Russell Brand's call for a "revolution," is the wrong kind.

Just five days ago the well known comedian and actor Russell Brand, gave an interview on BBC with his usual style of speech. Minutes after this interview was broadcasted, the video went viral on various social networking sites.

In this video that many described as "inspirational" and "revolutionary," Mr. Brand admits that he has never voted, nor will vote in any election. 

What I find intriguing is that many people fell for the message that not Mr. Brand himself, but the BBC wants to promote among young people who probably are followers or admirers of Mr. Brand. "Do not vote" because it is revolutionary, voting is pointless and we need a revolution. And because "Rock and Roll" celebrities are advocating that they do not see the point!

I do not trust someone who has benefited from the Hollywood stardom and media machine. What he says is absolutely true and inspiring, but he is not the first to express these views. To encourage people NOT to vote is nonsensical. People must continue to vote, though do so for different parties that do not represent the establishment. Socialist, liberal, progressive or green parties. 

What we suffer from is the two party system and a political establishment that guess what? It exists in all countries. That is the model we should all strive to break away from. But we must continue to vote, this time with a cause, conscience and wisely. 

For someone to pretend that speaks for the people, but encourages political idleness and apathy, it seems that he supports the establishment that wants people to become idle to democracy and indifferent to their country's political reality. In other words Mr. Brand perhaps unwillingly, acts as a wolf in a sheep's skin. 

People be ware! The establishment wants to just ridicule any potential revolution by making a persona like Brand the face of it. The key to any reforms or revolution is to continue to vote and participate in your country's politics, but this time start doing so with an educated opinion. 

Something that the established media and governments do not want you to do. If only anyone who advocated for a "revolution" fell under the image of Mr. Brand and be associated with him. A real revolution can start from a farmer, a teacher, student, a housewife and not a "cool," drug using and famous celebrity with distorted views on politics. 

You may watch the full interview of Mr. Brand and make up your own mind on the video link bellow. Though I agree with everything he expresses, I am compelled to disagree with the encouragement that he gives to his young followers to not vote. What BBC is doing and how it promotes Mr. Brand and his views, is something that we need to be cautious on. 

God forbid if we allow our youths to follow Brand's example and become idle and apathetic to voting and their country's political reality. Real revolution needs more engagement in politics democracy, not absolute abstinence!

The issue of the French deportation of a Roma student.

For the past two weeks there is a very divisive topic being discussed in France. On October the 9th, a Roma girl from Kosovo has been deported from the country together with her family. 

The school girl aged 15 years old, spent most of her life in France and was a French speaker. 

The decision to deport Leonarda Dibrani and her family was taken by the French interior ministry, in an effort to return all undocumented immigrants to the country of their origin. 

This action caused a heated debate once more in France on immigration, integration and the safeguarding of French national values. Protests in support of the girl and her family took place in France, for two consecutive days.

It is not the first time that the Roma community is finding itself at the epicenter of an immigration row in France. Just a few years ago Roma people this time from Romania and Bulgaria were also deported, even though they were EU citizens. 

The problem is why it is only the Roma community who is being stigmatized by the French media or authorities? They are not the only group of undocumented immigrants in the country and certainly not the only one who fails to "integrate itself into French society and accept its values," as many who support the deportation claim. 

Will the French authorities deport many people from their former colonies that haven't integrated well into French society? Perhaps they won't because they are former colonial subjects and France still wants to have a meddling influence in their country. Or perhaps they will equally deport all illegal immigrants.

Then why we never read any reports about protests of deportations of people of other ethnic origin in France? The Roma people are being stigmatized and brought to the forefront of an issue that all countries have, yet as it is a sensitive issue when other ethnic groups are concerned, nobody really bothers about the Roma. 

If we think about it, there are many vocal groups or lobbies that protest to safeguard the rights of people of black African or Jewish  decent, gay people, women or the rights of the Muslim community. But very few to do so for the Roma.

And that is because in every country they have settled, they have been discriminated against for centuries. No government of a country with a substantial Roma community has managed to successfully create policies, that would encourage the full integration of the Roma into their communities. 

And while it is true that in many cases it is the Roma people who do not want to change their way of life and integrate themselves in the country they are living, we have to examine if the approach of the governments was always understandable and fair to them. 

The Roma are Europeans and in most cases they are also EU citizens. They have been living among us for centuries. People forget their influence and contribution in European culture and heritage, like our music for example. In Spain, Greece, Hungary and Romania their music has been adding to these countries' heritage for centuries now. What would Spain be without a flamenco, a music that the gypsies gave their soul into? 

I do not object to the right of the French authorities to keep up with their work of enforcing the law. Nor do I object to the deportations of illegal immigrants, if those are justified and these people do not have the right to be in a country, or fail to abide by its laws.

What I object to is that the Roma people are being victimized and stigmatized. They are always the ones who are used as scape goats in the French struggle to deal with their immigration problem. Because it is too sensitive to put any other ethnic group on the spot, the Roma have become the face of this political and social issue.

And the worse thing is that the whole issue with the Roma, has been used to keep Romania and Bulgaria out of the Schengen Agreement and place restrictions on the free movement of people from these countries to certain EU countries. These two nations are also stigmatized as result, by having different rules apply for their citizens even though the real problem is about Roma immigration.

If certain countries have immigration problem, no ethnic group should become the focus of the media attention. The issue should be dealt by treating all immigrant groups with the same respect, keeping their dignity while proceed with the enforcement of the law.

The EU Commission has already many times warned France over its stance on Roma people, but still the country failed to comply. How do they expect to create an equal European community if they fail to protect all ethnic groups that live in it, even the indigenous ones?

US Government shut-down. The cost of democracy?

For the past two weeks the other side of the Atlantic became the focus of the global news, stealing the limelight from Europe for a change. Our continent has been providing news stories for the past good few years, with the way it struggles to deal with its economic and political crisis.

But this time America is the epicenter of a political and ideological row, that potentially can result to consequences that will reach beyond the country's borders. And as much as this saga seems very ridiculous to most of us outside the US, it is very serious for the parties involved and that makes it very serious for the rest of world.

Since America is the world's leading power politically and economically, what happens there could send ripples throughout the globe, especially through Europe that is so close to America. The US found itself being paralyzed by federal government shutdown, due to the inability of the Republicans and the Democrats to agree on how to deal with the country's public debt and an "ideological crusade," as Mr. Obama called the Republican's opposition on the issue. 

A government shutdown in the US is not something unheard of, though it is the first time that an agreement has not been reached within a few days and both sides are so staunchly opposing and blocking any progress. The last government shutdown hasn't happened for almost 20 years. In US politics, a government shutdown is the name for the process the Executive Branch must enter into when the Congress creates a "funding gap" by choosing not to or failing to pass legislation funding government operations and agencies. (Wikipedia).

If the interim or full-year appropriations are not enacted into law, the United States Constitution and the Anti-deficiency Act require the federal government to begin a “shutdown” of the affected activities. If the budget crisis continues long enough, then the law requires an obligatory unpaid leave for all non-emergency personnel and curtailment of agency activities and services.(Wikipedia)

A country without a functioning government for a long period of time, because of disagreements and deep rooted divisions is not something that we've never seen before. In Europe, Belgium did not have an official government for years due to the divisions between the country's linguistic groups. Yet the country functioned as normal and Belgium's, Europe's or the global economy did not risk a meltdown.

The issues that led to the US situation have been simmering since the second reelection of Mr. Obama and the so called "Obamacare," or the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act that the US President and the Democrats supported. As the US federal government is deeply divided in the Republican dominated House of Representatives and the Democrat dominated Senate, this situation only worsens the deadlock and contributes to the government's inability to reach to a decision.

The second major issue is of course about the nation's debt. The conservative Republicans oppose to pass a bill raising the country's debt limit, something that Mr. Obama believes that will cause delays in payments including benefits and government employees' salaries and lead to default on government debt. President Obama urged Congress to raise the debt ceiling without conditions to avoid a default by the United States on government debt. (Wikipedia)

It seems that the USA is not just in a financial but also in an ideological crisis. Key politicians reject any potential solutions purely on economic interests and the ideology they served all these years. The reforms the Democrats support and want to implement, are overall a step in the right direction to end the deep inequalities in the US society. But the Republicans and their hardline position seem to be out of date and out of touch with the needs of the ordinary people.

To achieve these reforms the US government will need to raise more taxes and thus have "more government," something that the Republicans ideologically oppose. And that is why their position in the whole issue is outdated. In modern times a country needs leaders with ideas, not rigid ideology.

Their position can be also explained as a fear that Obamacare will be successful, thus giving more power to the Democrats. So they take the whole country in ransom, just to maintain the political status quo and protect their interests. It is the people of America that gave them the power they have and their role should be serving these people best.

So while they are getting paid to promote the American citizens' interests, they decide to force about 800,000 federal employees in living without pay for the foreseeable future, hurt the country's tourism industry and its image abroad. They do not only jeopardizing America's economy, but the global one as well.

Yalman Onaran of Bloomberg News wrote that the government's failure to raise the debt ceiling and pay its debt would "halt a $5 trillion lending mechanism for investors who rely on Treasuries, blow up borrowing costs for billions of people and companies, ravage the dollar and throw the U.S. and world economies into a recession that probably would become a depression."

Taking into consideration that the existing economic crisis in Europe-that we have to deal and suffer from- originated in the banking system of America , the way that the Republicans are dealing with the issue is extremely outrageous and arrogant.

The Americans do not want to deal with their debt problems in an effective way, nor pay their debts by following responsible economic policies, so the whole world is in danger of facing a much harsher economic reality. All because of a bunch of grey haired conservative folk in American politics and their ideology, that provides to a minority of people in this world great wealth.

Other countries are not only forced into debt, but also are placed under a harsh austerity regime by an organization that is based and controlled by the USA-the IMF- in order to make sure they repay their debts. Yet the US leadership mocks and insults the rest of the world in front of our eyes, by acting immaturely when it comes to dealing with their debt responsibly.

The EU Commission President Mr. José Manuel Barroso said that while the EU was "ridiculed" for its handling of the euro-zone crisis, he would not criticize the United States for its budget deadlock, as this was a "normal" result of democracy. (Euractiv)The real problem though is that the people or parties that cause the US budget deadlock, do not really believe in democracy, rather in oligarchy. Their actions and agenda that they pursue speak for themselves.

The Americans were criticizing Europe for years over its handling of the economic crisis as Mr. Barroso mentioned. Perhaps after this farce and circus they have amused us with, they will become the equal, understanding partners that Europe deserves to have, not the stone throwing allies who live in a glass house.

The Seanad Referendum in Ireland: a lost chance for reform?

Across the media and in the Oireachtas, the legislative body of the Irish Republic, the recent Seanad referendum has dominated discussion over the past few weeks.

The discussion came to an end last Friday October the 4th, when the Irish electorate decided that they wished to keep the Seanad.

The Irish Senate is one of the three legislative bodies in Ireland, together with the Dail Eireann (the Parliament) and the President of Ireland.

All together they form the Oireachtas. The Seanad is consisted by 60 Senators elected after a general election. Eleven Senators are nominated by the Taoiseach (the Prime Minister) , 6 by certain national Universities (UCD and NUI) and 43 are elected from special vocational panels of candidates by local and national level elected politicians.

The Seanad has the power to delay only, not to veto legislative proposals. The Dail is the only House which can introduce amend financial and tax legislation. The government usually has a majority in the Seanad, which has not rejected a bill passed by the Dáil since 1964. Debate on the Seanad's future has focused on whether it would be better to reform it with or without constitutional amendment, or to abolish it altogether.

In October 2009, Fine Gael leader and Taoiseach Enda Kenny stated that it was his intention that a Fine Gael government would abolish the Seanad, and along with reducing the number of TDs by 20, it would "save an estimated €150m over the term of a Dáil."

Arguments in favor of the bill included that the abolition would save money and that the number of legislators is too large relative to the state's population. The method of selection is elitist and undemocratic and that the Seanad is a powerless "rubber-stamp".

The arguments against the bill were that a NO vote will create a mandate for reform of the Seanad and that the process of legislation needs greater scrutiny. Most countries with a Westminster system countries have bicameral legislatures and that the Irish financial crisis shows a need for more governance. (Wikipedia)

Ireland is an unusual case for a small country that has a Senate. The majority of EU Member States have one house of parliament, although it is interesting to note that more than five out of every six European citizens live in a country with two houses of parliament.  This is because most EU Member States with a bicameral system have large populations; countries such as Germany, France, Italy, Spain and the UK.  In fact, Ireland and Slovenia are the only two countries in the EU with a population under 10 million to operate under two houses of parliament.

Bicameral	Unicameral
Austria	Bulgaria
Belgium	Croatia
Czech Republic	Cyprus
France	Denmark
Germany	Estonia
Ireland	Finland
Italy	Greece
Netherlands	Hungary
Poland	Latvia
Romania	Lithuania
Slovenia	Luxembourg
Spain	Malta
UK	Portugal
	Slovakia
	Sweden

The composition and power of upper chambers varies quite considerably from country to country across Europe.  For instance, the Italian Senate’s 315 members are directly elected by all Italian citizens over the age of 25, with the upper house possessing equal power with the lower house. This is in contrast to most second chambers in Europe where the powers of the upper house are restricted, as is the case in Ireland, Slovenia and Poland.

The reason for the existence of second chambers also varies between countries; the House of Lords in the UK is steeped in centuries of tradition and is regarded as a historic institution, while the German upper house exists due to the federal nature of Germany. What is common across most bicameral EU countries though is the size of the state: the average population among the 13 bicameral countries is 35 million people.

Many of the 15 countries with unicameral systems are recent entrants to the EU with several of them being former Communist states. Of these unicameral countries, there is a fairly even split between those who created their political systems with only one house of parliament and those who abolished the upper house after some years of governance.

For example, both Denmark and Sweden abolished their second chambers in 1953 and 1970 respectively, while Croatia abolished its upper house as recently as 2001.  So it is not unusual or unheard off to abolish the upper house of the Parliament. Like the EU bicameral countries, the size of the population of the 15 unicameral states is similar: the average population among unicameral countries is 5 million. Greece is the largest country in the EU with a unicameral system with a population of 11 million. (talktoeu.ie)

The turn out on Friday was very low, at around 39% of the Irish electorate and the referendum was lost by a margin. The NO side won with  51.7% of the votes, when compared to 48.3% of the YES campaign. Interestingly this referendum divided the country in half with the west of the country voting YES, while the eastern counties rejected the bill.

Some of the parties that supported a YES vote did not engage as much in the process, notably the Labour Party of Ireland. There was some misunderstandings among the party's Senators and the impression received from many of its members, some privately and some publicly, was that they were largely in favor of retention, despite campaigning in favor of the Seanad's abolition.

Also there was an overall mishandling of the debate by the Government. Many accused the Taoiseach Mr. Enda Kenny that his reluctance to engage in an open debate with the opposition leader Mr. Michael Martin, resulted in the government's defeat in the referendum. It is not the first time that the Irish Government loses a referendum. In fact it was defeated in every referendum for the past few years.

There are many factors that lead to another defeat. A lot of No voters were clearly suffering from referendum fatigue. Others are angry at this government, largely because of the spending cuts and tax increases it has implemented at the instigation of the troika, and saw the referendum as an opportunity to give it a "black eye". And there is no doubt that a small number of voters were confused by the minimalist ballot papers or campaign messaging and thought that a No on the referendum would get rid of the Seanad.

The idea of a “power grab” and the prospect of a one house legislature dominated by the executive resonated with some in a variety of ways. The recent vote on abortion legislation was often mentioned. The harsh treatment of six Fine Gael TDs who dared to defy their party leadership on a single, highly emotive vote angered a cross section of voters who saw it as bordering on the autocratic. And as the closer than expected results in rural constituencies partly suggests, the incident put hard line pro-lifers firmly in the No camp. (The Journal)

Another interesting observation was the position of each one of the parties that campaigned in this referendum. The two governing parties, the Fine Gael and Labour were for the bill, even though the Labour Party did not participate in the campaign as it was expected. Sinn Fein and the Socialist Party of Ireland also supported the bill, two parties that were usually campaigning for a NO vote in most previous referendums, notably the EU Lisbon Treaty.

The Socialist Party of Ireland campaigned in favor of the bill to "end the rule of the 1%, fight elitism and austerity." Not because they agree with "the government’s hypocrisy or general attacks on democratic rights, but because the Seanad is an undemocratic, elitist, conservative body that should be scrapped." (The Socialist Party of Ireland).

Interestingly, the party that has led Ireland in this crisis and the one that has managed to become an institution in the Irish politics, has campaigned in support of keeping the Seanad. The Fianna Fail party opposed the bill and advocated for a reform of the upper house of the parliament, instead of its abolition. Clearly this party is keen to keep the political status and system, that has supported for all these years and exploited for its own benefit.

If the Seanad was to play any decisive role in Irish politics, having a say and watching over the government, why didn't they have done so all these years? Its contributions would have been most welcome during the tragic mistakes that the Irish past governments committed. But its roles are indeed very limited to be of any significance.

It remains to be seen which will be these proposed reforms and if or when they will take place. During the debate the NO side gave no hint of what those suggested "reforms" should be, or how should the government proceed after the defeat of the referendum. There is a chance that the Seanad and the Irish political system will continue to operate as they have for so long.

This referendum was the first attempt to bring some decisive and much needed reforms in the country's political system, yet the Irish population decided that it would be too drastic to abolish something that has been part of their country's political life for so long.

The Fianna Fail victory will certainly give a much needed boost to the party's and its leader Mr. Michael Martin popularity. Perhaps that is what they wanted in the first place and why they campaigned against the abolition of the Seanad, as an opportunity to reassert themselves as a key player in the Irish politics.They have used populism and opportunities like this one many times before, to become a political establishment in Ireland.

The Lampedusa tragedy calls for a pan-European reaction.

More than 300 people are feared dead in the waters of Mediterranean, since last Thursday's tragic boat accident near the Italian island of Lampedusa. The boat that carried immigrants from the African continent seeking a better future in Europe, was capsized when all the people aboard moved to one side to avoid a fire.

The fire was set to a piece of material to try and attract the attention of passing ships, only to spread to the rest of the boat. The 20m (66ft) boat carrying some 500 people, mostly from Eritrea and Somalia, was approaching Lampedusa when it began taking on water and its motor stopped working (BBC News).

This is only the latest migrant related tragedy that takes place in Europe's territory, but surely it won't be the last one. At least not until European leaders act on the issue decisively. It is not a matter that should be dealt solely by Italy, as these migrants are leaving their countries to enter Europe for a better life, hoping to reach the more affluent regions of our continent.

Europe must act on this collectively and support the bordering nations like Malta, Italy, Spain and Greece. It is a European problem and all EU nations must come together for a solution. But they may have to take some very critical decisions to come to one.

The immigrants are coming to Europe because there is civil war, radical militant groups acting in the region resulting in instability and extreme poverty, combined with lack of opportunities and jobs. As long as there is great inequality in the world's population living standards, there will be always a migration flow from the poorer nations to the richer.

Western nations dominate culturally, financially and by trade the poorer regions of the world. When young people from these regions watch films or various product advertisements, that portray life in Europe and the West as ideal, it is impossible not to seek an opportunity to escape to these lands. Whereas they have very few opportunities in their own countries, there will be always an ever increasing number of migrants that want to enter Europe.

The problem is that often the only way to reach the "promise land" is by illegal migration that brings them to the mercy of human traffickers, who are making profit out of human misery and desperation. These people are exploiting the modern day slaves, by often charging per head to carry people across the Mediterranean in their boats.

The migrants odyssey does not end here though. Even if they do manage to reach Europe, they will again face exploitation by people who employ them to work for nothing. They will face discrimination in an ever intolerant and xenophobic continent. Women and children are particularly vulnerable. Sadly the migrants are coming to Europe, because there are people here that want their cheap labor.

Ideally if Europe really wanted to deal with the issue effectively, it should create either jobs in the countries of origins of the illegal immigrants, or agencies that will attract the right amount of migrants with the right skills. In other words Europe should set up employment agencies in Africa and other regions, once of course it manages to create a common immigration policy.

In that way immigrants will come into Europe through a legal and acceptable way, not being stacked like animals on a boat or a truck, facing an uncertain future and even death. Intense and further cooperation with transitioning nations for the immigrants to prosecute any traffickers, or clamping down on companies that employ and exploit illegal immigrants can also offer some solutions to the problem. 

But because Europe does not always have the best relations with these countries, or because of the instability in the greater region, investing to create job positions there can be difficult to achieve. Without a common immigration policy it is hard to create EU employment offices, though some steps have been taken to that direction is some countries.

Ending the instability and poverty in all regions across the globe is the obvious solution, but to achieve that Europe can not act on its own. All developed nations must be part of such effort under the coordination of the UN.

The problem here is how to achieve more harmonious and equal living standards for all people in the planet, when the very economic model that Europe and the West are pursuing, often needs global inequality in order to exploit certain regions and its people.

Political, ideological or religious clashes also play a role in preventing certain regions being lifted out of poverty. Europe is unable to allow all immigrants that seek a better future in its borders, especially now that it experiences itself an economic, political and social crisis that results in high unemployment and instability.

In many countries far right groups have gained popularity because of the inability of the mainstream political parties, to address effectively the issue of immigration and find solutions to their nation's economic woes. As long as Europe is unable to speak with one voice and convince other rich nations to join in the fight against global poverty and instability, tragedies like that of Lampedusa will become a common occurrence in the future.

What has Capitalism ever done for you?

Europe's division in its main regions is not coincidental or irrelevant from the main religions and ethnic groups that comprise our continent. There are historic and cultural explanations of why certain regions are rated better than others on economic or social grounds.

Capitalism has been our political system since it prevailed after WW2 in the half of our continent. Later with the fall of communism it expanded into the other half and that was an extremely welcomed development. But over the years Capitalism has evolved from something that everybody wanted into something that many are skeptical about.

Over the past few years and with the crisis throughout Europe exposing the weaknesses of this political and economic system, people even from former communist nations are realizing that something is not quite working in Capitalist Europe. The inequalities among the nations and the classes are great and the system needs to be revisited.

What we are experiencing right now are the consequences of the type of Capitalism that was very popular during the '80s and the Reagan-Thatcher legacy. The neo-liberal ideology on industry, way of doing business and worker's rights, that is only getting worse due to globalization and the entry into the global market and field of politics of the developing economies with their millions of consumers.

Competition between the established rich elites in the developed nations and these new economic "powers" is escalating and what we are witnessing right now, is a desperate attempt of Europe to come to terms with its past decisions and failed financial policies. Then we allowed all industries to be transferred to poorer nations with cheaper workforce, in order to increase our profits. Now these nations want a bigger say in the world affairs and a greater share on its wealth.

The elites of Europe are losing out now that China and India are rising and pose a threat to the monopoly the Western oligarchs and super rich capitalists had on people and resources all over the world. So how to compensate the loses and keep the profits coming? Scrap all social security policies and have us working for nothing in Europe. They never liked paying for them anyway. In fact there is a very intense debate going on as we speak in every political think tank or forum in Europe, on how to deal with the crisis and if our social security services are viable.

In Greece we used to have many social security benefits and rights, like Christmas bonuses, Sunday work pay and free health care if you worked continuously for a certain amount of time. Because we had strong and established unions, both in the public but also in the private sector and that is the reason that our country is targeted by the global capitalists.

Countries like Ireland on the other hand never faced such grilling by them and the media that they control, because in the private sector there is no union activity at all, they have established an absolute liberalized labor market that the capitalists love. That is why Ireland is being respected by the global media despite being also bailed out. On the contrary Greece is being brought to its knees, to destroy the unions and force compliance.

Europe is not like India or China, our culture is different. We fought hard for our rights, we should get paid whatever the law dictates. We deserve to have quality of life and to be looked after if we have a health issue that prevents us from working for some time. We are also entitled to pension, something that is now being put to question. As human beings we need to have a work -life balance, that will eventually lead to functional families having children, something that Europe needs desperately.

All social security schemes across Europe are under threat, because business groups lobby our governments to abolish them, liberalizing our labor market. If our leaders decide that they want us to be privately insured, they should raise our salaries across Europe to the same level of the richer nations. Raise the minimum wage to at least € 1200 per month and lower the taxes we are paying. Let us find our own insurance and set up our own pension schemes. We will then be able to afford it.

What happens though is that the capitalist elites want us to be private insured so they won't have to pay for it, have a low salary so we won't cost them much, plus we should be paying high taxes to cover the mistakes they do when they take risks to invest in their various money making schemes.Worker's rights are basic human rights and you can not infringe on the first without doing so for the second.

There is clearly a clash of mentalities and economic and political traditions going on in Europe and the world in general. The dominant Anglo-Saxon/American one is trying to impose itself in all Western nations and in extend the world.

Capitalism is closely related to the Protestant ethos and its idea that seeking riches and wealth is something noble. As a reaction to Catholicism that saw the accumulation of wealth as sinful, the Protestants have included wealth in their Christian traditions.

Later of course during the age of colonialism and the new discoveries, the Catholic Church embraced capitalism itself and in fact they became very good at it, when they saw all the riches and possibilities coming from the new world.

Nevertheless capitalism is deep rooted in the Protestant nations, so that is why they are so good at and so defensive of it. It is no wonder also that these nations are always rated highly by the rating agencies, that are supporting Capitalism and they are based in the the richer and most powerful Capitalist and Anglo-Saxon nation on the planet, USA.

They rate a nation or the happiness and living standards of its citizens according their economic potential and traditions, but not on their values, heritage, lifestyle and culture. And of course that creates the divide between North and South, not just in Europe but America itself. When the South European nations were the ones who were prosperous, it was the North that was considered uncivilized.

Coming from a Mediterranean country, I pride myself of the very balanced work-life status I have established that contrary to many Anglo-Saxon nations' beliefs, is not about being lazy. It is irrational and sad, that they think that the meaning of life is to work two jobs, just to be able to have a large fridge, a big car, a big house and everything that the media promote and advertise, but deprive my children of my presence at home, sacrifice a normal social life, my mental health and find happiness just in consuming things that one does not really need.

The grounds that I disagree with capitalism are not in a ideological front, but with the practicalities of it and what it does to human beings. It just turns them into mad, sad, over-consuming, unsatisfied and moaning peoples, with large doses of perfectionism and delusion. That does not agree with the mentality of everybody that comes from a different religious or ethnic background. And it is the reason why many countries are struggling to implement policies that have worked or implemented in a Protestant Anglo-Saxon nation. The comparison is simply not fair.

I have never been a radicalized Left-wing activist for the reasons that I believe that any form of radical ideology is not healthy. I accept capitalism as an economic model and in fact I prefer it from most alternatives. But it is evident to all of us that it has gone out of control, it does not longer support a viable and fair system and it needs to be reformed immediately. It has been hijacked by wealth mongering people that put above all the accumulation of more power, with no morals.

Having worked in the customer services area for over a decade in the past, I have seen what Capitalism has done to people. Their attitudes have changed and the social structures have been altered dramatically. People think they are entitled to have more or behave as they wish because they are paying. As an employee I have seen the irrationality of an employer that wants greater profit, when he actually can not provide services that would offer him that.

I have also seen the absolute irrational demands and unrealistic expectations that customers often have, but because they are paying they think that they are entitled to them. The worse part is that they believe that they can treat the employees as they please, without considering that it could be their children in the future that will have to face obnoxious and rude customers like themselves. 

Your human and worker's rights are being demeaned by yourself, just so you can practice your consumer rights. Because when you use every mean to get what you think you deserve from a company, you unwillingly weaken the position of any worker by testing his patience and his skills. In fact your rights as consumer are getting more important than your human ones and that is because you expect more value and services for less money to feed your self importance. While it is clear that this system destroys our planet and exhausts our resources.

Bankers and economists are being given bonuses for the job they do, but a worker is not entitled to them. Of course a company must make profits to exist and that is for the benefit of both the employers and the employees. But the employers never seem bothered when giving bonuses to chief executives that cost thousands of euros for doing very little, but they get hot under the collar over the salary increase of the ordinary workers.

In the past I was working in a hotel in Greece and a German customer lectured me that if I was in Germany I would not be able to be so “relaxed” at work. I told him that I have done everything I was expected to do by that time. He replied that in Germany my employer would have me cleaning over and over my position in order to keep me busy. I replied that if my employer wants to see me busy then he should make sure that he brings enough customers in the hotel to keep me busy and I would be more than happy to work hard and serve them all.

It is his job to make sure customers keep coming by using marketing and organizing special events, or offering competitive prices. It is my job to make sure the service they are getting is within certain standards. If the customers are not coming to keep me busy then it is clearly his fault as it is within his responsibility to manage the place, not mine. Unless he offers me the salary and responsibilities of a manager then I should not take the blame.

In other words when a company is not going well it is often a bad management issue, but businessmen like to blame ordinary folk and their salary or working condition demands! If they managed their company well then they would succeeded. Greed and lust for quick and easy money is the main problem and this mentality is embedded in our culture now-days. So are you still supporting this economic model, now that you have seen what it does to you?

The lessons we can learn by exploring Ireland's political traditions.

I often come across comments from other people on how can Greece, or any other country in Europe can reform and change its political system, or its political elites. It is something that it seems unthinkable, though it is desired by many.

So let us explore the political institutions and traditions of one European country, in an effort to study how political traditions are formed and how difficult is to break away from them. I am going to use the case of Ireland and its political traditions, not because I wish to expose any failures or shortcomings in it, but explain how hard it is to reform a political system that often took centuries to form.

The Irish state is relatively new. It broke away from the British Empire to form an independent state, yet it based its political traditions on the British political system. Until recently Ireland was a peripheral, conservative, landowning but peasant rural culture, with an underdeveloped industrial class.

Its post colonial nationalist Catholic Irish identity is central, with a powerful authoritarian and dominant Catholic Church. For ideological, pragmatic and cultural reasons, Britain gave areas of decision making in Ireland to societal actors, especially the Catholic Church. Until the booming years of the '90s and '00s, Ireland's culture was based on loyalty to peasant kinship ties, rather on class solidarity. It was very authoritarian, conformist and anti-intellectual.

The main driving force of Irish politics was a pervasive populism in which the local pubs and political leaders were unusually vulnerable to each other's influences. The power overall is until today very centralized, with an underdeveloped working class and a nationalist stress on the unity of conformity.

One of the main political parties in Ireland, the Fianna Fail, grew from this culture and used it for its own political ends. The Irish political party system started with a single nationalist party within the British political system, in the 19th century.

Sinn Fein represented the widespread demand for Irish political independence and during the war for independence it was strong. A civil war was fought over the terms of the Anglo-Irish Treaty with the British Government in 1921. The Treaty proposed the ending of British rule in the 26 counties, but maintaining it in the 6 counties of Ulster.

Due to the disagreement over the Treaty, Sinn Fein split. The more moderate pro-treaty nationalist leaders formed the Cumann na nGaedheal party in 1923 and ran the country until 1933, when it renamed itself to Fine Gael.

Fianna Fail, the anti-treaty nationalist party, was formed out of the group defeated in the civil war, but then accepted constitutional politics. A smaller more militant group, kept the name Sinn Fein and did not recognize the constitutionality of the 26 county Irish state, even to this day.

At the early stages of the Irish state, the Catholic Church ran many of the functions that a state normally would, like health and education. This led to subsidiarity, corporatism and a consensus society with centralized institutions, which lacked transparency and accountability.

The political system in Ireland provides since then many "veto points" where actors or interest groups have political power to veto decisions. So the state became captured of vested interests of groups, with too much veto power to stop reforms in their tracks.

This combination of highly centralized and unaccountable concentration of power, combined with strong vested interests can lead to a political culture of elite "group think." These elites reinforce what is already acceptable, while dissenting voices are marginalized and ridiculed.

The defining question for Irish parties is historically the national one, rather than class.  Irish politics derive from a culture of solidarity, cohesion and homogeneity. This culture was consciously sustained by Fianna Fail, which saw itself representing the interests of the Irish people as whole and did not want to see sections of the nation against others.

That explains the lack of political polarization in Ireland, of extreme political parties, ideologies and anything that would divide the nation in right or left wing supporters. And also it explains why the Irish people rarely protest, march or riot against their political system.

So Ireland has a passive citizenry with relative low voter turnout of 65% and low levels of political party membership. The dominance by multinational capital over the weakened trade union movement, whose base of support was more and more restricted to public sector workers, increased the power of the international capitalist class.

During 1987 and the years that followed the Fianna Fail government introduced social partnership, to bring together the employers' unions, trade unions and farmer's organizations. But soon it was clear that this kind of social partnership was giving businesses virtually anything they asked for: low corporation taxes, low capital taxes, low social insurance contributions and a virtually unregulated labor market. (David Begg, Secretary General of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, 2005)

It was soon obvious that social partnerships were not about democracy. The institutional arrangements to deepen deliberative democracy, did not work for democracy. The voice and ability of the civil society to criticize policy and lobby for social change were muted.

The community and voluntary sector became a tool of welfare provision, rather than developmental active citizenship. All the above together with the neo-liberal paradigm, has allowed elites to inflict severe damage on Irish society, with very few critical voices being raised.

Any ideology can appear to be absent in the Irish state, but Irish politics is not non-ideological. Conservative economic and social stances tend to predominate among Irish policy makers. The Irish state saw itself earlier as a subservient to the power of the Catholic Church, but now they appear to be doing so to the power of the global capital, which runs most of the economy.

The discourse in Irish politics rarely acknowledges its ideological neo-liberal content. This ideology has been hidden in the discourse about "partnership", combating "poverty" and fostering "equality." The absence of clear left-right political divide and the consensus mentality suggests a pragmatic, flexible state and bureaucracy, marked by the absence of critical debate about alternatives and dominated by a narrow range of voices.

The role of the country's media here is very important and decisive. The country's weak intellectual political tradition, the media ownership and the fact that writers, academics and critics depend on state funding, also contribute to that phenomenon. Fianna Fail was a dynamic populist party, that marred traditional "clientelistic" Irish political techniques with modern forms of manipulation of political opinion.

Its founder Eamon de Valera used the family owned Irish Press newspaper groups, to mould public opinion and discourse. In that way a dominant technocratic ideology, that is rarely challenged by other ideological perspectives was established.

The Irish civil service also plays a role in the formation of the country's political traditions, as it acts as the unelected state. In its creation, the Irish state inherited the British Westminster model of politics and the British Whitehall model of civil service and public administration. In fact the Irish civil service is still influenced by its colonial traditions.

It inherited a structure based on strict hierarchies of power and on the dominance of the Department of Finance. The civil service in Ireland has power. Only during the past two decades up to the financial crisis, power was shifted more to the political system, with ministers overriding the advice of civil servants on matter like the country's budget.

Until then, a lack of control, accountability and responsibility on the part of the Irish political class was widespread. The elected politicians allocated to the state bureaucracy and the civil service, the role of the principal initiator and designer of policy, rather the executor. The Whitehall culture let to conservative bias to policy and administration and a culture of secrecy.

Professional civil servants have much power in administration and in policy development, that it leads to incrementalism and the civil servants are using this power subtly, keeping the status quo and avoiding radical change. They are also in contact with interest groups without control, accountability and responsibility on the Irish political class.

Though a lot of important reforms took place in Ireland the past few decades, like the establishment of the Ombudsman's Office and the Data Protection Act, the country still maintains its neo-liberal political ideology that promotes the interests of the global capitalist elites.

The way that the Irish government has dealt with the current economic crisis, testifies this fact and it comes with the cooperation and involvement of the other European governing elites. And it achieved everything it wanted with very little reaction from the Irish voters.

From the Irish case we can understand how difficult is to reform a political system and I am sure that many of us, will find a lot of similarities between Ireland and our own countries. Especially when we are examining the case of countries like Greece, that has been through very similar transformations and political traditions over their very short modern history.

When your country's elites form a "national" consensus that all of us must accept in order to feel that we belong in a collective "national" culture and mentality, is it possible to break free and form our own? How easy is to criticize the current establishment and what actions can we take to push for reforms, when we are against a very old, established and well functioning political system that is influenced or controlled by global elites?

The only way is to study our nation's history with an open mind and explore the role of all actors that are, or have been involved in the past, inevitably forming our national and political conscience of today. But without a proper educational system that will allow and encourage this, or a platform that citizens can come together and discuss politics openly, this seems impossible.

If we do not change the way we think of or get involved in politics, our communities won't change. If our communities can't change, then our countries won't change either and so is Europe, or the way the whole world is shaped and develops. And that makes us accomplices of the current political reality.

The above article was written based on notes of the various publications by Dr. Mary Murphy and Prof. Peadar Kirby, that I read while studying politics as part of my journalism studies.

The meaning of the German Elections for Europe.

On the 22nd of September Europe's leading economy, will go to the polls to decide the future members of the 18th Bundestag, the main federal legislative house of Germany and its new government. The result of these elections will have an impact not just within Germany's borders, but on the whole European continent.

Since Germany's current government and its leader, Chancellor Angela Merkel are playing a major role in shaping Europe's and the euro-zone's financial policies, these elections inevitably matter for all Europe. As expected, there is going to be great media attention on the German electoral outcome, especially from countries like Greece, who are directly affected from the German inspired European financial policies.

The two main competitors of these elections are Angela Merkel with her CDU/CSU (The Christian Democratic Union of Germany) party and Mr. Peer Steinbrueck with the SPD, the Social Democratic Party of Germany. Mrs Merkel seems to maintain the lead and her popularity comes from Germany's current economic performance, but also the fact that the country and Mrs. Merkel seem to have such strong influence on Europe.

Yet Mrs. Merkel is only taking the credit for Germany's success, in reality it was the SPD and their "Agenda for 2010" that actually made Germany the European powerhouse that it is today. It was the former Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder that has passed the reforming agenda, that drastically reduced Germany's state welfare system. That coming from Social Democrat, sealed the party's fate during the next elections and gave the opportunity for CDU to come into power.

So Steinbrueck and his party have actually something to show for and swing some votes in their favor. For Greece and many other countries under the Mrs. Merkel backed austerity program, Mr Steinbrueck looks like a hopeful candidate. In a recent and only televised debate of the campaign for Sept. 22 federal elections, the two candidates sparred over the debt crisis.

Steinbrueck said that Merkel was applying austerity in “deadly doses” to southern Europe and that far more emphasis must be placed on bolstering economic growth and stemming record unemployment. Steinbrueck dismissed Merkel's European policy as a "failure" because of continued recession and sky-high unemployment in the southern euro countries that have had to swallow deep spending cuts in exchange for bailouts. (Ekathimerini.com)

But will Mr. Steinbrueck bring real change in Germany's policies towards Greece and the euro-zone crisis, or will he remain silent after his potential electoral victory, just like Mr. Hollande? The Germans seem to like Angela Merkel just as she is and the opinion polls clearly show that.

If we think about it, these elections have a very peculiar character like everything in the EU at the moment. We are having some very European elections, because of their impact and importance for the euro-zone and Europe, but nevertheless the outcome will be decided solely on a national front and only by the German people.

Whoever wins these elections will be holding the reigns of the future financial policies and direction of the euro-zone, but the rest of us can only watch while the Germans decide. This is a new reality that Europe has found itself in, that all the parameters like the launching of the euro, the European economic integration and the current crisis, have led to it.

The German people have been given a huge say and influence over the rest of Europe, either they like it or not and independently from whether that was the primary purpose of the European integration process. Understandably since Germany is the most populous country and leading economy of Europe, it is inevitable to have a strong German influence in EU.

The problem is, will the German people and their leaders take this responsibility as a chance to rule and subdue the smaller nations of Europe under their influence, or will they start thinking more European? If they will eventually come out of their shell and take the reigns of the EU, they must start taking into consideration the various national sensitivities, economic traditions and practices, or the interests of each country in order to rule Europe fairly.

If they fail to do so, it is almost certain that they will face strong resistance from other EU member states that will oppose their leadership. And that will lead to more frictions withing the block, with the potential break-up of the European project. That is in nobody's interest, especially for Germany that benefits so much from the EU and the euro.

Right now the German people vote to elect the Bundestag by taking into consideration their national interests, the satisfaction or dissatisfaction of  their outgoing government and the campaign of the contesting parties that focus on German issues and sensitivities. The German leaders in return, decide the future policies of the country according the wishes of their voters and of course the German mentality.

But when these same policies affect the rest of Europe too, then a problem arises. Germany can not be seen imposing its policies on other nations, that have not taken part in the election of the German government without a backlash, as it happened with Greece. And very rightly so, as we are dealing with the issue of losing the national sovereignty to another country and that is not how Europe should function.

If we are trying to create a more integrated and united Europe, it is all countries that must give up part of their sovereignty and that includes Germany. If the Germans ever decide to take on the role of Europe's leader, then they must integrate themselves fully in Europe and the rest of the EU member states.

And that means that the German leaders must also take into account and familiarize themselves with the problems or sensitivities that other countries have, or the exclusive economic and political factors that exist in every country. So when they decide on future European policies they will do so not by their experience on what works or has worked in Germany in the past, but what would be good for the whole Europe collectively.

Right now they clumsily are trying to "unify" Europe in the same way they did for Germany's re-unification. But it is obvious that what worked for the German nation, can not work for a mosaic of different nations that comprise the EU, simply because of the diversity of European economies, mentalities, cultures and the political and historic factors that have shaped them.

I can only wish as a European and a Greek for the German voters to take into their consideration what is good for Europe in general, not what it only appeals to them. It is clear that Angela Merkel's policies are damaging the European project, by creating divisions and fractures within the EU and the public opinion of its member states. Sadly the reality is that neither the German voters, or any other nation in our continent, are ready or willing to change their political mentality and traditions. And that is bad for Europe.

José Mújica – a labour president as one should be.

It is undeniable that what Europe lacks at this moment is an inspiring leadership, a true leader that will focus on the necessary reforms that are needed for his country. The crisis that our continent is currently going through, is not just an economic but also social, political, cultural and moral.

In Greece we have a saying, that "the fish stinks from its head." And that is a very good reflection of today's Greek and European political reality. Our politicians and their governments are rife with corruption, serving the interests of the global elites and the capitalist system. They bother little with the welfare of the ordinary citizens and they have lost any contact or reality with their needs.

In fact they are intoxicated with power and wealth, thinking of themselves as oligarchs. In a real democracy though, the politicians are appointed by the people and should be answerable to them. What really happens in Europe is that our politicians think that they know better and that they can ignore the concerns of their citizens.

One would think that will all their education, skills and background, because the European leadership is undoubtedly educated, that they would automatically attain people's and leadership skills. Unfortunately that is not the case. Because no matter how much you know about economics or politics, if you are unable to engage with the people who trust you with their votes, or you are unable to communicate your plans effectively preferring to ignore the public opinion, then unfortunately you are not a good leader.

Europe's misfortune is that it has too many professional politicians, that practice career politics and they will do anything to stay in power for too long. Anything but gaining the public's confidence that is. They prefer to engage with the big players in their country and with the international business and political elites, that will eventually support their political career inevitably prolonging it.

So what kind of politician is perhaps needed in Europe? For the first time the Eblana Blog will publish an article written by a friend, a Spanish Socialist living in Ireland, Mr. Álvaro Perez Escudero. He has found inspiration by the President of the small South American state of Uruguay, Mr. José Mújica.

Mr. Mújica has made himself heard in the last two to three years writes Alvaro, because of his unconventional kind of diplomacy and the citizen oriented politics that he's practicing, since he occupied his presidential position.

He was born on the 20th of May 1935 in Montevideo, the capital of Uruguay and he's a descendant of
Basques that immigrated in the country during 1840. Pepe as he is nicknamed, received a basic school
education in the city quarter he was born and later started his law studies, which he never finished.

He instead became an active member of the Tupamaros National Liberation Movement, an
extremely left urban guerrilla group, since the beginning of the '60s. In 1972, he was taken hostage together
with other Tupamaros, by the then dictatorial government and kept in prison, continuously
threatened to be executed should his people ever reinitialize armed actions.

When democracy returned in 1985 and an amnesty law was introduced, he was released and
dedicated his time to active politics. He formed in 1989 the Movement of Popular Participation, which
is a strong part of the coalition “Frente Amplio” (Broad Front- the Uruguayan left-wing coalition), one of the strongest Uruguayan parties.

Five years later he was elected as a deputy of Montevideo, then as a senator and ten years later his M.P.P. party received the highest number of votes ever. He was assigned by the then President of Uruguay as Minister of Livestock, Agriculture and Fisheries in March 2005. This position made him very popular because of his ability to communicate open-heartedly with the ordinary people. Many others criticised him because of his "lack of professionalism."

Three years later he returned to the senate, announcing that shortly after he would run for president in the next elections. In June 2009, he was elected as the only candidate coming from the Frente Amplio and five months later, after the second election that the Uruguayan electoral system requires, he finally won with 52% of the votes. On his presidential oath swearing ceremony were present among others, Hillary Clinton, the Argentinian president Cristina Fernández, her husband Néstor Kirchner, the Ecuadorian president Rafael Correa, and Hugo Chávez.

Pepe and his wife Lucía Topolansky, also a senator herself, have renounced the presidential
residence, preferring to continue living on their farm in a north-west region of the metropolitan area
of Montevideo. They work there as horticulturists for the past decades, under quite frugal conditions.

But his legacy and inspirational politics is not his struggle to become Uruguay's President, but his actual work and political ethos. He has been described as "the world's 'poorest' president", as he donates around 90 percent of his $12,000 monthly salary to charities to benefit poor people and small entrepreneurs.

One of them is “Juntos” (Spanish for Together), a housing project to provide poor families with appropriate accommodation. How many European leaders can you name that have actually done such thing? Their salaries are much higher than that of the Uruguayan President's, yet not only they do not donate part of it for charity, but they proceed with austerity policies for the citizens they are supposed to serve. Without of course taking a substantial salary cut themselves.

In June 2012, Pepe's government decided to legalize and regulate the sale of marijuana. This move brought him a lot of international criticism, but also plaudits from the British magazine Monocle . In September 2012, abortion is decriminalized and in April 2013, same-sex marriage legislation is approved in the country. For a small Latin American country all the above consist a great achievement, that many countries in Europe are still struggling to produce.

If we want to reform Europe and create a better, fairer and equal united continent, we should leave aside the ultra-liberal yet conservative "Thatcherite" legacy that our leaders are promoting behind. What we need is inspiring leaders that will get on with the job, pushing for necessary reforms that will promote better living standards for all Europe's citizens and by all means, lead by example.

The problem is that the European ruling elite has a different, industrial and capitalist background. They are spoiled and used to the amount of wealth and power that they have accumulated. They have concluded their studies in the best American or European Universities, in which they have mastered the art of public opinion manipulation.

Their goal is not to serve the citizens but the capitalist system itself and preserve it at all costs. Perhaps the only hope or solution for Europe is to try and find politicians with less academic education, but with passion and love for their country, its people and the whole continent.

Written by Christos Mouzeviris and  Álvaro Perez Escudero. Edited by Christos Mouzeviris.

Reforming the United Nations.

The recent Syria crisis has once again outlined a very important problem, that hinders any quick political or humanitarian response to any crisis in a country in need. The issue is the inability of the United Nations Security Council of reaching to a quick agreement, on how to deal with a problem and take action fast.

We witnessed during this crisis how the Security Council was split and two of its members opposing the rest of the nations initial proposed response. And how can this be avoided since the United Nations and especially the Security Council, are reflecting and representing an era that will soon belong to the past.

The current formation of the Security Council was established right after WW2 and it includes the main players that came out as winners of the great war. It represents the then great powers, the two main sides of the Cold War. If we insist in keeping the U.N. and its Security Council formation as it is, then the organization does not longer represent the current political reality and all the changes that our world is going through.

There are 15 members of the Security Council. This includes five veto-wielding permanent members that are China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States.There are also 10 non-permanent members, with five elected each year to serve two-year terms. This basic structure is set out in Chapter V of the UN Charter. The current non-permanent members are Argentina, Australia, Azerbaijan, Guatemala, Luxembourg, Morocco, Pakistan, Rwanda, South Korea, and Togo. (Wikipedia)

What we immediately observe is that the 10 countries that are also members of the Security Council are small and they do not represent the BRICS countries, the developing and rising economic powers of the world. Countries like Luxembourg, Guatemala, Azerbaijan, Rwanda and Togo are small to make any difference to the Council decisions and others like Australia are very close to Britain.

The very existence of the Security Council is controversial, as it establishes elite nations with more say in the global affairs. The right of a veto is given only to the five permanent members of the Security Council and no other member state.

If any countries should join permanently the Council, these should be the BRICS countries. Brazil, India and South Africa perhaps even Japan, Germany and Indonesia should join as permanent members, so that the U.N. will reflect the new political reality of our planet. A more globalized world, with more emerging blocks and countries that deserve more say in global affairs.

Such new reality not only will reflect the real status of our planet, but it would end the monopoly and hegemony of the powers that ruled our world since WW2. Their squabbles during the Cold War, resulted to a lot of inequality and troubles in many parts of our planet.

The UN currently as it is acts more of block that promotes the old status quo of the planet. It does not represent all regions equally and is rather a organization that either has limited authority, or its authority can be ignored by the global powers if it does not suit them. A typical example of this situation is America, that has repeatedly ignored the UN's decision and enacted wars that did not have the organization's approval.

An option would be to scrap the Security Council altogether and give an equal say in all countries that are UN members. But such thing would mean unanimity in any decision would be almost impossible. So since we need to have a body within the UN that would regulate the organization, the Council's existence is  non-negotiable. But not its formation, responsibilities and functions.

Apart from the proposed expansion of the Council, another solution would be the rotation of its membership. There would be no permanent member and even the USA, Russia and China would have to lose their permanent seats for a period of time. In that way their influence over the UN and the world will be weakened.

Another scenario is for the European members such as France and Britain, to lose their seats in the Council, replacing them with just one. That of an EU representation, allowing Europe to speak with one voice in the world. Britain and France will retain their representations in the UN, but not in its Council. That of course can only be achieved, if Europe ever forms a common foreign policy.

We need to reform the UN if we like to see any real progress, but also equality in the world. America and the rest of the great powers of the past, should stop acting as the policeman in the world and have an absolute say on what is happening in it. The decisions of the organization should be respected by all and implemented fast.

For that to happen we need to give more powers and authority to the UN, limiting the influence of USA and the Security Council, or diversifying its membership and its roles. The organization should become more active and fast acting. And even the location of its headquarters should be reconsidered, if America decides to ignore the UN's ruling ever again. Perhaps a new proposed location would be away from the old powers and in one of the rising countries like Brazil or India. 

We need to promote a more politically and economically diversified world, that will not continue the old traditional divisions between East and West, North and South. And for that to be achieved we need to embrace the rise of new powers in our planet, giving them a stronger voice to counterpart the established ones. It is within the interests of all of us to end the hegemony of the winners of WW2, creating a more equal planet for everybody.