αεί, με την ελπίδα πως αυτοί και το οικονομικό και κοινωνικό πρόβλημα που δημιουργούν απλά θα εξαφανιστούν ώς δια μαγείας.

Με τέτοιες αντιλήψεις στην Ελλάδα αλλά και την Ευρώπη γενικά, πιστεύω πως όχι μόνο δεν πρόκειται να πάμε μπροστά, ή να λύσουμε τα διάφορα προβλήματα που μας απασχολούν, αλλα και οτι δεν έχουμε ιδέα για το τί κάνουμε, τί θέλουμε και για το τί θα μπορούσαμε να έχουμε.

The new EU Fiscal Treaty referendum in Ireland. May the 31st, 2012.

In exactly 8 days the Irish electorate will be called to vote on yet another EU Treaty Referendum. This time on the EU's Fiscal Treaty, or the "Stability Treaty" as the Irish Government has put it in its campaign. Ireland's constitution requires a referendum each time there are going to be changes on it, to be approved by the electorate with a YES or NO vote.

It is not very easy to get a clear answer with a yes or a no, especially when the question can not be presented to the people in a format that will require just two answers. The hardest thing will be to persuade the Irish voters to vote for something that only the Irish political elite understands its importance!

But how is the debate in Ireland faring? So far the YES side has an advantage, yet there is a large undecided portion of the electorate that could swing the result either way. About a third of Irish people are still undecided. So the debate is heating up for the past two weeks, in an effort to influence the public opinion.

The result of the referendum won't have any immediate impact to the rest of the EU states or the Treaty's implementation, since the Treaty requires 12 out 17 eurozone states to ratify it in order to be implemented. So even if Ireland votes NO, the Treaty can still be ratified if the majority of the other EU states approve it. This Treaty is very important for the economic future of Ireland, but that of Europe too.

Though Ireland's decision can not be decisive this time like in the case of the Lisbon Treaty referendum, nevertheless the "Eurosceptic" groups have already landed on Ireland to push for a NO vote. Mr. Nigel Farage MEP, a well known British eurosceptic but also Mr. Declan Ganley, founder of the eurosceptic group "Libertas" are already here to help defeat the Treaty. Understandably though, all eyes of Europe are on Greece and France at the moment. Because of the recent developments and huge changes that happened there after the recent elections in both countries.

Some are calling for a postponing of the referendum in Ireland, on the grounds that Ireland should not vote and expose itself if the vote is NO, in case of a formation of a Greek anti-austerity government that might lead to the country's exit from the eurozone. Or if Mr. Hollande, France's new President, manages to end or losen the German led austerity policies in EU.

The effects of either developments though, won't be known for months to come and Ireland's Taoiseach Mr. Enda Kenny TD has declined any calls to postpone the referendum. Besides, even if Hollande and the Greeks manage to convince the rest of Europe and especially Germany on a growth pact for EU, this Treaty won't be renegotiated.

The Irish Government and many other political groups supporting the Treaty, have launched a "myth debunking" to counterpart the NO supporter's  claims that link this Treaty with austerity. The NO side has linked every austerity measure approved by the Government, like the new household and water charges to the Treaty in order to gain support. I generally disagree with the NO campaigners' stance, though I totally understand their reservations. But by trying to exploit the current economic crisis and the public's disapproval of the austerity measures in order to gain support, they are in danger of failure.

This Treaty is not an EU Treaty, rather an intergovernmental agreement, a promise of one state to each other in keeping their books in order. Now why this hasn't been happening until now and we need this Treaty to bind our leaders to do the "right thing," keeping some budgetary discipline that the eurozone membership requires, is something that I do not understand.

Our leaders seem to behave like children that do not trust each other and need to put in place different treaties to make sure no one cheats. If the Czech Republic and Britain had agreed to be part of this Treaty, then it would be an EU Treaty. There are plans and hopes though that this Treaty will be incorporated into EU law in 5 years time. In this case the Irish might be called to vote again anyway.

The Treaty has nothing to do with the recent water and household charges, and it won't increase those charges if it comes into effect. The Treaty does allow some policy flexibility in exceptional circumstances, like a severe economic downturn. It does not affect Ireland's taxation system and its corporation tax rate remains untouched. But Ireland won't be able to get a bailout or any funds from the ESM (European Stability Mechanism), the EU’s new bailout mechanism if it votes NO. Other suggested sources for future funding are heavily disputed.

In a nutshell, we do need to control our finances and how much debt we can afford to accumulate. Since we share the same currency such move only makes sense. I do not understand why something like this was not happening until now. Huge levels of unsustainable debt is one of the reasons why Europe is in the grip of this recession. So any treaty that controls our debt and provides with a safety net from which we could draw funds to deal with any future crisis makes sense.

The only argument that I will give to the NO campaigners, is that if we examine the current pro-austerity policies that most European elites seem to follow, then it is clear from where our governments will be keen to cut funds in order to keep their country's debt low; from the social welfare, the salaries and benefits of the workers.

Now in some cases a reform is necessary and long overdue. But as we have seen in the case of Greece, harsh austerity without growth initiatives simply do not work. So what I would really like to hear from our governments, is what policies are they willing to create in order to keep their country's debt in check, in order for me to support fully the Treaty.

Yes, it is fair for the creditor countries to get safeguards that other countries won't act irresponsible, and we got to accept that when in the eurozone, you can not have full fiscal independence anyway. We got to prevent countries of borrowing too much. But punishing the countries that break the rules did not always worked in the past, so what make us believe that it will this time.

This Treaty is only part of the solution to the eurozone crisis. Growth initiatives, the eurobonds and other measures must also be included and promoted in the revival of the eurozone. 

Austerity was accepted by signing the IMF/EU bail outs deals; can we avoid austerity by voting NO now? Can we reverse the austerity packages and annul what our previous governments have signed to already? In Greece the Syriza party and its leader Mr. Tsipras believe so. It only remains to be seen how they are going to achieve such thing.

But this Treaty is not only about austerity. It will allow Ireland to have access to funds, a benefit that with this Treaty now is linked to its ratification; there was not such obligation in the Stability and Growth Pact 2011. Other differences of this Treaty with the Growth Pact are that the structural deficit target is subject to enforcement and that the targets must be incorporated into national legislation. Thus they are far more binding.

Ireland will be contributing to the stability of the euro currency and  show a sign of good will to foreign investors that the country is committed to the euro and continue to invest in the country, by voting YES. A member state is still free to reach balanced budgets by their own policies, provided the targets are reached. Coordination of economic policies are encouraged, but not harmonization.

The European Commission and Council will monitor a state's progress and a member state can submit its observations on the Commission's report. The Commission may then recommend to the Council that action must be taken and refer the matter to the European Court of Justice. If another member feels a state is in breach of the terms of the Treaty, it may bring the matter to the European Court of Justice.

 In other words, each state is not only responsible for its own finances, but it can take action against those who do not comply by the rules. No wonder then Britain and other "Eurosceptic" states are against the Treaty. They just want to keep the perks of fostering the markets' manipulators and big bankers and so they are trying hard to stop this Treaty.

So what will the Irish people eventually vote for? I have to say that this campaign is far more organized than the Lisbon Treaty referendum, and it gives far more information to the issues that matter the most. But as in the Lisbon referendum, the promised stability and job creating did not really arrived, even after the Irish voters ratified it.

There are a lot of weaknesses in the eurozone and the "European Project" that need to be addressed and solved first, before we can promise the European population long lasting stability. Can we expect now the Irish voters to trust their political elites this time? Will the Stability Treaty bring the much needed stability in Europe and if yes, for how long? Perhaps until the next crisis? 

What now for Greece and its euro membership?

Lots of speculation during this week about the future of Greece in the euro-zone. The country failed to form a government and there are many parties now in the Greek parliament, notably Syriza and its leader Mr. Tsipras, that want to reverse the bail-out deals that the former government has signed.

That of course caused an uproar among many other European governments like in Germany. Many have threatened to withdraw any further funds to Greece, others predicted the country's exit from the euro-zone.

A number of Germany's and EU officials mentioned that solidarity works both ways and if Greece wants to receive help, it must continue the austerity program and commit to what it agreed in order to receive more funds.

Yes but with what price? The euro and everything that the EU represents and promotes must be for the betterment and benefit of the people of all EU states. Right now what we have in Greece is a total collapse, social, financial and even moral. In a country with very few suicides per year, they now became a common occurrence.

Austerity hasn’t worked in Greece at all, it only put the Greek people in a terrible position to repay debt that was deliberately thrown on to them.  Austerity would be good if it was combined with investments, cut the salaries but invest in creating jobs and new industries. So far only the first has happened and it is disastrous for the Greek people. The nation’s pride and confidence is at the lowest point and we are being treated like the Jews were before WW2.

Apart from the slander and the fact that we are being used as the scapegoat for the euro-zone's woes, there are many reports among the Greek diaspora of discrimination and abuse of the Greek ex-patriots, simply because they are Greek. Notably in countries that “give their taxes to the corrupt and lazy Greeks,” like Germany, Austria, Finland and Holland. 

Not a great example of European solidarity is it? It is a shameful act and those responsible are the European governments who allowed this to happen.

The euro-zone was flawed by its birth, it was more of a currency union than a monetary union. Our leaders knew that, but still they went ahead with it. Thus the euro became an ambitious project and a symbol for Europe, but to the expense of the ordinary citizens. What good is to a European worker to have a symbol of "European unity," when he has to pay such a high price for it?

What people need is to be convinced that if they take the austerity, better days will come. Right now Germany and the Greek government insist on more austerity, something that the Greek households can not withstand.

If they announced a program for recovery and growth, or at least a road map to end the austerity and begin a relief process, I am sure the Greek people would respond more positively.  After all the Greeks showed their support in a recent poll for the euro, with a 75% saying they want to keep the common currency.

And if you think that the Greeks deserve all this because they were irresponsible, well that is only true for the corrupt governing elite and their accolades. Is it fair to put the ordinary citizens under such a harsh ordeal, just to punish the incompetence of their past governments?

How could the Greek public have known that the country was not fit for the euro-zone and that our government lied about the country's finances to enter the euro-zone? They lied to us and apparently they lied to the rest of Europe, but personally I doubt that European governments were ignorant about it. It is well known that the EU Commission knew but did nothing about it. So does the blame fall only on Greece's shoulders?

Our leaders created the euro with many flaws and occasionally all EU states at some stage have bended the rules. The first to do so were Germany and France. As for the debt, it has been accumulated from the exposure or the European banks, mainly the French, German and British to the toxic debt of the USA.

Germany’s economy too was in tatters after the re-unification, but its recovery was partly based on high inflation of those nations that now are in crisis and Germany’s trade surplus against those countries. In other words, our then booming economies contributed to the fixing of the then limping German economy, only to be forced now into an austerity.

Greece’s expenditure is also wasted in its defence and weaponry. Mainly from Germany, France and the USA. So while the Germans are giving Greece money to “save us” they are happy that we buy their tanks and submarines to protect ourselves from where? The Turks, a NATO ally of ours.


The Greeks were blamed for overspending, but it was German cars that they were buying. So by overspending, they were actually supporting the German economy. Perhaps if they did not have developed this bad habit, Germany's economy would not have benefited so much. Besides, it was not only the Greeks who went on a spending spree, but the Irish, the Spaniards and the Portuguese fell in that trap too. All of Europe was overspending, but the smallest countries get always the "spanking!"

There have been also many scandals involving multinationals, among them many German like SIEMENS, of tax evading in Greece. But it is the poor Greek tax payer that is called to pay his taxes while the multinationals, who obviously owe more to the Greek state do not have to face the same rules.

How can we solve the crisis when it is Germany again who opposes the eurobonds, a more viable solution to save the euro. They fear that this will harm their competitiveness, so instead they want to impose the new Fiscal Treaty on others. The Treaty is good to control how much does a country borrow or spend., we need fiscal discipline and unity in the euro-zone. But Germany was the first to bend the rules in other Treaties, who is going to control Germany if they break this one too?


The solution would be, if our leaders want to keep the euro to have a full fiscal union, but that is what Germany and many other "core" European countries oppose for the moment.  Bailing the weaker states out with high interest is much more profitable for them, because interests have to be repaid.


Greece does not need austerity, it needs systemic reforms to modernize and update its taxation system that is so complicated and riddled with red tape. It needs to create jobs, cut down on its public sector and stream line its economy. Not have its population starving and being unemployed.  


Germany has highjacked the euro-zone and the European project and they are trying to repeat what they did in Eastern Germany on Greece. There they were successful, but can we also get the factories and development to go with it?

The euro is a great symbol of unity and of prestige for Europe. But keeping it alive to the detriment of the people is not justifiable. Austerity would be good if coupled with growth stimulus and funding. Just austerity, and in its harshest form,  only turns the public opinion’s against the euro or the European project and it is simply scandalous as all this is happening to save the banks and the please the Markets.

Nothing has been achieved in Greece for the past two years of austerity apart the rise of the far right and the far left. That makes it harder to cooperate and find a solution both within the Greek government and Europe. We need to start seeing investments now in Greece, but all we get from “our partners” are threats!

So even if I support the euro, if it means that the Greeks will have to suffer more cuts and without a plan for recovery, I suggest that Greece should exit the single currency. We should rejoin only when the rich states have eventually decided to create a true fiscal union, fix the eurozone, heal its flaws and when they accept new members, they have to make sure that everything is in order, both in the new member’s books and in theirs.

Herman Van Rompuy: “The EU will never become the United States of Europe” | euronews, world news

http://youtube.com/watch?v=i9QIxC61b20 

Herman Van Rompuy: “The EU will never become the United States of Europe” | euronews, world news

Watch my question to the EU Council's President Mr. Van Rompuy and his response on the 5th minute of this EURONEWS special for Europe's Day. Hope you enjoy the video. Very interesting interview and responses by Mr Van Rompuy in my opinion.

Greek and French Elections 2012. The aftermath.

What an eventful weekend we had in Europe, with two EU and eurozone countries having elections, that could reshape the current economic and political agenda in our continent. The Markets are already responding negatively, in what they think is a bad sign for Europe's road to recovery and economic stability. From the political point of view, the results are a clear message of the people to their governing elites and a sign of a turning point of Europe's politics for the past few years.

In France we saw the victory of Francois Hollande over Nicolas Sarkozy. Hollande, a socialist, clearly based his campaign against austerity and he said that his victory is a message of the French voters; they voted for him because they reject the austerity measures that were encouraged by the "Merkozy" collaboration, or the  French-German axis as many have described it. What remains to be seen now is how will Berlin and Paris continue this cooperation and what the future is for the Fiscal Treaty. In Ireland we are having a referendum on it very soon and some now are suggesting that there is no point of having it, or that we should postpone it.

Mrs Merkel has already congratulated Mr. Hollande for his victory and stated that she will expect him in Berlin with "open arms," but the future of the Treaty is not negotiable. She expressed that she is looking forward to their cooperation. What will be the new dynamics that will form and where will this new cooperation lead Europe? Will Mr Hollande keep his promises and how will Germany and Merkel react to his positions? Will we have an end to the austerity policies imposed all over Europe and will Hollande be influential enough to gain the support of other EU leaders to change the European austerity agenda?

We have a socialist government back in France, after 17 years. All this time the conservatives were ruling France, one of the three main European powers and it will be interesting to see how this new combination of a socialist France and a conservative Germany will lead Europe. Merkel obviously favored Sarkozy, but I feel that we needed more balanced European politics. For me it is a positive outcome, we need a powerful socialist eurozone country to counterpart a conservative one. We need both voices and opinions to control each other, but I hope they are going to be able to cooperate for the betterment of our continent.

Mr Hollande views on what needs to be done to stimulate growth are totally different from what Mrs Merkel and Mr Sarkozy were favoring. Instead of cut backs and austerity, Hollande favors the increase of public spending, with a raise of the minimum wage and more investing in the public sector. Of course a compromise will be needed from both sides and that is what makes it so interesting. What will eventually got to give?

Another very interesting outcome of the French elections came from the previous weekend and the first round of the electoral campaign. The far right in France saw the public's support rising and they manage to get almost 20% of the votes. Led by Mrs Marine Le Pen, the Front National (FN) party in France came third in the elections and that adds one more country to the chain of many other in Europe that are turning to the far right. Fed up and disappointed with their government's mishandling of their country's financial and immigration problems, the people are seeing nationalism as the only way to protect their way of life.

And that tendency was manifested in the Greek elections too, in one of the most dramatic electoral results in the recent Greek and European history. The Greek voters punished the two mainstream political parties, by turning their backs to them. But that is the only good thing that came out of these elections. In my opinion, it was about time to end the monopoly and dominance of PASOK and the New Democracy party in the country's political life. They are responsible for Greece's demise, as they were in power for the past seven decades, each replacing the other.But in what cost?

The Greek people, fed up with the austerity imposed on them, voted off the parties that supported the EU/IMF bail-out deals. LAOS is out of the parliament, PASOK came for the first time in its history third and New Democracy even if it came first, saw its popularity plummeting. A surprise came from the radical left party Syriza that became the second strongest party and its leader Mr. Tsipras the youngest party leader to enter the Greek Parliament. The most worrying development that we witnessed in these elections was of course the entry in the Greek Parliament of the far right, neo-nazi party the Golden Dawn. They got 20 seats in the parliament and 7 % of the votes.

In my personal opinion it is a disgraceful and shameful result for our nation. In a country that lost one million people during the WW2 because of the Nazi atrocities, to have a neo-nazi party in the parliament is totally disrespectful to all those dead. But I am not blaming the public. What can you expect from the average citizen when the political parties who they trusted all these years to provide a better future for the country, have greatly let them down. Greece's economy is in tatters, the country's reputation is damaged and there is a real demographic and immigration problem that is left unchallenged.

When the supporters of the Golden Dawn, escorted the elderly Greeks to go and collect their pensions in central Athens protecting them from criminal attacks, is it any wonder that they won the public's support? The are the only party who promised to do something about the problem of illegal immigration in Greece, while the two main political parties failed to even put it in their agenda. Illegal immigrants are turning to criminal activities to sustain themselves and make a living, bringing them in clash with the native population. A clear and updated immigration policy would resolve the issue, something that the established political elite of Greece has so far failed to agree on.

The debate among the public before the elections was very interesting and it gave clear signs of what was to come. A growing number of Greeks vowed not to vote for any of the two main parties. They felt that those parties did nothing all those years to solve the country's problems, so why would they now. Speaking with friends and relatives prior the elections, I got some interesting feed-back. Some admitted that they intended to vote for the Golden Dawn party, because it was the only one to promise solutions to Greece's immigration problem. Others said that they would vote for PASOK or ND because their parish priest advised them that it would be good for the country, while some others because they would bring stability. And some turned to the left or communist parties, or any party that opposed austerity and promised to reverse the deals that were signed during the EU/IMF bail out agreements.

The result from these elections is hard to predict. Instability and uncertainty is the only sure thing. Even if the New Democracy won the majority of the votes, it is marginal. To form a government they will have to collaborate with another party. The Golden Dawn has rejected such collaboration, while the leftist Syriza party is also not negotiating. That will most likely lead to a PASOK-ND collaboration perhaps with a third party. Some already fear that the negotiations will fail, Greece will be unable to form a government and another election will be needed by mid June. Some others see no point in all this and believe that we should have voted for PASOK or ND to ensure the stability the country needs, leaving our disappointment and anger aside.

The last group claims that nothing has been achieved by shaking up the monopoly of the two main parties. We will have more elections until we get a functioning government and the Greek people will eventually vote back for either PASOK or ND to ensure that. Others think that a coalition government will be formed anyway and will most likely be formed by ND with the assistance of PASOK and another willing party to stick to Greece's signed obligations to the EU, Europe and the eurozone. But who will that party be, knowing that they will become very unpopular among the Greeks.

Others are pleased for teaching a lesson to the political established elite of the country, notably the PASOK-ND parties and challenging their dominance. In my opinion it is a positive outcome, one long delayed. We need new blood in our country's politics, we need new voices and new ideas to deal with our people's needs and worries. I was just hoping that far right and far left groups were not the ones who gained the most. But as some claim, such thing is inevitable; populism is always what the voters go for when they are dissatisfied with their governing elites.

Now we have to deal with the Golden Dawn and its leader, Mr. Michaloliakos and their antics and ridiculous ideologies. In an press conference after the party's victorious entry to the Greek Parliament, the attending journalists were asked to stand up in Mr Michaloliakos' entry into the room. Those who refused to do so, where ousted by the party's members! Not a sign of a democratic party, rather a military organization. Not something that I, an 100% pure Greek descended male, will be proud of.

To conclude, the message from both elections is that the Europeans do not want anymore austerity, but they do want more security, prosperity and national pride. They want jobs and better living standards, they want a country that they can feel proud of, a just society to live in. The more their governments are ignoring them and favor policies that serve the banks and the markets, they more far right and left elements, populism and nationalism will be finding their way into Europe's politics; but only for the detriment of our continent and its people. I hope that some good will come out of all this and that should be a more functioning European democracy, on a national and European level.