A philosophical essay on the question of governance in Europe.

In the recent years across Europe and the world, we observe major political, ideological changes and developments. Many nations go through an economic crisis while others through a total change of regime.

During this time it is natural for people to question their governments, demand for change and envision a new political establishment for their country. They feel betrayed and let down and there are numerous debates on how to best move forward and out of the crisis.

In these debates people naturally focus on the weaknesses of the political system of their country and on ways to better it or even at some cases, reform it entirely.

The question is, how is best to reform an old and outdated political system, which is the best form of governance and what is the importance of having a government in achieving a civilized society? Is the existence of a state even necessary for our societies?

Humans are known to be social creatures and since the antiquity the communities they have formed were ever changing. And with every change the political or religious leaders, the scholars and thinkers of each era, have long debated about which is the best form of governance and state.

Humans developed from being hunter-gatherers into farmers and that made them form permanent settlements. These settlements later developed into cities, kingdoms or states. But could a large number of humans live peacefully side by side, if they haven’t placed a common set of rules, an agreement between them for a harmonious co-existence?

In ancient Greece we observe the first attempt to analyze the best political system for a fully functioning human society. The philosophers of that age, notably Plato and Aristotle, were among the first and most important to this day to attempt exploring how we can create a just and acceptable political system.

In Plato’s work The Republic, we read the story of Gyges, a shepherd in the ancient kingdom of Lydia. After an earthquake he discovered a magic ring that made whoever wore it and twisted it from one side to the other, invisible! He soon used his newly acquitted power to get the queen’s favor and overthrow the king, claiming his kingdom.

The issues raised from this story are obvious: would anyone do the “right thing” if he had superhuman powers? Are we prone to do just or unjust things? Can there be a just society and can we deal with any injustice and inequality, since there is the urge in every single of us to do injustice, if we could get away with it?
 

And as Plato explains, even if there were two rings and one was taken by a man who would do justice and the other one by a man who would do injustice, we would end up having the same issue. And that to him is a proof that any man is just not willingly or because he thinks it is the right thing to do, rather because he is afraid of becoming the victim of injustice too.

So that conclusion shows our behavior in a society and how can we create a just society. When everybody has the tendency of doing unjust things, we need perhaps to promote a mentality among the population that would prevent them from doing them. Promote laws, moral rules and role models that advocate justice as something that we all benefit from and we should strive to achieve.

If we all behave in an unjust way, then simply there would be no society to live in and with no society we would have no civilization. To develop any form of civilization, we need a group of people living and working together to create a successful, prosperous establishment that will allow them to develop their creativity and skills.

And how can so many people live so close together, if they have strong tendencies to harm each other. Our societies in a way are a contract among us and acceptance of unwritten and written laws; a truce that benefits us all!

So it is obvious that we need laws to create a successful and functioning society. But do we need an establishment; do we need a state to constantly overseer our behavior and tell us what to do? Why can’t us people decide and agree on these laws, compose them and then have only a policing body to make sure everybody abides by these laws?

Is it perhaps that we need to be ruled, we need somebody to lead us, make some certain decisions for us and take the responsibility for our destiny? If every state is being governed by a few “rulers,” while others just spend their whole lives as “auxiliaries” or “workers,” as Plato has described in his work “The Republic” the ideal consistence of a society, then that means that the fate of this society is in the hands of these few.

But Aristotle stated that “Man is by nature a political animal,” because what each one of us wants is a happy life. What will give us this he thinks, is the fullest development and exercise of our capacities that us compatible with living in a society. Unbridled self-indulgence and self-assertion will bring us into perpetual conflict with other people. (1) Thus no society and no happy life for anyone.

The above conclusion should be enough to make us obey the rules of the society we live in, as it would be for our own benefit, without necessarily the existence of and state authority. It would also mean that people would participate in the “commons” and help form the laws of the society they are living in, as it would be for their own interests to have a say in the laws that they will have to abide. If all humans are “political animals,” surely they can participate and practice politics.

So if people are able to put aside their selfish nature and compromise in a life in a community, but also participate in the formation of the rules, then democracy should be an adequate system to keep a society together.

But Plato’s ideas come against of what we perceive today of “democracy.” For him democracy means the rule of the “demos”. But in classical Greek demos can be understood both as the people or the “mob.” So, on the later understanding then democracy is a mob rule. His basic argument to support his idea is described as “craft analogy.” (2)

And it is very simple. If you were ill and wanted advice on your health, you should go to an expert.-the doctor. You should consult someone who had been specially trained to do the job. The last thing you would do is assemble a crowd and ask them to vote on the correct remedy. (3)

For Plato the best political system would be a monarchy, but to be a just system and not end up in becoming a tyranny, “the kings should be philosophers or the philosophers should become kings.” Philosophical training is a necessary qualification to rule. (3) In today’s capitalist world though, with a far more globalized and free market based economies, how many monarchs do we have with philosophical training?

The city states of ancient Greece were abolished by the Alexander the Great and his empire and then they were incorporated into the Roman Empire. The teachings of Plato and Aristotle could not fulfill the needs of this new reality and so many Roman philosophers had to update them to match their modern reality; in an empire, people from many different ethnic backgrounds, of different languages, culture and way of thinking had to be governed.

Similar changes continued to be happening when another large scale change took place in Europe, the rise of Christianity. Safeguarding Christian values or doctrine, while promoting a functioning political system was something that the Christian political philosophers like Thomas Aquinas had to deal with.

Since then Europe will see so many wars, uprisings and change of regimes and all that just to find this special “formula” of the most appropriate form of governance. Or perhaps to satisfy the megalomania, blind ideology or interests of those who were appointed with the task to lead?

How can we provide the citizens with a just system that protects them from any injustice caused by the ruling elite or other citizens? Some will claim that a form of communism or the other extreme, anarchy would be the solution.

But we witnessed that even in communism certain people are more “equal” than others and the personal happiness that Aristotle was talking about is not allowed to exist. As for anarchy, who is going to safeguard the interests of the people and in what way? Can we trust the mob for a fair and just judgement? So that answers the question of self policing; who will overseer if fair punishment is applied by an angry mob?

According to the Stoic movement of antiquity and especially Marcus Tullius Cicero, the Roman philosopher that followed the Platonic ideas, there are three pure types of states: monarchy, aristocracy and democracy. These rules are characterized by the love of subjects and reason, wisdom or freedom respectively. (4) But if monarchy can turn to tyranny, aristocracy to oligarchy and democracy to a rule of the mob, then how is best to protect our political system from failing?

One of Cicero’s characters in his “The Commonwealth” work was called Scipio. He states that although a monarchy is the best of the pure forms of government, he prefers one that mixes all three of the forms. (5)

And that is because inevitably all three governments eventually tend to degenerate into corrupt forms according to Scipio.

So by adopting a mixed government we could perhaps prevent this corruption. And of course by having a mixed state we could achieve a balance between the values of a monarchy and those of an aristocracy. Democracy for him was also unattainable as humans are not all equal.

Then if the best solution for a fair state would be a mixed government with the best values of monarchy and aristocracy combined with freedom, what impact would such a hybrid political system would have in our modern societies? How could the ordinary citizens be able to control or resist the institutionalized inequality that would favor the rich elites?

In fact if we examine the problems most countries are facing at the moment, this fact is exactly the root of their difficulties. There is no functioning democracy and in most cases it has been transformed into an aristocracy, with the business, economic, political and social rich elites in every country influencing the state’s policies for their own benefit.

Our societies are democracies only but in name, with very few exceptions. After centuries of debating, envisioning the best political system that would help us create a long lasting civilization, we have reached the point that the former remedies do not work anymore.

Today’s societies are ruled by economics, not enlightened visionary kings. The solution would be a new kind of political system, inspired by Stoicism but taking it to a new dimension. Starting from Europe, I believe that the future belongs to a federal multinational government. Have a new type of hybrid political system that establishes multiple levels of governance both on national and international level.

Europe and in extension the world, should be governed in local, national and European (or international) level. With two parliaments, one national and one European, together with the local authorities, cooperating, opposing, controlling each other and designing a more stable, equal Europe. We should form a democratic political system that does not rely solely on nations or classes.

So we can avoid populism and the dominance of a single political elite in each country. In that way, the qualities of the ancient Stoic philosophy will be best served; promoting cosmopolitanism with commitment to human equality and membership to a community that is transcending any political boundaries and borders.



References:

1). Aristotle. The History of Philosophy. Bryan Magee. Dorling Kindersley Limited. 1998. Page 38.

2).Who should rule? An introduction to Political Philosophy. Jonathan Wolff. OpusGeneral Editors. 1996. Page 73.

3). Who should rule? An introduction to Political Philosophy. Jonathan Wolff. OpusGeneral Editors. 1996. Page 74.

4). Cicero, “On the Commonwealth.” 131, 140.

5). Cicero, “On the Commonwealth.” 140, 190.

A very short comment on the Gaza tragedy.

The Western media are rushing to make money by covering the situation in the Middle East and the escalating crisis in Gaza. "What should Europe do to help," many ask. "We must help those poor kinds in Palestine and bring peace in the region! Europe must get involved!" 

All so very humanist considerations of course. We should do something yes, but think of this: could Europe stand against Israel and do something about their aggression towards the Palestinians?

We are always supporting or tolerating their actions, perhaps because of a sense of eternal guilt and shame of how we treated the Israelis in the past. Of course the Palestinians themselves are not entirely clear of all blame. But unlike Israel, they are already being punished by being cut off from the rest of the world.

If Europe should get involved it should do so by imposing sanctions against Israel this time. But can we do that without angering the Americans and have them stopping all investments in Europe? In other words Europe can not get involved, apart from making statements and plenty of statements it gives.

The Israelis with the tolerance of the international community, have created a vast concentration camp in Gaza, a huge ghetto. And if the Palestinians react they call them terrorists and bomb them even more. I wonder if the ancestors of the modern Israelis would approve what their descendants are doing to other human beings. 

Wouldn't it be better to compromise, stop building new settlements and give the Palestinians more freedoms? The more they force them into poverty and deprivation, the more they radicalize them. Just because Israel has the full support of powerful "protectors" in USA and Europe, it does not mean that they can do whatever they want.

One side of the problem is the constant expansion of the Israeli settlements. This results to the Palestinians being "boxed" in a tiny strip, with almost no diplomatic or trade relations with any country of the world. Since the situation remains as such, the Palestinians become radicalized and support terrorist groups like Hamas and this goes nowhere.

More than 100 dead Palestinians, with around 10 dead Israelis this time only. Is that necessary? Why don't both sides make serious efforts for a peace deal? The Israelis consider the lands as theirs, but they forget that the Palestinians also have the same claims and they are right. They lived in the region for centuries. Equally the Palestinians have a sworn war waged against the very existence of an Israeli state in the region.  

So there is the question of if either side desires a peace deal at all. But once the Palestinians taste how being free and have rights is, it is doubtful that they will focus on making bombs for Israeli settlements anymore. Capitalism will do the rest and affect the Palestinian youths like it did in all other countries.

They will just want to buy this new i-phone that is being advertised, or education and similar lifestyle with that of Europe. That of course provided that the Arabs accept the fact that Israel as a state is there to stay. Its population knows no other country and after so many decades they have also the right to stay there.

If I am wrong and the Palestinians continue to behave as they do now and be hostile to Israel, then it will be them that will be on the wrong. The global community will turn against them and of course take action, while the Israelis then will be once again "the victims" and have full right to do what must be done then. And no one will blame them this time.

Both sides are partially wrong and so both must face the music for breaking human rights. Until now only Palestine suffers consequences. Perhaps it is time to put some pressure on Israel too, to save human lives from both sides. Europe does not help solving the issue by siding with one side because of guilt.

To a Palestinian the end of WW2 and the resolution of the Israeli state "problem," started their own misery and long fight for their land and human rights. The West solved the problem of an Israeli state, but created another one. It is no wonder then that the Palestinians feel hard done by the international community.

There is no doubt that their organizations are terrorist and must be dealt with, but not in the way that Israel is doing so. A good example is the UK. They have had attacks from the IRA, a terrorist organization that bombed and terrorized them for decades. But we did not witnessed the British cutting off Ireland from any international organization, or imposing a blockade.

Ireland was left to prosper and tensions were defused bit by bit. Britain got its way, Ireland got something too. There may be some dissidents but overall peace has been established. That is how you win both your way, stand your ground and solve a dispute.

Israel will be wise to follow Britain's example and end the blockade, while stopping all plans for future settlement expansion. The Palestinians and their Arab allies should stop the hostilities towards Israel and accept the Israelis as part of their region.

In the end of the day, they can both share the land in a federal Israeli-Palestinian state, if they manage to end their blind nationalism and religious fundamentalism. 

---

Οι εμπειρίες μου ώς ένας νεαρός Έλληνας μετανάστης στην Ευρώπη.

Εδώ και 8 χρόνια, ζώ μόνιμα στο Δουβλίνο της Ιρλανδίας. Η απόφαση μου να φύγω απο την χώρα που γεννήθηκα αποδείχτηκε να είναι η σοφότερη απόφαση της ζωής  μου. Όχι οτι δεν υπάρχουν δυσκολίες και όλα είναι ρόδινα. 

Αλλά η μετανάστευση μου έδωσε προβάδισμα και πλεονεκτήματα έναντι άλλων ανθρώπων που δεν έχουν ζήσει σε άλλη χώρα εκτός της μητρικής τους, ή έχουν ταξιδέψει σε άλλες χώρες.

Όταν πρωτοήρθα στο Δουβλίνο,  δεν ήξερα κανέναν εδώ. Έτσι άρχισα να κάνω παρέα με ανθρώπους από πολλές άλλες εθνικότητες. Έμαθα καινούρια ήθη και έθιμα, κυρίως του ντόπιου πλυθησμού. Έμαθα να σκέφτομαι με άλλη νοοτροπία, να βλέπω τα πράγματα από άλλη σκοπιά. 

Και σε πολλές περιπτώσεις είδα που μπορούσα να βελτιώσω η να αλλάξω το τρόπο σκέψης μου, πώς να μάθω να σκέφτομαι όπως οι Ιρλανδοί και οι άλλοι λαοί που ήρθα σε επαφή. Στην αρχή δεν αντιλαμβανόμουν τις αλλαγές που γινόταν στις αντίληψεις μου.  Ήταν δύσκολο να εδραιώσω φιλίες, να βρώ εργασία που να με ικανοποιεί και να μην πέφτω θύμα εκμετάλευσης. 

Αλλά όλα αυτά τα μαθήματα ήταν πολύτιμα μαθήματα ζωής, που με ανάγκασαν να χρησιμοποιήσω το κεφάλι μου για να επιβιώσω. Αφού έμαθα την νοοτροπία των ντόπιων, άρχισα να καταλαβαίνω που κάνουμε λάθος ώς Έλληνες σε εργασιακά, πολιτικά, κοινωνικά, πολιτισμικά και άλλα θέματα. Και πού φυσικά έχουμε πρωταιρήματα. 

Με τα χρόνια άρχισα να χάνω την στενή και περιορισμένη αντίληψη που έχουν οι περισσότεροι Έλληνες αλλά και οι ντόπιοι Ιρλανδοί. Σαν κάποιος να μου έδωσε έναν μαγικό καθρέπτη που κάθε φορά που κάνεις κάποια λανθασμένη κίνηση και απορείς τί κάνεις λάθος, να σου το φανερώνει. 

Η νοοτροπία μου άλλαξε, τα πιστεύω μου άλλαξαν. Τότε άρχισε μια άλλη μάχη: να διαπιστώσω πού ανήκω πλέον. Όταν είμαι στην Ιρλανδία και μιλάω με τους Ιρλανδούς φίλους, υπάρχουν φορές που αναπόφευκτα τους κριτικάρω σε όλα αυτα που κάνουν λάθος και τους δίνω μια διαφορετική λύση στο πρόβλημά τους. 

Πολλές φορές το αντιλαμβάνονται  λάθος και νομίζουν ότι είμαι σνόμπ. Και ναι, υπάρχει ζήλεια και ξενοφοβία ανάμεσα και στους Ιρλανδούς, ειδικά σε ότι είναι και ξένο αλλά και διαφορετικό και καλύτερο.

Το ίδιο συμβαίνει και με πολούς Έλληνες όταν επισκεύτομαι την Ελλάδα. Κάποιες φορές οι  συγκενείς και φίλοι δεν αντιλαμβάνονται κάποια επιχειρήματα που χρησιμοποιώ σε συζητήσεις μας, αν και δείχνουν σίγουρα ενδιαφέρον. 

Πολλοί παραδειγματίζονται, άλλοι έρχονται σε άβολη θέση. Κάποιοι με θαυμάζουν, άλλοι με φθονούν. Απλά γιατί σκέφτομαι πράγματα που αυτοί με την περιορισμένη «εθνική» τους αντίληψη, δεν μπορούν. 

Η διαφορά μας είναι ότι εγώ πλέον είμαι και αισθάνομαι κοσμοπολίτης. Δεν αισθάνομαι Έλληνας μόνο, αλλά και Ευρωπαίος και πολίτης του κόσμου. Κάποια χαρακτηριστικά του «τυπικού»  Έλληνα τα έχω αφήσει πίσω μου. Και κάποια άλλα από αυτά τα χαρακτηριστικά τα χρησιμοποιώ συχνά για να αποκτήσω πρωταίρημα έναντι των Ιρλανδών και άλλων συναδέλφων άλλων εθνικοτήτων. 

Για μένα το να είσαι Έλληνας δεν είναι πλέον να είσαι κολλημένος στην «παράδοση,» αλλά να χρησιμοποιείς κάποιες παραδόσεις στο να εμπλουτίσεις την ζωή σου. Την φιλοξενεία, το φαγητό, το φιλότιμο, την εργατικότητα και την «ανοιχτή καρδιά» του Έλληνα τα κουβαλάω πάντα μαζί μου και τα χρησιμοποιώ τακτικά για να κερδίσω ανθρώπους και επιχειρήματα. 

Αλλά την στενομυαλιά, τον φόβο για κάθε ξένο και διαφορετικό ή προοδευτικό, την τυφλή αποδοχή της ιδεολογίας των γονέων μας, την αποπνικτική πολλές φορές σχέση μεταξύ γονέα-παιδιού ή μεταξύ δύο εραστών, όλα αυτα τα έχω αφήσει πίσω. Και η σχέση μου με την θρησκεία και την «Ορθοδοξία» έχει φυσικα αναπόφευκτα αλλάξει. 

Υπάρχει Ελληνο-ορθόδοξη εκκλησία στο Δουβλίνο, και έχουμε και Ορθόδοξο ιερέα που είναι Ιρλανδος στην καταγωγή. Άλλαξε θρησκεία κατά την παραμονή του στην Κύπρο, και ενώ υπηρετούσε στον Ιρλανδικό στρατό και τα Ηνωμένα Έθνη μετά την εισβολή των Τούρκων στη Μεγαλόνησο. 

Έτσι μπορώ να διατηρώ κάποια από τα αγαπημένα μου έθιμα όπως αυτά του Πάσχα, αλλά χωρίς να είμαι αδιάλλακτος σε θέματα δόγματος. 

Τα Χριστούγεννα για παραδείγματος χάρη, τα γιορτάζω με τρόπο «Ιρλανδικό» ή «Ευρωπαικό.» Πηγαίνω σε Καθολική ή Προτεσταντική εκκλησία με φίλους. Δεν χρειάζομαι να ακολουθώ απαραίτητα τα Ελληνικά έθιμα, παρά μόνο αυτά που μου αρέσουν. Όπως παραδείγματος χάρη την κοπή της Βασιλόπιτας (όπου η μητέρα μου στέλνει ανελιπώς κάθε χρόνο ταχυδρομικώς)! 

Έχω γενικά αποδεχτεί πολλά έθιμα απο την Ιρλανδία και εθνικές εορτές. Όπως την ημέρα του Αγίου Πατρικίου και το περίφημο «Χαλοουίν.» Ενώ έχω εγκαταλήψει τελείως κάποιες άλλες Ελληνικές εορτές όπως ο Δεκαπενταύγουστος.

 Εθνικά και θρησκευτικά έθιμα είναι απλά ένα παράδειγμα για τον νέο τρόπο σκέψης και κουλτούρας που έχω αποκτήσει. Ένα υβρίδιο πολιτισμικό, που πολλές φορές μου φέρνει πλεονεκτήματα, ενώ άλλες απλά κάνει την ζωή μου πιο πολύχρωμη, ενδιαφέρουσα και διαφορετική. 

Αισθάνομαι απίστευτα τυχερός που είμαι ικανός να έχω αυτή την εμπειρία. Γιατί παρά τα προβλήματα, τον ρατσισμό μερικές φορες και όλες τις δυσκολίες, δεν θα επιθυμούσα ποτε να γυρίσω πίσω σε αυτο που ήμουνα. Τώρα βλέπω τα πράγματα διαφορετικά και εάν ποτέ γυρίσω στην Ελλάδα, δεν θα επιτρέψω στον εαυτό μου να χάσει όλα αυτά που κέρδισα από την διαμονή μου στην Ιρλανδία.

Abortion Laws in Europe

For the past few weeks, another great debate has griped Ireland; the issue of abortion. The debate is not new in Ireland and in fact it has intensified for the past few years. Both camps, the "pro-choice" that supports the practice to be legalized in Ireland and the "pro-life" camp that is strongly opposing it, are fully engaging in it.

Ireland is one of the few countries in Europe that abortion is still illegal. Only Poland and Malta have similar laws. In fact pro-life campaigners mainly from Poland, are trying to gather 1 million signatures and make a petition to the European Parliament to ban abortion all over EU.

The people who are against the legalization of abortion in Ireland, do so because they want to protect the unborn children's rights and keep their country a "safe country for children to be born." The people who campaign for the legalization, want to promote women's rights.

A recent event gave the debate a whole new dimension. A clinic in Northern Ireland decided to allow abortions, making it the very first one to do so in the island of Ireland. The clinic of Marie Stopes Northern Ireland in Belfast decided to be the first sexual and reproductive health center to offer abortion services. Anyone over the age of 16 can access the center, including people from the Republic and services are available by appointment only.

Marie Stopes International, which is a not-for-profit organization, is the UK’s leading provider of sexual and reproductive healthcare services. The main legislative restriction is the Offenses Against the Person Act of 1861. Since 1967, the Abortion Act has governed abortion in England, Scotland and Wales but Northern Ireland was excluded, and the 1861 Act still applies there.

In 2009 the Department of Health published a document which, for the first time, provided guidance to health professionals in Northern Ireland on terminating pregnancy.

Last year there were about 1000 women from Norther Ireland and more than 4000 women from the Republic of Ireland traveling to England to end a pregnancy. Now with this new clinic in Belfast, that most likely will change. And of course it reignites the issue of abortion in the Republic. Can Ireland hold on to its conservative attitude towards abortions, since so many Irish women already practice it outside its borders?

Shouldn't we have a common European policy on this issue? With open borders and freedom to move around, what is the point of banning one thing in one state but allowing it in the bordering one? People will just move across the border and get it over there. Besides banning a practice that has been practiced illegally for decades before its legalization in other countries, only leads it to being practiced "underground," with huge cost to women's health. Remember the Vera Drake film?

Perhaps it is a matter of ethics and culture. I wonder why we always have to take it to the extremes. Either a total ban or total uncontrolled freedom! Why can't a woman be able to abort a fetus that she conceived after rape. Why can't a woman  abort a fetus if after medical tests the doctors prove that the newborn baby won't be healthy, mentally or physically. Why must we punish a young girl to become a young inexperienced mother, because she made one mistake in her youth years to have unprotected sex.

But on the other hand, how do we prevent women from having too many abortions? It is not good for their own bodies and it is not ethical to actually kill so many fetuses. I personally say yes to abortions and to the right of women to regulate their own bodies. But equally I want to stop them taking for granted such freedom and use it to satisfy their vanity, or serve their immature lifestyle. Abortion should be the last resort and contraception should be promoted from young age. That is why I find necessary the establishment of sexual education in our schools.

If we speak openly about issues like these both at home and in school, then perhaps young girls won't have to seek for an abortion, once they are taught to be responsible with their bodies. But I think it is cruel to condemn them in a young motherhood, if they make one mistake. Everyone should deserve a second chance.

Recently there was also a case in Poland, another conservative country, of a young girl that won her case against the Polish state. The girl was a victim of rape and she fought for her right to have an abortion in her country. Only to be met with a staunch resistance by the state, but also be harassed and humiliated by anti-abortion campaign groups.

Eventually she won her case and had the abortion, but also the European Court of Justice in Strasbourg awarded her and her mother with a generous lump-sum for damages and the costs of the trial. The Strasbourg court has already twice condemned Poland for failing to ensure the law on this subject.

The Polish girl's case was very similar to a case taken by three Irish women two years ago in which the court also ruled in their favor. So perhaps we do need a pan-European agreement on this issue and countries like Poland and Ireland must comply with the rest of the European states. But also offer an alternative tool to prevent too many abortions taking place and satisfy the more conservatives or skeptics. Sex education I think would be the first line of defense. 

Pro-life campaigning groups are putting pressure on the Irish Government to change its legislation and legalize abortions where necessary at least. Especially when the life of a woman is in danger or the pregnancy is a result of rape. The group Choice Ireland is notably one of them. They use the X-case that rocked Ireland back in the early '90s and then in the early '00s, as a solid argument for their cause.

A teenage girl that was raped and became pregnant, was refused the right by the Irish state to go to England and terminate her pregnancy. Because of that the girl considered suicide to end her misery. The Irish public was appalled by the way this young girl was treated and that sparked demonstrations from both camps on the abortion issue. Since then, the two camps are on the streets demonstrating occasionally. It lead to a referendum that resulted in the freedom to travel outside the State for an abortion to be passed. The freedom to obtain or make available information on abortion services was also passed.

The right to abortion though is still a thorny issue in Ireland. Hopefully both the Irish state and their European counterparts can come into a mutual agreement and respect women's rights as part of their general human rights. I would like to see more involvement by the EU in this issue, even though both in Poland and Ireland, this will be seen as "meddling" in internal state affairs.

Both Irish and Polish women are European citizens and should enjoy the same rights as any other woman in Europe. But in this case, the national politicians seem to be failing women, just to satisfy old, outdated, conservative, Catholic and male dominated doctrines. Isn't it time to move on from them, in the Europe of 2012?

The EU and Europe that I want.

It is noticeable that this blog is so called "pro-EU" or "pro-European." Does this mean that I personally support everything that comes from the current effort for European integration? Definitely not. 

 

I do not believe that the current EU represents the interests of the ordinary people. That is obvious. But we have to remember that the "European project" started as a trade organization and it remained so until the '90s. Is the best choice we have to scrap or oppose the EU? 

 

I think not. Even when we accept the fact that the EU is good for business and businessmen, there have been many beneficial projects initiated by the EU over the years. The Erasmus program is only one of them. 

 

The option we have in my opinion is to get involved and be vigilant. Use our vote wisely. Right now Europe is in its majority conservative. Most European governments are center-right or right-wing. And in result, the European Parliament is also dominated by the Right. The EPP is the most popular and powerful political party in it, taking almost 2/3 of the seats.

 

So is it any wonder that Europe is dominated by conservative, austerity and anti-social security policies? But who gave those certain parties power and placed them in power? We did, we voted for them. So how can we change this situation? Simply by voting for the right parties, that will respect and represent our interests. 

 

If we start voting for socialist or left wing parties, then the EU and Europe will be more socialist and protective of the worker's rights. In that way, perhaps we will achieve a more equal European society on a national or even pan-European level. 

 

To me, all European states should become EU member states and sit around the European Parliament's seats. From Iceland to Ukraine and Malta to Norway. Independently if the country is poor or rich, EU membership should not be about wealth and status only. But sharing common interests, working and cooperating to create a stable, prosperous European community for all Europeans.

 

We should end the monopolies of the rich elites, of the rich countries in Europe an the World! Turn the EU from a lobby to a political union and forum for the citizens, not the representatives of the rich elites. Make the EU more democratic, proceed with redistribution of wealth in Europe. Not just a few countries should gather all industrial and economic power and activity in our continent. 

 

But if you want a stable Europe invest in all countries, promote growth and jobs not austerity, create new industries, jobs and education to give our youth jobs. But do not give all these new industries to the hands of the few rich elites of the rich nations again. Let each nation or region create these new industries with the support of a newly set pan-European growth stimulus fund. 

 

Each country should exploit its own natural resources for the benefit of its own people first, then share them with the inhabitants of the whole continent of Europe. Make it fair, make it right. Stability and wealth for all Europe, means growth and competitiveness for all the continent against other, newly emerging regions of the world. We do not want any more bail outs, thus more debt being thrown on our countries. We want jobs! And a more socialist Europe. 

 

But how can we achieve that while having to deal with multinational companies and the ever lasting search for investment? They are not loyal to any nation, they are constantly seeking for more profit and new investments in order to achieve that. Today they are investing in your country, but when their interests shift they leave and they may never come back. 

 

So as soon as they invest in your country and you get money out of them, or create new jobs and better the living standards of your citizens, don't rely on them; invest this money to create jobs of your own  in your country, or educate your youth. Invest in education and innovation. So when they decide to leave and move on, you at least have used the opportunity wisely. 

 

Most of our leaders of course do not do that. The bow to their demands and waste the money in perpetuating their power, in numerous scandals. And in the end we end up with these multinationals owning our nations. By using lobbing they make sure that the policies that our governments pursue are always in their favor. 

 

We should also manage the banks, create a pan-European Banking Union. Perhaps even nationalize a number of them, merge them, limit their power. The Banks should be there to assist people and states in their development and of course make profit in the process. But not to stand in their way by becoming ruling dominating powers themselves. We have our governments to do that!

 

As for the Markets? Well we could start by establishing European rating agencies. Right now we only have American agencies, promoting their own interests and monopolizing the Markets. We need more diversity and competition in this sphere too, European and other rating agencies to break the monopoly of the USA. Under what criteria those American based rating companies are rating different countries?

 

To conclude, I definitely do not support THIS EU that we have at the moment. But instead of scraping it, I see the potential that we can achieve, if we all get a bit more serious and responsible in our involvement. If we make it a union of nations, not of businesses. If we keep in check our politicians and leading elites. If the EU becomes what it was really meant to be and was envisioned by its founding fathers. We need an EU for an equal, prosperous Europe. 

 

But not just in economics and finances: in art, culture, education, innovation, employment and human rights too. We do not need a trade only forum for businessmen that we have no voice in it, we need a strong European Parliament with all the powers that a parliament needs to have to be effective. That will make Europe federal, of some sort. We should not be afraid of that. If I had to scrap an EU body, that would definitely not be the EP, rather the EU Council. To end the "intergovernmental-ism" that plagues the EU.

 

Right now I do not blame any "euro-sceptic" person, as long as the criticism is constructive and not rooted in nationalism and narrow-mindedness. We need this constructive criticism, to evaluate where we are going with this project and have a variety of opinions. Though I am a staunch pro-European, I can see that the EU is in danger of following the wrong path. But negative thinking and mistrust is as destructive as blinded rose-tinted EU cheering.

The Irish Left welcomes the Greek. A weekend of debate!

Last weekend I was given the excellent opportunity to work as a translator for a Greek SYRIZA MP, Mr. Yannis Stathas in his visit to Ireland. He was invited to give a series of talks in Ireland by the ULA (United Left Alliance) party, with the support and coordination of an Irish ULA MEP Mr. Paul Murphy.

The two day talks were given in Dublin and Dungloe in County Donegal, the north western tip of Ireland. Mr. Stathas was not the only speaker of course. A series of talks were given by many other ULA members and supporters, together with some guest speakers from the Irish Left.

The first discussion took place in the "Teacher's Club" in Parnell street in Dublin central. There, the speakers included Paul Murphy, Yannis Stathas himself and John Molyneux, a British Trotskyist, former senior lecturer in the University of Portsmouth and member of the Socialist Worker's Party in Ireland.

The discussion was obviously about the crisis in Greece, how it evolved and what impact it had to the Greek society. How the Greeks are dealing with it and what can Ireland learn from Greece and be prepared. Paul Murphy and Mr Molyneux mentioned the facts and the history of the Greek crisis. The audience showed interest in what is going on in Greece and many expressed their inspiration they get from the Greek "resistance."

To most of them, Greece is setting an example to the rest of Europe on how to fight, admitting that Greece is only the forefront of the battles that all European people are and will have to face in the future. They really hope that Syriza will manage to gain more votes in the next Greek elections, that many predicted will come soon, even come into power.

With Syriza forming a government in Greece, many left wing supporters hope that this will turn the tide for the Left in Europe.Only with a strong Left the European people will be able to protect themselves from this ruthless attack by the Banks, the Markets, our rich governing elites and the Capitalist system.

They also discussed why the Left is so fragmented and how this affects its success. While the Right is united, rich and strong, tactical in its attacks to the European workforce, the Left is divided and constantly squabbling with infighting.

They mentioned that the EPP (European People's Party) is the strongest party in the European Parliament and most Governments in Europe right now are Right wing and conservative. They also discussed the rise of the Far Right, the nationalism and fascism in  Europe and how we can tackle it.

Mr Paul Murphy described how it is very hard to win any fights in the EP, while the Right is so strong, organized and dominant in it. The Left is a minority. Even the Irish delegates are all business and money oriented, that is the culture of most of the EU officials.

Mr. Stathas explained how the far right has gained so much prominence in Greece and he predicted that like many times before, once the balance is restored, they will weaken and their influence will diminish. But it is important to stop the spread of nationalism by stopping the ever growing power of the capitalist system.

 "The far right is there to serve the interests of the conservatives," he said. He brought as example the fact that during Mrs Merkel's visit in Athens recently, the Golden Dawn party was the only one who did not protest, made a statement against her visit, or went down the streets to show their disapproval of the policies she promotes.

Then he explained Syriza's views and future plans once they get into power, or the party's actions to help the Greek society fight against this organized attack by the Greek and European capitalist elites. He described how they have organized patrols to stop bank and state officials, together with the Greek police to proceed with the repossession orders of houses that their owners can not pay the loan repayments. They physically block them and stop them.

Mr Stathas is also an activist of the "I Don't Pay" movement. A movement in Greece that denies to pay any money for public services, like road tolls, hospital fees, subway ticket machines etc, showing the Greek public's anger and discontent for the growing taxes and salary cuts they have to accept.

 The role and corruption of the unions and syndicates in Greece and Ireland was also discussed and their role in the weakening or loss of many worker's rights. Their compromise means a leaderless worker's movement, that needs to be addressed and solved.

One of the questions asked by a member of the audience was about the violence the Greek public has to endure while protesting for their rights. Most of them called it suppression of democracy and free speech. The Syriza party, as Mr Stathas explained, intends to remove the MAT police force and forbid it from using violence on the Greek public again. The force will be dissolved and absorbed into the rest national police and defense force.

Questioning what action will be best and bring results both in Greece and Ireland, Mr Stathas suggested that we must have extension of the strike period for at least 5 days in a row, paralyzing the country. One day of strike here and there, organized by different unions do not have much impact. We need to get all organized and unite together. "As the capitalists are uniting and working together to suppress us, likewise we need to unite, have no fear and resist all together against them," claimed Mr. Stathas.

He repeatedly encouraged the Irish audience not to have fear and revolt. He reminded them their past, when they were fighting against British colonial rule. Like then, they are now faced with another kind of oppression and they need to stand up and fight, according their own culture, mentality and beliefs.

They must find a way, their own way of resisting. Answering to a question on why the Greek youth are so active and take to the streets while the Irish remain more idle, Mr Stathas expressed his confidence that the Irish youth will rise up in their own way, once the times become too dire for Ireland.

He also announced some of the policies that Syriza will promote once and if it gets into power, like the nationalization of the Banks and the refusal to pay any debts. He brought as an example the Ancient Greek mentality of the money usage.

The ancient Greek currency was called the "talanto" and it weighted almost 2 kilos, for the reason that it would not be carried around. Money was used only to buy things. Not to make profit out of it, by usury and lending or exchanging and trading it.

So what we need right now is a euro and a kind of European Union that will promote people's interests first and safeguard them against the greed of the ruling capitalist elite. Syriza is not against the euro and the EU, rather against the type that we are being offered. 

And for all the slander that Greece went through, all for one purpose to bring the country to its knees and steal all its natural resources, the fight must still go on. All Europeans, unions, syndicates and leftists together must coordinate their efforts to offer an alternative to the citizens of Europe.

The next day we drove up to Dungloe to attend the Peadar O'Donnel Weekend, a three day leftist political ideology debate and festival. We gathered in the town's public library and the debate was again about the situation in Greece, but this time with a focus on the Irish perspective and many local issues. Who runs Ireland, the weak Irish Capitalist elite, local unemployment, emigration and if the Irish people have to pay their debt or not were the issues discussed.

Mr Stathas spoke about Germany and its debt to Greece. He explained to the Irish audience all the actions of the Nazi Germany against Greece, how they stole the country's gold and forced the country to get a loan that it would have to pay off, while Germany received the money to fund their war against the rest of Europe.

There was an agreement after the end of WW2 that once the two German states were re-united, Germany would compensate Greece for the damages, something that it failed to do so far. Many in the Greek opposition, notably Syriza are pursuing to bring the issue to the European Court of Justice in Hague. Cooperating with the Italian authorities, because the Greek have compromised already following the pressure from Germany.

The discussion then focused more on Irish issues and after the end of Mr Stathas speech we were joined by Mr Thomas Pringle TD, an independent left wing politician, Mrs Bernadette (Devlin) McAliskey, a renown Irish socialist and political activist and Mr. Tommy McKearney, a former hunger-striker and volunteer for the Provisional I.R.A. MEP Paul Murphy also joined them in the discussions.

They analyzed the state of the Irish economy and how the local community suffered the recession. Donegal they claimed never really benefited from the "Celtic Tiger" years in Ireland and the region lacks in investment. Now with the economic crisis the situation got only worse and massive emigration has hit the region.

They blamed the "weak" Irish capitalist elite. That elite that did not really do much good for the country, rather rely on foreign capitalist elites. This elite is not as creative or capable in serving the country's interests. Their reliance on foreign investment actually compromises Ireland's sovereignty, forcing the state to become a tax haven in order to play by the foreign investors rules and keep them in the country.

 But those investors do not do much good in the country, apart from the few ghost enterprises they set up in Ireland, employing a small only number of Irish workforce. "Not that we should scorn any number of jobs during these times," they added, but they do not bring ever lasting stability and long term solutions.

So who really governs Ireland? The foreign capitalist elites, that was the message that they tried to pass on to the audience. Mr Thomas Pringle in his speech, argued that paying the debt won't do much good to the country. Just like in Greece, it will only add more debt and will push Ireland the same road, deeper into a debt that will be impossible to pay.

Repudiate this debt is one solution, though not without any consequences. Generally the debate focused on trying to find the root of the problem for Ireland, that included weak unions and syndicates, weak capitalist elite and leaders, the unchanging attitude of the Irish public itself and the lack of organized protests.

That is why they are seeking inspiration from Greece and other countries that resist. They have serious interest in seeing how Greece is coping, despite everything that is going against the country, notably the absolute surrender of the Greek political and capitalist elite. And because the Irish public fears that the same will happen to them, they are hoping for a massive Europe wide surge of power of the Left.

I am so glad that I had this chance to be part of this debate, and get to know an alternative political conscience growing in Ireland, more awareness and more respect and understanding for Greece.And that is not happening only in Ireland, but in many countries all over Europe. The public opinion is mostly in favor now for the Greek people.

I am also glad that I spoke with ordinary people of Ireland, especially from the rural areas and got to know the other side of this country. The side that never progressed but it still hopes, thinks and it expresses its concerns. The side that gets active and organized, the part that speaks out. That discuss real problems of real people and comes up with real solutions.

A lady noted in the Teacher's Club the previous day, that "we hear about protests in Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy or even France and I feel ashamed sometimes that Ireland is not included in those countries, even though that we are in the same kind of trouble with the above countries." She then expressed her wish to see more action in her own country. "The Irish youth will revolt in its own way when time comes," Mr Stathas reassured her. Now I think I am confident to see this happening.

(A special Thank you to Mr. Paul Murphy MEP, Mr. Yannis Stathats MP, the members and supporters of the ULA that organized this event, as well as my friend Ioanna Dionysopoulou that suggested me as the translator for Mr. Stathas).

The EU is awarded a Nobel Prize!

The EU has been awarded last Friday a Peace Nobel Prize by the Norwegian Nobel committee. The news have made many people angry while for others, notably the EU officials, it was a very proud and joyful moment.

In my opinion the Nobel Prize is justified and something that should have happened long time ago. Europe is indeed transformed for the better because of the EU and many people benefit from many EU funded programs. Europe will never go back to what it was before, a war torn continent because our economies are so intertwined now, that going to war would be something unthinkable! Because you would be hurting your own economy too, if you tried to harm another country.

Nevertheless I also think that the timing was very bad. If they awarded the Prize after 2004, when Europe united after 5 decades of being cut in half by the Iron Curtain it would be more appropriate. The re-unification of the Continent was a reason to present the EU with the Nobel Prize. But now, if we look at what is happening across Europe it simply looks daft!

There is a social uprising almost in every country and people are angry, especially in the countries worst affected by the recession. How you justify the award, when you are in their eyes the cause of so much poverty, inequality and injustice. When it is you who impose the austerity on them and you force them to not have enough to provide for their children. When you force many jobs to close in their countries and leave them without jobs and with an uncertain future? What prize can make you look better in their eyes?

Is it just a PR move from the European elites? Are they trying to promote this way the European project to their citizens? Well this is the stupidest way of doing it. Even though as a staunch "pro-European" I am delighted the the EU won eventually this award and it deserved it, it just does not make sense at this moment in time. If you want to promote the EU and the opportunities it offers or the achievements it has accomplished, do so by making the citizens' lives better and provide them with solutions to their problems.

Right now what we see is that the EU (apparently) creates more problems for them! It promotes more competition, open markets, it supports the Banks and their bailing out, it supports the Markets and the capitalist system! It takes away their social benefits and lowers their salaries in half. Now of course it is not the EU's fault that Europe is in crisis. The blame should be put mainly in the chronic wrong political and financial decisions that our national governments have followed. But when they need solutions, they always call the EU to come and clean their mess, thus scapegoating the EU for the problems and putting it in the front-line to find solutions.

Not that the EU has not a share of blame for this mess that we are in. It is proven that the EU officials knew about the state of many of Europe's economies, but they did nothing to change that. Could they I could ask, when Europe is being governed by the rich elites of each nation. And of course the rich elites of the richer nations have more say and power. The EU as it stands and operates at the moment in other words, represents the Aristocracy of this continent. Even though there are many great EU projects, programs, initiatives and institutions, they are all being undermined by our national governments that though are signing up for them, they never bother to implement them fully.

In other words, though the EU is giving many opportunities to the citizens, they are being hijacked by the ruling elites of each country and being used for their benefit. Is it any wonder for example that in my native country Greece, there was literally no information about our EU rights as EU citizens for the public? We joined the EU in 1981 and it was only after I moved to Ireland 8 years ago that I saw for the first time a program in our national television, discussing and explaining our EU rights to us. Why doesn't our government inform us about our rights as EU citizens? Is it perhaps because they want to safeguard those benefits and use them for their own benefit, when they want to present them as their idea or for their supporters only?

Generally I put the blame for the situation mostly on the Greek political, financial and industrial elite, then of course on the elites of our European "partners" like those of Germany, France, Holland, Finland, Austria, Britain and so on. They want their interests secured and served, so our elites simply oblige them by doing whatever they ask. Just see how Germany's Chancellor Mrs. Merkel has taken the lead of Europe and advices us all how to run our economies. Who gave her this privilege and right?

So the EU, that is run by our political elites, simply follows our elites' guidelines. But it is the EU that takes the blame for the mess, never our national governments. If the Greek politicians had any backbone, and if the politicians of some rich countries in Europe were not as greedy, we the citizens would not be the ones who would pay the price. But trying to award the EU with a prize now, simply resembles with a slap in the face to most of us! What is the point? We need to see actions and solutions to reinstall support and confidence in the European project and no award can do that.

I would happily love to see the award being given if and when the EU solved the crisis in Europe and made the lives of the citizens easier. Certainly not now! And it is funny to see that the award is actually coming from Norway, a country that chose to stay out of the club. Is this a sign of a possible Norwegian membership renegotiation, or have they simply made a secret deal with the rest of the European elite? I would love to think it is the first case. Does the award represents an approval of the EU by the Norwegian elites?

Whatever the motives were for such a decision, they certainly managed to create some controversy. While people in Greece and Spain are out on the streets protesting and being abused by the police, the EU receives a Peace Prize. Not to mention that it is one of the few times that this award is nominated to a person and not an organization. Perhaps we are seeing changing trends by the Nobel Committee, or they simply ran out of people to give the award, given the fact that in a large part of the planet there is a rise of hostility.

The decision is definitely political. But as the European Parliament's President Mr. Martin Schulz mentioned, does that decision mean that our elites decided that "more Europe" (aka a European federation of some sort) is needed and what will this mean of us? What kind of Europe are they trying to create and will Norway be a part of it? It all remains to be seen.