The easy option: Suspend the Schengen, bravo!

What a lovely act of unity, an inspirational example of Europe and its leaders acting in solidarity when dealing with difficult issues. What have we been witnessing for the past few weeks, when the crisis hit north Africans took to the boats to enter Europe, was the selfish and nationalist reaction of each E.U. state.

Trying to protect their own interests instead of seeing the problem as a European one, they took their time and lots of debate to find a solution to a common problem, only to come to a decision that protects national interests first.

It is well known that the southern and eastern E.U. states receive the bulk of illegal immigrants that want to reach the European labor market. But of course they are not necessarily the desired destination. Most immigrants that reach Malta, Greece, Italy and Spain desire to start a new life in the more developed northern or western states, Germany, France, Britain, the Benelux and the Scandinavian states.

The problem is not national one, rather a European one. One would think that the response should come with a united front. Bit in every occasion the problem was mainly dealt on a national level, with only some help coming from FRONTEX. Each country defended its own immigration policies and the countries that did not have external borders with non EU/ Schengen states, were not as willing to share the problem.

So recently Mr. Berlusconi and Mr. Sarkozy kick-started a new debate on suspending the Schengen Agreement, at least temporarily in response of the mass exodus of the Arabs from North Africa. It is not unheard to do so, and it will not be the first time that it happened. A Schengen state is permitted by articles 23 to 31 of the Schengen Borders Code, to reinstate border controls for a short period if deemed in the interest of national security, but has to follow a consultation procedure before such an action.

This occurred in Portugal during the 2004 European Football Championship and in France for the ceremonies marking the 60th anniversary of D-Day. Spain temporarily reinstated border controls during the wedding of Crown Prince Felipe in 2004. It was used again by France, Finland, Germany, Austria and Malta at some stage on different occasions regarding security concerns during sport events, terror attacks in London or visits of important religious or political figures.

But here we do not have a problem that will last a few days or weeks. We do not know how long it will last, or how many people will attempt to enter Europe. We are not dealing with fans of a foot ball team, rather with desperate refugees that need to be treated humanly. Also we need to decide if, how many and in which countries will we allocate them. It is impossible for one single country to bare the weight of such humanitarian crisis, especially since it is a European problem.

Slowly many other states shared Berlusconi's and Sarkozy's views and in meetings they debated the temporary suspension of the Schengen Agreement. Instead of discussing the possibility of dealing with the issue in a united front, they preferred to reintroduce border controls in the internal borders of EU states.

Alternatively we could be coordinating all efforts at the borders of EU/Schengen and sharing the responsibilities and the decisions, but the Italians decided to grand visas to many Tunisians without the agreement of the French. The French stopped them at their borders with Italy, since most of them being French speakers, headed to France as soon as they got their visas.

That shows what a farce Europe's immigration policies are and the cracks in European unity. The Schengen Agreement is one of the symbols of a united Europe and E.U. one of the main rights of every EU citizen is the freedom of movement.

Rather than sending more patrols to the outer EU borders comprised and funded by all E.U. states, they preferred to act on the populist reactions and wishes of the public. Threat of more immigrants, quick close OUR borders! Our leaders decided to suspend one of our main E.U. citizen rights "temporarily", expecting that they will make a better decision later on, or that the crisis will simply pass.

We have had enough of seeing another of the European symbols, the euro, with a doubtful future. We experienced the divisions of the European public opinion, over the loans needed to stabilize the euro-zone and the sharpening of the gap between the rich and poor in Europe. Now we see Europe reinstalling its borders and not just in one state but potentially all of them.

This could definitely could lead to the redesigning of the Schengen Agreement and changing the way we travel for good. Is Europe imploding back to what it was before, turning to a more nationalist, conservative and protectionist continent?

Because if you have immigration problems, you simply deal with them not by redesigning the freedom of movement, but the immigration policies of Europe. Meanwhile, what will be the new changes on the terms we will be traveling from now on? Remember what happened after the terror attacks in the UK and the airport regulations that followed.

Europe's Day. 09/05/2011

It is this time of the year again. The time of the year that will leave many people indifferent, few celebrating or commemorating, but most people confused and wondering. It is the 9th of May, Europe’s Day.

Excuse me, does Europe have a special day in our calendar and what does it stand for?

Why should I be bothered at all and what does it mean for me? Is it something that only few bureaucrats in Brussels find an opportunity to pat themselves on the back, for their achievements?

Either want to admit it or not, many of us have had those questions in our minds. No matter where you stand politically, what your ideas about EU or a united Europe are, you have to realize the meaning and the concept behind such an idea.

What we are celebrating is not the creation of a super-state, an empire or the next superpower and many mistakenly believe. We are celebrating the creation of an organization that promotes co-operation , prosperity, development, peace and dialogue, in many fields like culture, finances, climate change, politics and social. It affects us all in our every day lives, directly.

We are celebrating the idea of a peaceful continent, working together for the development and progress of all in it, something that has never been previously achieved, thought of or inspired. In fact, Europe has incited the same aspirations in many other continents and parts of the world, since it’s success is an example for many other regions.

That is one reason why Europe should be proud and commemorate this day. The day that 50 years ago or so, European leaders sat down and put their differences aside and agreed to create an organization that would bring the continent together. Start a dialogue to solve the differences, not war. When the same leaders realized that much more could be achieved by working together, than against each other.

If that is not a reason for you to celebrate, well think of much of the stability, wealth, progress and opportunities for your personal development that you enjoy today in Europe. Many of these achievements make your life a bit easier, either on national or European level, would have never been possible without EU.

To be able to travel, study, do business, work or live in any EU country, without restrictions hassle or red tape procedures. Or to have your rights secured and recognized in all states, no matter your nationality, race, religion or sexual orientation. If that is not good enough for you, having access to different projects or funds that may help you set up a business, expand it or re-educate or train yourself and your staff so your business is more competitive.

Or simply have roads ,ports and stations built or upgraded in your community with funds from EU. The list could go on and on.

The possibilities and chances that EU membership offers to any of us is certainly a reason to celebrate, for without them our lives would be much different. It is hard to appreciate something good when it is there, but take away and you will be shocked of the difference that it makes in your life. The least we can do is to remind ourselves of what we have, by celebrating and commemorating the day.

It is also a great way in creating a feeling of “togetherness”, a feeling of belonging and sharing. A reason to be proud of your nation being one of the countries that belongs to this unique organization and it is considered to be democratic, developed, respecting the rights of it’s citizens, contributing to the development and stability of Europe.

It is an opportunity not to put aside our national identity as many fear, but to celebrate our second one that we all share, the European one. EU is not trying to scrap any national identities, otherwise why its motto is “United in Diversity” and the 23 official languages that are all recognized in EU.

The only excuse I would give to anyone that feels detached or unaffected from the celebration of this day, is the inability or indifference of our national governments to underline the importance of this day to all citizens.
To explain it’s meaning, inciting the interest and appreciation of the public. And that is also the root of many of the public’s misunderstandings or negative attitude towards EU. Because even if you are a skeptic about the project, there is no reason why you can not participate in the commemoration.

If it is not what you think it should be, the EU gives you so many chances to express you opinion and have a say on what Europe must become in the future. And we have to admit, how many national governments actually do that?

Proper “euro-skepticism” as they call it, is not rejection or opposition to anything related to EU and it’s works, but constructive criticism that can lead to progress and corrections. Any other attitude is not "skepticism", but simply narrow-mindedness, ungratefulness, and propaganda.

So next time that the 9th of May is the day, you do not have to sing the “Ode of Joy”, be dressed in blue from head to toe or wave the EU flag. Simply go to any happenings for the day near your area, meet and talk to people from all over Europe living there. Share your ideas, express your disappointment if you wish and discuss how the EU has failed you.

Or you can just exchange and discuss topics about your culture, country, what you love about the country you live or come from and about living in EU. Also how it has helped you and your country and what must still be done for EU to develop, or what vision do you have for it for the future. That is what the 9th of May should be all about and how you must celebrate it.

Happy Europe’s Day to all. Enjoy the day and the debate, be proud and have a vision for the future. You are part of Europe, so this is your day either you like how the current EU works or not.

Osama Bin Laden is Dead.Who's going to be the next Bogey-Man of the West?

This morning US President Mr. Barack Obama announced the death of Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan.
While the American population cheers, the stock Markets gain and everywhere the news bring a jubilee.

So what now, who is going to be the next "threat" that we are going to need protection from?

We used to fear the Soviets and for that so many weapons and defense mechanisms were built. A huge amount of money invested by the Western Allies and NATO, in the constant power struggle between the two super powers.


Even today, the Americans use "The Russian threat," or the threat by Iran to force the establishment of American missiles on European soil.

And that despite the former Russian President Mr. Gorbachev having his 80th birthday gala party in London, with many Americans, western celebrities and politicians being present. So I really do not see why we are still threatened by the Russians. As for the Iranians, could they really harm Europe?

A few months ago I was watching one of my childhood favorite movies, Rambo. To my amazement, in one of the many sequels of the movie, "Rambo" was fighting on the side of freedom fighters, the poor and brave Taliban against the Soviet oppression. That movie was filmed during the '80s.

A few decades later and it is the Taliban, the brave freedom fighters that are one of the worst enemies of USA and the West. It is well known that the Americans supported and financed the Taliban against the Soviets. And Osama was one of the people who took part in the operations, with the blessings of the Saudis.

Hollywood is a huge propaganda machine and it is there to remind the Americans, but also all their allies of America's military superiority, and our need to be protected by them. The movie industry has been used in all wars, including the two World Wars for propaganda.

The Nazis were propagating against the British, with movies that hailed the brave Irish against British oppression. And the British were doing the same, by using the Nazi victims as means to convince the British public to support their country's entry into the war.

Do we need our societies to have a bogey man to fear, in order to give our consent to the mass investment and waste of resources on weapon production for our defense mechanisms? While we could be investing them on health, education and eradication of poverty instead.

Why have a constant state of war and military actions, invasions of third countries that do not accept or agree with our western values and beliefs? Or the invasion of a country to exploit its resources, to open new markets so that we can export our capitalist ideologies and products to millions of people.

Our military industries are gaining hugely from all these operations. And the only way our governments can justify the wastage of so much money and resources on weaponry, is to have a "boogey-man," a constant threat that we need to be protected from. Then it was the Soviets. Now it is the Taliban and the Muslims.

Osama's family was living happily in the USA before 9/11. Yet they were allowed to escape after the terror attacks. And according to the media, Osama was "found" living in a 1 million $ villa in Pakistan. How can someone live in a huge villa in a country that is allegedly allied to the US, for so many years and albeit the billions used in operations to find him in a country next to Pakistan.

And despite all the alleged million dollar technology and intelligence weapons that USA claims that it possesses, they have missed a huge mansion near the capital of a neighboring nation of Afghanistan.

Will any new Islamist groups arise, making the Muslims the new Soviets, or will someone else take their place? How long until we realize that the real threat might just come from within. How many soldiers are we going to lose in wars that offer us nothing. Most of these conflicts just serve the elites of our countries, in their constant effort in finding new resources to exploit.

I much more fear the terror coming from the Markets and the Banks. In their constant effort to make profit, they rip nations apart, their economies and their people. Perhaps we should start fearing them more, than any of the so called "extremists."

Who's to blame? The propagandistic role of our media.

What is the position of our established media, in the on-going recession in Europe and the crisis in the euro-zone? The crisis is deepening in our continent, not only on a financial but also a political level. Yet the public do not know who or what to believe anymore.

Many articles often focus on blaming the EU or different European nations, the European Central Bank (ECB), the euro and anything that the populist mind might want to indulge in.

Our media in Europe love to scapegoat and turn our focus not on the epicenter of an issue, rather sell copies by indulging us in a blame game. Though they never put any blame on where they must.

One needs to start questioning how democracy is faring in Europe and EU, yet we never read articles questioning the very political and financial system we are in. A health-check on Capitalism for example and the role of the Markets, but also our own governing elites and those of USA would do wonders.

No one has so far complained about the fact that the crisis was exported from the USA, their bad debt and irresponsible banking system being shared by Europe. Has any of our media blamed USA in the same tone they do for the EU and like to stigmatize certain nations; aka using the word "PIGS" to describe countries like Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Spain.

Has anyone openly questioned the role of the Markets and the Rating Agencies? We accept their operation without objection, but we don't really know who they are and who controls them. What are their criteria when "rating" a country?

The EU institutions are being heavily criticized on their handling and involvement of the crisis. But how much of the crisis handling is their fault and how much are our national governments behind the decisions taken in Europe? It is no lie that Germany being the biggest economy, is prescribing austerity for the peripheral economies of Europe for example.

But nobody dares to point the finger at the establishment of this world. The "Western" capitalist system, the Markets and of course the Banks. Instead the media focused mainly on the euro-zone and its weaknesses. The euro as an idea is not the problem, the way it was set up by our Governments is.

The euro would work just fine, if everybody played by the rules and we had established a more integrated European economy, plus we had achieved further political integration. 


When we read "Brussels has decided that," who is actually "Brussels" and "the EU"? Two thirds of the decision making bodies (EU Commission and EU Council) are controlled and appointed by our governments, so I see no foreign bodies dictating our nations. The third one is voted in power by us, the citizens (European Parliament).

It is rather the rich and powerful elites of some countries, telling the elites of the smaller ones what to do. So instead of putting the blame on "Brussels," perhaps we should learn to blame our own governments and political system first. It is also time to rethink our special relationship with America, how Capitalism works and how we are being governed.

Our media love blaming the EU as usual, but they never question the capitalist system, the international relations between USA and European elites, the role and the corruption within our national governments and of course those of the Markets. It seems to be unholy to question these establishments for any of the western media.

If we realize that the majority of all major media corporations are owned by 6 major multinational companies, then we can get an idea of what is really going on. Instead of unifying the European public opinion, they are dividing it with either slandering the nations in trouble (PIGS), or accusing EU of bullying the smaller nations.

The bullying is coming in fact from the richer nations' governments, who bow to pressure coming from the Markets and the rating Agencies, in order to keep their financial status and reputation intact.

If we keep this attitude, not only EU will fail with any chance of a political renaissance in Europe, but we will become slaves of the rich global elites and the Markets. We also run the risk of a total economic and political disaster in Europe.

By dividing the European public opinion or distracting it from questions that need to be asked, the global capitalists achieve their goal of having a conservative Europe. They turn one nation against another with populist rhetoric, but also against the idea of a united, strong Europe.

Our media are disorienting the public opinion with petty nationalist propaganda, ethnic, cultural or economic superiority and a sense that our national governments are actually working for the "nation," but not theirs and the global capitalist elites' interests.

Journalism today seems to be detached from its original cause, that is to inform and stimulate readers to think about an issue, revealing sensitive information. Our media are in the hands of few rich businessmen and any dissident voices that challenge the current status-quo are silenced. Can we start thinking for ourselves?

France becomes the first country to ban the burka.

France is officially the first European country to ban the Islamic face cover gowns for women, the burka and the niqab.

Protests are almost sure to happen, not only in France but in many other countries, both European with a significant Muslim population and of course the Islamic nations.

Was the decision right and what is the French leadership trying to achieve? France has the largest Muslim population in Europe of about 6 million people. What are the messages that are trying to pass to its youth?

Humans are creatures that communicate with their facial expressions and eyes, so making a woman to wear those two garments is certainly dehumanizing and limiting her in every social interaction, apart from those with her fellow sisters in Islam.

Of course that is the whole purpose of it, because according to the Islamic teachings women should be modest and "liberated" in this way, from being preyed on by men. The disturbing thing is that in 2011 there are still women that feel that this is a social norm.

Europeans have liberated their women decades ago, although the fight is still on for a full equality between the two genders. We have also loosen the power of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, freeing our spirits from any moral enslavement and limitation that Christianity has tried to place upon us.

Should we allow certain conservative doctrines of Islam to spread in Europe, keeping European citizens under their archaic influence? Either you are European by birth or by the naturalization process, you are a citizen of this continent. You can be Muslim and European, but only if you share some basic values with the general population.

Turkey can be a leading example of a more secular version of Islam. Perhaps we could even encourage the various secular Islamic elements or communities in our continent, to work for a European version of Islam. One that would be compatible with the overall values that identify us as Europeans.

Of course not all Muslims support such extreme forms of their religion. We can not brush them all with the same brush. They come from many different countries, that themselves follow very different versions of Islam and have their own distinctive cultures.

The solution would be to encourage them to explore their "Europeaness" through education, intercultural dialogue and more participation to the "commons," eradicating any radical elements among them. Thus giving them a greater say and involvement in our societies.

But do they really want to integrate, or see themselves as Muslims first, then anything else?Also do we want them to do so and have them as more engaged, vocal members in our society?

No matter what, a total ban of those garments can not be part of the solution. It will harden the stance of the Muslim communities in Europe, as they will feel they are being targeted and discriminated against.

Banning any signs of any religious expression, attracts more attention to the cultural differences and in fact it feeds any radical elements. It  provides them with more arguments to turn the Islamic community more defensive of such practices and identify them as inseparable elements of their identity.

Education is a key tool to tackle the more conservative practices of Islam, but it will be also necessary for the Muslim communities to be engaged and mobilized in this effort. It is also up to them and in their interests to become integrated and an active part of European society, not limiting themselves by doing the jobs that the natives do not want to do anymore.

They can leave their mark in our continent in a more constructive way, that being just a labor force. But that will need some change in their overall mentality. In Italy they banned recently any crucifix idols from their schools. The Catholic citizens of the country did not protest or threatened anyone in such extend, that the Muslims often do.

They can't understand that if they want to live in Europe and call themselves Europeans, they will have to leave some cultural aspects of their countries of origin behind. If not, they will always be "guests" in our continent, no matter what their passport declares.

It is simply a rejection of the European values and way of thinking, to staunchly resist any kind of modernization. The fact that everyone is free to practice any religion in Europe, does not mean that it should be accompanied with practices that clash with our secular society.

On the other hand, the difficulties that European countries are having when it comes to integrating its immigrant communities offer some clues. Do we really want to integrate our immigrants into our societies, or we are just covering our labor needs with immigration?

 But then why allow a population of 6 million to enter your country, if you do not wish to integrate them and why allow an increasing flow of immigration from Muslim nations?Perhaps we should be looking elsewhere, in regions like Latin America that culturally is closer to us, to cover our labor force needs.

Can there ever be a successful multicultural model that does not segregate the various communities? One solution would be to allow everyone to practice what they want, just like in America. But then what would be our own, distinctive European identity and what will it mean to be a European?









You do not become European citizen just so you have a passport and the right to stay in the country. One of the obligations you have when holding a European passport, is to make an effort to integrate and be a constructive member to your community.

You do not have to convert to Christianity just to fit in, but you certainly need to understand and accept certain values of your host country.Blend your values and traditions of your country of origin, with those of your adopted country and you won't feel an outsider ever again.

Japan's tsunami, made me rethink European nuclear energy issues.

With the latest shocking and dramatic developments in Japan, the issue of the use of the nuclear energy comes in the spotlight again. One of the most developed and rich countries and the third largest economy of the world, is being hit by a massive earthquake. Followed by a massive tsunami, that leaves at least 25 thousand people dead or missing.

As if this humanitarian tragedy was not enough, the world is gripped by the developments of the region's nuclear power plants as their reactors' melt down. Radioactive particles are reaching Europe and many other regions of the world and we soon realize that this is not just a Japanese disaster, it is potential a global one!

How was Japan so confident that even though it lies in one of the most geologically unstable regions of the planet with earthquakes being common on a daily basis, to develop nuclear energy plants? Even the word "tsunami" is Japanese and they are so common in the region, as in the Pacific in general.

The international community showed so much trust in Japan to be a safe place, for such potentially dangerous type of energy. It's not that Japan is not worthy of it or should not have it, but perhaps we should place stricter nuclear power management regulations and an overseer global organization.

Why was Japan freely allowed to develop and explore it and not just that, but locate some of its plants on the east coast of the country that is in risk of tsunamis? Perhaps the nuclear power development ability, is being seen as a club of the powerful nations and a prestige development that Japan could not resist.

Maybe the reasons are financial because of the cheap energy, it allows more money for the economy. But then again why does the West fuss so much over Iran's uranium enrichment, claiming that it will be dangerous for us as Iran is a "rogue" nation, but not for Japan. Is it because we do not want a strong and prosperous nation in the region, that is hostile to our protected "child", Israel? We make sure we watch Iran's efforts, but we never made sure that Japan built its plants somewhere away from the sea.

Can we dictate which country can have freely nuclear power plants for energy? There must be an agreement that if a country has nuclear reactors, it must locate them in an area that is not prone to powerful earthquakes, and keep maintaining them in order to limit any Chernobyl style accidents.

In 2004 Lithuania agreed to close the power plant of Ignalina, in the city of Visaginas. Due to the plant's similarities with the Chernobyl, Lithuania closed the plant in order to enter the EU. By 2009 the plant was completely closed and plans to built another one were hindered by the economic crisis. So the EU pulled its weight and forced Lithuania to close one of its reactors.

Why the international community never intervened to make sure Japan and other rich and powerful nations also follow the rules? It seems only small and developing nations are told how to handle their nuclear ambitions. But what about Japan, America, France and Britain, does anyone keep an eye on them, making sure they are keeping their plants up to date?

Nuclear energy has its benefits, but we humans are not able to control such powerful source of energy. Our greed and arrogance make us prone to repeat the same mistakes. Can we have confidence in the future of a safer nuclear energy management? Perhaps it is time to have a greener, sustainable energy revolution in Europe.

 If we can't cope with nuclear energy and its responsibilities (nuclear waste, maintenance, location, suitability, etc) then I prefer a safer future for our children. Who knows the true extend of the nuclear disaster in Japan and for how many years will it affect the region? Ukraine still suffers from Chernobyl. Perhaps we are not ready to handle such powerful "gift".

To close this article, I would like to express my condolences for all the victims in the double disaster in Japan, and my support for the families and people affected.

How to integrate 27 strangers? Education and integration in Europe.

One of the main goals and visions of the European integration, is the creation of one federal Europe. There are many who oppose this and support a nation state approach.

Unemployment, the economic crisis, negative press and of course the reluctance of our national political elites to let go of power, have seriously damaged the orientation and the purpose of this cause recently. 

So far they attempted to create a pan-European identity or culture based on the American model. A United States of Europe, inspired and copied from USA. Our leaders try to integrate the populations of Europe following the American "panacea".


In my opinion instead of trying to "Americanize" Europeans, it would be better to "Europeanize" them! Why make them feel less for their national history, heritage, music, culture and lifestyle? It would be better to project each others' cultural elements on each other!

One way of achieving the above is by teaching European history and the benefits or obligations of EU membership to all our pupils, in schools across the continent. In this way, we create engaged and conscious EU citizens as soon as they leave school, instead of having an apathetic population.

If we explain to our students how the EU works and what it does for them, then not only they would be informed but also be able to take advantage of their EU citizenship. Then populism and nationalism could not settle as easy in their conscience.

European history with all its bad and good pages, is what unites us and we should learn from it. Our collective history shaped the continent, but our individual shaped each nation. I think the best way to understand each other and learn about each others shortfalls, is to actually examine both our collective and national history.

So that we will be able to reach to the root of a problem in each country and potentially even solve it, while working together. Share knowledge and experience to sooth any differences and inequality that stand in the way of further integration.


 How do you expect to integrate 27 (and soon more) total strangers? Before the Soviet block collapsed, my generation hardly knew that countries like Latvia or Estonia even existed. We never learned anything about them because they were in the Soviet block. Suddenly they regain their independence and they join the EU.

But all I remember of them  when I was in school is that these countries were located where the U.S.S.R started on the map.  How many of the European population really saw 2004 as the year of European reunification? How many knew the history of those "new" nations? It is not as if Lithuania suddenly sprang out of Russia. But people just saw them as poor ex-communist populations that joined EU to work for us or receive subsidies by our hard earned taxes!


If we studied about our history and each others culture, we would both keep our national heritage, but also project it to another 500 million Europeans across the continent. And of course enrich our culture with another 27 elements!


So far not only we failed to promote European integration, but we failed to integrate the immigrants in our societies too. Many European countries are struggling to integrate their immigrant populations. Instead of having separate religious schools for immigrant youths, we should be putting our kids together from a young age, not segregate them. Religion should be taught in a more generic and academic/philosophical content, instead as a dogma that must be followed.

In the case of other European immigrant children, we could promote a more multilingual education. Why set up separate language schools that youngsters must attend to learn their native language, but not have optional classes within the state schools in areas with high populations of expatriates? They could opt in for classes of their mother tongue in the same school for example.And not just them, but any student that wished to learn a new language.

The teachers of those classes could come from any EU country but should be employed by the state that the immigrants reside in. So far in most cases, it is the responsibility of the country of origin to send teachers to the expatriate populations across Europe. Why we make immigrant children feel different from a young age?

To conclude, European integration must go hand in hand with the education of its youth. Being a pupil in a European school should be an exciting learning experience, that offers the best qualifications for the future. But also exposes the young in a more collective way of thinking, cosmopolitanism, tolerance and active citizenship.

Craic Agus Ceol

March the 17^th is St Patrick's Day in Ireland; a four day festival of fun, drink, Guinness and of course, the parade. A display of colorful dressed people, flags and shamrocks, everything that symbolize “Irishness”. The whole country joins in a huge big party. Will you come and join us?

Well if you actually knew that this particular day had any significance in Ireland perhaps you would. But what if you are not Irish and you live in another country, would you?


That is because very few people know anything about the public or national holidays of another EU/European country. Every year loads of tourists flock to Dublin of course, but imagine if the Parade and the events here in Ireland or parts of them, would be broadcasted in all EU countries.

Wouldn’t that promote the events in Dublin and more people would fly over to take part? What better advertisement to have, than reaching out to the nationals of the countries nearest to you, show them what is currently happening in your country. A city break for fun, drink and cultural events and with so many low cost air lines in Europe, the perfect get away for a few days!

Similar events from other EU countries could be broadcasted all over Europe. What about the Patra, Xanthi or Naoussa carnivals in Greece, the Venice carnival and so on! In that way, not only we promote tourism within EU, something that we need now with the loss of so many jobs due the current economic crisis. 

But we also learn a bit more about each other, our culture and lifestyle, national holidays, share the events that happen in our cities. We create a common interest, a common culture and sense of belonging. It does not have to be a full length documentary, a few clips in our national broadcasters’ news would be sufficient.

We could stimulate the interest of our citizens with something different to relate the European project with. Apart from finances, banking and trade, there could be culture, fun and showing off your heritage, thus placing the foundations of unity and solidarity among the different populations of Europe. So why isn't this initiative happening yet?
 
Happy St Patrick's Day to all!!

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?