Should European citizens be happy about the ESM?

While the European people are suffering from the ongoing economic crisis, they look up to their leaders for a solution. They want to stop living in austerity, losing their jobs, seeing their incomes shrink. 

They want a better, secure future for them and their children. They wish to be able to make plans and provide for their families. But who listens to them? 

Europe's leaders seem to have lost touch with their citizens reality. People need real solutions and fast. We are forcing a whole generation of European young people into a dead end. So what is our leader's response to our needs? 

Well one of these "solutions" was the launching of the ESM (European Stability Mechanism). It is an international organization located in Luxembourg, which provides financial assistance to members of the euro-zone in financial difficulty. The ESM was established on 27 September 2012, and will function as a permanent firewall for the euro-zone with a maximum lending capacity of €500 billion. 

It will replace the two existing temporary EU funding programs: the European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF) and the European Financial Stabilization Mechanism (EFSM). All new bailout applications and deals for any euro-zone member state with a financial stability issue, will in principle from now on be covered by ESM, while the EFSF and EFSM will only continue to handle transfer and monitoring of the previously approved bailout loans for Ireland, Portugal and Greece.

In other words Greece, Ireland and Portugal can not have their debt weights lifted right now. Only Spain, Italy and any other country that hasn't received a bail out package so far, will immediately benefit from this. Greece will be able to join only if they fulfill the austerity plan and return to the markets. So there is no soothing for the poor Greek folk in their troubles, for the foreseeable future.

The very establishment of such organization clearly shows where Europe is heading. Our leaders' agenda is not finding solutions to our problems or proceeding with real reforms. In Greece for example the public has experienced only severe cuts and reduction of their incomes. Real reforms like those needed in the taxation system have never occurred.

Even the IMF has apologized to Greece, because apparently their estimations were wrong and the cuts imposed on the country too severe! So instead of helping the country, they have actually pushed it in deeper recession. But there is no schedule to reverse the cuts or lessen the burden for the Greek people. Was it a genuine mistake or is there an agenda behind it?

If the IMF that is part of the Troika can make such tragic "mistakes" that have a huge impact on the fortunes of European people, can they be trusted? Despite the huge sacrifices that the Greek, Irish, Portuguese and other nations had to make, the crisis is only getting worse and there is no end to this tunnel.

Currently Spain and Cyprus are in talks with the Troika for loans that will allegedly help them come out of their difficulties; or will they? If what happened to Greece is going to pass without any consequences for the people who made these mistakes, then is the Troika acting for the best interest of the European citizens?

We are witnessing the greatest financial experiment in the modern history of Europe. Austerity seems to be unavoidable for European states. It is clearly an agenda, not a solution. Our leaders are trying to change the way we work, the way we live, think of our future and our expectations. Europe is being redesigned for a new reality; but what will this new reality going to be?

That is confirmed by the very establishment of the ESM. Because every new country that wants to be part of this plan and avail of its benefits, it has to accept austerity and the regulations coming from the IMF. In that way our governments legitimize austerity all over Europe from now on!

While I totally understand and support that the euro-zone needs to be stabilized and the debt crisis contained, I do not think that the solution is imposing austerity on the weaker states. Our leaders seem to think that the only way to deal with the problem is by pleasing the creditors and giving full control to bankers and unelected officials. 

All the drastic plans in Europe to save our economies occur in the financial sector only, not in the political. Clearly that sector is easier to change, but in this way we are only finding temporary relief to our woes. Every suggested "solution" is an experiment that when fails, the European people have to deal with the consequences. 

So should I be happy that our leaders have agreed to establish the ESM? Well it provides easy access to loans and help to states in need, but with huge costs and conditions that come from people who made serious mistakes at least once, as the Greek case shows.

The only good thing about it I find,is that now our leaders will have overseers to forbid them making irresponsible financial choices. Once under the watchful eye of the Troika, there is little room for mistakes or excuses. Now if the Troika's solutions are of any real help, that is another issue. Ideally, I would not support for each state to surrender its economic sovereignty. But since we are all in the Common Market and use the same currency, there is not much of a choice.

As the crisis deepens, it will most likely drag more and more European states into it. They will have the reassurance of the ESM for support, thus austerity is here to stay in our continent. But what will happen if the states that lend want to lend no more? When a core of rich countries support all others, this will inevitably create frictions in the EU and that is in no way helping the European integration.

Instead of dealing with the shortfalls in each country's economy and Europe's as a whole, we put them on life support. How can this be of any benefit for the European economy? With ESM or without it, our continent is in deep trouble and it needs reforms.

So far we have seen only the kind of reforms who bring misery to the ordinary European population.  How can we built Europe on such policies that do not gain the support or approval of the people, they are not necessarily for their benefit, rather the benefit of the global economists and bankers?

A very predictable new EU Budget for 2013.

After nail biting negotiations of the EU Council to agree on the EU Budget 2013 that will transform EU's policies and finances for the next 10 years, the budget was agreed. Now it is up to the European Parliament to vote for it and approve it, in order to come in effect.

In the current economic climate it would make sense to cut the budget, and I understand people who want to see this happen. If countries are struggling, they need all the funds they can find to keep their economy afloat.

And of course the EU budget must reflect the reality that Europe faces. If there is a shortage of money, business can not go as usual for the EU and its institutions either.

But it is also irresponsible to follow a populist line if the funds can be found from doing what it needs to be done and the reforms that are needed, instead of grasping the easier solution of cutting the EU budget. Is saving the Banks more important for example?

In my opinion the EU budget should stay the same or even increase, in order to be able to invest in all those projects and programs that will make some difference in the future of Europe.

Having said that, the EU budget must be overall reformed and countries that were not contributing as much, is time to start giving more. Instead of relying on subsidies, these countries must be encouraged to invest and become more industrialized, become richer like the “core” EU economies and start giving their share.

Thus a more harmonized European economy is needed. The “core” countries will lose out a bit, but at least they won’t moan all the time of contributing too much and “sustaining too many freeloaders” as many British Euro-skeptics have put it.

If there is a more harmonized European economy, then it won’t be necessary for some countries to contribute more in the budget or others less. It will be fair, and the squabbles between the states of who gives more or less will stop.

So we will be able to increase the EU budget and invest in all the spheres that will be beneficial for all European economies. But I think that it will be the “core” countries that will object more to such thing.

Also the priorities of the budget will have to change. Where and how the money is spent, will be decisive for Europe's future, economy, unity and integration. We need to spend more in spheres that we haven't been until now.So far the budget was rather "predictable" and that does not change much Europe's future I am afraid.

From what we read from various sources reporting on the debate that took place and the matter that it did, this summit has showed once again, that our heads of states and government have no vision for the future of Europe. "They do not understand the need to provide the EU with sufficient resources to give Europeans a future.  All we have is a market made of vetoes, cuts, rebates and long term austerity." (as noted by Pietro De Matteis, co-President of the European Federalist Party, in an official statement).

One EU diplomat complained that Van Rompuy had adopted crude tactics in which he bought off individual member states with "gifts" while cutting EU-wide infrastructure projects such as the Connecting Europe initiative. "Growth has been the victim of the bazaar," the source said. (source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/08/european-union-budget-night-talks).

I find this shameful not from the side of Mr. Van Rompuy, but the very need to bribe some members in order to come into an agreement shows the real state of the "Union." Every state still thinks on a national level and by bribing them, the EU officials only kick the can down the road. Any "solution" under such climate can only be temporary.

The draft budget 2013 freezes future expenditure: the increase of commitments (i.e. tomorrow’s payments) is at the level of inflation (2%). It also freezes the Commission’s administrative budget at well below inflation level, while cutting its staff by 1%, the first step towards the goal of a 5% reduction of staff in 5 years.
At the same time, it proposes a 6.8% increase in the level of payments.

This contributes directly to growth and jobs in Europe. The EU budget must meet its contractual obligations of current and previous years vis-à-vis the Member States and other recipients.

€62,5 billion in payments are devoted to job friendly growth in Europe. A particular effort has been made towards the Research framework Programs (€9,0 billion, 28,1% increase on 2012), the Competitiveness and Innovation Program (€546,4 million, 47,8 % increase), structural and cohesion funds (€49bn, 11,7 % increase), life long learning (€1,2 billion, 15,8 % increase). (source: http://www.talktoeu.ie/?p=2778)

Personally I am disappointed that Agriculture is still taking up almost one third of the EU's expenditure. A single sector of Europe's economy occupies one third of its budget. Is that wise? It is encouraging though that more funds will be directed towards innovation and education, thought not enough if you ask me. And of course it remains to be seen how many states will actually fully implement these decisions and how.

Will these funds be able to get Europe not just out of the current crisis, but prevent any future similar crisis from happening and help stabilizing and harmonizing Europe's economy? I think not. It looks to me that this is not in our leaders' agenda. All they seem to want is to deal with the current crisis quickly and do not disturb or alter the current status quo of the continent.

I understand that they need to keep the balances between the interests of their country, the lobbies in the country who support them, the European interests and the lobbies that work on a continental level. But if they want to be seen as the hero of the day and remain in Europe's history, they should be bolder and agree on a budget that will be decisive.

Instead they seem to care in keeping the critics back home happy and  safeguard theirs and their party's prominence in national politics. Sadly, European leaders still think "nationally." How can we ever achieve an agreement on a budget or any solution for Europe in this mind-frame?

So for the next 10 years we can expect no real change in Europe, apart from a soothing effect on the crisis; until the next one of course. European leaders do not think for the long term. Change and any progress in our continent happen with a tortoise pace, while changes in the world happen with a hare's.

Unless European leaders can outsmart the global changes with the patience and confidence of a tortoise, Europe's future is uncertain. Hopefully our generation will be able to witness the results of their decisions and judge them accordingly.

Racism in Israel: but what if it happened in Europe?

 http://www.forbes.com/sites/eliseknutsen/2013/01/28/israel-foribly-injected-african-immigrant-women-with-birth-control/


While the World is shocked by Berlusconi's ridiculous claims recently, giving support to Mussolini and his fascist regime, somehow the same outrage does not focus for an incident happening in Israel! In the article posted with a link above, we read that Ethiopian immigrants were subjected to mandatory contraceptive injections, effectively amounting to forced (if temporary) sterilization according to news that broke out last weekend. 

Yet somehow, the state of Israel seems to escape once more the global community's condemnation or action against its immoral policies. Note that I mention Israel and not "the Jews", as my criticism goes directly to the Israeli state and government, not the Jewish ethnic group.

The article above uses the Nazi atrocities committed on the Jewish nation as a parallelism and an example. Such practices the article claims, echo the birth control practices of the European Eugenics and of course the Nazis. Many readers reacted badly.

But I believe that the best way to criticize them is to remind them what has been done to them. Why not? They bring the "race" card and the Holocaust each time someone speaks against them. If anything else they should be an example to all of us on human rights, not do similar things to others.

They should be in the front line on making sure such outrageous things do not happen again in our planet, but not only against them but on any ethnic group. They should never ever do to others what it was done to them. That is the best way to honor all those who died and set an example for the rest of us.

If what is said in the article is true, then it is simply shameful and it must be reported and criticized. Every other country is criticized for its mistakes: Greece for its economy, Turkey on its record on human rights, Britain in its stance in the EU, all former colonial European powers for the atrocities they committed during the colonization era.

No one should escape criticism when is in the wrong and it should not matter if the country that must face the music was once the victim. Each country can be the victim at one point in time and the aggressor at another. Each time it must be dealt accordingly.

So if this is true I think that the international community should intervene and make sure Israel complies. Imagine if such practices were happening in Europe? Imagine if Germany, Sweden or other European countries practiced what Israel is practicing on the Ethiopians?

The whole international community, the Africans and the Israelis themselves would be up in arms about it. And so now they should be for Israel. I do not hate Israel, I am once again terribly disappointed in them. If they break human rights then who should we use as an example to defend them?

Cameron's dangerous bluff!

In the aftermath of the long awaited British PM David Cameron's speech on the future of the British EU membership, one would think that another front has opened on the uncertain future of the EU. Or has it?


Reactions came fast from many of Europe's leaders but also from businessmen from Britain and elsewhere. They all criticized Mr Cameron and warned of the potential consequences that a "Brixit" would have on the country's economy.

"We need a UK as a fully fledged member, not harboring in the port of Dover," the European Parliament's President Mr Martin Schulz said. "Renegotiation is a two-way process where no artificial deadlines can be imposed by one side," he added. 

Many already commented that his speech is actually a bluff. A trick to make the British voters stay with him and his party, instead of joining the ranks of UKIP that for the past few years has been more vocal on Britain's EU membership.

And I have to agree. I personally found Mr. Cameron's speech very predictable. What else could he do? The voices demanding for reconsidering Britain's EU membership were becoming ever more vocal for the past few years. The country never had an easy or comfortable relationship with Europe, but since the financial crisis the British "euro-skeptics" found a lot of fertile ground to sow their seeds.

Not just Britain's but overall the European public opinion have started questioning their country's EU and euro-zone membership and that is not necessarily a bad thing; for too long the European population has been complacent and passive on European politics. 

The bad thing is that this crisis allowed the rise of many nationalist and far right groups and encouraged the rise of nationalism across Europe. And since Britain was always one of the least supportive nation for the European project, it is understandable that people that always advocated a withdrawal of Britain from the EU could now put pressure on the British government by gathering support from the public.    

Mr Cameron really had no choice, he had to listen to his people's calls and give them an option. But I strongly disagree with what he said, the way he said it. His speech was very carefully crafted to keep all sides happy, but it was not convincing. 

It was clearly populism to claim that he is not an "isolationist" and he wants the best for Europe. "The best for Europe" is what the collective decisions of all EU member states conclude to, not just what the interests of one of its members dictate. 

And if Britain continues its long tradition of bashing Europe and its involvement in it, it certainly will going to find itself isolated. Even the American President Mr Barack Obama called for caution on the UK's ever growing wish for a withdrawal. 

If Britain wanted the EU to be a success it should stop opting out of every policy they disagree with and be more engaged and proactive. Europe needs Britain but not only for the financial support as the Brits believe. If the three European powers (Germany, France and Britain) cooperated closely instead  of constantly bickering and be stuck in the post WW2 era, then the EU would be a success. 

Britain could be an invaluable asset for the union if it decided to play the role it should have and not always place itself miles apart from the rest of the Union. Yes there are numerous challenges to be faced and dealt within the EU and with every state joining they keep increasing. But the UK is not patient and it does not play its cards right. 

Instead of getting frustrated of not getting its way and for the slow developments in the new states, it could engage more in influencing and speeding those changes. And by doing that they could gain more allies and a sphere of influence in Europe. 

Perhaps they think that Europe is not interesting anymore or they have nothing to gain from it. But where will they turn when their old colonies seek to go their own way? 

By promising a referendum by 2017 Mr Cameron may have gained votes and the support of most British public, especially the ever increasingly euro-skeptic one. Instead of allowing it to slide into UKIP's circles, he gave them a promise that will make them looking forward to something. Perhaps securing their votes. 

"If I am Prime Minister, there will be a referendum,” he vowed; and that betrays his true intentions. A clever move? Perhaps yes for his and his party's future. But if the people vote to leave the EU, he will go down as the President who did the unthinkable. And history will judge him.

He will have to deliver, otherwise his and his party's reputation and future career are at risk. If nothing changes in Britain and in Europe by 2017, then the outcome will be most likely negative according to the current trends and the UK will have to leave the Union. 


The In/Out approach is very dangerous. The public can be so easily influenced by the wrong factors. My experiences in Ireland during the Lisbon Treaty referendum confirm that. The public when asked a "yes or no" question, usually the real answer that the public want to give is somewhere in between. But they are not given the "between" option. And when they lack all the facts they tend to vote negatively. 

With years of being brainwashed by the British media of all that is wrong with the EU and never with the rights, then I do not see how this referendum can be won. And it is a pity, because Britain's youth is far more "pro-European" that their parents and grant-parents and they are going to be the real "victims" of a British exit from the EU.

Cameron's criticism of the EU of having "too many institutions," is so lame. The EU has so many institutions exactly because all EU member states want to safeguard their national interests. And to try to balance all interests, the EU is having to have so many complicated laws that need the so many institutions to make sure they are kept.

If the EU member states passed on more powers to the EU and followed all EU legislation that they signed, there wouldn't be necessary to have so much bureaucracy in the EU. A "heretic who has point" like Copernicus he may wish to present himself, but in this case he hasn't.

Yes the EU has many problems and it is not perfect. But the problems come from the member states and their inability to agree or their reluctance to give more powers to the EU, something that Britain is most guilty of. Thus Mr. Cameron's "heresy" can not lead to anything constructive, thus there is no point to it. 

Mr Cameron was careful not to present himself as "anti-European."  A trend that grasps many British euro-skeptics lately. In order to gain support or avoid any criticism, they want to be seen a real "pro-Europeans" that are just trying to secure the best interests of the European nations. That translates of course to the best interests of Britain. 

The UK can not speak for all states. The interests of the majority of the smaller EU states is to belong to some kind of lose European federation. So if Britain wants out it is in its very right to think so, but they should not try to push their agenda on to others and present it as "common."

He also hinted that the EU should cooperate, or it will lose out of Britain's departure. Sure it will but threatening your "partners," does not win you their support. Europe needs Britain for sure, but also Britain needs Europe. The attitude of "give me what I need or else," is not a sign of "pro-European-ism" and a diplomatic approach to find a solution.

Britain is just playing its last card to avoid being "sucked in" a European federation and having to compromise the interests not of its people, rather the elites of the City of London. In all its history with Europe it was trying to do just that, so Cameron really does not have much choice than to try to satisfy his country's elites. Or at least try to avoid the criticism. 

A lot can happen until 2017 and until then I hope the British and the European elites will come with a plan B to deal with any outcome. If Britain goes ahead with the referendum that will most likely be lost, judging from the current public opinion trends, Europe will be in an uncharted territory. Never before such an important European state decided to leave the Union, but it will definitely not  spell the end of the EU. 

It will just open a new chapter.

Reforming the education systems across the EU.

Recently in most debates on how best to deal with the current economic crisis in Europe, the issue of youth unemployment dominates the discussions. And no wonder. One of the worse consequences of the economic crisis is the high youth unemployment rates across Europe. The young generation is the worse hit with up to 50% unemployment rates in countries like Spain and Greece. 

Many ideas of creating new jobs and tackling youth unemployment are being put on the table by politicians, thinkers, businessmen and workers' unions representatives. New working contracts, social security plans, new jobs and industries to be introduced, are some of the suggestions or solutions proposed.


The problem is, that if we want these solutions to be long lasting, we need to start investing in different educational system too. If we invest in new industries, innovation and a new European economy, we will have to train and prepare our youth to be equipped and qualified for those changes. 

In the future, if Europe becomes more "green" and innovative, there will be many new kind of jobs in offer. How many European youths have degrees for them? We need to reform first the European education system, before we reform the European economy. Otherwise we will have people with too many degrees, but no jobs on what they studied to find work as their countries' economies will change dramatically. 

We need to rethink what kind of professionals we want for the future and instead of importing them from other countries, perhaps try to create them in Europe first. A multilingual, young and highly skilled workforce is needed if we want to kick start Europe's economy and make the recovery last, if not prevent future crisis. 

We have the grounds for multilingualism and we do have some of the best universities on the planet. All we have to do is reform the third education level across Europe and perhaps harmonize them. In some countries they still teach modules that have little use in our modern society, or with outdated methods. 

Hopefully all EU states will agree to introduce a new way of teaching old modules, or new modules altogether that will help students accumulate the right knowledge that will help them pursue a career path with prospects. This of course combined with new policies introduced that will help young people find work and make themselves attractive for employment.

Tackling European youth unemployment requires many reforms in the European economy and its workforce. But should we leave out our youths' education, then any victory will be short lived. And when the next crisis arrives we will once again wonder what we must do to tackle the same problem. We will once again fail Europe's young generation.

The Brits may ponder on leaving, but the Irish are staying firmly inside!

Dublin, 18 January 2013: With British Prime Minister, David Cameron, due to deliver a highly-anticipated speech regarding the UK’s future in the EU, a European Movement Ireland/Red C poll suggests that a majority of the Irish population believe that Ireland should remain as part of the EU, regardless of the UK’s position.

According to the Red C poll commissioned by independent, not-for profit organization, European Movement Ireland (EM Ireland), 85 per cent of respondents believe Ireland should remain part of the EU, with 83 per cent of Irish adults believing that Ireland has, on balance, benefited from membership of the EU.

Two-thirds (66 per cent) of those polled held the view that Ireland should remain in the EU even if the UK leaves the Union.

Furthermore, despite on-going economic hardship in Ireland, only 1 in 4 Irish adults believe Ireland should leave the Euro currency.

EM Ireland/Red C Poll Results

Results from the poll carried out between the 7^th and 9^th January 2013 show that:

• 85% of Irish people want Ireland to remain in the EU

• 83% of people believe Ireland has, on balance, benefitted from membership of the EU

• 73% want Ireland to remain within the Euro currency

• 66% want Ireland to remain in the EU, even if the UK leaves the Union

• 82% of men and 71% of women are aware that Ireland is holding the Presidency of the EU

• Almost half (45%) of all adults in Ireland claim that they think of themselves as both Irish and European while 47 % see themselves as Irish only

• 38% of 35-44 year olds think Ireland should leave the EU if the UK does – a higher average than the general result of 29%

• Awareness of Ireland's current role as President of the Council of the EU was highest in the Connacht/Ulster region at 79%

European Movement Ireland commissioned Red C to carry out this poll at the start of the Irish Presidency in order to ascertain Irish people’s views on a variety of different topics related to Irish-EU relations.  The poll was conducted among a representative sample of over 1,000 people aged 18 and over from across the country.

The poll held good news for the Irish Presidency, with a high level of awareness among respondents that Ireland currently holds the rotating Presidency of the Council of the EU – with 76 per cent of those polled aware of Ireland’s current role.  Interestingly, awareness is strongest amongst men and those in older age groups, with the Connacht/Ulster region ranking highest.

However, within this statistic; a contrasting indicator showed that just over half (52 per cent) of the 18-24 year old demographic were aware that Ireland currently holds the Presidency.




Source: The European Movement of Ireland. ( http://www.europeanmovement.ie/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/EM-Ireland-Red-C-Presidency-Poll-Report.pdf )
 

Nationalism semantics.

I often get very embarrassed by the rise of nationalism in my home country, Greece. Somehow, a bunch of misguided airheads and the youths that fell for their doctrine of hatred believe that they are true Greeks and they represent Hellenism or protect it from the “corrosion” of immigration. 

I feel so ashamed that the Greek nation became synonymous with xenophobia, neo-Nazism and far-right nationalism. In a country that suffered so much by the Nazi occupation and that had experienced mass emigration to Europe, the Americas and Australia, to have now groups of skin-heads beating up any immigrant they find is disappointing.

How can they ever call upon the ancient Greek ancestors of theirs, to justify their brutality and ignorance? If they had ever read the speech of Alexander the Great at Opis, where he famously claimed that he does not classify people according their descendance or race but their virtue, I wonder why then they think they honor his memory by beating immigrants. 

Have they ever understood the teachings of many ancient Greek philosophers, especially of the Stoic movement and those of Zeno of Citium? They promoted cosmopolitanism and believed that all people are manifestations of the one universal spirit and should live in brotherly love and readily help one another.

So if the Greek mind has in the past given birth to those ideas, how on Earth their descendants believe that with their actions are protecting and promoting Hellenism and “Greekness?”

Yes, Greece has an immigration problem that must be solved soon. And indeed people are angry and rightly so, because they were let down by their politicians. But why is that the immigrant communities are used as scapegoats for all the country’s difficulties? 

I am also a proud Greek and a bit of a nationalist. I love my country and I want it to shine, to be prosperous and its people to have the same living standards as any other country in Europe. I also want to promote and preserve our culture and heritage, while making Greece an example for other countries to aspire and follow. 

Now how can we achieve all the above if we want to close the borders, deport all immigrants and allow such groups like the Golden Dawn to exist? What is the example we give to the rest of the world? Where is the preservation of the Greek culture that these brutes are claiming they are promoting?

Yes Greece right now has too many immigrants and can not cope with the crisis, the unemployment, the economic collapse and the immigration issue. But that is not a reason for violence or hatred; it is a reason for better and more functioning immigration and integration policies. Why hasn’t the Greek state promoted those, while it relies on those bullies to offer a solution to the problem by promoting a fizzling of the public’s anger? 

This can have disastrous consequences for the social order in the future, as well for the country’s reputation in the world; funny how the supporters of the Golden Dawn think that this is what the country needs right now.

When trying to compare Greece with the country I live Ireland, one can draw interesting conclusions. Not that there are not any racism incidents here. But Ireland has managed to attract a right mix of immigrants that come both from poorer developing countries and richer, developed ones. In that way Ireland has managed to benefit more than Greece from its immigrant population.

Socially Ireland changed drastically and it all comes down to one factor: the Irish came in contact with other cultures, either by traveling or by interacting with them at home. When the Irish became wealthier, they started traveling a lot and that was a positive factor. At home too, many students or immigrants from the rest of Europe, USA, Japan, Australia, Canada and many other developed countries arrived, bringing new ideas and way of thinking with them.

In that aspect Greece is lacking behind. My wish is to create an open country, modern, cosmopolitan and wealthier, both in an economic level but also in a cultural. If we manage to attract the right workers with the right skills and do not use them only as workers and exploit them, but also integrate them totally in our society, the ones who will be benefiting in the long term will be ourselves.

If we become a cosmopolitan society, groups like the Golden Dawn won’t be able to thrive. The old established elites, either the religious or political ones, won’t be able to manipulate or blind us with their outdated ideologies, holding us ransom to achieve their goals and promote their interests. We won’t fall as easily for their propaganda. 

And there will be economic benefits as well. When a lot of these immigrants eventually return home, provided of course they have a positive experience in our country, they will form strong links with Greece that will ease trade and cultural exchanges. They will become what most of the Greek Diaspora have become: ambassadors of Greece in far and away places. If we beat them up and abuse them of course, that will never happen.

Yes there are challenges to face with immigration and we should learn some lessons of the failures of many other European countries like Britain, France and Germany in integrating their immigrant population. Most of them still have problems. But we should normally have the advantage to learn from their mistakes and don't repeat them. Do we have this ability; are we mature enough or we get what we deserve in the end?

Greece is lacking behind for the exact reasons that we have made no effort in benefiting whatsoever from the presence of foreign nationals in our country, apart from exploiting them. And we have made no effort in attracting the right skilful workers, or students from other countries and enrich our culture with theirs and through their active participation in Greek social and political happenings. 

And the more we become xenophobic, the more we ruin any chance of ever achieving change and progress in our country. Now I love Greece and I want change and progress. I do not think that these “nationalists” have Greece’s best interests in mind. If fact I am more of a patriot than they are, and I want quite the opposite of what they do. Time to rethink I guess our priorities as a nation!

Launching of the European Year of Citizens 2013, in Dublin City Hall.

This year marks the 40th anniversary of the accession of Ireland in the European Communities and it is also the 7th time that the country holds the rotating Presidency of the EU Council. The beginning of 2013 has kick-started the first months of Ireland's reigns of the EU and also the launching of the European Year of Citizens 2013.

It was an idea developed in the European Parliament, that called on the European Commission to make 2013 the European Year of Citizenship. MEPs wanted to boost the debate on EU citizenship and inform EU citizens of their rights.

Today it was its official launching in the Dublin City Hall. The speakers included Ireland's Taoiseach Mr Enda Kenny TD, An Tanaiste Mr Eamon Gilmore TD, EU Commission President Mr Jose Manuel Barroso, EU Commission Vice President Mrs Viviane Reding and Ireland's Minister for European Affairs Mrs Lucinda Creighton TD.

The event was kick-started by its moderator, Mr Pat Kenny with a brief introduction. Soon after that Taoiseach Enda Kenny, President Barroso and Mr Eamon Gilmore TD opened the debate with their speeches and answering few of the audience's questions.

Mr Kenny stressed in his speech that we need to create a new Europe of peoples. We take for granted what we have achieved but in years such these we need to remind ourselves about our achievements. This year should be a year to consider what Europe means to us and that it is important for all of us to deepen our cooperation and relations.

Mr Gilmore stated that the economic crisis lowered the public trust in EU and that we must restore it. It is an Irish tradition to submit great change in the EU through the country's referendums on further agendas. And this year we need specific changes of the EU Treaties. Restore the financial and economic trust, promote stability, create new jobs and solve the crisis. "It is up to us to decide our future, it is in our hands," he stressed. The EU should become a union of rights guaranteed by law and we should encourage citizens to exercise these rights.

President Barroso talked about the need for further integration, stability, a banking union and how all European countries are dependent on each other. "Even countries with high standards are finding hard to solve problems alone," he mentioned. He underlined the need for new rule in banking so that "it should be not up to the public who shall pay again for the banks in the future."

He also made positive comments on Ireland's efforts to battle the crisis and he explained how the country has now a unique opportunity during its 6 month presidency to help other members get back to sustainable growth. He also added that while it is important to get the economy growing again, "we can not do this without the support of the citizens. Europe needs to gain their trust again and engage them."

President Barroso closed his speech by vowing that young people under 25 will be receiving a quality offer in a job within 4 months of leaving higher education in the future. He also added that constructive criticism of the EU does not pose a threat, but a constant negative outlook does.

The three speakers then answered a few questions by the public and the debate focused on the issues raised by them. The discussions focused on if the EU is doing enough to tackle the crisis and how Ireland is dealing with it. Sorting out the country's finances and recapitalizing the banks is very crucial, while cooperating with the EU Commission and the ECB to achieve that.

The efforts should focus on international, pan-European level but on national as well and so far Europe is doing well on structural reforms, reducing deficits and dealing with the crisis.The future of the euro is not in question anymore.

On a question of what will Ireland gain out of its EU Presidency this time, Mr Kenny mentioned that "we can demonstrate that as a small country we can emerge as an example to other countries on what can be achieved." Mr Gilmore stated that "Ireland's agenda is Europe's agenda" for the next 6 months: growth, employment, banking union, expanding trade with other countries that will increase employment. "Our priorities as a country are aligned with the European agenda."

President Barroso agreed and added that "what is good for Europe is good for Ireland, and what is good for Ireland is good for Europe." The discussion then focused on future plans to promote trade with other blocks dealing with large powers like China and investing in "Blue Growth", meaning the exploitation of maritime energy, the wind and the currents of the seas around Ireland and Europe. During the Irish Presidency there will be a number of conferences organized, debating on climate change and the environment.

The conference then welcomed Mrs Reding and Mrs Creighton on the platform and moved on to the second part of the open public debate. Three videos were shown on screen, focusing on three different subjects: the current economic crisis, rights of European citizens and the future of the European Union.

Mrs Creighton stressed that we need to go through this painful process to meet our targets, as we are laying the foundations for future growth. The discussion focused on youth unemployment and how to deal with it, but also how to deal with the fact that Europeans will have to work longer. Will that postpone young people in entering the job market? We must ensure that we pay our way and not force older people out of work to benefit the young. But in the same time it is the young who have been hit the hardest by this crisis.

"If we want young people to continue to have faith in democracy, the economy and the EU we need to gain their trust and give them opportunities for jobs," stressed Mrs Creighton. Mrs Reding added that "Europe is not about institutions only, it is about people. We need to start thinking out of the box. We must not break the solidarity mechanism in our societies. We must not overstretch the age of retirement and in the same time we need to develop the capacity of training."

The speakers continued discussing how we ended up in this situation, when in the past it was decided that the EU Commission should not be given the full power to handle EU money, but this power was given to the national governments. Now we see that this does not work anymore, we need to learn from this situation and adapt, ensure the same mistakes won't happen again and break the cosy relationship of national banks with their national supervisors.

Mrs Reding also made a comparison between Ireland and Greece and described the current situation in the Balkan country. She noted that we must help build up the taxation system in the country that was not working for years. "Greece as a state did not function," but we have to keep with the very difficult work of building new structures to get out of this situation. The EU gives its members the freedom to take initiatives to deal with the situation, but we must close the gaps that were left out by the Maastricht Treaty and restore the damage.

She then introduced Mrs Antogoni Papadopoulou, a Cypriot MEP who was a rapporteur when the creation of the European Year of Citizens was debated and decided in the European Parliament. Mrs Papadopoulou wished all the best for the Irish Presidency and reminded us that to solve the common problems we are facing we need the synergies to find common solutions. "We are here to hear your voice, we can make a miracle," she stressed.

The conversation continued to social issues like the gender pay gap. It was stated that so many years of legislation exist to deal with this issue but we still fail to implement them. We need to create "more responsibilities for fathers, more opportunities for mothers," Mrs Reding noted. Ireland's situation on women's equality was also mentioned after 40 years of EU membership and the huge leaps the country achieved on this issue.

Solidarity and the discrimination of the small EU states was the next topic of discussion, with Mrs Reding dismissing such claims. She brought as an argument her own native country, Luxembourg and how it benefited from EU and got protection from the big powers it is surrounded by. "The EU gives a chance to small states to survive," she claimed. If it wasn't for the protection of Europe, Luxembourg would not exist.

The future of Ireland and the EU was the last topic discussed. Ireland needs to change the culture that exists in Ireland on having property. For Europe's future the environment, the Chart of the European Citizens of Fundamental Rights, reforming the CAP, the EU expansion and more dialogue with the citizens became the hot topics.

We also need to change the way we are doing politics. That we have to push for the respect of the human rights in all EU members before any new country's accession and that we, as citizens must know our rights. "65% of EU citizens believe that their voice is not heard or count in Europe. That is not true," Mrs Reding claimed.

The two speakers concluded the debate with the plans and next programs of the European Year of Citizens. Today is only the beginning of the process. We must appreciate what we have and improve it and have politicians that are listening. This project is a new adventure: it starts with the citizens and we should ask them what they want to happen in the future in Europe. The citizens have a part to play.

We have to improve accountability and democracy to the citizens. The evolution of Europe is in process, we are in the middle of a journey. Concluding, Mrs Creighton promised that 2013 will be an interesting year for Europe.

I personally would love to see all that was mentioned above to be implemented as soon as possible. They must not remain on paper. If we indeed manage to achieve the proposed plans in a short period of time, then yes 2013 will be the start not only of an interesting year,but of a very interesting future for the EU, Europe and us citizens. If only we grasp the opportunity our politicians are giving us, become more active and have a positive outlook and hope.

 

Should Europe help developing countries?

In periods of economic difficulties like the current we are living,often the issue of charity or aid comes to the surface of any political or social debate. Should a state offer aid to other poorer nations? Should Europe be helping developing countries, or the EU be the World's largest donor of aid?

The logical answer to this would be of course that we all should do what we can, to help other fellow humans and show solidarity with them. We are all after all, citizens of this great wide planet. But giving aid to poorer countries is not anything new. It has always been taking place for as far as I can remember, yet somehow we still haven't managed to create a more equal world.

Perhaps we are doing the right thing, the wrong way. All these money collected or promised by our governments or social and political elites,somehow fail to create a permanent impact; ending poverty in this world and create a more equal planet. Maybe it is not just money we should be giving but something else as well.

The best way I believe for Europe to help developing countries is by NOT giving money to them. But expertise, assistance to develop their own abilities and exploit their own resources, advice and shared knowledge. What Europe does though is keep offering them money, that is often being misused and it creates a dependency.

It helps establish a corrupt elite that misuses the aid money portraying the limited success as their own to perpetuate their rule in the country. Trust me, I am from Greece I know. It happened over there during some of the most troublesome decades in our and Europe’s history and now we see the results.

A poor country does not need money to become rich or at least wealthier, if that is what we want in reality in Europe and not a new type of dependency for these countries. A new type of colonization and exploitation.

A poor country needs direct investments, jobs, factories and education so it can stand on its own feet and start exploiting all the best that it has, investing then in innovation with its own money. It needs the knowledge and organization skills to develop, as well with a better or more appropriate education system.

So all that Europe could do is set up companies that will promote the exploitation of the country’s natural resources, schools, factories – but not sweat shops to exploit the local population with cheaper salaries for the continent’s rich elite benefit.

Sadly, before Europe decides to offer help and invest in one nation it demands certain obligations. Help does not come without price. They want to establish an ever pro-Western regime and transform their “aid” into an investment. And investments usually mean a return in profits, so here is where the problem lies.

By being so selfish and offer help but with many strings attached, we are doing more harm than good in some cases. We sink nations into deep debt and  establish a pro-Western elite, to make sure we are going to get the return of our investment we are counting for. So we actually promote corruption and injustice in this country.

If that is not the case, then with these money we create a dependency that is hard to wean off. To promote certain "standards" for a country that usually reflect our own Western ideology, the money given is also helping to establish an elite that our own ones favor. This results into nothing really developing or changing. Countries that are in dire need of aid, usually remain in that condition for decades. 

I am all for European aid and help to any country in need, because as many others have argued, this is what Europe must stand for for the future: human betterment, across the continent and beyond. But only if this help comes with a totally selfless attitude. Instead of looking down on those “poor” “Third World” nations, we should actually try to inspire them to be proud and confident in achieving greatness. Be a invaluable member of the global community.

Because it is in our interests to create a prosperous and equal world. More stability results in more wealth and prosperity for EVERYONE. But that is something that some of the elites both in the West and the East do not want. They prefer a fragmented world with extreme poor and extreme rich nations or people to serve their own interests.

Scenarios of a British exit from the EU.

During the past few months certain debates have gained momentum in Europe. Catalonia seceding from Spain, Scotland from the UK and the UK leaving from he EU altogether. 

The United Kingdom has had an uneasy relationship with Europe ever since the creation of the European Communities. To them, Europe should never proceed to a full political union, they prefer to keep things as they are and keep the EU just a large market. 

I guess the interests of the political and leading economic elites are better served if things remain as such. Britain outside the EU could do well, in fact if any member state decided to leave would not be the end of the world for them. But are the citizens interests best served in the EU or outside?

Britain always wanted to safeguard the interests of the City of London and its financial services sector. They have invested hugely in creating the sector that dominates their economy and allowing it to be subdued to any interference from outside could prove costly. 

But they did reform their economy in the past to the detriment of the ordinary workers and their unions. It happened during the "Thatcherite" years when Britain's financial sector was established and the country's economy shifted dramatically. 

Then the ordinary workers suffered and the country went through some very difficult years socially and financially. So why can't they do it again? Is it because the rights or interests of the workers are not as important as those of the Bankers? Is protecting the banks and ensuring the favor of the markets far more important than having access to the European Single Market and influencing European affairs? 

Of course it is not about only protecting the financial sector of the City of London. It is also a reflection of different mentalities or a cultural issue. The British elite and the press always believed that Britain should remain outside a European "superstate" and pursue a more global economic, political and cultural influence or even dominion, through their cooperation with the US and the Commonwealth. That is why the majority of the British press was not very friendly to the European project for many years now. 

The question is, will the other Commonwealth countries be willing to always be part of this "British" club? India for example has grand aspirations of its own. And what about the other aspirations of the British "euro-sceptics" for their country, that want to be just like Norway and Switzerland? 

Norway is an oil rich country but is also part of the EEA (European Economic Area) having access to the European single Market without being an EU member. It is through all the treaties it has signed to be part of EEA, three quarters member of EU. They have to follow and adopt most of EU legislation and even pay into the EU's budget.  

Oslo gives around €350m annually to fund capital projects in the newest EU states like Poland and Romania. They recently helped build a smart new maritime museum in Gdansk, Poland.

But they do not have a voice in the EU, as they do not have a seat in the EU Parliament. Of course being a rich country very few bother or complain about it. But if Britain left the EU, they would lose their seats too and they would also have to find alternative ways to deal with the rest of Europe. 

They would most probably seek to remain in the EU Single Market as Norway or even Switzerland have done. It would be certainly be catastrophic if they chose to leave the EU totally and not be even part of the EEA/EFTA. In theory they would do so, only to cut the ties totally with the rest of Europe, a move that would be unwise.

But unlike Norway, Britain is a large country. And they do not have the resources that Norway has. Can such an important country just follow regulation that has been decided elsewhere but have no chance of influencing? If Britain wants to play a far more important role in the world politics and economy, can they lose their voice and influence in the continent on their doorstep? How can they assert themselves in the rest of the world if they ignore Europe? 

And what will happen if Scotland decides to leave the UK too and join the EU as an independent state? Then the oil in the North Sea will most likely be claimed by the newly formed Scottish state. Can the United Kingdom adapt to all these changes at once?

Even their relationship with Ireland will change. The two countries have signed numerous agreements that have made the two countries very close partners. The Common Travel Area, the Good Friday Agreement and many others between the two countries could be forced to be revisited. 

That would make it more awkward for Ireland to be fully integrated into a more federal EU and keep intact its agreements with Britain. Because of the Common Travel Area, there are no borders between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. Irish citizens also do not require passports to travel to the UK, just like in the Schengen Agreement Area. 

If Britain withdraws from the EU that will mean that Ireland can never join the Schengen unless it agrees to reinstall its borders with Northern Ireland; something that no side would want. And if Britain decides to withdraw totally from the EU and the EEA or EFTA, this situation could become even more complicated. 

The people of Northern Ireland can have under the Good Friday Agreement any nationality they want (Irish or British) and hold any of the two, or both passports. If the UK leaves the EU and decides that it does not want to be part of EEA and Schengen like Norway has, will the N. Irish people chose to keep their British passports or rush to get an Irish one? Can this have an effect in the change of status quo in Northern Ireland? 

Ireland will have to rethink its relationship with the EU too, but I do not think that it has much choice. Most multinational companies that have settled in the country have done so because Ireland is an EU member and an English speaking country. The multinational companies want to have access to the EU Market, plus enjoying the benefits of Ireland's lower corporate tax rates. 

Should Ireland be forced to leave the EU too after the UK, it won't have the above advantage. 

Britain is one of the most important business partners of Ireland. Britain is Ireland's biggest export market, while Ireland is Britain's 5th biggest export market. Most British retail companies have also branches in the Republic of Ireland and vice versa. A complete British withdrawal from the Single Market would be awkward for both sides. 

So the UK has two options, either to join EEA or stay in the EU for good. By staying in the EEA they will lose their influence in Europe and they will allow France and Germany to fulfill their vision for the continent. The British will still have to abide to 3/4 of EU law but they will have no voice or no influence on it. This situation in my opinion is not ideal if you wish to have a greater say and influence in the world. You still have to follow EU law that was decided by any other country in Europe, but not you. 

Preferably I would like them to stay in but become more active, committed and leading members of EU. They can achieve far more if they share the lead of the Union than being increasingly isolated in Europe. If only they could understand that and see that instead of always being the awkward member, they have more to gain if they became an active one. 

Europe needs Britain too and perhaps might eventually make it easier for them to feel more comfortable in the Union. A bit more cherry picking like the Swiss are doing and they will be happier. The truth is that neither Switzerland nor the EU are happy with their bilateral relations and both seek a revision. The EU is looking to corner Switzerland and pull it closer, while the Swiss are not happy with the lack of representation of their interests. 

They always rely on Britain in representing their interests in the EU, as they both have a large financial services industry. If Britain also leaves, will this alliance last and who will represent those two countries then? 

How can we build a functioning union if every state picks only what suits them and opts out from what it doesn’t? There will be no "union" if this happens, we will have to revert back to EEA or EFTA . Many "euro-skeptics" of course will be delighted for this, but not me. I want to have a vote on what is being decided for me on a European level, I do not want to end up being a Norwegian or an Icelander. 

And if the UK is allowed to get all the opt outs and still remain in the union, then why not every country do the same and only accept laws that do not interfere with their sovereignty? But if you want to keep your sovereignty then why join a union in the first place! I do not want a free trade agreement only because there will be no European Parliament (EP) and the laws of the Single Market will be decided for me, but without me. 

In the end of the day you can not keep them in by force and it is becoming annoying for everyone to have one country constantly complaining and moaning about everything. Perhaps we should let them be out for a while. Sometimes when we wish for something for too long, when we eventually get it we realize it was not what we wanted in the first place!