Economic Ideas Forum, Dublin Castle 2012. Day 1.

The Third Annual Economic Ideas Forum was organized by CES (Center for European Studies) and the Konrad Adenauer Stiftung; it is hosted by Irish Taoiseach Mr Enda Kenny and Irish Minister for European Affairs Mrs Lucinda Creighton TD. The forum is taking place in the Irish Government buildings in the Dublin Castle between Thursday, April the 19th and Friday the 20th of April.

It has various high ranked Irish and European officials and politicians from many European countries participating in its panels, notably from Ireland, Spain, Holland, Finland, Germany, Italy and Britain. Its main focus is to discuss, debate and analyze the issues that created the current eurozone crisis, reach to conclusions and offer solutions for the future. Also, to address the challenges that Europe is facing now and during the next few decades, and the best potential ways to deal with them.

The Forum begun with the welcome speech by Mrs Creighton, during which she pointed out that Europe has many times dealt with other financial crisis in the past, but always emerged stronger. She mentioned that Europe is like a family and like every family it has its problems and disputes, but "we must work together, collectively, putting our best forward."

Then the President of EPP (European People's Party) and CES, Mr. Wilfried Martens  addressed the audience and he encouraged the European leaders to take stock of the impact of their decisions and think of ways to deal with them. Mr. Martens also stressed that the European Community must show its solidarity, that is time to take responsibility and focus in fiscal discipline, job creation and that the origins of the crisis are the high levels of debt. He also mentioned that Europe's monetary union needs to be implemented with economic union and that the completion of the single market is essential to promote recovery. Mr Martens closed his speech by quoting Germany's Chancellor Mrs Angela Merkel's statement that "my vision is a European political union," and that he hoped that the Irish citizens will make a European choice in the up-coming EU Fiscal Treaty Referendum.

Mr Martens was followed by Mr Antonio Tajani, Vice-President of the European Commission. He stressed that Europe must put real economy in the center of its agenda and that "we need to be strong on political choices, we need a new industrial revolution." He added that Europe must invest in research, innovation and education and with a pan-European infrastructure we should be able to deal with similar crisis in the future. He compared Europe with China and America and how it lacks in investment when compared with its competitors, but also noted that those investments must be focused in enhancing technological leadership and devote more resources in research; a research that must be industry oriented. Mr Tajani also said that "trade should be free but also fair," and he closed his address by noting that Europe must have an economic governance with a stronger E.C.B. (European Central Bank).

Followed Mr Tajani's speech we had the first panel of discussion which was moderated by Mr Roland Freudenstein, (CES Deputy Director) and comprised by Mr Brian Hayes (Ireland's Minister of State in the Department of Finance), Mr Joachim Pfeiffer (CDU/CSU Speaker on Economic Policy of Germany), Mr Peter Nyberg (Commission of Investigation into the banking system of Ireland), Mr Colm McCarthy from the School of Economics in UCD (University College Dublin) and Mr Dan O'Brien economics editor in The Irish Times.

This panel focused in discussing the position of Europe in the world economy and how to win opportunities through stronger economic governance. Mr Pfeiffer addressed the issue from a German perspective and he added that consumption in his country was one of the pillars of growth. Mr Nyberg said that European authorities were not powerless in dealing with certain problems but some supervisors in the ECB did not see that anything bad was going to happen. Only a handful of people had an idea of what was coming "but they could do nothing about it."

Mr Nyberg suggested that to avoid future crisis, we need to educate a new generation of bankers, that will allow and prepare the banks in similar situations in the future to take the losses. Mr McCarthy agreed with the fact that Europe has just a currency but not a monetary union and that the eurozone design is "flawed." He suggested that the Maastricht Treaty must be revisited, that we need market discipline and better supervision as complimentary measures to a currency union.

Mr O'Brien stressed that "we do not know the magic formula for growth and what mix of policies with generate growth," bringing examples from the north and south Italy, as well the east and west Germany regions and the economic differences between them. The panel concluded that the Fiscal Treaty is not enough to deal with the crisis, that we need to revisit the ECB and its roles, we need a stronger EU Commission and above all that European politicians should not dismiss people and ignore them. The issue of a European Finance Minister was also discussed and if such move is a threat to European economic diversity.

A lunch break followed, before entering the room for the second panel of discussions that was opened by a key note speech by John Bruton, former Taoiseach of Ireland and Ambassador of the EU to the USA. Mr Bruton started his speech by reminding the audience about "the many discouraging moments" that Europe faced in the beginning of the Single Market. But as it took a period of time to create a relative functioning Single Market, "we should look back at our experiences from that and apply them in our problems with the single currency." He suggested that Europe needs also a single market for Banking and that we rely too much on the banks for credit, while there is no European bond market; the banks are far too big. "We need a Europe wide investor protection, but be careful not to drive business out of our continent," he said.

Mr Bruton also mentioned the case of certain groups of people that will lose out from the development of the Single Market and they know who they are, that is why they are quick to take action and stop any development; on the contrary people who will benefit from the Market, do not know or realize it until it is too late.

Then he joined the rest of the panel, the moderator Mr Peter Ehrlich (Financial Times Germany), Mr Raymond Gradus (Director of CDA Research Institute, the Netherlands), Mr Eric Loeb (Vice President, International External Affairs at AT&T), Mr Maurice Thompson (Vice Chairman CITI Europe, Middle East and Africa) and Anthony Foley (Senior Lecturer, Dublin City University Business School). This panel debated on the options of Europe to bounce back from the crisis and the role of the Single Market as a key to growth.

Mr Ehrlich started the discussion by stating that recovery can happen only if the Single Market is used in every EU state, but the problem is that member states do not really abide into what they agree. Mr Foley agreed but he added that this is a problem not only in Europe but international, bringing as example the Doha round negotiations. He also mentioned that another problem is protectionism, meaning that EU member states keep certain sectors out of the Market on purpose. Mr Gradus added to the debate the issue of taxation rules on European level, while Mr Bruton noted that if we create a single bond market, we will need a single deposit scheme across Europe.

Later Mr Foley argued that in 2012 we have yet a Europe wide solution and Mr Bruton noted that certain conflicts of interests are presented as conflicts between countries. Mr Ehrlich following that statement, questioned why things that are discussed during the EU Council meetings are not explained to the people. Mr Loeb said that Europe does not need any more policy statements by its leaders, "we have already so many on the self!" But Mr Bruton appeared more harsh with the ECB officials than Mr Nyberg earlier and suggested that people in the central bank did not read certain protocols,"they were given a task by EU policy officials, but they did not do their job!"

The panel also addressed issues like the inability of Governments to borrow in the current climate contrary to the multinational corporations. They discussed the taxation harmonization across Europe issue that is sensitive to Ireland; Mr Bruton and Foley stated that this will be bad for Ireland and that competition among states is good, while Mr Gradus that supported this suggestion clarified that he supports the harmonization of the basis of the taxes, not the tax rates. Other conclusions by the panel were that we need an integrated Europe to deal with the multinationals, European citizens must start voting as Europeans and make EU more democratic and that because of this crisis there has been far more European integration in the last two years than in the past fifteen!

After a short coffee break we returned to the debate and the third panel of discussions, moderated by Mr Christophe Leclercq (EurActiv founder and publisher) and its members; Mr Richard Bruton TD (Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation of Ireland), Mr Danny McCoy (Irish Business and Employers Confederation) Mr Ciaran O'Hagan ( Bond Strategist at Societe Generale) and Mr Kimmo Sasi ( Chairman of the Finance Committee in the Eduskunta, Finland).

The panel's discussion focus was on the dilemma of boosting competitiveness while enhancing social Europe. Mr McCoy noted the importance of the native multinational companies, but also the issue of Europe blocking accession to any potential; a situation that is visible by the scandal of high youth unemployment! Then Mr O'Hagan stressed the issue of rating agencies and how they rate countries; he suggested that new criteria for ratings must be introduced like social cohesion and demographics. Mr Sasi commented on the Finnish system of income and high value tax and how it resulted in good social services.

Then the debate moved into the labor flexibility issue and the permanence that leads to security of jobs and social security in general. Mr Bruton stressed that the diversity of the European economic models is actually Europe's strength. "With a few more billions of people entering the capitalist system from China, India and eastern Europe," he continued "innovation and labor flexibility is essential." He also pointed the need to encourage people in funding their own pensions, due to Europe's decreasing demographics. Mr McCoy supported that Europe's social model is unsustainable and "the younger generation will realize that we have to deal with it; labor flexibility is going to arrive!"

The panel also questioned the age of retirement limit while all speakers agreed that there can be no more luxurious social security, with only "effective but not excessive benefits" as Mr Sasi said. They discussed about the need to be daring in reforming social policies, as they holding back growth. The role of the unions was also taken into consideration while Mr Bruton stated that "European welfare state is doomed," but the reforms must be done gradually and in a humane way. The panel concluded that we need different types of social contract, we need to develop new models and to promote creativity and entrepreneurship within the education system.

The third panel closed the first day of the Economic Ideas Forum, with the much anticipated second day that includes a speech by the Taoiseach of Ireland Mr Enda Kenny, already being in the participants' minds.

What will China's rise mean for Europe?

For the past few decades we are witnessing a transformation on the global politics and a slow shift of power towards the East. With western economies declining and being in recession, opportunities arose for new economic powerhouses on the planet, one of them being China; the most populous country of the world, a land with an ancient history and culture and of course with a lot of potential.

One would think why so far China was not already a global superpower; well there are many reasons for that, mainly internal. But now the Chinese are embracing capitalism, they are playing the westerners' game, and they are good at that. So inevitably America and Europe are afraid of China challenging their hegemony.

China has larger population than Europe and America combined and a massive landmass with lots of resources. It is a serious contestant in foreign policy in Asia, but they also infiltrating Africa, a region that was traditionally under European control. Is this going to bring Europe and China in a headlock? Well potentially yes, but it does not have to be as dramatic as the media appear it to be. We are supposed to be allies with America but we are also their competitors. Does that stop us from closely cooperate with them?

Europeans have invested heavily in China all those years, and recently the Chinese are doing the same in Europe. They bought the Piraeus port in Greece, they are building car factories in Bulgaria and they are investing in Ireland too, as well as in many other EU countries.

I support foreign investments, but I am also wary of them. Our leaders tend to rely solely on them and they are becoming lazy. Yes it is great to attract foreign investments from other countries and multinational companies, but you must use the income of funds to invest and create a sustainable growth and economy; for when the time comes for those companies to relocate elsewhere, somewhere more profitable. Because that is what those companies do; they are searching for the best and most profitable destination and as competition out there is fierce, investments can flow for some years and then relocate in another country with cheaper workforce.

So what do you do? Once you better the living conditions of your population and their salaries go higher, those investors will possibly leave your country. But if you have used their money wisely all those years that they have been investing in your state, then you can establish home grown industries and technologies. And in some cases you maybe become investor in other poorer countries; the trouble is that some leader's are so corrupt that instead of doing this, they are absorbing those funds for personal use, or to perpetuate their rule in their countries.

The other side-effect I fear, is that once you allow others to invest in your country then inevitably you are allowing them to influence your internal and external affairs and policies. In order for someone to invest huge amount of money in you, you got in return to play by their rules in some key areas that interests them. So if the Chinese are investing in many EU countries, and with no real unity in most policy areas among them (as we have seen many times) can the Chinese "play one against each other" later on? In other words, can China, as America was doing all those years, influence European politics indirectly?

Of course they can, and they will. We have been doing it in Europe and other regions of the world for our benefit. The key issue though here is, that if Europe is truly united, there is little we have to fear from this development and we can use it for our benefit. Besides, China has a great interest in Europe, and we have asked their assistance to deal with the eurozone crisis recently: so we are already close partners in a way. We need them as much as they need us and they know it.

I personally welcome China’s rise, but of course we in Europe need to stand united when dealing with them. They are after all (still) the most populous country in the world, and individual European countries of around 10 or 20 million each-never mind the smaller ones, have a clear disadvantage. With a Europe of half a billion though, things are different. Besides, isn't that the main reason of European integration; to counterpart the rising challenges from the continuous changes that are taking place, with the emergence of new markets and economic powerhouses on the planet.

We are seeing countries like China, Brazil, Russia, India and South Africa, the so called BRICS entering the economic landscape of our world. I welcome the rise of these new economies, to break the monopoly of the West notably America. Europe has been their lap dog since WW2, and we barely have foreign policies of our own, if America says otherwise. Their influence over Europe is economic, cultural, political and social. They have influenced our lives and public opinion through their movies, products, press, TV channels and programs, but also dragged us in many wars for their benefit only. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are mainly based on America's foreign policy and interests with almost all of Europe involved, with exchange of money, investments from America and other "favors" which I dread to imagine what they are!

Europe is in a way obliged to support America in almost everything and in the case of China, America fears their potential challenge on military supremacy. Their interests in the Pacific that they had monopoly since WW2 are important to them, as well as supporting their vessel states of Japan, South Korea and Taiwan. Especially over the last one, there is a real concern for a future conflict. So Europe weakens China's military development, or at least is postponing in with its arms embargo. I personally do not see why Europe must get at odds with other countries or regions to safeguard America's favoritism and influence. Why do we have to get in odds with China, in order to favor America? We have been doing the same with Russia and our relations are on a roller-coaster. It could have been different if we had a more independent foreign policy.

Allegedly America is "protecting" us from the threat of Russia, China, Iran and the Islamic one. But if Europe was allowed to develop its own military defense that would not be necessary. Besides there are many in America that do not want to "protect" Europe at "their expense" and as for Russia I do not think they are a real threat anymore, as long as we do not get in their nostrils and side always with America.  Like China they have a great interest in us as we are their primary oil and gas consumer. Why destroy us? We could still be allies with USA but that should not mean being their lap dog.

I wish to see a multi-polar world and break the monopoly of the Americans and the three main European powers (Germany-France-Britain).  Then the world will be more equal and fair in my opinion. But only if Europe unites in some sort. If not, then we are going to be just a play-field and chess-mat for the big players of the future, like China, Russia, America. We are going to be a profitable market for them so they can trade, sell their goods and become richer. But we will have no real influence in the world or towards those superpowers! How can you safeguard your interests like that?

If we have more countries, or block of countries competing with America and Europe, not in an ideological field like we used to have with the USSR and communism, but rather in innovation, development, finances, military and politics, we will have more voices in this world. America and the rich European elite countries won't have the monopoly in this world and its resources, thus we will have more democracy and equality in our planet. If Brazil in South America, China and India in Asia, South Africa in Africa, together with other economic blocks like ASEAN, MERCOSUR, AU and so on get more say, then the established western powers can not behave irresponsibly, arrogantly or like bullies as they have been doing for some time now. They will have strong opposition and this can be for our benefit too. Because small European countries also suffer from the monopolies of America, Britain, France and Germany.

The emergence of China, might be good for the smaller European states; because if the big powers of Europe wish to compete with them, they might be forced to form an ever closer union between us, and speak with one voice to the world. In other words, include all the smaller states in the effort to start being more competitive, taking initiatives and having a voice in the world scene. That could mean that Europe can become like America, a kind of federation that living standards can be of the same level everywhere with the same opportunities for prosperity all over the continent.

Or it could be for the worse, if the European elites wish to replace the cheap production of the Chinese workforce by creating a two tier Europe; the rich north and the poor south, with lower wages and weaker economies. The poorer states will do what the Chinese were doing until now, work to produce cheap goods for the rich states. There are many that fear this, especially in the hardest hit by the current crisis states in EU like Greece and Spain and other southern European countries. Is that what the current economic crisis will lead to? Not necessarily, not if the smaller states start taking a united stand against the three European powers and take initiatives within EU.

There are those who claim that salaries will be cut all over Europe, so that Europe can start producing again and attract investors with lower salaries for its citizens, to compete with China. What started in Greece they say, will spread all over Europe; Greece is just the "guinea pig" and the beginning. All European countries will follow sooner or later. Nevertheless it is obvious that these are certainly indications that life for a worker in Europe will be very different in the future because of the competition rising from China. Perhaps it was about time for us to get a kick up the back-side and stop relying on bubble economies and the markets and re-industrialize our countries.

There is of course the threat and possibility of war between all of the current and emerging powers. But haven't we been in a constant war anyway? Especially America and its European allies. Over a decade in Iraq and Afghanistan, and a brewing conflict with Iran just to safeguard America's interests. Perhaps if there were more military powers to threaten America, they would not go to war as easily in the first place.

To conclude, the rise of China certainly brings many challenges for Europe in the future, but one thing is certain: we can not keep blocking other regions from prospering and developing. We can not afford the effort and we can not keep dragging the development of the human kind all on our own; we need to bring others on board. Besides, it is only ethical to do so. There will be certain challenges that will come with this, but we can definitely  get over them if we accept the fact that we have to face the future in some form of union or federation. Europe must start speaking with one voice in the world. Keep holding on to old imperial and nationalist complexes, is not the way forward; learn to still be a national of an ethnic group while belonging in a international political entity I believe is the way forward. We do not want to lose our identity, nobody wishes so. But democracy can exist in a European or international level if only you allow it, believe it, support it and work for it.

Will the Irish pay the new household charge?

As the deadline for registering and paying the new household charge approaches on the 31^st of March, the majority of the citizens still have yet to pay. There are many scenarios on what the failure to pay will result in. But is the introduction of the charge timed right and why is there so much controversy over it when such charges exist all over Europe?

The “Household Charge” of €100 has been introduced in order to fund local services like emergency services, maintenance and cleaning of streets, public parks, street lighting, libraries, etc. It is an interim measure and will be replaced in future by a valuation-based property tax that already exists in other EU countries.

Ireland is one of the last countries in Europe that does not fund local services through local property-based charges. The EU/IMF Programme of Financial Support for Ireland commits the Government to the introduction of a property tax for 2012.  

The Household Charge is an annual charge introduced by the Local Government (Household Charge) Act 2011 which is payable by owners of residential property. It is a matter for owners of residential properties to register and pay the Household Charge on or after the 1st of January 2012.

A property tax, requiring a comprehensive property valuation system, would take time to introduce and accordingly, to meet the requirements in the EU/IMF Programme, the Government has decided to introduce a Household Charge in 2012.

The new charge is separate from and in addition to the Non-Principal Private Residence (NPPR) charge. If you own a residential property in Ireland, you are obliged to declare your liability for the Household Charge and pay it by the due date, unless you are not liable.

If your house is rented you are liable for the charge and not your tenant. Virtually all private residential properties, including apartments and bedsits, are liable for the charge. There are a few exemptions that are not though; properties owned by an approved charity, government departments or by local authorities and under their schemes and mobile homes, are some of them.

A late payment fee of 10 per cent will be added if the charge is paid within six months of March 31st. This will increase to 20 per cent after six months and to 30 per cent after a year. Late payment interest of 1 per cent per month from the due date will also apply until the charge has been paid.

Since this new measure has been announced by the government, many political and social groups have been promoting their campaign opposing it, on social media, the internet and public demonstrations.

The Irish government and all of the main political parties support the new charge, apart from Sinn Fein. The party’s leader Gerry Adams TD has called on the Taoiseach to axe the Household Charge following the publication of figures which show that less than 7% of households have paid until the end of February.
The Louth TD also called on the government to put in place a plan B to ensure that local councils are adequately funded.

With only days to go before the March 31st deadline the government’s plan to generate €160 million for local councils appears to be in real danger of collapse, according to the Sinn Fein TD.
He called the government to accept that the Household Charge is an unfair tax which should never have been introduced. It is a flat tax that hits the poorest hardest and people on low and middle incomes are bearing the brunt of austerity.

 Mr Adams believes that, the Household Charge should be axed and the government should introduce a cap on wages in the public sector at €100,000, as proposed by Sinn Féin. This would raise €265 million “more than envisaged by the Household Charge.”

Another Sinn Fein politician, Senator Katherine Reilly, also believes that the government got it wrong. “The tax scheme should be progressive, regulated to the ability to pay” she notes. This charge is in line with the EU/IMF austerity programme, as an interim measure to property tax, she explains.

The charge is completely unjust, according to the Senator. “People have massive mortgages repayments and the charge is not looking to the ability of a house owner to pay; it is completely unfair,” she says. “People are in the breadline, the households are squeezed with high levels of unemployment, while more and more charges are being introduced,” she continues.

But there are speculations that if house holders fail or decline to register and pay for the new charge, the government will eventually collect it directly from the existing utility bills of the household.  At the moment there is an enquiry on the legality of such measure with the Data Protection Commission.

“If such thing happens, Sinn Fein will organize some sort of protest about it-like marching and campaigning against it outside the government buildings,” Senator Reilly said. “The government must take a serious look to that, it is not going to work; people are financially squeezed.”

Gerry O’Donnell from Virginia Co. Cavan suggested that the public should know how these funds raised by the new charge will be used by the government; “I think that our government should publish a list to out-line exactly what we will get in return for this payment; do we get a service? Will they replace and ensure that the roads to our homes are maintained for example,” he pointed out.

Many groups that are campaigning against the new charge are warning that once this charge is introduced, the amount will keep rising and it will also lead to water charges. In most other European countries, water and household tax is a reality for many decades now.

In France the municipal taxes are on average about € 1,800 per household, while in Norway around € 1,448 per annum. In Germany the average water bill is around € 750 per annum. Of course there are many differences between the Irish public services and those of our European counterparts. In many cases the services in other European countries are of higher level.

But how does the household charge is implemented in other EU countries and how does it affect their people? Thanos Kalamidas, an artist and free lance journalist in Helsinki, explains how the Finnish system works:  “there is property tax in Finland and it is painful,” he says. “In Finland the idea is that the land belongs to the state and you just have the right to use it, however surreal this might sound in a capitalist world.”

Thanos explains that if you buy and sell property in Finland, your capital gains will be taxed at 28%. There is a separate real estate tax, levied by the municipality as well. Non-resident investors are not exempted from paying this. The property tax rate is based on the value of the real estate, but it generally ranges from 0.3% to 1% of this value. The rate is different for permanent residents, who pay only 0.15% to 0.50%.

Marianne Ranke-Cormier, a Parisian and editor of the on-line Newropeans Magazine, explains how the tax works in France; “in France this charge is called ‘Taxe foncière’ (Land value tax) and also ‘Taxe d'habitation’ (local residence tax) existing since the French revolution, which corresponds to the spirit of equality,” she explains. The rich landowners must also pay and it applies to all real property, built or non-built. However, the tax is levied by municipalities, so the richer the city then the tax is lower.

This is the case for Paris where the taxes are lower than in the suburbs, “which is unequal, as properties in Paris are more expensive, so the rich Parisian owners pay less taxes when compared with the owners of the suburbs,” she says. “It is time for owners of property of Greece and Ireland to contribute to the community for the services they exploit. The land belongs to nobody, it is a common good and I find it normal to pay back to the society for the right to ‘own’ a large or small part of it,” Marianne adds.

 Ildiko Gonda, and artist from Budapest explains how this charge affects them, in one of the newest EU states. “In Hungary the tax differs, depending if it is a holiday home, family house or apartment, business premises, building site, etc. It also depends on whether the owner occupies the property, or it is a second real-estate property,” she says.

It varies in the different districts of Budapest and there are wavers, depending on the number of dependants living in the property. There is a penalty tax for sites, because the local government wants to force the owners to fill the gaps and build in the empty site.

In Hungary people live in their majority in their own property like in Ireland. For this reason there are social elements built into the taxation system. “But people are finding tricks to avoid taxation,” Ildiko comments. “From this year, there is such tax everywhere in Budapest, but it works similarly as in France.”

Last year the charge has been also implemented in Greece, as a condition of the EU/IMF bail-out agreement for the debt ridden country. But unlike the Irish, the Greeks were not “asked” to register for it in order to pay; the government there made sure that the charge will be collected as soon as possible.

The house hold tax is being collected through the property’s electricity bill and DEH (Public Corporation of Electricity). DEH is obliged to charge the home owners the new tax in four yearly instalments. The charge is not just € 100, but as in Finland or Hungary it is calculated according the size, value, age, use and location of the property and there are many different levies or wavers for single people, couples with kids, one parent families, etc.

If the home owners fail or decline to pay the tax, then DEH has the right to suspend the electricity provision to the property until the owner settles the bill. The owner has not the right to switch to another electricity provider until he/she has settled the fees. In the case that the owner does not apply for the electricity service reconnection and does not pay the charge, then DEH will inform the relative state authorities to proceed with further persecution of the owner.

Of course the reaction from the Greek public was strong and in many cases violent. According to many, these measures are being implemented the wrong time, when the people are losing their jobs and their salaries are being cut. Others view this as totally unfair, as they feel that they have to pay this tax to save the banks and the mistakes of the corrupt political elite. Water charges already existed in Greece, but the new house hold charge was something that many saw as another way for the government and the EU to rip them off their hard earned money.

Zoe Karasoultani, a journalist from Thessaloniki, Greece commented; “no Greek has agreed to this charge. Nevertheless it has been implemented, but some are still refusing to pay; others like my family have paid it, but with heavy heart. The ones who refused to do so now simply owe the amount to the revenue.” It seems that they will be dealing with them from now on.

If the EU and our governments are trying to harmonize the property taxes in all EU states, or provide the state with more resources to fund public services, it seems that they are doing so during the worse time possible. By using the current crisis in order to push for the desired reforms, they are only turning the public opinion against the new charge.

Introducing this charge maybe a step to the right direction as Marianne has put it, but in a climate of unemployment, austerity and a serious economic crisis, it is a recipe for protests; cutting jobs and salaries while raising taxes and even worse introducing new ones, is never going to go down easily with the public.

Britain to blame again for the new EU fiscal treaty referendum?

British opposition to the EU’s original fiscal treaty proposal is partly responsible for forcing a referendum on the issue in the Republic, former Taoiseach John Bruton argued yesterday.

The Republic has to hold a constitutional referendum to ratify the fiscal treaty, which imposes budgetary rules on EU members limiting the amount of money they can borrow and the deficits they can run.

Addressing the Ireland Canada Business Association yesterday, John Bruton, a former Taoiseach and EU ambassador to the US, said the British government’s refusal to agree to amend existing European treaties to accommodate the new fiscal rules had “forced everybody else” to go outside existing agreements.

“The fact that a member state would do such a thing, to my mind, suggests something not far from malice,” he added.

Mr Bruton argued that if Britain had agreed to amend the existing EU treaties to accommodate the fiscal pact, it is possible the Republic could have avoided the need for a referendum. He suggested it would have been possible for the Government to rely on the fact the electorate have already ratified those existing treaties in previous referendums.

Mr Bruton is president of IFSC Ireland, a private organization that promotes the Republic, and particularly Dublin, as a location for international financial services. His brother, Richard, is Minister for Enterprise, Jobs and Innovation in the Coalition.

Mr Bruton was giving the Ireland Canada Business Association’s inaugural lecture, which was hosted by accountancy firm Price-Waterhouse-Coopers at its offices in Dublin. In his speech, he argued the welfare state, designed during a period of sustained growth in the 1950s and 1960s and promising generous pensions to workers, was the root cause of the EU’s sovereign debt crisis.

He said the markets recognized in many EU states the ratio of workers to pensioners was falling, making it harder to sustain retirement benefits. As a result, the markets were targeting the EU.


By: Barry O'Halloran
The Irish Times, 09/03/2012.

The above article just sickens me. We all know what the Brits are doing in the E.U., they want to protect their interests that lie with the Markets and the financial sector. But at least please call a spade a spade and stop the nonsense! They hate the euro and they want it gone. They advocate for the debt ridden nations to leave the euro-zone as soon as possible.

They tried to block the new EU fiscal treaty, because they will lose out in manipulating the European currencies and economy. And now that they managed to force Ireland to have a referendum on it with their objections and withdrawal, they will meddle again in the referendum and try to shoot down the treaty.

If the Irish vote NO they will be doing Britain's job and making them a favor, for the worsening of the crisis for all of the nations that are in dire need for a solution right now, including Ireland! But only Ireland's reputation will be damaged by this, not Britain's.

I understand that the British Government has invested a lot over the decades to maintain the financial sector and it is one of Britain's main economic sectors, since they got rid off a lot of their industries. But if Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Italy are called to face tough austerity and make the necessary reforms, with very painful consequences for their people, why Britain isn't?

Perhaps they should go back to what they had before and not rely on easy money from the Markets. It will be for Europe's, the British people's and the World's benefit to control the financial sector. 

The U.K. is acting selfishly again, to protect the very institutions that brought us to this mess: the banks and the markets. Next time please stop lecturing us about how Europe is robbing Britain out of its resources, and consider that you (the ordinary British citizens) might also not escape the will of the Markets, after they have consumed everything in the other European countries.

We need to control the markets and the banks, not support them, side with them and give them more power over our citizens. But the City of London has different views!

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!