Can small European countries like Greece and Ireland, become Europe’s Green Industries?

With the recent recession and crisis in the Euro-zone, the two hardest hit members that were forced to get a bail out from the IMF, Greece and Ireland, are pondering on solutions and reforms for their economies.

Apart the fact that they need to push for enough reforms that the IMF demands to secure the loan deal, they really must create a plan for the future, to make sure their economies are fully functioning. They would not like another similar crisis and I am sure none of their EU partners would either.

In both cases various opinions claim, that these countries should explore the Green technology, to heal and sustain their future economies. Tourism and Agriculture mixed with the property bubble economy of Ireland, obviously can not guarantee a stable economy.

One could really applaud such ideas and we should be looking forward to watch such developments happening, not just in Greece and Ireland but on a pan-European level. But what will the opinion of other EU states be, especially that of the “EU heavyweights” France, Germany and Britain?

Imagine if those two nations started producing green energy, or set up an industry for let's say green cars, how would Germany react to this? Before the Athens Olympic Games, we were presented on national television an electric car made by the Greek Automobile Industry (ELBO), in co-operation with other companies and funding by private investors.

It was meant to go on display during the Olympics, but we never heard of it ever again. Obviously it had to be subsided to go onto mass production, something that never happened. Could it be because there was no place for more competition in the European market, or perhaps the Greek Government did not consider developing these kind of products, to diversify the Greek economy with?

One could only imagine the Germans and the British, ever buying electric cars from the Greeks. So what kind of “green industry development” can these countries invest in, to reform their economies in the future?

Perhaps the plan is to work on producing green energy, exploiting the natural resources that we already have in Europe like the wind, sun, sea and its currents. Build an economy of producing and manufacturing the components needed to do this, like solar panel manufacturing.

But with all major manufacturing companies moving to China or elsewhere with cheaper work force, can any European country set up a new industry from scrap? It will be interesting to see how do they plan to diversify the Greek and Irish economy. How can small European countries compete with much larger, well established industries in bigger countries on this?

It sounds a perfect plan, and a long delayed one too. All European states should agree to create a united industrial reform, with commonly agreed policy to develop it. It is not realistic anymore to have few countries that hold the majority of the manufacturing industries in Europe, while their partners are left to make ends meet with not so stable or profitable industries like agriculture and tourism.

With a common market and one currency in our continent, if one economy fails, everybody is affected. Tourism is not a stable economy. It relies on the financial situation of the rich developed countries and their citizens. Agriculture on the other hand needs a lot of subsidizing to make it as profitable so it can sustain a whole economy.

It is time to create pan-European manufacturing industries, with many EU nations participating and hosting facilities for exploration, testing, and producing those new “green” goods. We should stop thinking on a national level and create a competitive new kind of Eco-friendly industrial revolution, on a pan-European level.

All EU states could be participating, creating jobs and opportunities for the citizens everywhere, securing jobs for Europeans, promote development and stability throughout the continent and eliminating inequalities. Ireland and Greece do not deserve to go from boom to bust, they deserve a stable economy. They should be treated as equal EU partners and be encouraged to invest in other types of economy.

It will not just benefit them, but the whole European region in the long term, to have them and all small EU member states, thriving and equally competitive as the larger ones.

It is little good to them if the production of the solar panels, for the proposed "HELIOS" program in Greece are made in Germany, and they are just placed on Greek soil? Shouldn't be Greece who manufactured the panels and create jobs, boost its exports and become a main exporter not just of "green" energy in the region, but also of the components that are required for its exploitation. 

If everything is manufactured elsewhere, then  there is little profit for Greece and no reforms in its economy will ever take place. Perhaps part of the solution is to also stop companies from moving to China, and redistribute them throughout Europe instead. Have all nations working together, while redesigning the type of energy, cars and lifestyle our future generations will have.

GMO? No but thanx, not in Europe!

Recently there has been a lot of debate on the right of each EU state to ban GMO crops or products made from them. Good arguments are being presented from both sides, but what must European policy makers do?

 We should not be negatively against every effort made by scientists, to better the conditions of living of the human race. But on the other hand can they totally be trusted when large corporate companies are also involved? Our food and health is not something to be experimenting with. It has been happening a lot until now, but do we know the consequences in our health?

In a common market like EU if some nations allow GMOs, then the whole market is flooded with them. If Spain starts growing GMOs, how can we stop them from spreading in the rest of the market? Either we must accept them unanimously, or rejected them the same way.

Knowing that the 27 members states, soon to be 28, argue over the smallest policies and some debates have been going on for decades, how long it will be until we make up our minds on this issue? With different nations having different agendas and interests, it is almost impossible to reach to an agreement.

Our main concern should focus on the welfare of the people. It will take decades perhaps of GMO consumption to witness any real benefits, disadvantages, or hazards.  Have we done any tests on how our current diet affects our health? It is doubtful that it is only down to smoking or stress, the rise of cancer cases of all kinds in humans.

Do we know what the food industry is putting on our table and what chemicals do we consume? If with the current practices of the food industry we have such effects in our health, I suggest instead of exploring new mutated foods, it is best to explore better, cleaner, safer food. Of course some will say the population growth can not sustain a more organic approach in our food production.

Our grand parents ate less food, yet cleaner, fresher and they are living longer and healthier. If only they had better medication perhaps they would have even better quality of life. We on the other hand, with all the junk, plastic, and mass produced food, all the chemicals involved and injected, what quality of life and health we will have when we are 80 or 90?

One has to only taste a tomato that has been grown in a hothouse, injected with so many chemicals and one that has been organically grown. Just taste butter, eggs or the meat of animals that were grown with no or minimum chemicals injected in their bodies, and you will understand the difference.

The supporters of GMO production use as an argument that we already eat modified food, developed in labs. That the breeds are crossbred to create better, faster producing animals and we already feeding plants with so much chemicals to grow faster. But what we got is tasteless food in the best case and no one knows its effect on our health. Is that really a reason to open the doors to GMOs food as well?

Another argument is the same that is being used against the CAP, the main obstacle to allow GMOs in Europe: poverty in the third world, and how Europe’s policies affect their economies. This is supported by the multinational corporate organizations of America, that have an equal share of blame for their own practices of subsidizing their farming industry.

We play the fortunes of our future generations in the stock markets. We “commodify” everything from fish, animals, water, trees and land, even people. That is the true cause of poverty and hunger in the world. We produce way too much, more than we need, yet there is still hunger in this World.

Can we really trust “created” food and the companies that make them or promote them? We do not need to eat beef burgers, chips, chicken breasts and tomato ketchup everyday, or deep fried food in oil of questionable source, such as palm oils.

Why industrialize our food in such scale, while we could eat less meat and produce less waste? Most of the food we produce goes to waste, and it is proven that fast foods are the worse kind that we can eat. There is a growing obesity crisis that hits all developed nations. Yet they want to create modified food “to feed the world,” when the reality is that they want to make more money.

Stop the growing trend of fast food eating around the world, and we won’t need as much beef, potatoes, wheat or tomatoes to create them. Keep our food “real." Why have fast food chains in every country of the world, in every neighborhood of any country, which require tonnes of beef and potatoes to keep them going?

There is only few who will benefit from all this and it is the corporate multinationals. They want to introduce GMOs, with the pretense that we need to feed the world, so they can produce faster, cheaper, more and everywhere. But with what cost to our already in danger health?

Unrest and revolution in the Arab world and Europe is cheering.

For the past few weeks we've seen an amazing expression and desire of ordinary people throughout the Arab World, for democracy and prosperity. One by one, people in countries in North Africa and the Middle East rise, protest and even managed to overthrow regimes that have been established for decades.

From Tunisia, Algeria, Egypt and now Bahrain, Libya and Yemen we watch pictures and videos of a real revolution that is taking in the Arab world and it was about time too.

The region has been ruled by totalitarian regimes for decades, plagued by corruption and lacking of any progress, freedom, prosperity and jobs. Many of the region's citizens were migrating to Europe, and this situation seemed to be unchangeable. Our leaders did business with the leaders of the region and perhaps even supported them. Possibly this political balance suited them and favored many in Europe and the wider region, but not the people living in it.

Suddenly we witness an uprising in the Arab world. And while the European media feast on the news that come from those countries and the European public are watching with fascination, our leaders remain observant. Could such mass uprising ever happen in Europe, or are they unsettled by the change of the status in those countries? For the moment they seem to just observing for the outcome.

Europe itself is gripped by an ongoing crisis. Most European countries suffer still from the recession and we witnessed two Euro-zone countries receiving a bail out from the IMF. Many more EU and non EU European countries have already received similar loans. People in Italy are protesting against their ruling elite demanding the resignation of PM Berlusconi. In Greece, Iceland,Ireland and many eastern European states we saw protests over the economic crisis, the cuts, the IMF loans and the oppression of the working force.

In Belgium too the people are protesting over the failure of their leaders to agree and form a government. So Europe at the moment is not a very different place to be than the Arab World. What fascinates us though is that in North Africa people have actually managed to oust their leaders and their governments.

The similarities between Europe and North Africa are much more that we would like to believe. We also have well established political elites that rule us since the WW2. The fact that we do not have them in the form of juntas or regimes like the one in Libya, I guess comes down to the history of decolonization in North Africa and the US influence. When the European powers left the region, they helped those regimes to be established and their dominance lasted until now.

Europe always meddled with the affairs of this region. The question is, who is behind all this, and why now? Recessions came and went in the past but the Arabs did not protest as passionately. Hopefully the developments are for the best of the people of those countries and they will get the freedom and democracy that they are fighting for.

It is inspirational what is happening right now in the southern coast of the Mediterranean  and beyond.When it was the last time that we saw people seizing power? But there is no doubt that these developments will have an impact to Europe too. So far we only see a rise of illegal immigrants from the region coming to our continent, but perhaps in the future we will be affected in other ways too.

Recently the British PM David Cameron stated that multiculturalism has failed in Europe, echoing the German Chancellor's Merkel similar remarks about a year ago. The remarks came soon after protests of the far right in Britain against the spread of Islam in the UK. In fact all three main European Powers' leaders (Cameron, Merkel, Sarkozy) made the same remarks.

If Europe is turning against its multiculturalism agenda then what next for Europe's Muslims? Perhaps the riots and democratization of the Arab world is coming on the right scheduled time. For decades the region was dipped in poverty, deprivation and the trend of emigration into Europe.

Now with the establishment of new political elites will this reality continue, or will we see a total change in the region and its economy among other things? Stabilizing democracy in Europe's neighbors, may cap emigration into Europe from the region. It is not by chance that we see a constant change in the Euro-Mediterranean area in all aspects from social to financial, foreign to energy, immigration to employment policies.

We are living in exciting and challenging times, perhaps even more than when the Berlin wall fell and Europe reunited. The changes that will follow will perhaps not only affect Europe, but North Africa, Middle East and all the near regions.The question is who will be the winners of such political and social shake up in the region and who will benefit from this.

Europe can not remain an observer in the events but if it get's involved, its engagement must be constructive for the region, or it will bring us in a further class with the Arab nations. We do have a terrible history of meddling and making things worse after all.

The Greek culture of the Druids..A second home coming for me!

"In the next article we read that there may have been Greek Migration to Ireland since the ancient times, and not just from any region of Greece, but specifically from Macedonia that I also come from. 

And not just migrated, but also heavily influenced as we will discuss further down. It makes me proud!"



The term Druids (Druids), indicate the fair priestly class in ancient Celtic societies, which lived in Western Europe, North and beyond the Alps and later the British Isles.

The customs of the Druids were part of the culture of all racial groups called 'Celts' and 'Galatai' by Greeks and 'Celtae' and 'Galli' by the Romans, names which have evolved into today 'Celtic' and 'Gaulish'. The Druids took their name from the Oak (Oak) and were priests and philosophers and legislated and bestowed justice.

The oak was also the "sacred" tree of the Greek royal houses of Macedonia, which is historically proven and archaeological findings to the number found in the royal Macedonian tomb with its famous royal crowns.

There is perhaps no coincidence that the Druids took their name from the oak tree (oak), one tree was sacred to the Greeks from the depths of antiquity. Let us not forget the prophetic oracle in sacred oak of Dodona, the oldest oracle in the world, the sacred tree of Gaia and later Jupiter.

The most important references to the Druids are described in ancient documents, especially  in the Latin language. The most important books, perhaps mainly because of the author's personal prestige and his access to the latest knowledge and his own perception of events, are the writings of Julius Caesar with the title "De Bello Gallico". A series of books that he writes about geography and society of the Gauls or Celts, himself the emperor of Rome. ( Gaius Julius Caesar, 13 Ιουλίου 100 BC - 15 March 44 BC )

Translated from Latin, in some of his writings here we read: "There are throughout Gaul two classes of people of specified importance and honors. In these classes, one is consisted by the Druids, the other  the Knights."

"It is reported that schools of Druids, taught by heart many verses. Some druids stayed for twenty years in education (discipline). And they did not consider it appropriate to write these speeches, although in almost all cases, both public and secret reports they use the Greek language (Greek letters) "

The same book says:  "The main point of ideology is that the soul does not die and after death passes from one body to another" (Transfiguration).

This observation led several ancient writers to the conclusion that the Druids might have influenced by the teachings of Pythagoras. The Caesar also notes that the druidic meaning of the guardian spirit of the race, translates as Dispater (Dispater-> Zeus - father).

The Greek origin of the Druids

In the mythological book Lebor Gabála Érenn [Book of Invasions-Book of Intrusion] we read about the Greek Partholona who came to Ireland after the flood. It is said to have originated from the Middle Macedonia or Greece, with his wife, three sons with their wives and three Druids, all brothers between them, their names  Fios, Aiolos and Fomoris, (FiOS, Eolas, Fochmarc), names that etymologically mean , "Intellect, Knowledge and Research. Holders of this wisdom was the Druids, Greeks adepts as we conclude from the ancient texts.

In the same book we read that the Partholon was a Greek prince who killed his parents hoping to inherit the kingdom. The incident costs him his one eye and a string of bad luck.He was nevertheless master of every major art. He had a total of 7 sons. After 30 years of residence in Ireland, he died near the town that is now called Tallaght, where 120 years after his descendants perished by an outbreak of plague.


DP Perdikaris, Dora Spyridou


References:
De Bello Gallico, Julius Caesar
These are the Greek, Theodore Petropoulos
Julius Caesar, Wikipedia
encyclopedia.com
Kuno Meyer, 'Partholón mac Sera', Zeitschrift für celtische Philologie, 13 (1919), 141-2;
Anton G. van Hamel, 'Partholón', Revue Celtique, 50 (1933), 217-37;
Henry Morris, 'The Partholon Legend', Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries, 67 (1937), 57-71.
Christiane L. Joost-Gaugier, 'Measuring Heaven - Pythagoras and His Influence on Thought and Art in Antiquity and the Middle Ages', (2006), 112-113

Source: www.macedoniahellenicland.eu , www.hellasontheweb.org

Read more at: http://www.macedoniahellenicland.eu/content/view/464/48/lang,el/

How corruption in Greece works.

With the recent developments in Greece, the global media rushed in condemning the country painting their own picture of the situation in Greece. Apart the fact that we must examine the interests and the nationality of the journalists who wrote about Greece, I will also add that there is a smear campaign by the predominantly "Anglo-American" media for all southern European states (Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain).

The naming of these nations as "PIGS", is not only humiliating, unfair and outrageous, but it also created a deep division between the European states. One that could become a real life slander and follow the reputation of those nations forever. It clearly seeks to portray their way of life and mentality as inferior, while the northern "Anglo-Saxon" way as the ideal.

Make no mistake, there is corruption in Greece and in fact I myself do not consider Greece a fully democratic country. It is an aristocracy of a corrupt elite that was established with the help of the Western Powers after WW2 and the Greek Civil War. And it is that elite that is hindering all progress and development in Greece. Perhaps serving the wishes of those powers who helped their establishment, or because they simply do not want to let go of power, allowing the country to blossom and become a rich European state.


Greece has an educated, multilingual youth that abandons the country and thrive in all other European or non European states that they find their new home. It has a very important geopolitical position and many natural resources that if exploited, they could transform the country in one of the richest of Europe.

Many have said that the Greeks are lazy to work and they prefer the customer service industries like hospitality and catering. But over the years, thousands of Greeks worked in Germany, Sweden, Belgium and other countries, contributing to the economy and progress of these nations. If there were any factories in Greece, the Greeks would work in them. They are a hard working race of people that blossom and prosper in any other country that they migrate to.

Another argument against Greece was that many civil servants can take their pension at the age of forty something. Many Europeans thought that that was outrageous, and another sign of the Greek laziness. Well if anyone in Europe had the opportunity to do the same, wouldn't he/she have taken it and did the same? It is not the people who are on the wrong, it is the system! Why Greeks abroad are law abiding citizens in their majority and they prosper, while in Greece they end up being sluggish and slow to change and adapt?

Also the Greek civil servant's absenteeism was mentioned. If I compare this with the situation I see in Ireland, that many of my colleagues "pull a sickie" every time they drink too much over the weekend or each time they can not have the holidays that they want, then I do not see how Greece is only on the spot light for this. I do not agree with it, and I do not approve it. But it is not only a Greek trend.

The hardest criticism was on the tax evading of the citizens in Greece. It is partly true, but you have to take into consideration the red tape that exists in Greece. Sometimes it is so hard and time consuming to deal with the Revenue, complicated and in some cases expensive. And it is always the ordinary citizens that are called to pay their taxes, when they see the rich avoiding them without any consequences.

 Recently the Greek public has the opportunity of doing their dealings with the revenue online, but with poor internet speed and lack of promotion for this new service, is there any wonder that is still not popular as in other countries?

The lower wages in Greece, when compared with other Euro-zone member states, lead many Greeks in working in the "black employment market." They prefer not to pay taxes for an insurance and pension fund, just so they can get higher wages.

There is also a natural mistrust and resentment of the Greek public towards their Government. When they read about so many scandals and abuses of public money by each Government, what example do they receive by their ruling elite? "The fish smells from its head" a Greek saying goes and that is the truth. In other words, it is our Government and ruling elite that is corrupt and the corruption goes down to the very last citizen.

But you can't avoid becoming part of this system! You study for years and you get lots of qualifications but there are not jobs or industries that you find a job, start a career in the subject that you studied and you loved. You got all the right qualifications but you see others to fill up positions with no qualifications just because they know the right people in the right place. When the only way to deal successfully with most public services is to bribe its officials.

Even if you are law abiding and pay your taxes, you see the rich elite evading theirs. When there are no jobs created in the state, so the only option for a secure and stable career is to get into the public sector. In other words, it is the system that is wrong and needs to be changed. But who can lead and initiate those necessary changes?

I thought that the EU would and that is why I have always supported it. But unfortunately if the big powers of Europe allow it to interfere in other countries' internal affairs, that would mean that they must allow it to interfere with theirs. I petty much doubt that Britain, France and Germany would approve that.

Perhaps the Greek Government then. But it is because of them that the system remains as such, so they will continue governing Greece with their outdated practices, to remain in power and safeguard their wealth. The people of Greece then, should do something about it.

But with so much propaganda going on since the years of the "Metapolitefsi", (The re-establishment of democracy in the country after the junta during the '70s) in order to keep the country stable and pro-Western, is there any wonder that they feel so disoriented and lacking any real motivation?

Our leaders, especially the ones of an old nation such as Greece, had centuries in practice perfecting their art of public opinion manipulation. And Greece had to endure the Byzantine and the Ottoman imperial regimes, both very efficient and brutal in many cases in suppressing any dissidents from within.

I wish my fellow Greeks would stop going to the political offices of their local TDs to beg for a job in the public sector for their son or daughter. They should go there to demand a school, a hospital, new parks, jobs and industries. Start contacting their leaders with no fear and demand a change. Be active and responsible citizens. Vote for different parties than their "family traditional" ones. Even take the initiative of creating new ones of their own.

How can we achieve all the above? Well definitely not by calling them PIGS! The change must come in a pan-European level, because the corruption is not only rooted in the southern and eastern European countries. There are many intergovernmental agreements that we are not been told of, between our ruling elites. So we, as citizens need to be active in a national but also in a European level.

Time for pan-European political parties and exchange of political ideas?

In the European Parliament's Facebook page recently I read: "Foreign coaches and players are no news in European sports, like Fabio Capello for example. Foreign politicians are still a big no-no in European politics. 

Can that change with the emergence of truly pan-European parties".

It is about time. If we want a truly united Europe, it is time to start thinking "European". 

For the good and benefit of all the Continent, not just our own little piece of land. Since we are all interconnected, bonded by the Common Market, what happens in one nation affects all others.

If we want to achieve the stability of the Continent an the equal distribution of wealth, opportunities and progress for all its inhabitants, we must start thinking in a collective way. So far, sticking to our national interests and the constant competition between us for resources and wealth, led to Europe relying on investments of foreign multinational companies and the involvement of the Markets. 

It also led to the unequal distribution of wealth, with the western part of the continent being more stable and more prosperous. Europe collectively is not "free" to decide its own social policies in this globalized word.

  
It is time to have a shake up in Europe's political reality. Bring in new blood of politicians, that do not bow to the national corrupt circles. That perhaps they have new ideas and are not bribed by our local established elites, creating policies that suits them. 

They will be paid to create policies that will benefit the country and its citizens, not continue the political circle that smothers all good ideas, progress and reform. Our national Governments are easily bribed by foreign investors and multinationals, or the local elites and they do not always work for the benefit of the ordinary citizen. 

Especially when the smaller nations are concerned, change can not occur if the more powerful nations do not allow or encourage it. If it is not in their interests to change the balance of power in the continent or promote changes in the country, then changes are very slow. 

The only way to achieve these changes is to promote reforms throughout Europe, in every country collectively. And that can be only done by establishing political parties that will work on that level too. Our national political parties can not serve two masters: our local elites and the benefit of all Europe.

I would love to have a Swede, a German or a Dane as Mayor of my home town Thessaloniki in Greece. The city has so many potentials, but our national politicians follow the same circle of policies that favor the very few. We need to start trusting any competent European politician, either he/she is of our own nationality or not. 

Stop voting for the same established political parties, rather for someone who has the passion, interest and competence to offer solutions and his/her work for the region. And I am sure when faced with this new competition, our national politicians will have to adapt.

By voting on power the same political parties in rotation, nothing really changes in our countries, or Europe. Our continent is suffering from this conservative political reality, but we are the ones to blame. Why not have a foreigner working to fix things in our country, than some "native" politician that will be answerable to a few close partners or supporters? 

About the President of the European Council, and the High Representative of EU Foreign Affairs.

After the Lisbon Treaty referendum was passed in Ireland, the green light was given to implement the Treaty and two new positions were created in the European political scene. That of the President of the European Council, and of the High Representative of EU Foreign Affairs. Who are they, what are their roles and what does their appointment mean to each one of us?

The first and most important position was filled by the Belgian politician Mr Herman Van Rompuy, while the position of the “Minister” of Foreign Affairs by a British Baroness, Lady Catherine Ashton. Their appointment was of course with no lack of intrigues and controversy like anything else in EU and Europe.

While many supported for the position of the “EU President” (including me) the Luxembourgian PM Mr Jean-Claude Juncker, the heavyweights of EU France, Germany and Britain found him “too federalist” so the position was given to Mr Van Rompuy who was favored by all. Mrs Ashton appointment was much criticized by Spain and other EU states because as they claimed, this position should be given to a national of a country that is fully committed to EU, has adopted the Euro and belongs to the Schengen Agreement.

Since their appointment, what has changed in the EU? I would say not much. We just have two new well paid politicians. But how often we actually see their activities in our everyday life, or when was the last time that we have read about their work and their vision for Europe? None of them has ever given any inspirational speeches, addressing the people.

If we compare them to their USA counterparts and their influence or importance in their country and the world, the European ones seem rather unimportant. I am not criticizing them in person or their work, rather the political situation in Europe that is becoming increasingly a farce.

When I heard about those two positions, I imagined that eventually Europe will grow up and start speaking with one voice. That eventually we will promote Europe’s interests on the world stage and show a Europe United. Especially the President of EU, as many call him, will become a symbol of the future political union of the European states.

Instead of that we still see the big powers of EU pulling the strings, while in most EU summits with other countries or regions/blocks of the world, it is the head of the EU Commission Mr. Manuel J. Barroso that is always present, representing the EU.

Not to mention that it was another Commissioner that was sent to Haiti to see and evaluate the situation, the Bulgarian Commissioner Mrs Kristalina Georgieva, not Baroness Ashton. Many criticize her for the lack of competence or knowledge, others because of her inability to speak any other European languages notably German or French.

So if she is really not the right person for the job, why she was offered it and by whom? All important positions in EU are filled by people favored by our Governments and many in many cases they are not the best choice. Our governments want still to pull all strings in European politics, so they place people in certain positions after and agreement or political compromise. 

Many demand for the position of the "EU President" to be filled after the direct vote by the citizens of Europe. In other words, it is the people who must vote directly their President that represents them. Sadly I do not see that happening anytime soon with the stance our national Governments have towards the EU. And in many countries like Greece, the people do not elect their President directly. It is just a different political system.

In Greece people vote for their Parliament and a new Government. It is up to the Parliament then to choose the President of the country. In this system, it is not necessary the direct election of the President by the people. But in the EU’s case we have three Presidents, but only one elected in this way: The President of the European Parliament.

In other words we do not have one "EU President," that can be elected by us and represent us. That is why, Mr. Van Rompuy is officially called the President of the European Council and not what it was mentioned in the Lisbon Treaty. He speaks for and represents our governments, not the citizens. But then why do we need a person for this position and what do we gain from it, as citizens of Europe?

Shouldn't we just have one President speaking for the EU and for the citizens? It seems that we are not ready for democracy on a European level yet. I was very supportive in the beginning of those two new positions, but I haven’t seen any real leadership so far from their behalf. The blame does not lie with them, they have their hands tight.

Nothing is done in Europe without the full approval by our national Governments, especially of the powerful ones. But if we pay for a “President” and a “Minister of Foreign Affairs” shouldn’t we be treated to influential ones, exactly as our American cousins have Mr Obama and Mrs Clinton? Two politicians with real influence in the world stage.

I am not sure I want to have another two overpaid politicians that not only do so little, they do not speak for me, but also they have no real credibility in the world stage. What does Europe is actually showing to the rest of the world and how do we want them to take us seriously? We are still divided over important policies and we send puppet politicians to speak for our Governments. At least we are showing the real face of Europe this way.

Our National Governments..How "National" are they really?

Most people that have any objections to giving full power to EU and the European Parliament, are doing so because they trust more their National Governments and they do not want to lose their national sovereignty.

They believe that the people who run "Brussels" are a group of corrupt elite that want to take over their countries, in a authoritarian dictatorship. Or they simply do not like centralization, they believe that they will lose control over the issues that concern them and won't have direct say in the decisions that will affect their lives.

Though the issue of centralization is a valid one, many European nations are actually a federation and they deal with this issue effectively. It is actually nation states that lack behind like Greece, when all power and money is gathered in the capital. In the UK, Germany and Switzerland for example, they gave more power to the regional capitals and that is the way forward.

In a globalized world, no nation or government is actually independent or sovereign. All countries must follow the developments or suggestions of the Markets if they want to achieve prosperity. No country can exploit their natural resources without allowing the investors that follow the Markets' ratings to invest in the state! So how independent are we really?

I will remind you that Europe after two World Wars was totally destroyed, its economy was in tatters and it needed cash to kick-start production again. That money come from the Marshal Plan that was set up by USA! Millions of dollars were poured into the European economy and while it helped the Continent's recovery, it also made Europe attached to America until now. But as many of the plan's critics have said, it promoted corruption in the Governments that received lump sums of cash.

Did you think that Europe would receive that money for nothing? The Marshal Plan helped to transform Europe and its policies in almost everything, but it started the "Americanization" of the continent and most of the nations that got involved. Colonization ended because of American intervention and European economies became more open and globalized because it was a requirement in order for a country to be part of the plan.

That is why the Americans were keen to give as much money to as many countries in Europe, even to the eastern block and Asia. South Korea, Japan, Pakistan were also receivers of American money. No wonder they are to this day close allies of USA. The eastern European block rejected the Plan so they remained controlled by the Soviets.

So for all of you who believe that your government is ruling your country, have you ever wondered how can you change your country? Perhaps if you voted for the right politicians or political party in power, then change would come. But as we observe in some nations, governments come and go without bringing any change. Why is that?

Perhaps because these nations are “corrupt” and lack of any good politicians with a vision for their country. But everybody wants a prosperous country and a state that will provide. Everybody wants a secure future for him and his family; so why some states fail to do that?

Understandably different regions of the world have different values and culture. Their perceptions of the economy, trade, wealth and happiness are varied. There are different values for examples in Islamic countries than those in the West. But we see a variety of economic policies in the Western developed world too. 

Why some countries are doing better than others? The obvious reason would be because they follow different policies. The thing that I do not understand is why then the nations that lag behind, especially those in a multinational organization like the EU, do not take a page or two from each others books. 

Why the poorer weaker states do not copy some of the policies that made others so rich or successful? What politician would not want to make history and his government the one who changed a nation’s fate? 

We can say that the same rules can not be applied or be as successful everywhere. But certain policies could work everywhere. So why not adopt them and implement them? The problem is that change might be desired by many or needed, but unfortunately it brings loses for some people who will lose out of the established status quo. 

So while it would make sense to promote change in all levels in a society according to each state’s capabilities to become better and richer, our politicians fail us to deliver them. Politics sadly rely on lobbying. For each politician to find funds to support his or her political campaign, he or she must rely on “donations” from supporters. 

And that is where the problem starts. Elites exist within every nation that want to keep things as such. So they contribute to our political elite campaigns in order to gain favors and influence the policies that the future government is going to pursue. If these new "savior" policies that other countries have implemented are against the established elites' interests, then we see why they never get to become law.

As globalization is spreading and nations become ever interconnected, the elites of all nations become interconnected. Politics do not remain within the borders of one country. If any multinational corporation or bank can buy into another nation, then they can certainly influence the country’s politics.

They can come into an agreement with the local elites so that it will be beneficial for both of them: not necessarily for the people of that nation. So who is really governing our nations: us, our “national politicians,” or the foreign investors? 

Why are we so fiercely protecting our "national" governments, since they are not that national anymore. Once they have to implement policies that will please international investors, once they sign international treaties as part of the nation's membership in a international organization like the EU they are anything but.

Can we do anything about it? Well yes if you want to go back and stop Amerigo Vespucci and Christopher Columbus from discovering the Americas then I guess you could. Globalization and global trade started then and it can not be retracted. What we should be demanding though, if we have to give in to our governing elites' demands, is a globalization with our own terms and conditions. 

We should be forcing our governments to be more accountable, we should be demanding more transparency in our national politics and the European ones. We should become more active, vigilant and engaged citizens. If our national politicians are not that "national" anymore, as they are not the ones who truly or exclusively rule our countries, they should nevertheless represent our best interests to the ones who they deal and do business with.