Putin is re-elected, Europe debates how to deal with it!

And yes, he did it again; (everlasting) Russian President Mr Vladimir Putin is elected once more to be the country's President for yet another term! And while we in the rest of Europe do not quite understand Russian politics, somehow the Russians (or the majority of them at least) seem quite content with what is going on in their country. And I do mention the majority of them, because lately we have seen strong opposition and many protests in the streets of Moscow and other large Russian cities, calling for Putin to leave the Russian political scene for good.

Europe of course and "the West" in general are trying to figure a way of dealing with the Russians, Putin and their kind of "democracy." No, having the same President re-elected the Putin way is not democratic at all, that is one thing for sure. But why do we have to understand them or even make them change in order to do business with them? Why do we have to make everyone that is trading with us or is near to us behave the way we do, or spread our version of "democracy" to every country in the World?

As if Democracy in Europe and America are perfect! I won't even go to the American version of "democracy", a "gift" from America that is being forced to some unfortunate nations with invasions and bombings! Either you are going to have "democracy"  or else we are going to force it upon you. Excuse me, isn't democracy by its definition deriving straight from the will and actions of the people, the citizens and not by foreign powers? In my opinion "democracy" for the Americans means one thing: Capitalism! Unless you are free to consume and spend money on buying things that you do not need, then you are not democratic enough for their liking! And they are going to convert you to it.

And what about Europe? Recently the German Minister of Finance Mr. Wolfgang Schauble, virtually threatened the Greeks to vote again for either the PASOK or the New Democracy Party in the upcoming election in the country, in order to secure the second bail-out loan. To remind you, those two parties run Greece since the '70s and they are responsible for the current economic mess in Greece but also in the eurozone! The same people that we want to get rid off so badly, our European partners now are threaten us that we have to keep them or else! But then how will Greece change? Why insist on keeping in power those people who are guilty of bringing their country to its knees? Is it because they are the ones who signed the sell out of the country to our "partners" in Europe and America and if we get rid off them, the deals they signed will perhaps be cancelled by any new political establishment?

Of course this makes me wonder how democratic are Greece and Europe itself, when they allow such things to take place! It also makes me wonder if the corrupt political elite who was supported by Europe for decades, was only placed in the lead of the country to do just that; drive the country bankrupt and bringing it to the mercy of the bankers, the marketers and the capitalists. And I won't even go to the democratic deficit within EU, or examine the case of other countries, like Italy for example; they had someone very similar to Putin, he is called Berlusconi and he dominated the country's media, public opinion and politics for years, yet Europe tolerated him until things reached a dead end! No one was asking the question he ask about the Russian case: how to deal with Italy?

Russia is a major trade partner for Europe for its oil and natural gas, among other things. We should not try to change their politics; it could be dangerous! Russia is not Iran. And even with Iran what have we achieved so far? We banned their oil into Europe, it is the weak European economies like Greece that suffer because they can not import oil from there! The Iranians simply sell it on to the Chinese; there are other markets you know apart from Europe. We can not afford to do the same with Russia, can we. Russia had never had the type of democracy we have in the rest of Europe and perhaps they will never do; or even if they will eventually it will take much more time and it must come from within the country, from the Russians themselves.

Why try to force it or why shall we make everybody conform with our way of doing politics in order to do business with them? Besides who tells us that our way is the best? There are a lot of skeletons in Europe's closet and if we get involved in other people's politics, be sure that they will get involved in ours in return; why go back to the Cold War days?

Personally I am more concerned about what is unfair and undemocratic in Europe/EU right now. We can not change or interfere in Russian internal affairs, not without consequences. Putin must go but we can only watch, or perhaps assist the groups that call for our help; but they have to reach out to us first. We should try to sort our problems in Europe before we criticize Russia, because right now we are not in much better place. Democracy in Europe is fading and we have unelected "technocrats" put in our governments, while bankers, the markets and the capitalists rule our countries.  And we dare criticize Russia for its elections? Sort your own back garden Europe, before you dare to criticize others!!

Referendum in Ireland over the new EU fiscal treaty!

Last week Mr Eamon O’ Cuiv quit as a deputy leader for the opposition party in Ireland Fianna Fail, after a disagreement with the party’s leader Mr Martin over the new Treaty.

“To me, this whole issue is about the fundamental future of Ireland and I believe it’s much bigger than any one individual,” said O Cuiv. “Therefore, it would be impossible for me to stay as deputy leader and not have my heart and soul in what I would consider to be an absolutely fundamental decision that we have to make,” he noted

The disagreement came when he opposed the party’s line to support a YES vote on the referendum, as in his opinion it would be bad for Ireland! Others who oppose the treaty are starting their campaign, and they claim that this treaty is going to make small countries to be forced into austerity and recession for the benefit of the richer and bigger states that will have more control over the small ones. They claim that this treaty is unfair to the small countries and benefits again the bigger ones.

The debate is just heating up in Ireland. Again the NO side gets a head start!  They are starting to get organized and raise their voice before any arguments or campaigns begin from the supporters of this treaty!
Are those who oppose the treaty correct, is this treaty something bad for the small states? Or are they playing the populist nationalist card to gain votes, but in fact they want to protect the status quo and the sovereignty of their country because they feel that is the best thing or they want to protect the interests of some people/groups in their country?

Personally I am not 100% certain that this is the ideal solution myself, but I am pleased that at least we have any plans at all. You would think that after years in recession and one of the worst crisis of the past few decades, our leaders could do better than that. But knowing how things work in EU and Europe I am not surprised that we have another mash up again. As I said, it is better than nothing! With 27 national Governments and different interests, it is getting harder to reach a unanimous deal!

As for the referendum, well what can I say; I witnessed the last referendum about the Lisbon treaty in Dublin. Confusion, misinformation from both sides, threats, populist arguments and a very bad run campaign in the first run. Arguments from the YES side were urging people to vote YES "for jobs and stability" when the Treaty was not about jobs itself. On the other hand, the NO side pulled some very ridiculous arguments like the one that claimed that after the Lisbon Treaty the Irish children would be forced to join an EU army, abortion would be legalized and even microchips would implanted in the future generations!! None of those was included in the Treaty itself.

 People were definitely not adequately informed and a lot of them just voted NO because they were not happy with the quality of information, others because they wanted to get back at their Government for all the (then) recent scandals and some did not even bother voting. If it happens again, well we should brace ourselves for more turbulence; especially if external bodies (from the British conservatives but also from USA and other European eurosceptic groups) get involved just to cause problems.

British nationalist party UKIP already vowed to support the NO camp in Ireland during the referendum! Are we going to have another Lisbon Treaty mess?  In a recent poll the Irish voters back the treaty and the majority would vote YES, even though a quarter are still undecided. It will be certainly an interesting debate to watch!

The Treaty has some basic flaws of course, as again it just brushes the surface of the problems and it does not deal with the root of them and the faults that exist within the eurozone and the EU in general! Instead of pushing for real reforms within the eurozone and each state individually, it only puts in place rules about how much each state can borrow or how it will be punished if it breaks the rules. Yes it is a start, but it is not efficient! I am sure there will be a lot of favoritism and loopholes that certain states can find ways to escape punishment or bend the rules as it has been happening all this time. Especially when the Treaty is modeled after the values and economic traditions of the powerful and rich countries of Europe.

We need a real fiscal unity in Europe, we have one currency and one market, we need a single economy. Having laws and penalties for states breaking the rules is not enough; we need to place the foundations for a real and fully functioning European economy! But of course that requires many compromises mainly from the rich and established European powers.

If it was me I would vote yes, but only with the condition that it won’t stop to this treaty only. I would vote yes in trust that this is only the beginning and the first step. I do not like standing in the way of any move forward, even if it is a tiny one or a not so adequate one. It is better than what we got right now, as the times are dire I think that we need to keep moving, keep experimenting, keep trying solutions so that we can get Europe and its economy back on its feet again. But will the rich states accept any further reforms or they will try to preserve their interests, and  punishing the states who do not play by their rules is simply adequate for them?

The "lazy" Greeks myth.

From the start of this crisis, the global media started a smear campaign against Greece, calling the Greeks lazy and corrupt. The saddest thing about it is that even Mr. Papandreou the former elected Prime Minister of the country, was one of the most vocal critics of the people who gave him, his father and his grand-father so much power over this nation!

Talking about ungratefulness! It is up to the leaders that are being voted by the people to lead the country, to change the system and reform, modernize and above all lead by example. If the Greeks are unproductive, then perhaps it is because their leaders are the lazy and corrupt ones! The fish stinks from its head, a Greek saying tells us! Perhaps the Greek elite needs to keep that in mind.

Lets examine a few facts about the working conditions in Greece now, shall we? The Greeks as the following statistics map by EIRO (The European Industrial Relations Observatory) shows, work among the longest hours in the EU! On average 40 hours per week, while on the bottom of the map we see the richest nations of Europe, like Germany, France, Holland, Norway, Belgium and so on.

 Figure 1: Average collectively agreed normal weekly hours, 2009

Source: EIRO.

The Greeks do not get an hour long lunch breaks as they do here in Ireland and the U.K. For lunch you get about 20 minutes break, just enough to eat your meal. Never mind the morning coffee break and the evening tea break, that the Irish and Brits are so used to. And of course nothing like the siesta time of Spain, when banks and public services are closed for an hour for lunch and "siesta!"

There is no life long Social Welfare in Greece as it exists in many richer states. In Belgium they provide social welfare to their youths as soon as they leave college, until they find a job. Then if you become unemployed you are able to be on social welfare for the rest of your life and then receive your pension too! Of course the benefits are being cut the longer you stay on the dole, but that is not the issue.

 In Greece after one or two years maximum you receive nothing from the state. You got to keep working in Greece, even if it is on-off to receive social assistance! What makes Belgium, many Scandinavian and other northern European states so rich to be able to provide social welfare for life to their citizens?

In Ireland they give families social welfare for life too. There are people who have been on social welfare all their lives. There are sections of the Irish society that live off benefits without ever having to contribute. They are being given social welfare to keep the crime down: instead of stealing to get money to buy their drink and drugs, the state provides them with an amount to prevent them from committing crime! According all the above, who are the most lazy in Europe, the Greeks, the Irish, the Belgians or their other fellow Europeans?

My sister's ex-husband lived and worked in Germany for a while. The Germans during the '80s and the early '90s were turning down jobs, that according to my brother-in-law they were required to do "by wearing a suit!" By that he meant that they had so many rights and benefits as workers, everything was so standardized that you needn't sweat too hard in order to do your work.

Yet the Germans were turning down those jobs and wanted better paid ones, leaving those jobs for the immigrants. I am not so sure about the current working conditions in Germany, but I mentioned the above as another example of the working ethos of the Greeks. We are hard working people, and everywhere we set foot we prosper! 

But why can't we achieve this in our own country? Simply because it is the Greek system's fault. "Greece devours its own children" says a Greek saying, and my God this is so true! To begin with, the only blame I will put on the Greek public's shoulders is their tolerance of the current political elites. Since the Greek Civil War they have been divided in two major camps and they vote according to family traditions rather proposed policies!

Instead of going to their MPs, grab them by the neck and demand hospitals, schools, universities, roads and development they go and beg for a position for their sons and daughters in the ever growing Greek public sector!

But what can you expect from them, since there aren't many other industries set in Greece? If you do not work in the tourism industry, farming or construction there aren't many other industries flourishing in the country. All industrial activity in Europe is absorbed by the rich European nations and what was left in Greece, has either left for China, Bulgaria and other countries with cheaper workforce.

Or even worse, they were bought by other European/Western multinational companies and were sold off or broken piece by piece, destroying many jobs in Greece. So the only secure career prospects you have in Greece is to join and work in the (ever growing) public sector. 

And that is a pity. Because Greece has en educated and multilingual youth. Most of my friends speak at least English and many of them more than one foreign languages. Yet after finishing college they have no chance in finding a job in their field of studies, simply because there are no investments, no development and no positions to absorb this vibrant workforce into employment. So they either have to migrate or join the tourism industry, working as waiters.

One of the reforms that Europe demands now in order Greece to secure the next loan, is to catch the tax evaders and make them pay. Yet so far only 1% of the taxes have been collected and these were from the ordinary people. Because the tax evaders are the rich fat cats of Greece, including the political elite and their accolades. How can you tax the ones who support your political campaign and they were providing you with millions in order for you to stay in power?

And how can you convince the Greeks to swallow such measures when they see the rich getting away with it. A popular singer of the 50s and 60s, Mr Voskopoulos has refused to pay up the millions of euros he owes to the Greek state. His wife of course is a former MP and he has good connections withing the Greek political elite. So if he can refuse to pay and get away with it, why should the poorer Greeks bare the heavy weight of this austerity? In any other country he would be jailed and his property confiscated, but not in Greece!

Not everybody tax evades in Greece. There is a popular notion among Europeans, that comes from their experiences as tourists in Greece, that the Greeks leave unfinished their homes to evade taxes. If the state gives you the option in its laws to be able to pay less tax if you do not finish your house properly, that is not tax evading. I am sure the Germans would do the same if this loophole existed in their laws. 

Besides, not all regions of Greece have the same laws. In the region of Northern Greece where I come from, all houses are finished. It seems that this exception exists in the islands, so the rumor was generalized. Perhaps the Greek islands have other tax exemptions than the mainland Greece.

The German company that has built the new Eleftherios Venizelos airport in Athens, has not paid a penny of taxes to the Greek state. They prefer to give money to the corrupt Greek elite to turn the blind eye. That is why the Europeans love to do business with us, because they are able to avoid taxation. Why then we are called "tax-evaders" by them?

This crisis is a huge fiasco! The Greeks are being forced to pay up and save the European banks and the toxic debt they have accumulated over the years due to their exposure on American toxic debt. How Europe decided to deal with this situation? Make the weaker states pay. We are being called to pay and cover this debt out of our taxes for decades to come, while northern Europe will be able to recover and keep developing.

My generation that has studied abroad, traveled and has dreams and a new vision for our country, the generation of mid 30s is the worst hit. The generation that is during its most creative years, that have new ideas and are more actively involved in Greek and European politics are having their wings clipped and are forced into a new financial junta imposed by Europe!

How can you expect Greece ever to recover when generation after generation is being crippled and forced into poverty and deprivation? Before it was the wars, now it is the economic crisis. I wonder, does Europe really want to have a rich and prosperous Greece in its club?

Who are the real "Presidents" of Europe?

President Martin Schulz, president of the European Parliament. President Jose Manuel Barroso, president of the EU Commission. President Herman Van Rompuy, president of the EU Council. Three Presidents, but who leads the EU and Europe? What are all those presidents doing and why it is necessary for us to have them? How much do we know about their work and how it affects our lives? And finally, are they really the true "rulers" of Europe, or just EU officials?

When we are talking about the "EU elites" you do realize that we are talking about our national elites, our leaders. All our national governments put together. Mr Hollande, Mrs Merkel and Mr.Cameron, together with the rest of our leaders, their accolades, the people and lobbies who support them, finance their campaigns and so on. 

There is no separate "EU elite." The EU officials are mainly appointed and influenced by our governments and only the MEPs are directly elected by us. The problem is that we do not know what is being discussed behind closed doors in all those EU Council summits that our leaders attend. What deals are being made between them, what do they compromise without our permission of our national interests and sensitivities. Personally I want a stronger EU Parliament to take control. I say no to "inter-governmentalism" in EU and those agreements that we have no say at all. What I want is a transparent democratic union that listens to its people and serves their interests.

But that I am afraid is only going to happen through the EP. The Council that represents our governments is, as it stands right now, more powerful than the EP. Just look at how Merkel speaks about Europe and its future as if she represents us all. But no, she represents only the Germans that elected her surely, why she is taking the lead in Europe? Because Germany has invested so much in the euro project, more than others some will say. Yes, but they benefited the most as well, don't forget that. 

I would want an elected representative, or one of the already appointed officials preferably Mr.Schulz, the E.P.'s President to speak for me and represent me, not Merkel or Holande.  At least he represents the only elected by the citizens body of EU. Our national leaders like Mrs Merkel have no legitimate authority to speak on behalf of all Europeans, never mind shaping their lives and dictating their future. So you see the problem lies with our national governments and the long ago established European elites that do not want to let go of their interests and influence on the continent and on other nations and regions of Europe.
 
We do not want any Merkel, Cameron or Hollande to promote their country's interests, we need someone who can understand the issues and problems of all EU states and speaks for them, promote solutions that are benefiting all. Not of the rich elites or the rich nations only. We have too many "Presidents" in EU and Europe and we pay them fat salaries, but none of them seem to be allowed to do their job without interference from our national "Presidents."

When the EU and Europe is a battlefield of national interests, with the leading European powers wanting to take the reigns of the continent, how can we ever move forward? When all they do is manipulating and ordering smaller and poorer states how it is best to govern themselves and follow their rules. And not just that but still lingering in post WW2 attitudes, engaging in intrigues on who is gonna gather more supporters to have it his way, I do not see much European solidarity going on out there!

"Where there are too many roosters clucking, it is slow to dawn," says a Greek saying! And that is exactly true for EU and Europe right now! And that is why the European project is failing and we are going around in circles. Can we ever make Europe speak with one voice and assert itself globally, when too many roosters are calling from its ruling posts?

ACTA, SOPA,PIPA...A threat or not?

As a blogger, I can not support the mentioned laws (ACTA,SOPA,PIPA). And while I understand the arguments that support this idea, the property rights and loss of revenue of the creators, I fear the way it could transform the internet and how we use it.

The reality is that once we set those new rules up, inevitably there will be many loopholes that we haven’t explored. Then there will be always people that will find a way around them,or ways to break the rules. Then we will have to apply new laws, to regulate the regulations. Then more regulations to regulate the regulations of the regulations…

So can we eventually find ourselves having a total censorship on what goes on line, published, shared or even said? Can those laws and regulations be the first step of internet censorship, starting from the obvious and righteous and then moving further?

The Americans want to protect their intellectual properties, but then why are we developing technology that can copy and share music, videos  either privately or on-line? What is the difference of someone buying a CD of an artist or a film DVD, then make a copy of it and share it with his/her friends, than someone downloading legally a tune on-line and then share it with his/her friends?

What if this law is expanded further, to include magazines and articles from the press, what is being published on-line and how it is shared? Freedom of information and freedom of expression is one of the advantages of the internet revolution. Why halt it? Besides, if you do not want people to copy your work, do not upload it on-line!

We have invested and we continue to invest hugely on technology associated with the internet. I-Pods, I-Pads, I-Phones and so on. Why allow people to have all those, if you do not allow them to freely buy, share, comment, copy and write stuff on-line? And if they can not do that freely, then why invest in a technology that must be used in a limited way? Never mind the limitless websites that will have no purpose of existing anymore, or the companies that provide fast speed internet services; why have it if you can't up-load or down-load stuff freely?

So what if these laws continue to evolve and include not only what is being copied and up-loaded, but what will be written on-line too? As a blogger I dread the fact that one day I won't be able to reach people in all corners of the earth and stimulate their brains with an alternative point of view, that is not being given on the mainstream media. That one day there will be so many regulations that my blog or my articles will be found unsuitable for the general public to read or copy.

We criticize Hungary for the recent legislation (I do not agree with most of them either) or China for having an internet policy and censorship, but are they trying to set up a legislation to control what is being said on-line in the West too?

If we think that our national media are not national at all ( there are about 6 multinational companies that own and control the bulk of newspapers, magazines and TV channels in the whole world) then how free our media are anyway? We did have the scandal in the UK with Rupert Murdoch’s tactics, then who tells us that our media are accurately giving us the news as they happen?

Why not allow everyone to write, read and share news and articles of whatever they want on-line, free and without borders, as an alternative source of information that is banned or classified by our mainstream media, that God knows to whom they answer to? Perhaps people like Murdoch or our Governments? Will we have only the Murdochs of this world shaping our reality?

It is double standards. We criticize Hungary and China only because they put their hand to the main stream media and those people with money that own them are annoyed. Yet we do not seem to be as bothered about the other media (blogs) that have something to say but get no recognition simply because they are challenging the status quo of this system we live in.

Yet Europe was not reacting in such way about Italy and Berlusconi all those years, not "until the knife hit the bone" as we say in Greece. He was corrupt, everybody knew that, and he owned nearly all media in his country. That puts in question on how free was Italy's media all those years. But when in comes to Hungary everybody is pontificating about the "freedom of the press."

To conclude, I totally understand that American artists want their work safeguarded and raise more revenue. They put pressure on the American Government to pass those laws and pressure their allies in Europe to do the same. But aren't they making enough money already? They dominate the music charts and the blockbuster movies. The biggest celebrities and stars are from America.

So I wonder if the American Government is taking the rest of the world in ransom, in order to secure their dominance in the entertainment industry? And for that, they are happy to limit even more what we can and we can't do online? I do not care if I won't be able to download stuff from the internet, I never had and I never will.

But if one day a law is passed that stops people from visiting this blog, or any blog or website that allows people to share ideas, information, news, things they love and their creativity, then I will have a problem with that and I believe everyone should.

So what safeguards our right to have a free internet, if we allow some governments to limit what we do online bit by bit? What will come next then? Think about it.

Can we have a renewable energy efficient Europe by 2050?

The current Danish EU Presidency has pledged to promote for a “sustainable” Presidency, promoting the idea of a sustainable energy efficient Europe, by 2050 if possible.

I really hope so, I really want to see this happening! But I do not think that Europe will manage to switch to 100% totally renewable energy by 2050. I mean look at us; we are having difficulty deciding over what is the best way to tackle the current economic crisis that it is in our door step NOW!! Can we agree on something that will be totally implemented by 2050?

And with the record of many EU states signing up for something but never making the effort to implement it, I hold little hope. Some states are having difficulties absorbing EU funds, or passing all EU laws because of corruption, political idleness and ignorance of the government officials of EU laws.

First we need a fully functioning union, common policies in many other areas to ensure states agree, promote, implement and stick with the decisions taken. We need a quicker way to take decisions and a tool to make sure that those decisions are binding to all states! Yes I am talking about federalism again!

We need to agree on pan European level where can we draw renewable energy from, and in what ways. We got sun and wind in the southern states, wind and sea currents in the northern states. If we could set up European companies to develop and exploit all these resources so that each country benefits first and then share those benefits with the other member states, then that would be the first step.

We could also create new subjects in our universities and encourage our youths to study and explore new professional paths in the renewable energy sector, and promote it as a life-style for all citizens. Create new jobs and professions in this new green sector, so our youths can be absorbed right after they finish their studies; no point of studying something but there is nowhere to go and get and job!

Those new European companies that will be set up will have investors from many, if not all EU states, not just the rich few. We want this to be beneficial for all countries and to kick-start the interest in all states, because if it is seen as something that is “cooked” only by Germany, France, Britain or Denmark and Sweden, it will harder to convince the smaller countries’ citizens to have the same enthusiasm about this new project.

They also need to see it as something of their own, something that is good for them and that they have so much to benefit from it too. Jobs for their children, prosperity, growth, money, better life-style, healthier living conditions (smoke free) etc. So why not attract investors and government involvement from all EU states? And create a new EU body to overseer this new group of companies and the work that they do in each country. But also the actions that our governments take to hasten the implementation of this new plan. In other words, in my opinion the EU as a group of nations should start creating its own kind of "public sector" companies, where our national governments fail to create them!

They won't totally control the new sector, we do not want the centralization and sluggish management of our familiar national public sector companies. But the EU I think should start investing funds to create this new sector, nurture it and help establish it. Kick-start the process. Look for investors, attract interest and support in each country.

We could cut funds from CAP for example, we spend so much in it; way too much in my opinion. We could form a common defense policy so that we won't have individual defense budgets in each state, rather spend or invest collectively! Share the load and invest all this extra cash in this new sector!

Countries like Greece for example spend too much in their defense. If Europe could secure its borders with this new common defense policy and a better united attitude towards Turkey, Greece could invest all this extra cash with the advise, supervision and cooperation of its other EU partners in producing solar energy. The sun in the Aegean can be used n so many other ways by the Europeans, apart from tanning!

My ideal future economic model for Europe!

Our leaders are debating, attending summits trying to find a solution for the current economic crisis. They want to decide which way forward, what to do to save the euro and the European economy. The citizens are looking up to them desperately, in hope of any good news, something that will lift the heavy load of austerity from their shoulders.

In my opinion it is all in vain, simply because our leaders do not have the guts to do what needs to be done: change the economic system of the Continent! Our economies are capitalist, Market based and overall I accept capitalism as a style to base our economy on. But this type that we have as we've seen recently simply does not work for me, not for the ordinary citizens!

We have given the Markets and the Banks all freedom, they have become way too powerful and in fact they are endangering our societies and their coherence. Market economy is plain gambling.

Some powerful people are gambling on countries, companies, commodities and some of them grew to be so powerful, that can make whole countries go bankrupt. They own more money than many of the smaller nations of this World. So how can you stop or regulate such people, make sure that the future of our children is not in the hands of the powerful few?

We see the "peripheral" European states being pushed into the jaws of the IMF, that has done so much damage in the economies of Africa and Latin America. Who decides which country is worth investing in, keeps its AAA, which one must be downgraded and with what criteria?



The current economic system, the Market based free and unregulated capitalism, is set up by gamblers; a culture of easy money! Who controls the Markets, the IMF and the rating agencies? They all are based over the other side of the Atlantic, if you ever wondered.



Wouldn't be fairer to establish such institutions across the globe and have a variety of standards, not just an one sided point of view? We must acknowledge the influence of various lobby groups, investors and supporters of the campaigns of each political party. The lobbies that surround the EU headquarters in Brussels, also play an important role.

For example with money from Europe and the EU subsidies, Greece has now a powerful farming lobby that is not allowing any real change in the country’s economy. But if you look at the map of our Continent, Greece is a mountainous country with very few patches of green, mainly found in Thessaly, Macedonia and Thrace. Yet farming is traditionally one of the main economic sectors of this country, but it is necessary to to diversify it for a more stable economy.


Instead of having some countries leading Europe, sucking up all industrial and economic activity in the Continent and leaving the smaller states fighting for scraps, wouldn't be nice to have a stable economic model for all? Not an elitist one with few rich countries supporting the "peripheral" ones, after having them on social welfare in the form of subsidies for decades.

A solution would come in the form of a federal Europe, with a collective Government that invests in every country and allows it to exploit its natural resources. For jobs, stability, progress and prosperity of its own people first and then to supply the rest of Europe with the best of what each country can provide. Fish from the north, vegetables from the south, minerals from Greece, agriculture from other greener spots of Europe, wood from Scandinavia, etc.

Look at the European map and see which countries are greener; France, Poland, Romania, Hungary. We should be forwarding CAP funds over there and make them the breadbasket of Europe. Greece can still produce only what other regions can not because of climatic restrictions. Then it can provide Europe with its mineral resources, wind mills, solar panels for energy and other resources.

Why not help or encourage Greece to set up a green renewable industry, instead of remaining a limping farming country? Investments in Greece can transform its economy in becoming more industrialized and compatible with those of other Euro-zone countries. 

We can not compete with France as we do not have a huge land mass like they do, that can be farmed. Them and Poland and Romania have vast farm lands. Establishing a well organized farming industry in the new states can kick start their economies, until they decide to invest in other fields later on. Once their economies stabilize they can diversify it.

Perhaps because the farming lobby in the old 15 EU states is too strong, little change is taking place. Just like the fisheries lobby is too strong in Iceland and keep the country out of EU. People that are milking the system and benefiting form the current status quo, are protesting to any change. And our media often are being paid to serve the interests of these elites and form a sympathetic public opinion. 


Europe should provide and protect its people. We must have equality among the member states and investments focused on where they are needed, to exploit the continent’s natural resources collectively. We can have stability, growth, peace and prosperity for all Europeans, not just a bunch of lazy marketers and bankers.

Why I agree with Sarkozy on the FTT.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy has made it quite clear he is determined to forge ahead with a controversial Financial Transactions Tax (FTT), even if it means his country is the only one to implement it. It seems likely then, that some form of FTT will be introduced in 2012, though it remains to be seen whether such a tax will be at the level of the EU, the Euro zone, the new “Euro-zone Plus” group…or just France.

The European Commission has been pushing for an eventual EU-wide tax, and its proposal was presented to European finance ministers last year by Tax Commissioner Algirdas Šemeta.

Commissioner Semeta commented on the Debating Europe website topic on the issue (here),  answering to some comments, that the financial institutions will just pass the charges to the customers.

It is important to be clear on the scope of the proposed FTT. We want to tax the trading of financial instruments like securities, bonds and derivatives, not the day-to-day financial activities of ordinary citizens or companies. The conclusion of insurance contracts, mortgage lending, consumer and business credits or payment services will, for example, not be included in the scope of this tax. More than 85% of all the transactions to be taxed are transactions within the financial sector, where, for example, one bank trades with another one. So, there is no direct client immediately identifiable to whom the banks might want to pass on the tax incurred.

 Thus, citizens, private households and SMEs will not be directly affected by the tax, unless they themselves invest on financial markets. However, they might be indirectly affected by an increase in capital costs and lower financial asset prices in case financial institutions want to recover the cost of the tax from business with their clients not linked to financial markets. But these effects will probably be limited as the tax rate proposed is low and would in the first place fall on financial companies. 

Even if the bank was to pass on the FTT to its client, such as a private household, the additional charge would be rather low. In case a private household was to intervene on financial markets, for example through buying or selling shares, it should only be charged an additional 0.01 to 0.1% of the transaction volume. If a private household wanted to purchase, for example, shares in the amount of €10,000 his bank might charge a €10 FTT for this transaction. Of course, the more frequently a person traded (with the help of his bank) on stock exchanges, the more frequently the investor would have to pay the tax.

  

It is, indeed, expected that the shareholders of the banks and the investment bankers will have to shoulder parts of the tax, for example through lower dividend payments and reduced bonuses paid out. This effect would not be unwarranted, as a golden rule of sound public policy requires that those benefiting from a public policy should also be those that should pay for its provision.

Another point was that financial institutions will just move to places like Switzerland, where there is less regulation. Mr Semeta replied: 

The FTT proposal should be seen as a key step to making progress on a global solution to taxing financial transactions. A global FTT is the first best solution. The Commission has always been in favor of an FTT at the global level and we think that it would make sense to support this position by leading by example.

We believe that if we can show that such a tax works also at a (sufficiently broadly defined) regional level and generates substantial revenue without harming the overall economic development, then other regions of the world will follow. However, any “local” FTT needs a number of anti-avoidance and anti-relocation measures. 

We want to set a good example to promote the FTT at the global level – as has been asked from us by the European Parliament and the heads of state of the EU Member States. The Commission is not the only one to advocate this idea – there were many supporters at the Millennium Development Summit in NYC recently, for example, but it is true that there is no universal consensus.

We will continue discussing this with our G20 partners. I think the sounder, more solid the evidence of the potential benefits of such a tax we can provide, the greater our chances are of convincing them to work with us on a global FTT.

Nevertheless, already with the legal proposal of the Commission there are a lot of potential loopholes that have been closed. Actually, relocating a transaction (for example, from Frankfurt to Zurich) does not really help in circumventing the payment of the tax, as it is not the place where the transaction takes place that determines tax liability but the place of establishment of the parties in the transaction.

Next argument that was expressed by debaters on the website was the case of Sweden and its experience in the late 1980s. The imposition of a FTT on equities and bonds was a total disaster as trading simply moved overseas. Mr Semeta commented: 

Sweden introduced a 50 basis points tax on the purchase or sale of equity securities in January 1984. A “round trip” transaction (purchase and sale) resulted therefore in a 100 basis points tax. The tax applied to all equity security trades in Sweden using local brokerage services as well as to stock options. The fact that only local brokerage services were taxed is, in the literature, seen as the main design problem of the Swedish system.

We studied different countries’ experiences and we designed the tax carefully to avoid the kind of failure Sweden experienced. The Commission’s proposal includes in particular the following features:

• It has a much broader tax base;

• It makes a link to the residence of financial institutions at EU level;

• It considers financial institutions of third countries with a branch established in the EU or even without such a branch, i.e. makes them taxable; in the latter case when they interact with EU counter-parties (subject to certain conditions).

To put it in other words: Sweden covered local brokerage services whereas the EU FTT would cover transactions by broadly defined financial institutions established in the EU, including pure third country-based institutions when they interact with EU counter-parties. In case of the EU FTT, an easy evasion is not possible if there is a link with the EU territory. Joint and several liability rules ensure enforceability. In addition, a possible move from equity trades to other financial instruments would not be an option under the EU FTT as financial instruments are comprehensively covered.

Moreover, an EU framework provides for a coordinated approach in the EU which should mitigate the problem of relocation and distortion of competition.

The final comment was that the FTT actually does not bring any extra revenue, in fact it shrinks them. Mr Semeta replied: 

The Commission’s extensive analysis show that the implementation of an FTT at EU level, provided that the negative impacts of major risks identified would be minimized, could raise around €50 billion per year, largely depending on market reactions. Also, in case the profits of financial institutions were negatively affected, some offsetting knock-on effects on profit taxes could be expected. The tax will, thus, help to generate revenues for the public budget which could be used for different purposes.

There is indeed a degree of uncertainty on the revenue from an FTT, because it would be a new and innovative tax, and as asset prices underlying these transactions are volatile. This mainly holds for shares and derivatives thereof. Hopefully, also the market volumes for government bonds should decline once budget consolidation progresses. This risk can be managed by using cautious projections for the budget.

When it comes to estimating the effects of such a tax on GDP, a lot of uncertainty exists as well. The figure of 1.7% refers to a deviation of GDP from its baseline scenario in the long run. Thus, it describes a cumulative effect over several decades, while the revenue estimations provided refer to annual revenues. Also, some of the assumptions underlying the concrete model run (such as the design of the tax and the way how enterprises finance their investment activities or how the revenues generated will be recycled) introduced a significant bias in the estimation. 

Correcting for these effects, the more appropriate figure might therefore be in the order of 0.5 to 1.0%. In any case, we should not forget that such figures are derived from macroeconomic model simulations which are specifically difficult when it comes to analyzing financial markets.

My personal opinion was always “make the financial sector pay!” Someone needs to regulate this sector and it is about time to do so, as we have seen what non-regulation of the Banks and the Markets can do. What should be done with any revenues raised? We should use them to erase and pay off any debts of the debt ridden countries. First in Europe if the FTT is passed, or the whole World if this plan takes a global dimension!


As for if the UK will be able to avoid the FTT, I insist that they should not. Enough with this elitism. Elite countries, nations, people, clubs and institutions. Enough with the tax havens and financial centers of the world. Some countries are only separate states from other nations just to serve the role of a tax haven for the rich, while the rest of us are trapped and pay their share. (San Marino from Italy, Monaco from France, Liechtenstein from Switzerland, ect).

What these countries are actually doing, is forcing some countries and its people to be poorer from all this tax revenues lost while others are becoming richer, thus contributing to the global inequality. The sole role of their existence is to be a safe haven for the money that is in some cases stolen from the people.

This money belonged to the people of those countries as taxes that were diverted in Swiss (and other tax havens') bank accounts. Taxes of the rich people that should go to the state, while the ordinary citizens have to bare the weight of paying their share. This can be only called a criminal activity and Switzerland is a part of this.

In a similar way, Britain plays its part in this Matrix of financial games and inequality, as they are “one of the most important financial centers in the world.” So they should own up to it and start playing fair. Their wealth is down to their role as one of the countries that has made itself available to the global financial elite. Becoming in this way a place where the financiers are allowed  to play uncontrollably their games, making profit for themselves.

Bring on the FTT and thank God that some politicians have the guts to suggest such bold moves that  if passed, they will probably be the first step towards a much fairer Europe.

Dividing and ruling our societies.

One of the main effects that the current crisis in Europe and the euro-zone had in all the badly affected countries, was the public sector vs private sector debate. Privatizations were encouraged and many of the social benefits were targeted and cut.

To achieve that, our leaders practiced the very successful tactic of "divide and rule". Dividing the public and turning it against each other, making each side blaming the other for the country's bad economic state. The public sector was targeted, in order to gain public support for the drastic cuts that it was about to endure.

We have witnessed such debates in both countries. While in Ireland the debate has somewhat subsided, as there are no more cuts in salaries announced in this year's budget, in Greece that the public sector is severely hit the debate still goes on.

Our leaders put the blame on the people for the country's bad economic state. Mr Pagalos in Greece, a member of the Greek Parliament and the former PASOK government, and Mr Ahern in Ireland the former Taoiseach both blamed the citizens for the mess.

And while this is partly true, the only blame I could put of the people's shoulders is that they keep voting for thugs like the above. Not for doing what they are encouraged to do by the current capitalist system, that is spend money and keep consuming.

In order to gain public support in Greece for slaying the public sector, they kept underline its faults and abuses that they have encouraged over the past decades in the first place. All they want to do is sell out all national assets and companies. To do that they slander a whole group of people, that were just sucked in by the system our Governing elites have created.

Yes Greece has an overgrown public sector. But it is the only sector that a Greek could have a secure and stable career path, since no other industries were developed in the country. If you are not a farmer, a tourism industry employee or a customer and sales services staff, you have limited options of making a living in Greece.

There are no industries left in the country as most of them have left to relocate in places like Bulgaria or China. The little industrial activity that is left in Europe is being sucked up by the northern, industrialized, rich European states.



The Greek public sector certainly needed to be cut down, but not in such a drastic way. First you create other industries for people to find jobs in, then you fire public sector workers so they can find jobs in those new industries. Now that they are about to fire hundreds of thousands of people with such high unemployment already in the country, where will all those people go?

You are pouring more people on the dole. You will be having them on social welfare paying them for doing nothing, while they would love to work and contribute. How come is paying hundreds of thousands of new unemployed going to help the economy? Less people that work and have money, less taxes paid, more benefits to be paid out, less money in the country's market.

And to justify all the above and achieve them, our leaders made the private sector workers angry against the "lazy" public sector workers that work so little, earn too much and in a way they are responsible for the country's state. So everybody applauded when the cuts took place and the new austerity measures were announced against the public sector workers.

Now that the public sector workers have no more money to spend, they do not pour any money into the market. They do not use their money to shop, use taxis, go out dinning,travel or stay in hotels. In result, the private sector workers are feeling the pinch as well. Because once the money from the public sector workers are not being poured into their businesses to pay for their wages, their salaries now are being targeted by their employers and they have to take cuts as well.

Yes there was a lot of mismanagement in the public sector. But it was a systemic fault, it was simply bad management. Our Governments could have reformed all that but instead they chose to use the public sector as a lure for votes and support in each election. They were using it to ensure they stayed in power by promising a job to the desperate Greeks in the public sector, a secure career prospect.

The only fault that the Greeks have made, is not that they kept spending, nor that they wanted to go and work in the public sector, a sector with the only potentials in a small country. They only mistake that the Greeks and the Irish have made is that they kept voting for the same Governments over and over again.

Because unfortunately in a country like Greece that the public sector was an important part of the country's economy, its destruction means the destruction of the Greek economy itself. What they should have done is start those reforms years ago, gradually.





The citizens of the euro-zone countries that are in trouble, instead of turning against each other, they should turn against their political elites. They should unite and debate on how they can change attitudes, moving forward in the future.

British Veto and the future of the country in EU.

British PM David Cameron, has vetoed recently a suggested new E.U. treaty to heal the euro and save the euro-zone.

While all other 26 heads of states agreed to at least sit on the table and negotiate the treaty, Britain chose once more to show its true feelings about the single currency.

It is not the only country that had objections, as Hungary, the Czech Republic, Sweden and others were also skeptical. Yet they are the ones who refused to at least negotiate.

Understandably, the plan that the "Merkozy" duo is promoting might not be ideal for all countries. But at least this is the first move from our leaders to tackle the crisis, after a long time. Besides, each state individually can negotiate the proposal, to safeguard its interests.

Despite all, the U.K. chose to isolate itself within E.U. The result from Mr. Cameron's "NO" had deep impact both at home, throughout Europe and the U.S.A. Deputy PM Nick Clegg and many other pro-European politicians, were obviously unhappy. In addition, the current coalition forming the British Government between the Conservatives and the Liberals, showed its first serious cracks.

An open war of words took place between the British and the French, with French President Nicolas Sarkozy criticizing Mr Cameron and accusing him of being like an "obstinate kid". Even the Americans seemed surprised while Ireland, a country that is hugely involved in the British market, is planing to start talks with their larger neighbors "within weeks." Possibly to persuade the British Government relax their position.

Thus the argument the Tories are trying to win for the past few years, of Britain leaving the EU is back on the agenda. They are pushing the British government to give the public a referendum on EU membership, that most likely will be lost under the current crisis in Europe. Subsequently forcing the UK outside the EU.

As result the UK is going to follow Norway's example. Hence, the most important impact it will have on their country, is losing their seats in the European Parliament (EP) and their EU Commissioner.

While Norway is outside the EU, it still has to adopt a large part of EU law and legislation, as part of their EEA (European Economic Agreement) membership, plus contribute to the EU budget.

But they have no say on how these laws are shaped, as they have no seats in the EP and no Commissioner to promote their interests. Norway has failed in giving its citizens a voice in legislation that affects them directly.

They do pay less than if they were a full member, but as they are an oil rich nation it would not matter much if they paid more. In other words, in order to lower their payments towards the EU, Norway prefers to deprive its people's influence in Europe.

However in Britain's case, things are more complicated. With its nearly 60 million population Britain is one of the most populous countries in EU. They have the most seats in the EP together with France and Germany, so their citizens have a significant say in European affairs.

Historically, Britain always wanted influence in Europe. They repeatedly got involved in European affairs, wars and politics. Europe is too big and too near for Britain to ignore it.

Sadly just like the Norwegians and the Icelanders are victims of a very powerful fishing lobby, the Brits are victims of their capital; the City of London and its financial sector. The people do not gain much out of the policies this sector promotes, unlike the country's banks.

The City of London is a part of the matrix of banks, the markets and the rating agencies, that have lately caused so much grief in many parts of Europe. The British Government is trying desperately to secure their privileges, to the detriment of the ordinary people of Britain and Europe.

The stiff refusal of the British Government to support the euro-zone, shows that they have different plans for the common currency and the EU.

With British media brainwashing and misinforming the British public for decades, it is no wonder that the public have a very different view on how things work within EU. The whole situation, reminds of the usual power struggles between the main three European powers and the interests of their elites.

It is a pity that the whole country has been taken hostage of the interests of the few. But in the end, democracy has to prevail, if the wish of the British public is for their country to leave the EU. Hopefully they will realize that they are doing their country no favors, by standing with the interests of the rich elites.