Energy Issues of Europe.

Could the European nations find new ways to explore alternative sources of energy? Becoming in that way energy efficient,independent from oil or gas exporting nations and of course "greener".

So far they are encouraged by EU or their own governments to do so, on a national level mostly.

There are very few inter-national efforts and those apply mainly in oil or gas imports. Can we start building alternative energy production units from renewable or "green" resources collectively?

Europe has such a variety of climates and diverse natural habitats. We have strong streams and winds at the north and western part of our continent, hot sun and wind in the south. We could start exploiting solar, wind and sea current energy in the Mediterranean  EU states, both existing and future.  While exploit wind and sea currents in the North Western states.

Why could we not work together, a number of states sharing the expenses of exploration and building new kind of power-plants. Why spend money engaging in wars, to keep the flow of oil and gas from third party countries? Or putting so much effort in political involvement in countries that the oil or gas pass through to reach Europe.



Of course the companies that have invested so much in these activities and have huge interests in these regions, won't approve such thing. And it is clear that renewable energy probably cover all Europe's needs in energy. But we definitely can replace a percentage and reduce not only our CO2 emissions, but a costly trade with producer countries too.

A number of EU nations could co-operate, co-finance or co-build a source of alternative energy provider together, belonging to all of them and perhaps to the whole of Europe. Sharing expertise, knowledge and resources can lead to greater results.

The EU could create a common fund for exploration and development in all countries, accessed by all countries. We have CAP and CFP, how about a CEP (Common Energy Policy)? We shall all profit, benefit from and share this power generated and shall contribute to become independent and energy efficient. One of the purposes of EU is to make European nations cooperate and work together,so we can achieve our goals. Why not in energy issues as well?

As long as we are relying on others too much for our energy we will always be at their mercy. Countries like Nigeria, Iraq, the Middle East will always suffer and be undeveloped so the rest of the World can find cheap oil. Transit states like Ukraine and the Caucasus will also always be unstable.


We could put an end to all this or we could limit its effects, by producing a part of our energy needs from natural resources and renewable energy. Stop investing in efforts to get more cheap oil from poor and devastated nations. In that way we create a new market and a new source of exploration and exploitation.

And with them new jobs and industries, new kind of growth changing Europe's economy drastically. The future of Europe can be greener. But the benefits of such changes, won't just help our pockets and the way we heat our homes. They could also help European integration, by encouraging the creation of many trans-European projects and economic activities.

Europe and Islam.

There are simmering tensions growing in Europe, between its native Christian population and the immigrant Muslim one. Traveling throughout Europe,  I came in contact with local people that expressed their thoughts and feelings about their country's Muslim minorities, that in many cases were not positive.

Coming from Greece, a country that associates Islam mainly with Turkey and the Ottoman Empire, it sounded natural. The opinions of course I was getting in their majority were coming mostly from a more populist aspect, that of the unemployed European who must compete with non natives for the same jobs and welfare.

The root of the issue is hardly religious. Europe is a secular continent and the times that  the Europeans and Muslims were fighting to prove the superiority of their God are gone. Different countries have different problems with the Muslim communities.

In Greece any rise of it's Muslim population is seen as a threat, since our largest neighbor is Turkey with 71 million population. Many even believe that the rise of immigration of people from Muslim countries into Greece, is a Turkish policy to weaken the Greek-Orthodox nature of our country, thus "Islamizing" Greece.

It happened when we were under Ottoman rule. The Ottomans were using forced Muslim immigration into the northern Greek region of Macedonia to weaken the Christian and Greek element, thus making their grip more firm onto the region. So any rise of the immigrant Muslim population, especially through Turkey, reminds to the Greeks those times.

Other countries of Europe have a different approach to the issue, depending their own past relations with Islamic countries. Some of them used to be colonial powers and their view of Islam differ. Racism of course is ever present in our societies and contributes to the problem. As varied is the European public opinion on immigration from Islamic countries, it is of course the relation of the Muslim immigrants for Europe and their adopted countries.

Muslim immigrants do not come from one single nation. They are from various countries, each with its own distinctive culture, heritage and religious beliefs. Some are closer to European values, some far from them. It is not fair to treat them all in the same way.

Most Europeans fear the loss of their ethnic identity, culture and way of life from the huge influx of non European immigrants. That results to the rejection of any different culture and the rise of nationalism. The fact that we are in war in the Middle East with some Muslim nations and the role of our media do not help. These two facts contribute to the rising fear of people of Islamic background.


Could this rising "threat" be manufactured? In the past we had the constant threat of the Communists and their regimes but now that they are gone, do we need another bogey-man to threaten us? I was never threatened by Iraq for example before 9/11, or the Afghan militia and didn't even heard of their will to destroy all Western nations.

All of a sudden Muslims in Europe are being targeted and  there is a mistrust created between the two communities. But if we do have problems with Islam, then why don't we curve immigration from Islamic countries and encourage immigration from Latin America that already have European culture and the Christian faith?

In the past Christians and Pagans were also arguing and fighting on European soil. The result was the creation of Christianity as we know it today, created by the Roman Emperor Constantine. Christian and Pagan beliefs were mixed to create a new version of Christianity with pagan elements, and the total control of the psyche and way of thinking of the Europeans begun. Will the new infighting lead to the unification of the two religions and the creation of a new one?

I have to admit though, us Europeans are a hypocrite breed. In Switzerland they allow Muslims in their land, but they do not want to see the minarets anymore. They do not mind a Turk serving them in a restaurant, but it is the minaret that reminds them of the spread of Islam in Switzerland. And in France and Britain, the two countries that boasted to the rest of us about their tolerance and multicultural societies, we now see their policies fail.

Personally I do not agree with the radical branches of Islam. It is unacceptable to give a citizenship and nationality to someone who rejects the secular laws and constitution of the state that she or he wants to live in. If you reject that, how can you demand acceptance from the others? If you adopt a new country, you adopt also the laws of it.


And if a cartoonist or Dutch politician have personal issues with Islam and create cartoons or films against it, why does this have to become a thorn between the two communities? We have freedom of speech in Europe. There is a secular Muslim country called Turkey, so I would like to see a European version of Islam. You can be European and you can be Muslim. The first does not forbid the second one.

But definitely you can not be European if your ideas about religion, homosexuality and women are set in a radical Islamic mentality. We in Europe fought hard to get rid of that Catholic and Orthodox Church control and manipulation of our lives. We have liberated our women, accepted homosexuals as equals, we are not going backwards!Either we are dealing with radical Catholicism, any other Christian sect, or radical Islam our attitude should be one; rejection.


We allow Muslims to come here but with no real interest in integrating them. We need fairer and reformed immigration policies and work on our relations with the Muslim world. In the past it was the Arabs that kept ancient Greek scripts and studied them, developing Maths and Algebra. Not the Europeans that were living in the Middle Ages and the control of the Christian Church.

Hopefully in the future we will have lots to learn from them again, and themselves from us.

Turkey in EU?

There is a lot of heated debate whenever we discuss Turkey's entry in the EU. What are the real issues behind Europe's reluctance in allowing Turkey to join?

Islam and it's large population are two of the obvious reasons, Greece and the Cyprus issue, but also the lack of freedom of the press, minority issues and the very powerful military elite of the country are also serious issues.

I myself consider Turkey a European nation. For centuries Greeks, Romans and other European nations roamed the region that today is called Turkey and Turkey's flirt with Europe started since the days of the Ottoman Empire. Culturally they are very close to us Greeks, since our ancestors belonged in the Byzantine and Ottoman empires, living side by side with what today is the Turkish population for centuries.

Islam as a religion is not an issue for most Europeans, since we are more and more an agnostic breed of people. Besides Turkey is a secular country and extremist Islamic movements are not as present as in other Muslim countries.

The real problem that Europeans have with Turkey's EU membership related to Islam, is the growing Muslim population in Europe. Many Europeans fear that Turkey's EU entry will bring more Muslim immigrants into their countries and will contribute to a radical change in Europe's demographics. So that in the future the European population will see its native Christian population shrink. And with it, the European values, culture and way of thinking.

But Turkey has already a lot of these European values and way of thinking. It is not fare to categorize every Muslim country the same, as they are all so different from each other. Besides, from what we have seen so far from the case of  states like Poland, Romania and Bulgaria, immigration from these countries was not always as large or permanent as feared.

Many migrated for some years to western European states to work and make a lump-some, before returning back to their countries. Turkey's economy is doing rather well, better than many other EU Candidate Member States. Will the Turks flood Europe en mass once they join? Surely we will see more immigrants from Anatolia for a while, but if we curve immigration from other Muslim states, it can be balanced.

The full support of USA and the UK for Turkey's entry in EU is a thing that makes me a skeptic though. If the Americans and the British want it so badly, it can't be that good for the rest of Europe. They emphasize on what a great asset Turkey will be for our economies and the European Market. But does this translate as something necessarily good for the ordinary citizens?

The European Project should be something more than a huge Market and an economic experiment. Can Turkey offer solutions to European integration, do they have anything new to offer apart from what the Americans are advising us for?

Another issue of course the shift of power within EU. Why is Britain so keen for Turkey to join, while the Germans and the French are not? Turkey has a huge population and growing. If they join the voting power will shift. Especially if the Turks form with the Brits a similar Axis like that of the Franco-Germans, the EU could be transformed in what the British and Americans desire it to be.

Just a free trade market, not a political or a military union. I guess that is why Germany and France are not so keen and I do not believe that the Islam is the main issue, rather a secondary one. And I totally understand Germany's and France's fears and reluctance.

The only positive argument I find here, is the Turkish workforce that we may need. They are young, educated, numerous and hard working. I would much prefer to have immigrants from Turkey, a secular Muslim state, than Pakistan or Afghanistan in my country.

A major thorn in Turkey's EU accession is of course the attitude of the Turkish elite towards Greece, Cyprus and other Balkan states. Sadly there can be no favorable solution for them on the Cyprus issue, if they continue with their current policies. If they want accession, they will have to recognize the Republic and allow the Greek and Turkish Cypriot sides in reaching a compromise themselves. It should be the EU actually that must get more involved and play its role in reaching an agreement between the two sides.

As for Greece, Turkey's entry in the EU can be most favorable. Both nations suffer from having to invest heavily in their military budget in order to "protect" from each other. Two allied NATO nations that must protect from each other, how odd is that? But once Turkey joins, a war between them will be unthinkable, just as it is for Germany and France. Their economies will be so entwined and people will once again be able to move freely across the borders.

The Greeks will be able to resettle in cities like Istanbul and Izmir and the Turks in Crete and Thessaloniki, beginning a new era in the two countries' relationship. For sure they won't pose a threat to each other anymore, something that NATO membership has failed to achieve.

But can Europe "digest" Turkey? While they have a growing and promising economy, the western tip of the country is as European as the rest of the Balkans, but the eastern tip is way behind the rest of the country. In large parts it is controlled by separatist groups in the Kurdish region. It will take ages to bring the two sides of the country in the same level.

With the current economic crisis Europe has so many other things to work on, so Turkey is left out in the cold. Many predict that the Turks might get fed up and turn their back to Europe and that they will try to form alliances in the Middle East. Well I doubt if they are gonna turn to Iran, if they want to stay allies with America. They have neighbors like Armenia Georgia and Syria, nations not as friendly to them.

And the Middle East as a region is fragmented as well between pro and anti American sides. Could Turkey gain their trust and manage to unite them all? Especially since the Arabs do not have the best view of the Turks, and the Turks do not see themselves as Arabs. There is also the Kurdish problem. A challenging task indeed.

The "bridge between East and West" argument translates to me in "Oil Pipes from Caucasus" and their control. Turkey has a great strategic location. Europe needs oil. We are desperate to secure more sources of it and perhaps be less dependent in countries like Russia that have a hold on us, or any other less stable states from the Middle East and Africa. But can Turkey offer us that?

Wouldn't it be more preferable, instead of playing such dangerous geopolitical games in the region, to invest in a greener, energy efficient European economy?If we want to find a solution to our energy needs, perhaps meddling in the Middle East and its nations' affairs, is not the way forward. And so perhaps that is not the reason that Turkey should join the EU.

Of course major reforms must take place in the Turkish society before they can join. Their military elite must be weakened and overall they must become less authoritarian and more trusting towards their neighbors and Europe. The reforms that the EU has asked for must continue, especially those considering the freedom of press and certain minorities. They really need a minor social revolution, in order to change some issues that Europe is skeptical about, in their own time and gradually.

Overall I think this saga will continue for decades to come and loads of things can change during this time. Even Turkey. I hope they join one day, but not for the Markets or the oil that they have to offer Europe. If they join to be committed to Europe and the vision of an independent, prosperous, stable and federal continent, with common strategies and policies in the military and financial spheres, then they got my vote. Good Luck!

Future Governance of Europe. Nations, Feudals or a Federation?

Our leaders have gathered in Brussels to discuss, or rather argue on how to handle the current crisis. They rarely agree on anything and never take our opinion into consideration on whatever they agree in their summits in Brussels, even though it directly affects us.

The truth is that even though they want to keep the E.U. as a single Market and a place to trade, they do not really want to hand over the reigns of their countries into a new political union that is emerging in Europe.

The problem in our continent today is that we do not know what we want to do with it. We do not know how to manage our resources, how to cooperate with each other and how to work collectively.

And if we take into account the political reality in every nation, that is each dominated by a rich established elite, then it is clear to see that Europe is being ruled by elitism. Both on European and national level.

But that is not much different from the times that our nations were ruled by oligarchs or feudal lords. The difference is that today they are not land owners that govern us, rather rich bankers, businessmen, technocrats and marketers. It is not land they are offering for our hard work, but goods and services.

Our elites' interests are not necessarily our nations' interests. In a globalized world, the nation state is generally an outdated idea for those who thrive from the global market. And some of them have accumulated so much wealth, that are able to influence national governments, or even threaten their very existence. Yet through media manipulation, they are persuading us that what is generally good for them is the "good of the country." 

In the globalized economy, a free and independent state can not really exist unless it becomes another Cuba. Once you enter the Markets and become an open economy, there are certain rules you must abide with, in order to keep receiving credit. Thus your "independence" is relative.
 
Another factor that influences European politics, is that our continent today still bears the marks that WW2 has left behind. Our political, social and economic models were established on the aftermath of the war and our collective ideology and culture have also their roots there. Our political elites were established around the same time and reflect the ideology and politics of that era.

Global players influence and dominate now the policies that small nations follow, or large multinational organizations like the EU are promoting. That is what our political and economic capitalist system is dictating,a free open market and an overall neo-liberal agenda.

And to achieve that, this system has established in every country that wants to be part of it, a political and economic elite that is coming together, cooperating with the elites of other nations. The only thing though they agree on is that they have to preserve this system. Who is going to receive the Lion's share is what dominates European and global politics.

In Greece like in many other countries, we have two or three main political parties dominating and ruling the country. Political dynasties that have been established after the great post war shake up, that are somehow still relevant in our political and social psyche. But for how much longer?

The squabbles of many countries in Europe today, still reflect the overall attitude that one nation had for the other during or after the war. This political reality is very damaging for our future and for any effort to progress and reform.

The E.U. was created as an initiative of one group of European leaders and thinkers, during the '50s. They envisioned a Europe that would never see another war again. Today the European governments have long left this track and are focusing in making our continent a great market, but for the benefit of their "national" interests. They generally lack any collective vision for the continent. Each country represents simply it's own interests.

Many great motto exist like "United in diversity", "Europe for the people", to add prestige to the "European project." But you only have to wait until a crisis or an EU Summit to see the lack of unity or any consideration for the interests of the ordinary citizens of Europe.

The main power that rules the E.U. still lie with our national governments, plus the strong industrial and financial lobbies of our continent that they represent and serve. The Euro-Parliament has not the authority or jurisdiction to make the EU fully democratic and federal. These powers are being passed to the unelected by us EU Commission, or the EU Council that is all our governments put together.

In fact what EU is right now, a fine mess of the combined effort of all our governments, to control, shape, and influence the policies that apply to all of us in Europe. There are strong business lobbies in EU and in our countries individually, whose interests are placed above the common good of the people. Our leaders are often placing their personal aspirations above Europe's common future as well.



The funny thing is that the same people who despise EU and call it undemocratic, are the same ones who do not want to see it democratic, by proceeding to some kind of federation. When we try to implement reforms that will push with its democratization as an institution and make it transparent to its citizens, they protest in fear of losing their national interests. In many cases their actions simply mask theirs or some rich individuals' personal interests.


What do you want your country to be? A small feudal state that is controlled by rich European or national oligarchs, or to belong to a federal Union of nations that can decide on their affairs united, be more powerful and less susceptible to manipulation? Both from inside and outside of your nation's borders.

It is decision time for us as citizens, but also for our leaders and leading elites. Our actions will influence the future of our continent and our future generations, so we've got to be responsible.I am afraid that we have no other alternatives, in a globalized world.

State Owned, or Privately Owned?

One of the greatest dilemmas in our societies and one of the main friction points between the main political ideologies, is the ownership of the public services. Should they be state owned, or must everything be liberalized and owned privately?

Until recently in most European countries, the main services were public. Telecommunications, health, education, pension schemes. The last few decades we see a surge in privatizations, everywhere in our continent. Is this the right way to move forward?

The public in general are very skeptical about liberalizations. Yet if you think about it, we are all customers of many private companies of telecommunications, one sector that has been deregulated widely in most of Europe. Most of us have subscribed with cheaper than the State owned services and companies, so why are we still complaining? 

Some do not have telephone landlines anymore, rather we receive our phone services through a modem of the digital TV and internet. There is a variety of companies offering a variety of services and different prices and budget bundles, so we have a lot to chose from. In other words deregulation is not necessarily something bad, but something that we all use and profit out of it.

Let us not be hypocrites, we all shop around and find the best quotes and sign up to the best offer. But perhaps it is when we have to deal with its side effects, like the loss of jobs in the public sector or their relocation out of our country, that we protest about it.

In Europe most of us have embraced capitalism and its free market, but can we do anything to protect ourselves from the negative effects of liberalization, while still reaping its benefits? 

If we privatize everything, then what will we be paying our governments for and what will be their responsibilities towards us if we can't hold them responsible for anything? They will provide us with very little if anything. And since many companies merge and buy each other off, if one big multinational corporation buys a whole sector, it can end up owning the whole health system for example of one country.

Small countries are particularly vulnerable here, since they have small public sectors and for a large multinational company is so easy to buy it off. But that will mean that gradually small nations may lose their independence and sovereignty not to another nation, but to a large corporation. Some believe that without a state intervention, they will be "freer!"

If we take the above in consideration, then we certainly free ourselves from the "evil" of state government but we throw ourselves at the mercy of rich private owners! To me that is going backwards to a new kind of feudalism that is not linked to land ownership rather to goods, services and commodities.

And as large corporations care little for anything if there is no profit to be made out of it, what will they do once they have full control of one sector? If one private this time company is owning a whole sector, aren't we going back to square one, where we had to deal with the monopoly of the state companies?

In other words we will need to place strong and effective rules to stop this from happening and protect the markets of the small nations, from being monopolized by large multinationals.

But can we liberalize everything and where do we draw the line? Some services and goods are a human right so why give it to the hands of a few, when if nothing else they should be free and available to all? Take water and sanitation services, education, pensions or social security for example.

If the state decided that it does not want to provide me with a pension, then it should not be taxing me as much and raise my salary. If I have a higher salary, then I can seek out a private pension scheme. Many claim that in the future the state will not be able, or should not provide its citizens with social protection and pensions.

We all must realize this and seek out a private pension scheme for security and better services, that the private sector is rumored to offer when compared with any public company. But even these private schemes are not safe. They can also go bust and all the money that you paid all those years, can just end up in the pockets of some devious folk that gambled with it or invested it badly.

The health,welfare and education of your people is the best investment you can make as a statesman. A healthy and educated population is an asset for the future, as it is productive and it attracts more  investments.

If you allow private companies to provide such basic rights to your people, then your nation is dependent on the interests of these providers and only the rich can get the best treatments or education. This of course will create an unchangeable, unequal society of those who can afford better health and those who will have to compromise to disease, because they can not afford it.

Privately owned education is still an issue and the status of its degrees or diplomas are not equally recognized as the state run universities in many countries. So while one spends a lot of money to attain a degree, he or she can have trouble in finding a job that will offer the same salary expectations with someone that holds a degree from a state run university.

And if the privately owned educational institution goes bust in the future, there are no guarantees that your degree will still be of any value in the business world.

Also what if at an old age you are informed that the life insurance company that you had a contract with, was bought off by another or went bust. Your money do not worth anything anymore and you must agree into another pension scheme or receive nothing at all. Can there be any guarantees that you are going to get a pension, even with a private insurance?


If we have a look to the U.K. when they liberalized their postal services, we will see that private companies are interested only in what is profitable. They are keen to provide service to large towns and cities and mainly packets and parcels that bring more profit. They are not really interested in postcards or letters addressed to small villages or isolated regions of the country.

They have to wait a disproportionate amount of time to receive these kind of services and in fact in those regions, the state owned mail services kept their market.

Rail way prices are extremely high in the U.K. and there is a fine mess with parking regulations, since each company tries to fine as many people as they can to raise more revenue. The traffic wards are pushed to stick to a quota of fines to make the business profitable. I do not think that this can be considered as "better service" rather an unjust money making business for some, while it should be in place to make sure that citizens abide by traffic laws.

We are being transformed into manic consumers, while we are being convinced that our "freedom" is our ability to keep buying and seek out new deals and budget services. It is another thing to try and provide better "services" and another thing to try and fleece people off their money in any way you can.


Even worse this economic system that we have adopted is expanding to new markets. Countries like India, Brazil and China are joining and adapting fast. So we in Europe not only are being fleeced of our money but our jobs as well, since the capitalists want always cheaper workforce and we with our higher living standards and demands, have deprived them from it.


To conclude deregulation in certain sectors has led to a booming of new technologies and industries the past few decades. In telecommunications, transportation and other former state owned sectors, privatizations were hugely beneficial. In some other sectors like the postal services the transition was not very successful and was handled badly in many countries.

But privatization can not be used as panacea for all sectors, especially those affecting the social structure of a society. Not that we should approve a "nanny" state that provides all and creates dependency, condemning certain social groups to chronic idleness. The state should encourage innovation and allow privately owned companies to blossom, but it should give equal importance to SMEs and local businesses as well, not just multinationals.


State intervention is needed, together with a free market so that each can control and influence the other. We do need some state laws to "regulate the deregulation,"or we ourselves will end up being treated as commodities in the end.

It ain't anything new.Relations between Europe and Turkey.

At the zenith of Ottoman power, no Christian state could match it. In the sixteenth century, the French came to the Porte as supplicants and Elizabeth I was so desperate for an alliance that she told Sultan Murad III that Islam and Protestantism were kindred faiths.

In 1623 a French political theorist placed the “great Turke” above all the rulers of Christendom, second in power only to the Pope. Defeat at the gates of Vienna in 1683 is often taken as the moment when the rot set in, but in fact the empire performed respectably against its enemies for much of the eighteenth century as well.

Only during and after the Napoleonic wars did the balance of power unambiguously against it, which was why successive sultans devoted so much energy to centralizing the state and modernizing its institutions. The main challenge they faced came from Christendom’s successor, Europe.

 Initially the empire lay outside the so-called Concert of Great Powers. But in the Treaty of Paris which concluded the Crimean War in 1856 it was recognized for the first time as forming part of the “Public Law and System of Europe”, a curious phrase that implied its entry into a broader civilization. Europe stood for a set of values and the Ottoman empire was being asked to sign up to these much as the European Union has recently required its successor to do.

Another article of the 1856 treaty spelled out the price of membership, the sultan declaring his intention to improve the condition of his subjects “without distinction of Religion or Race” and to make manifest his “generous intentions towards the Christian population of his Empire”.

As this odd combination of commitments suggests,“Europe” stood for a strange mixture of ideas-freedom of worship and equal treatment for all, on the one hand, and special solicitude for Christians on the other; respect for state sovereignty, and at the same time, concern for the rights of the individual.

With time, other ideas bubbled out of Europe as well- the rights of individual nations to independence, as manifested in the rise of Italy, France and Germany; the expansion of free trade and the notion of an autonomous market; the redefinition of religion as a matter of private individual conscience. Into the Ottoman lands poured Europeans of all nationalities- businessmen and investors, soldiers and relief workers, reporters and government advisers.

Salonica changed faster and more dramatically than ever before: as the nineteenth century progressed, it became simultaneously more “European” and more “Oriental”, more closely integrated in the empire, and more threatened by nationalist rivalries, more conscious of itself as a city and yet more bitterly divided. But all these paradoxes and apparent contradictions were nothing more than the manifestation of forces evident in the empire as a whole, an empire transforming itself in the shadow of Europe.


from the book: "Salonica, city of Ghosts". By Mark Mazower.

EU blue cards and Immigration in Europe.

I think it's about time EU and all it's members should take action against illegal immigration. Old EU members are struggling with immigration and probably soon the new ones will start having the same problems too.Immigration is a sensitive issue to many and people usually falsely accuse EU for the rise of immigrants in their countries.

We need to control who is going in and out and how many we can integrate, depending on each country's culture, economy and mentality.Not all countries have the same capacities to accept or integrate the same numbers of immigrants.Some European economies at the moment are hard hit by the financial turmoil and when unemployment soars, it is unwise to encourage immigrants to enter the country.

Immigration will never stop among humans. It has always existed and it is within our nature to look for a better life. Most greatest cultures in the world have been created by constant mixing and interacting with neighboring tribes. So to think that one can stop immigration completely is simply silly. But immigration can be disastrous for a nation if left unchecked and we have may examples in history to prove that.


The solution could be closer if we promote the EU Blue Cards scheme. Other regions of the world like Canada, Australia and America attract educated and skilled immigrants, while we are left with the non-skilled immigrants in Europe. Europe attracts just 5% of the skilled migrant workforce, while the USA for example about 50% of it.

These countries curb the immigration flow when they have not enough potential immigrants of a high level of education or skills and that is why their immigration policies work, while Europe's fail. Their economies are more competitive and growing, but ours are limping. Illegals and low skilled immigrants do not contribute much into our society,as they hardly get any jobs and many live off our welfare system.

They are mainly useful  to the companies that employ them for pitiful wages and make huge profit by exploiting them creating inequality in Europe. And when these companies move to China we are left with thousands of unskilled immigrants that do not want to go back or move to any other country, simply because our welfare system is too generous. But we can not afford it anymore.

We need to educate and integrate the immigrants we already have, help them get a job and start contributing to the local economy and society. If we introduce the Blue Cards system, we can control who comes,who goes,where he goes and attract how many we need,of what skill and which country needs them.We should have a common immigration policy in EU.



The EU Blue Cards system in my opinion, will provide Europe the chance to allow the right amount, of the right skills workers to enter the European market. Making it more competitive like Canada's or America's.

Establishing EU embassies abroad could also help. Immigrants won't chose to risk the illegal way to enter Europe, rather visit these employment centers and enter Europe legally. They apply, they are sent to the country that needs them, according their skills and education.

Companies that employ illegal immigrants should be fined. Illegal immigration, is actually promoting the exploitation and violation of human dignity and should be stopped. People smugglers and human traffickers are providing with human "stock," companies that want cheap labor. I am using the term "stock," because having humans cramped like sheep in a boat or a truck in the year of 2010, is disgraceful.


Due to Europe's messy immigration policies, many Europeans are starting feeling uncomfortable with their immigrant population, and we see a rise of the Far Right movement all over Europe. I will remind you, it took a deep financial depression, an immigration problem and a fundamentalist to create World War Two, and now we have two of the above.

It is not racist to control your immigration policies, it is wise. In this way you make sure the immigrants are integrated into your society and not being seen as "freeloaders" when they receive social welfare, you make sure there are jobs for the majority of the population both native and immigrant. Thus you do not create divisions in the society between the two communities.


Europe's policies are just creating second class citizens and do not help the integration of immigrants, as we see in countries like France or the UK. These countries always boasted for their openness and ability to integrate their immigrants, but they failed. We need a new approach, update our immigration policies and make them fair to everyone.

Multiculturalism; how's it faring in Europe?

Multiculturalism in modern Europe seems to be the norm, but sometimes is misunderstood. It does not just about having foreign workers doing the jobs the natives do not want to do anymore. It is something that should add to the community and the country, not only it's economy.


We all know that immigrants in general "do the jobs that the natives do not want to do", thus contributing to the local economy, by being hard working. Having foreign workers gives a country an advantage in attracting multinationals' investment. It means that any company will be always able to find cheap workforce in the country and people that will be willing to work for less.

Comparing the impact of immigration in the two countries I am most familiar with, some observations are very clear. In Ireland the mix of immigrants and foreign workers is not just from poor or non-Western countries. We have immigrants and students from all over Europe both east and west, the USA, Canada,Australia,New Zealand, Japan etc.

Partly because the English language and the links to USA and the UK, the proximity to the main European markets and their low corporate tax system, Ireland attracts many multinationals. Thus people from all over the world, that have made a positive impact in the Irish society. Ireland from one of the most conservative nations in Europe, transformed and continues to be transforming fast to become one of the most dynamic. The majority of immigrants in Ireland are also legal.

We see quite the opposite in Greece, that has about one and a half million legal immigrants, but is claimed that there are as much as 3 times that number of illegals in the country. Due to its position on the borders of EU and the Schengen area, it is the entrance to Europe and EU for many illegal immigrants.

They contribute nothing to a host nation, not economically, or socially. Their goal is not to stay in Greece, but to move on to richer nations of Europe. Another difference between Ireland and Greece is that the vast majority of immigrants in Greece are from non Western countries, from poorer regions of Europe and the World.

The immigrants from western Europe are usually pensioners that are not as active socially and politically and contribute little to the local economy as they pay little taxes to the state. So in Greece the new-comers in their majority are from less progressive nations and although they contribute to the economy of the country hugely, socially they have  little or even sometimes negative impact.

It is not their fault, rather the Greek government's incompetence to create a fair and constructive immigration policy. But also the EU's, for its failure to create a pan-European immigration policy. So in Ireland they have a mixture of western and non Western immigrants, that contribute both economically and socially in the country.

The Irish coming in contact with French, Spaniards, Dutch, Scandinavians, Germans, Americans, Australians and other more progressive nations, have caught up with them in many social issues, they are open minded now and more progressive.

The Greeks on the other hand, not only they haven't had such an injection of fresh new ideas and brain power from more advanced nations, but due the huge numbers of immigrants, they are becoming more xenophobic and closed up as a society.

Greece only now is revisiting it's immigration policy, in the worse period it could happen. Since it's economy is in tatters, people are angry and stressed about their future To give more rights to foreigners and encourage immigration to a country that is sinking is simply mad. These kind of changes usually happen when the economy thrives.

Multiculturalism is not just having foreigners to work for us, or to see many people of different colors, religions and backgrounds walking among us in our streets. It should also mean an active citizenship, exchange of new, fresh ideas between the communities. So the host nation will not just benefit from it's immigrant population hard work and economically.

The nation could also benefit from multiculturalism with the exchange and interaction with it's new citizens culturally and socially, enriching their everyday lives and mentality. That of course requires a successful, functioning and reasonable immigration policy.

Immigrants should not be muted and deprived of their political or social rights, rather encouraged to have an active citizenship and be politically active in their adopted country. Any nation that will listen to their voices and fresh ideas on social issues, could gain an advantage. And not by just giving them a voice, but from also keep them active, avoiding their victimization, forcing them into a life on the social welfare.

Mr. Juncker's Revelations on the Greek Crisis.

Mr. Jean-Claude Juncker, Luxembrourg's PM,  made a famous comment on the Greek crisis: ''The Europeans were aware for years of the mismanagement of funds in Greece. But it was in their interest to perpetuate this situation, because of the waste of money through Greece, other European countries benefited from huge amounts of unnecessary buying and selling."

Indeed, it was so obvious the situation that the country was being driven by corruption and political kickbacks from foreign countries, that they were quick to warn an unnamed Greek prime minister about the situation. Only to take the disarming response from him: "What do you expect? We are a corrupt country!''
The ridiculous in this case is not what Juncker said, but what reactions caused by what he said.

For those who heard the news for the first time, of what really happened in the country and how Greece owes so much money, the revelations of Mr. Juncker left them with an open mouth. For those who knew what Juncker said and were trying desperately to break it to the general public, what left them with an open mouth were the reactions of those who did not know.

This is because after the''revelations'' of Mr. Juncker, the Greek media and the citizens instead of addressing or understanding  the substance of the statements,  went on an incredible "witch hunt" to identify who was the Prime Minister that said ''we are a corrupt country.''

In the words of Juncker, lies a great truth. What was happening in recent years in the Greek political scene was totally coordinated (if not directed) by the leading EU countries, France and Germany.  All the debt of Greece, is not only due to the "corrupt" Greeks but also to the cunning European partners.

Normally statements like these, would gather all Greek political forces against the European cunning. The statements of Juncker, exposed the plot which was taking place in the past years, promoted and controlled by foreign European governments, but clearly accepted by  the Greek government.

Therefore one would expect that all Greek political parties would mobilize, to push for a sharing of the debt of the Greek state, but also the responsibility of the excessive amount of debt. Instead the political parties once again are trying to mislead public opinion.

Each party tries to win voters by different statements instead, completely ignoring how we can win as a country, if properly exploiting the  statements of Juncker. The restructuring of the debt with all those countries involved to the creation of it, should be the main concern of the whole political powers of our country right now.

This gives us the opportunity to demand, based on the revelations of Mr. Juncker, from the EU to adjust its policy towards the debt of Greece. And stubbornly insist that the debt was not only due to our mismanagement, but also due to the interests  of other countries. Then maybe we can achieve something substantial.

We can also start turning the opinion of other European nations and their leaders, underlining that Greece is not the wasteful and naughty child of the European family that simply squandered his fortune. But the child, that some others led to this disastrous plan.

The responsibility lies with all those countries, that for all those years were wasting Greek funds and the Greek politicians that were earning huge amounts from illegal and fraudulent transactions.

 source: http://omoios.blogspot.com/2010/10/blog-post_13.html
Translated from Greek by Christos Mouzeviris.  

Thessaloniki. My vision for the city.

Thessaloniki is strategically located in the northern Greek region of Macedonia, around the gulf of Thermaicos. During it's long history it has always been the capital, or the second most important city of any state it belonged. Until now, it is one of the most important cities not only in Greece, but in the whole Balkans. Although in my opinion it could do so much more, in pan-European level.

Thessaloniki is located near the resorts of Chalkidiki, with some of the nicest beaches in Greece.Yet they remain undiscovered and undeveloped even in some regions. It is also near many Ski resorts in Greece especially the natural ski platform of Falakro Mountain near the borders with Bulgaria, so it offers opportunities for tourism both in summer and in winter.It is not by chance that it was in Thessaloniki that EU leaders gathered in a summit to discuss the future and possible EU membership of the western Balkans.

Thessaloniki has two universities, one international film festival where many international stars appear each year and the alternative gay film festival. An opera house where artists like Pavarotti and Ian Gillan of Deep Purple gave concerts with Thessaloniki's Municipal Orchestra. The T.I.F. (Δ.Ε.Θ.) Thessaloniki International Fair, where companies and businessmen gather form all over the world to trade every year, plus a Casino and hotels like Hyatt Regency and Kepinski .

The British Council, the Goethe Institute and the French Institute are already settled in town,with thousands of students each year promoting English, German and French language and culture to it's youth. Most young Thessalonians are multilingual, speaking at least one other language than their own.

There's also a Zoo, many hospitals and especially the Trans-Balkan Medical Center, the largest hospital in all the Balkans and a European research institute CEDEFOP. But most importantly the city's  port.

The port of Thessaloniki was used during the Yugoslavian war from EU and NATO troops to send staff and equipment to Yugoslavia, and is still used by KFOR troops to this day. It is one of the most important ports in the Balkans, and the second after Pireus in Greece.

The future holds a more strategic role for the city, since the oil pipe coming from Turkey and feeding Europe will pass north of the city. Thessaloniki is close to the Middle East, Turkey, the Balkans, the Black sea and eastern Mediterranean and as Greece is a European country, it could play major role in the future that could benefit both Greece and Europe.


Thessaloniki was always a melting pot with Jews, Armenians, Turks, Slavs, Romans together with other Europeans inhabiting the city together with the Greeks. During the two World wars there were even convents of catholic French nuns in the city, giving the name of some of the streets like Frangon Street and regions of the city like Depot, where the French had their camps and military store houses during the wars. Hence the name Depot, from the French term.

Thus Thessaloniki has all that it takes to create a strong European community, with students from all over Europe going to study there. But also European companies and businesses that want access to the Balkan and Middle Eastern markets can settle there, without having to risk the instability of the other regions. Even a European army could be based in Thessaloniki once it is created, and have control of European borders from the East.

The western part of the city which is rather undeveloped could be the base of all those new companies and new developments. A new larger international airport could make Thessaloniki a major transition city in the Balkans. The existing airport of Thessaloniki is also a military one and once the new airport is opened, it should be reversed into being a Greek and European military airport. Becoming in that way a place of military importance for Europe.

Thessaloniki is also the capital of Gastronomy in Greece, with rich cooking traditions and loads of influences from all the people that passed from the city during the centuries. Restaurants, Cafes, Buildings, Churches, Patisseries ,Boulangeries, Delicatessen from all over Europe could be established there in a newly built region of the city, since Thessaloniki has loads of space for further expansion and development, in contrast to Athens.

So the Thessalonians and all the visitors will have the chance to "taste" Europe, in one of the most southern cities of the continent. It will create a cosmopolitan vibrant city. I think Greece needs other Europeans to enter Greece and push positive reforms in the country and development. A new way of thinking, more progressive and "open" attitude.

Many reforms must be made to achieve this goal and above all continue with the transformation of the city. Finish the Metro system for example and the sub-marine highway that will link the two sides of the town, reducing traffic in the City center. Together with other infrastructure developments, it will take a lot of time, money and effort. But in the end, I think it will worth it.