Turkey is playing games in the Mediterranean.

With the current economic crisis and the main focus of the European media and politicians on the Euro crisis and Greece, few are noticing what is going on in the South Eastern Mediterranean region.

The Republic of Cyprus and Israel are proceeding with their plans to exploit the huge reserve of natural gas found in the region, but Turkey is interfering with military presence, threats and displays of power.

The gas resources are clearly on Cypriot and Israeli waters, so Turkey should not have any objections to the exploitation by those two countries. Cyprus is a sovereign  nation, an E.U. state and has every right to make deals and cooperate with other countries to attract investments for the betterment of its economy. 


TheTurkish Deputy Prime Minister, Mr. Bulent Arinc said on Euronews recently, "Turkey has interests in the region." All nations are very protective of them in their neighboring regions, so fair enough that Turkey is promoting theirs.What is very annoying is their pretense on the Cyprus dispute, blaming Greece and Cyprus for the current status quo in the region. Clearly when they openly try to meddle with Cypriot affairs, then they should be able to take some of the blame.




What it would be great one day to see, if Turkey, Cyprus, Greece and perhaps other Balkan and Middle Eastern countries cooperated in developing their resources. We could achieve so much if we did and stopped getting in the way of each others progress, or efforts for development and prosperity. 

Turkey should allow Greece and Cyprus to exploit their natural resources, if not assist them and perhaps even be part of the efforts. Because stable and rich neighbors, mean less problems for you and perhaps more opportunities for trade and development for yourself. By constantly being a bully in the region, you are only contributing to its instability and that can not be good for anyone in it.


Recently they are not just get into trouble with Israel, because of Cyprus and the Palestinian issue last year. They are also in the bad books of Russia who apparently is sending a fleet in the region, to protect their interests in Cyprus, over the Turkish ones. But also of America's, as t is an American company that will do the drilling in Cypriot waters and of course Europe, as Cyprus is an EU member state. 

They have even threatened to stop all negotiations with EU for the second half of 2012, because Cyprus holds the EU Presidency. Honestly what's the point in it and how can this make Turkey more appealing to Europe?


Perhaps Turkey after decades of waiting to join the European club, is losing interest and is promoting its own interests in the Middle Eastern region. By forging alliances and pushing their own political and military muscle, they are trying to become a major player in the regional and global political scene. Sometimes though overconfidence can be bad. If they lose the support of Europe, Israel and the USA they are getting exposed to major threats.

The Kurdish problem is still a reality and not all of their neighbors are friendly to them. They must remember that the European politicians are bound in a way by the European public opinion. If the public opinion is against Turkish EU membership, then they can not ignore their voters. So how all their recent actions are helping their image to the European populace? 


With their last few allies on European soil (Albania, FYROM and Kosovo) set to join EU and enter under European influence at some point in the future, to whom will they turn, Russia, Armenia, or Georgia? They are not that friendly to them and the Arab nations are not particularly so fond of them either. Their only secure ally in the region is Azerbaijan. 

But why must Turkey always remain a problem in the doorstep for Europe, that must be resolved or dealt with? They could be a stable and reliable partner that poses no threat to any of EU states, eventually perhaps becoming an EU state themselves.

Why have barriers when voting for the EP?

During the last European Parliament elections in 2009 I tried to practice my democratic right and vote. But I found out the last minute that I could not.

Because while I registered myself on the electoral register in Ireland, I did not do so with the Dublin City Council's records.

I thought that being registered as a voter, would entitled me to vote both for the local and European elections that took place the same day in Ireland.

When I arrived in the poling station, they told me that I could not vote for the European elections, only for the local ones. Because I had not filled out a form declaring that I would not vote again in another country.

It is required to register in both lists, in order to vote. Once to put your name on the voters' registry of the country and a second one, to declare that you are only going to vote once during the European elections. You will have to repeat the second procedure in every European election in order to vote.

I thought that I could not vote because I had to vote for Greek MEPs only and that I was not allowed to vote for Irish ones. It seemed to me like a joke the whole thing, because I've been living in Ireland for so long and knew more about Irish political reality than the Greek one. Besides, it is what happens in Ireland that affects me directly, not in Greece.

When I contacted the responsible authorities in Brussels to complain about it, I received an e-mail from the Ombudsman saying that these kind of regulations are put in place, to prevent people voting in one country then going to vote in another country again.

So let's say that I voted over here in Ireland, then took the plane all the way down to Greece and voted again, thus placing two MEPs in the European Parliament (EP) to represent me. It doesn't sound right! I understand of course that such regulations most likely apply to people that live in neighboring countries, like Belgium and Holland.

We generally have a very low turn out in the European elections during the last past few years, so it is unlikely that anyone will make the effort in voting twice. People are simply either not interested, nor convinced that it will make any difference.

In some countries the turn out has been as low as between 20-30 % of the eligible voters. Instead of trying our best to bring people to the poles and increase their interest for the elections, we are placing more red tape and restrictions.

Why put so much legislation into these elections, while it should be as easy as the national ones. Just register and you can vote. We could harmonize our voters' records and once you move in another country and register there to vote, your records could be moved with you in your new country of residence.

Of course there are other things that Europe and EU must solve first than linking their electoral records, to re-enact the interest of the voters for the EP elections.

Better and fairer media coverage of news coming out from Brussels for example. Citizens rarely see any broadcasting or updates directly from the EP, while usually they receive bad news about new EU regulations coming from there.

But at least we could make it easier for citizens that live in another EU country to vote, but are caught up and confused in all the paper work and typicality. When voting for the EP, I do so for the betterment of Europe and to promote my interests according my everyday reality in the country that I live.

Generally we should re-engage the EU citizens' interests for the European Elections, by perhaps reassuring them that there is a real benefit. It is in their interests to have a functioning EP, that it is working for them and it promoting their interests.

Also we could educate our youth during the last year at school and before becoming full citizens, about their rights as voters in national and European elections. Everything I have learned so far, I did so by doing hours of research, contacting the authorities, being hours on line searching different EU portals on issues like this.

The information I gathered was because of my own initiative, while it should be more accessible to our young people via our educational systems.

What type of multicultural model for Europe?

Europe now-days seems indeed like a middle aged lady, that looks for an identity, a way to move forward and reinvent itself. There are plenty of debates of how to form a European federation, conscience and populace, or how to integrate the various ethnic groups that live in our continent. 

During those debates we hear many different opinions that come from different lobbies or interest groups, all with different vision or agenda about the future of Europe. 

Some political or social groups dream a different model of society, that in their opinion would make our world better. The most liberal of these groups support that we should not focus so much on our national heritage and identity, but we should all become citizens of the world.

History as it is being taught in our schools is one of the things they would love to change, as they are against in cultivating any nationalistic sentiments. That of course is a very radical point of view, because history if is taught the right way, can teach us a lot of our past mistakes and how to avoid repeating them. When we are mature enough we could learn from it and move on to the future with knowledge, not ignorance.

They also promote a new kind of citizenship for the world, a multicultural model that must be safeguarded and promoted in all corners of the Earth. States must be comprised by as many ethnic groups as possible, of all religions, races, and cultures. In other words what we already observe in Europe and other regions. Holding a passport and being a citizen of a country now-days, does not mean that you are ethnically German, Irish, Danish or Greek, rather that you are citizen of this country. 

And rightly so,when you live in a country for so many years pay taxes and contribute, you are a citizen of this country. In fact you become a citizen of this country the very moment you get a job there and start paying taxes. But then why in our passports they still use the term "nationality?"


To me nationality is your ethnic background, something that you are born with and never changes. Citizenship is referring to the state you live in and have your rights, totally different meaning. Being a non national, but a citizen of a country should not mean that you have less rights than the citizens of the predominant ethnic group of the state. But can we be as mature in Europe, or do we still need to feel that our countries are representing an ethnicity as well? 

The nation state was the most wanted model for Europe in the past and most countries tried to integrate and absorb all ethnic minorities. They tried to create a homogenous nation state, promoting one language, consciousness, religion and tradition. Now Europe went to the other "extreme" and our leading elites are trying to create quite the opposite.


Though I agree with the second position, I disagree with their methods. They follow the recipe that to them was apparently successful in USA, by creating a melting pot. The freedom of speech, the democratic right to express freely your opinion, becomes a right to believe any religion and any version of history or culture you want. In the end you end up with people with no ethnic heritage, though with various ethnic backgrounds. But why do we have to assimilate all people or cultures into one?

If they want to make nations to come together and create a successful multicultural society, they must proceed and encourage the opposite. Promote each others' heritage, culture and history onto all other nations, so we can get to know each other better and come closer. The continuous cultural exchange will eventually bind us all together, by creating a culture with elements from all ethnic groups.

Instead they are inspired and follow the American model with all its faults, since America is not the best example of a successful society. They are trying to "Americanize" us all, with the dominant capitalist multicultural "Anglosaxon" culture being promoted upon us all. 

If they want us though to accept such thing, we need to be part of it and see people from Greece for example, the Greek language, culture and heritage, being promoted all over Europe. And vise versa, cultures from all over the continent promoted within Greece. 

In Europe we are already in an "integration mode" and this is the best way to proceed with the integration process, by keeping our culture and heritage as well. Otherwise people will probably reject such new culture as something foreign, if they do not see parts of their own cultural elements in this new European or global culture. 

The world is far more interesting place because it has so many different races, languages, ethnic groups, religions and cultures. Just like biodiversity to biology, the variety of human cultures enriches this planet, even though sometimes it causes problems. We got to understand that the problems arise from the other, darker side of the human nature that is called greed and power mongering. 


Some global elites, in their frustration to control the planet by making everybody feel connected and think the same, are promoting globalization and multiculturalism. In Europe and most of the Western world, this process is particularly obvious. We listen to American music, watch American movies, TV programs, reality television. 

Why would it be wrong to have a more diverse model of this new cultural and political ideology? It is called "multiculturalism" after all, so where is the diversity in it? Even the EU's motto is "United in Diversity". We do not have any French music hits lately, any Italian actors, Czech directors, Greek painters, Estonian movies, Polish designers, Romanian fashion designers or Finnish celebrities.


Instead we get TV shows like the "A country" has Talent, cooking and singing contests or competitions in all countries and languages. The same program but in different language. Nothing to promote intercultural dialogue, our national or European culture and heritage. Rather turn Europeans into Americans and model the future European population after the American one. 

Erasing the rich cultural background of Europe or other regions of the world is not the way forward. We need to preserve it, promote it and be proud of it. Encourage multilingualism and people to discover and experience as many European cultures they can, by the establishment of music festivals and other art oriented events, by traveling, appropriate TV programs and a different education system in our schools.


Only then multiculturalism will succeed, when we are all feeling that we are part of it and contribute something to it. When we are proud of this new cultural project and not feel threatened by the loss of our own heritage. Right now, the "Americanization" of Europe has only bad effects. It is time to redesign our societies and Europe should not be adopting just one, capitalist, Western and consumerist culture. 

Being different is nice and dialogue is good. Being proud of who you are and where you are coming from is an advantage. Respecting and understanding other people's culture is a virtue. Adopting a new way of life and enriching your heritage with so many others is what created human civilization so far. Trying to control it or create one single superior global culture, led to fascism and authoritarian empires in the past.

Did you know about EURES, and the Single Market?

This is the video of mine, that will be shown in the EU Single Market Forum which I will attend. The forum will take place in Krakow, Poland in October. It is organized by the Polish EU Presidency, the European Parliament and the EU Commission. Hopefully will write about it and you will find it informative . Enjoy it.

http://youtu.be/fLSmhUzzNvc

You may find out more about EURES here:  http://ec.europa.eu/eures/home.jsp?lang=en

You may also find the declaration of the Single Market Forum in Krakow here: http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/top_layer/docs/simfo-declaration-op-conclusions_en.pdf

A rogue statelet of Europe, ridicules the whole continent.

It has been 20 years since the independence of FYROM, or the "Macedonian" state and the occasion has been celebrated throughout the country. But with an on-going dispute between the country and Greece about its name and Bulgaria about its language, this country seems to be followed by problems but supported by the powerful.

At their national celebrations on their independence day, they gathered around the statue of Alexander the Great, "cleverly" named as "The warrior on a horse" to avoid challenging Greece, wearing ancient Macedonian soldier uniforms for the men and high priestesses for the women.

The statue of Alexander the Great cost millions of euros to build, in a country that unemployment and poverty are ravaging the people. Instead of trying to create jobs, work on their EU accession commitments and solve their issues with their neighboring countries of Greece and Bulgaria, never mind the inter community differences, they prefer wasting money on a propaganda. They are trying desperately to create some sense of an ethnic coherence and historic continuation, by stealing other nations' heritage.

And not just from Greece but from Bulgaria as well, since building a statue of Alexander the Great was not enough, they have now one of the Bulgarian Czar Samuel, also claimed to be "Macedonian." They were parading in their main squares with flags that include the Greek and Bulgarian parts of the European region of Macedonia, yet they refuse to admit that they have any territorial interest in these regions.

They were also using Greek symbols like the Sun of Vergina as their own again, never mind the fact that the crowds that gathered in those national day celebrations were shouting anti-Greek slogans. And Greece's European partners are still interested in admitting this country in EU.

This country is ruled by the megalomaniac lunatic Mr Gruevski, who rules the country in no different way that Gadaffi ruled Libya, or Kim Jong-Il rules North Korea. He and his government are trying to convince both their nationals and the global community that the real threat comes from Greece, when they are the ones who are lying to their people and deprive them of any prosperity and a chance to enter the European community.

They have created a rogue state in Europe, preaching a false history and modern reality to their nationals, while keep attacking Greece with propaganda in any international event, media, organization, forum or gathering they can find. Their expatriate communities are also taking part in all this, especially those from Australia, Canada and the USA.

When in a recent exhibition in Britain, British historians admitted the Greek heritage and history of Ancient Macedonia, Europeans are still ignorant about it and support the idea that Greece should give its position up and allow this state to enter the European family. And the only purpose of this is so that a number of hardcore federalists, can fulfill their new map of a United Europe with all states being in it.

Macedonia should be a region of Europe, not a country or a nation. There is no Macedonian language, these people speak a Bulgarian dialect and here comes their dispute with Bulgaria itself. My mother is a native Greek Macedonian, that are indigenous to the region. There are Greek Macedonians, Slavic Macedonians and Albanian Macedonians in modern Macedonia, a region of Europe that is comprised by many ethnic groups, so none should be monopolizing its name.

The heritage though of the ancient Kingdom of Macedon remains with Greece,as is the heritage of all ancient regions that the Greeks once lived like Sicily, their colonies in Asia Minor and throughout the Mediterranean and the Black Sea. And that is non negotiable.

Unfortunately such obvious solution is not promoted to the European citizens because of the vested interests of certain groups and the role of the media. Countries like Turkey, the Netherlands, USA and the UK who have heavily invested in FYROM, support their cause in order to make money out of their trade with their country.

Turkey especially is very active in the region, to promote and safeguard its interests in the Southern Balkans. An enemy of my enemy is my friend and so the Turks are very involved in FYROM, as well as in Albania and other countries in the region with Muslim populations. The reasons are of course very obvious. 

Like Kosovo, FYROM is supported by these foreign investors and the international community. These new nations of Europe could not support themselves after their secession from the former Yugoslavia. But the corrupt Gruevski administration uses these money for propaganda and not to better their citizens' living conditions.

As if it is more important to prove to themselves and the World that they are the descendants of Alexander the Great, rather becoming a rich and prosperous country. That makes them an ideal EU candidate state naturally.

Democracy then and now....

Democracy in Ancient Greece, its cradle, was a right and privilege but not only for the elected few or the rich and famous! Every free man that was eligible to be a citizen of Athens could and should take part in the political life of his country; the "koina". Any free citizen could participate as equal if he wished, in this direct form of democracy. It was not the representative type of democracy as most of us are used to now days, rather a more Swiss style democracy.


The first democracies in the World though, were not without faults: the position of women and the slaves, but also the numerous rules on who could be eligible to be called a citizen, thus be able to practice his rights and participate, made valid points for criticism in ancient and modern times. Nevertheless, what the ancient Greeks managed to do, is to offer humanity new political systems other than kingdoms, empires and the laws of most nomadic peoples of the ancient times. It is not by chance that many of the basic political terms in our everyday vocabulary are borrowed from the ancient Greeks: monarchy, aristocracy, tyranny, oligarchy and democracy.


The architects of the first democracies of the modern era, post-revolutionary France and the United States, claimed a line of descent from classical Greek demokratia - 'government of the people by the people for the people', as Abraham Lincoln put it. But at this point it is crucial that we keep in mind the differences between our and the Greeks' systems of democracy - three key differences in particular: of scale, of participation and of eligibility.  (taken by the BBC History website, http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/greeks/greekdemocracy_01.shtml)

We will now focus on differences and comparison between Democracy during the ancient times and how it evolved in the recent years. Today Capitalism prevails and the Markets and the Banks can dictate nations. Money is the only thing worth fighting for and making a profit is the only reason for progress. Nations can be rated by private agencies, and their population can be forced to accept their wishes through their Governments, dictating the future of those nations for generations to come. Our media are controlled by the rich few of this World and they are shaping our perceptions, while they are influencing our beliefs, our needs, the way we think and see this World. This is the freedom of speech that our media are so proud of.

So in our modern times your freedom is the freedom to buy and get rich, to consume, the freedom to be part of the system. You can use of course your democratic right to buy with credit that you can not possibly repay and put yourself in heavy debt, so that you achieve this freedom to consume. You may use to democratic right to vote for your favorite act in the X-Factor or any other reality TV nonsense that they want you to watch. You may use your votes to decide which celebrity you want to watch being kicked out of  similar rubbish shows and you may use your voice to grasp the 15 minute fame they promised you. You are free to believe what they want you to believe, as long as you do not question how the system works. 


You are free to feel special, demand and know your rights: as a consumer. Everyone out there is there to serve you and you may use your democratic rights to get the "customer service" you deserve. Be pleased that you can spend and consume, because that is what is going to bring you happiness. If any employee in a company that you may go to fulfill your democratic need to be served and pampered, does not satisfy your freedom to do so, you may again use your democratic right to complain and make his/her life more miserable, even lose his job!

Again democracy and freedom is something that we can give to an unfortunate nation that can not experience it, let's say Iraq and Afghanistan, with an invasion and bombings. It is our democratic right and obligation to give those people the freedom they so desperately need, either they want it or not. If they do not, they simply do not know it...yet! Since when democracy can be imposed with weapons, is something I can not fathom. And all that so that we can create new markets, new free people and nations that will use their democratic right to consume, thus supporting the Capitalist system and making some people very, very rich!

That is what Capitalism has done to us, with the Western mistaken idea of "freedom" and "democracy." Instead of being an active citizen and be part of the governance of your country, they just turned you into a manic consumer. Instead of having an opinion on how your country or the society you live in should deal with the arising challenges, they want you to have an opinion on each celebrity and their moronic lifestyle. And no wonder; they are the best advertisement for the lifestyle they want you to have, they are the ambassadors of this new Western version of "democracy" and "freedom".

Instead of getting involved in the political life of your country, you are being part of every reality TV show, in order to become another celebrity; and of course avail the lifestyle that is forced upon you with thousands of advertisements bombarding you everywhere from a young age. So who represents you in the Parliament then and what is your relationship with your "representatives?" How can you check their work and actions, on what criteria you vote for them, and how much our Governments really represent us? Well if you can question all the above and even ponder on them, then you have just made the first step in releasing the true Democrat in you!

Well done!

National politicians vs European ones.

If we would like to give European politics legitimacy and the approval of the European citizens, we will have to increase their interest and support for their MEPs and the European Parliament. Right now as things stand, Europeans turn to their national or local politicians for their problems and they see the EP as something distant.

And who can blame them, since they rarely see them or their work, what they are discussing in the EP, what they do and how they represent them.

Can the Europeans trust their MEPs since they do hear from them directly, regularly on their national television in any TV program, news and chat shows? The EP politicians are not as accessible as the national or local politicians. National politicians can be met in our streets, they can accept visits in their offices.

They have traditional relations with the local population, while EP politicians are based and working in Brussels and their voters usually vote for them because of their political party alliance. They come in contact with them only through their electoral campaign, once every five years.

A favorite or popular journalist for example has more chances to be supported and trusted in his work for the national Parliament. Because people can read his views or opinions through his work over the years, they get to know him/her and they inevitably trust him.

They consider him/her as their voice to the Parliament. Contrary to that, when our main political parties chose to nominate someone to represent them in the EP, they usually chose someone not as known or popular. They use the top and well known politicians for their seats in the national Government.

Perhaps it is time the EP politicians or other EU officials to show their work and faces more often to their voters and the public. With interviews on national media, participation in debates in political chat shows, live showing of a plenary session of the EP. Perhaps even touring or visiting institutions in each state.

There are already many links or sites on Facebook or Twitter that you can contact some of them. But how many of you even know who your elected MEP is? I have searched and found some of them and I have to say they are more keen in replying to your queries, than your Government politicians.

I think the EP politicians should become as accessible as the national elected representatives of each country. And for sure we need to send people in the EP that will inspire the public to follow them. Start building the same trusting relationship between the public and the MEPs, that exists (or at least existed before the crisis), between them and their national Government's officials.

If we want a fully functional and democratic EP and EU, we need the support, interest and involvement of the civilians. How can we achieve this when the public have no faces to connect with the laws that come out of the EP?

The new generation is far more knowledgeable and involved, simply because they use the internet more and can access or contact MEPs through that. And that is very heartening. But how about the older generations?

We need changes as soon as possible in Europe, and as long as we leave the over 40's generations still apathetic to the EU politics and institutions, it will take a long time to see real reforms in Europe. It is time for the MEPs to get out of the EP and reach for the voters more often!

Eurobonds..Nein, danke !!

At last, with the crisis in Europe and the Euro-zone reaching a critical turning point, two of Europe's leaders Mr. Sarkozy and Mrs. Merkel decided to do something about it. But why just the two of them took such important decisions and some long delayed ones too?

I do not understand any hesitance on the issue of finding a common solution on our common problems: we have a common market and currency, it is only natural that we need common financial policies to make the Euro-zone work.

Until now, we had 17 members states using the Euro, but 17 different economic policies and economies, that meant that each country could borrow independently from the Markets. That led of course to a fine mess.

After so many talks, there have been calls to bring in the Euro-bonds and bound all Euro-zone member states tighter. But Germany is "kicking" and I do not understand their attitude. You see it is quite simple: you either go all the way with the project that you so much supported, or you keep having booms and busts of the "peripheral" economies and you will have to keep bailing them out.

They just want their cake and eat it. They want the independence to manage their own affairs, the first say in the Euro-zone and other countries to follow their lead. It does not work like that in the hearts and minds of the voters of the other states though.

Since you have created the common currency and you insist on keeping it to the expense of the ordinary citizens, then you need to cope on and do what must be done: bring on the Euro-bonds, proceed to a fully integrated European economy and yes take a cut in your AAA rating. The "peripheral" economies' ratings were reduced to junk status for the survival of the euro, it is the least you can do from your part.

And speaking about "peripheral" economies, doesn't this sound a bit like those states and their citizens are just of a second class? In fact they are becoming more and more like the outer unimportant regions of a rich core of European countries. And they expect the EU to succeed and progress?

Why do you want to keep bailing out Greece instead of allowing to prosper, progress and become as wealthy as Germany? Yes the rich nations will lose some of their wealth but the whole Continent will gain in stability.

The Europe I am dreaming of has equal opportunities for prosperity, stability, employment and progress from Iceland to Ukraine, Portugal to Cyprus and Norway to Malta. All states will be equal and will have opportunities to develop and exploit their natural resources for the betterment of their people first, but for the whole Continent in extend. Both eastern and western states, or southern and northern. We had enough divisions in Europe!

Mr Sarkozy and Mrs Merkel, by rejecting the Euro-bonds and not taking this much needed step to solve once and for all the problems within the Euro-zone, they have just acted irresponsibly and prolonged the suffering of the ordinary people of Europe. Both of the troubled economies like Greece and Ireland, but of course their own citizens as well.

Because while the Greeks are suffering vicious austerity cuts for a loan that they should not have been forced to take in the first place, the Germans are also seeing their taxes being given away for the greed and incompetence of their politicians.

Instead of investing in European countries, creating jobs and allowing those nations in need to become more industrialized like their richer counterparts, they think it is better to put them literally on social welfare. Because that is what they are doing.

Greece and Ireland will be always receiving help from the richer states unless we create a stable and sustainable European economy. Begin with the creation of the Euro-bonds and perhaps even European rating agencies. It is time for us to take control of our economies and work together in solving the faults, or just abandon the whole project of the Euro.

Yes to the euro, but only if our leaders commit fully to it and stop brushing the rubbish under the carpet. Allow a European economy to exist. We are half way there, so what is the problem?

A common immigration policy for Europe?

I have a Tunisian friend here in Ireland and we were talking about our experiences of living in a foreign country. We both are foreigners but the difference is I am an EU citizen. I was stunned when I discovered that even though he is legal in the country, has his own shop and business and has a visa for Ireland, he can not travel freely to other EU countries. 

Each EU state has its own immigration laws and deals with third countries, and while he wanted to visit Cyprus or Greece, he changed his mind when he learned that he needed to go through the process of applying and paying for a visa. He instead went to Turkey that has an agreement with Tunisia on traveling and immigration.


While I understand that such laws are put to place to control and perhaps monitor the movement of non EU nationals withing the union, I feel that in some cases they are wrong. This man has set up a business. It is unlikely that he will decide to move around with no reason in Europe, and end up in a country that has already too many immigrants (aka France). 

I understand that some countries do not want to take on their solders the mistakes or irresponsible immigration policies of another EU state. But if you think about it, that underlines once more the disunity of EU states and who is really losing from this mess? I this case was definitely Greece and Cyprus that have lost out in tourism. 


Wouldn't be better to have a harmonized EU immigration policies, that will allow people like this Tunisian man, that are legal in one country and have businesses, to travel freely within EU? Wouldn't be better to have common immigration laws, that will allow all EU nations to take, share and cooperate in finding the required workforce needed, from the specific countries, or skills and educational background that they think is best to attract their workforce from?

Another example of bad immigration management and disunity among EU states is the situation that I witness in many EU states; the "ghettoization" of their immigrant communities. In some areas, let's say of Dublin, we see a high proportion of unemployed immigrants, that either their are not allowed to work because of their status in the country, or they had worked when the country was booming, but now are unemployed. An unemployed immigrant is harder to employ when things turn bad. 

There are regions of Dublin, for example Blanchardstown  and Tallaght, that are packed with immigrants claiming social welfare. Though some may be entitled to it as they have worked in the past, the image that many locals see is that they are paying for those people to live in their country. The thing is, that when the economy was doing great, nobody really minded or perhaps cared. Now that things are bad, it is more often to see the public opinion asking for solutions.

But why have immigrants in a ghetto in Dublin, or any other European city? Why not encourage them to move freely in other EU countries, instead of their partners importing new immigrants from Africa, Asia or Latin America; we could use or share those who are already in Europe, not import new ones in other countries and expanding the problem there too. 

In other words, create a common European employment market. If one country does not need a certain number of immigrants of some specific skill anymore, allow or encourage them to relocate elsewhere in Europe until they find somewhere or something suitable for them. The experience that they will take from one country to the other, will stay in Europe through them, and there will be no need to keep importing people from outside Europe, unless we need them!


The European Blue Card program that was initiated and perhaps an EU workforce embassy in every region of the World, trying to find the suitable workforce for each country would offer control and overseeing on who is entering Europe and for how long. No illegal immigrants would be accepted, and FRONTEX would work on that. But instead of that what do we get?

 Many fragmented European immigration policies, that former colonial powers (Britain, France, Holland etc) want to maintain in order to use immigration as a tool for influence over their former colonies. Therefore, we can not have a united response on immigration especially when each country does not trust the others, that they will implement the laws that will be voted for.


So in that way, we are condemning ourselves in having immigrants that we do not longer need or can integrate and absorb into our societies. Ghettos and further alienation is taking place then in many of our cities, resulting in riots in Paris (and recently London?). 

Instead of having an always mobile workforce of both EU and non EU nationals that will cover our employment vacancies all over Europe, wherever and for how long they are needed, we prefer to keep paying for benefits to people that would perhaps love to work and contribute. But because of the prejudices and narrow mindedness of our political elites, they are trapped in our societies and we are trapped with them.


When someone has nothing to offer to a country's economy anymore, or his/her skills are no longer needed, why keep paying him/her with benefits for years damaging the country's economy? If another EU state needs their skills that they have accumulated over the years, why not encourage them to move there and keep contributing and supporting their families back home, instead of threaten them with deportation. 

And to avoid deportation they are becoming desperate to get the citizenship of a state that has no real plans for them anymore! Keep creating second class citizens; a tactic that not only is meaningless, but dangerous too!

A European Hollywood?

As a film fan I can't help noticing one thing: the lack of European productions that hit our screens. The lack of funds that we dedicate towards making big block buster movies and of course promoting them in Europe and beyond. Our cinemas are flooded by mainly American productions.

Few European directors, actors, music composers or other artists can make a successful career outside their country though Europe is the largest market in the world! In a way, we are culturally assimilated by the Americans, because our leaders are using their model to manage and rule our countries and create a society after their model ; with their values and all their faults.

European movie makers are restricted to small national audiences, with result in being unable having big budgets to produce something bigger. The EU is subsidizing everything else, apart investing in promoting our culture and way of thinking. Even with this situation, European cinematography has produced some real gems over the years.

Imagine if there was a  group of movie makers funded by an EU ody, that produced European movies. A body that would finance movies in all European countries, from different directors and producers. Filmed in many different European regions, any language the producers wanted, depending the country they were coming from, or they chose. 

Circuit those movies in the European market, make profit and reinvest the money in making more European movies, matching our mentality and promoting our culture to the immigrants living here.

Actors and other artists from all over Europe would be able to find work in their own countries or any other European country they could. That would lead to having native stars and multilingual artists, resulting in a real cultural renaissance of Europe.

A Greek, Finnish or a Hungarian actor for example would be able to play in any film of any country, in any language they could speak, making them and their work famous all over the continent. A great way to create a dialogue and support multiculturalism in our continent.

We would be able to promote to other continents our values, way of thinking, culture and with our own distinct version of the Western civilization. Thus seeing a surge of new talent and many opportunities for young actors or other artists in Europe. They would not need to leave for America anymore to have a successful career.


Other regions of the World produce their own movies. India has Bollywood, China has their own movie industry, but Europe is still massively relying on America! Very few European movies make it internationally and our own actors find it harder to have a successful career, unlike their American or other English speaking colleagues.

Time for a European Hollywood then, but where will it based? Well we could base it in one of the many European cities that have already an established film festival. The Cannes for example being the most famous, but perhaps in Berlin, Dublin,Thessaloniki or Venice that also host film festivals. Can this be decided without Europeans arguing over who will take the lead again?