Shaping Europe from the bottom up.

Building a democratic European project and European identity requires shaping Europe from the bottom up: that is the challenge for Europe today.

The idea of shaping Europe from the bottom up was at the heart of the discussion surrounding the Closing Conference of the European Year of Citizens 2013, in Vilnius, Lithuania.

During this workshop, the importance of European identity, as well as the process through which to shape it, were the primary topics of discussion. Initiatives such as encouraging the participation of students in various exchange programs, the increase in mobility for all European Union citizens, and the engagement of EU citizens in voluntary projects across Europe were all acknowledged as key factors in creating such an identity.

“We should learn how to combine our national identity with our European one,” was one of the main ideas put forward in this event. In order for that process to take place, not only should the EU invest in a new self-image campaign but the important role of local communities in promoting an active European citizenship should also be acknowledged and encouraged.

One of the main obstacles in achieving this combination of identities is the common practice, among local and national politicians, to use the EU and its institutions as scapegoats in justifying their policy failures, while taking credit, exclusively, for every success case.

One issue brought up in the discussion was the importance of culture and how it positively impacts in building a sense of common European identity. Neither the single currency nor the single market can ever unite a mosaic of nations in such a way as the promotion of a constant cultural dialogue and exchange.

A need for a new participatory strategy

Certain new tools recently introduced by the EU Commission, such as the European Citizens' Initiative, were also discussed and explained to participants. The EU Commission seems to support a new type of participatory strategy, built from the bottom up, aimed at encouraging a more active participation of citizens in European politics, providing them with new participatory mechanisms, such as the ECI.

The main purpose of such initiatives is to create a forum for Europeans to debate, citizens to be heard and fulfill the potential of their EU citizenship. Initiatives such as the ECI have the potential to become agenda-setting tools, in the cases which they are broadly embraced by European civil society and the issues they put forward are debated and lead to concrete policy changes.

Various surveys conducted in Italy, but also at a supranational pan-European level, enquired citizens as to their expectations regarding the EU’s work and their aspirations for Europe. The overwhelming majority of respondents referred to employment, security and the guarantee of a sustainable exploitation of national resources.

Throughout 2013, at least eight citizens’ dialogues were organized in Italy and many others across Europe, debating the future of each region. The main idea put forward by the Commission was that, if citizens were disgruntled with Europe, this was mainly due to its policies being negatively perceived and communicated by national governments.

Sadly, Europe does not have enough funding available, in the form of a considerable independent budget, for instance, that would allow it to implement the policies that would respond most effectively to people’s needs.

One Europe, equal citizenship rights

One fundamental issue raised during this debate concerned the voting rights of those Europeans living in other EU member states: the initiative “Let Me Vote” focuses on the limitations that many expatriates experience while residing in an EU member state outside of their own. These citizens contribute towards the economic and social fabric of their new countries, yet do not often enjoy the same rights as natives. Being able to fully exercise the same rights in all member state is a fundamental condition in encouraging the free movement of citizens and reshaping Europe.

Many lose their right to vote in their national Parliamentary elections, after having lived abroad for a certain number of years. Under current national legislation norms, they are also not allowed to vote in the Parliamentary elections in their new country of residence (although they can vote for local and European elections).

Mr. Philippe Cayla, President of Euronews Development, presented this situation to participants, arguing that voting rights across Europe should not be made dependent upon nationality.

All EU citizens must have the right to vote in the countries of their residence. “Europe already registers a very low voter turnout in every European election and we must be committed to improving that record”, he said. Such move would give a “full sense of a European identity and the notion that EU citizens are not immigrants”.

Building a European identity through a mobile population

On a more positive note, participants at this Closing Conference mentioned that interest in European politics is higher among mobile citizens, or people who have migrated to another EU country. Being mobile is a life-changing experience and these people become the best ambassadors for EU and Europe.

Mobility within Europe is crucial in creating a European identity and extended voting rights, or the lack of them, is certainly a limitation to the rights of EU citizens. “Besides, if we want to promote greater pluralism and elite rotation in each country, the inclusion of other EU nationals in the election debates and campaigns, as well in the decision-making process, could be very positive,” Mr. Cayla continued.

One of the main obstacles Europe is faced with, when encouraging its citizens to participate in European affairs, is their general lack of interest in public life. This problem is largely connected with the deterioration of elites’ political legitimacy as perceived by different European public opinions and a consequent detachment of public life.

As they move from country to country, they not only become increasingly aware of different national issues and ways in which they could be resolved, but also of transnational issues that affect their home country, the countries they have settled into, and even Europe in general. Thus, one of the most effective ways for Europe to increase citizen participation in European politics is to encourage people to work, study and travel abroad.

There is a general lack of ownership of the EU project on behalf of its citizens, which can possibly be demonstrated by a lack of overall intra-European mobility. The absence of coordination and synchronization between national institutions and organizations from different member states is to be blamed, and that is where the efforts in finding solutions must start.

At the moment, only an estimate of 2% of Europe’s population is either mobile or dislocated in another EU member-state, which explains why not enough legislation and change has taken place, since these people are a minority. Increasing awareness of European issues is easier with a mobile population, which is accustomed to thinking outside of its own national reality.

The political culture of Europeans is changing and must endure further changes in the upcoming future. Increased public responsibility, awareness and fulfillment of our duties as citizens must be cultivated and upheld, in order to make the European decision-making process and its institutions more democratic.

Now that the economic crisis has started to impact on increasingly more EU households, people demand to be heard and consulted throughout the decision-making process of their governments. Therefore, Europe finds itself at a critical juncture, a moment of transition.

Citizens do have the power to organize themselves to demand being heard and to call for change, as the cases of Ukraine, Bulgaria but also Poland and other recently-joined EU member states continue to show us. Naturally, online public consultations do not pose a lasting or successful solution, as they are often non-binding. Therefore, in order for change to happen, citizens must take things more seriously with further actions.

The power of communication

Europeans do not always understand what the EU does and how it affects their lives, or what its consultations mean. This is yet another obstacle that the EU faces when trying to communicate its functions, procedures and decisions to its citizens. Simpler vocabulary, repetitiveness and commitment must be applied to mitigate this problem.

The fact that Europe struggles to “sell” itself, particularly the European Union institutions, to its own citizens was another topic discussed at this forum. Using Italy as a case in point, Mr. Alessandro Giordani, Head of the sector “Communication, information and networks” of the EU Commission Representation Office in Rome, explained some of the main obstacles Europe is currently faced with.

“The economic crisis has changed the environment and attitude dramatically, for any attempts to promote Europe as a solution to its citizens,” he stated. The EU Commission needs to change the process through which has been presenting Europe to populations up until now.

In other words, a lot of work must be undertaken in reshaping our continent from the bottom up.  But “if we do not change ourselves and our tools, the world will force us to change,” as Andris Gobins, the President of the European Movement in Latvia, stated, closing the debate.

The world is changing fast and Europe must be ready for change and be prepared to keep up with the rest of the world. Failing to do so, will mean fewer opportunities for our future generations, minimizing Europe’s role in an ever increasing globalized world.

The scrapping of Iran Nuclear Deal is forcing Europe to alter its relationship with USA.

On Tuesday the 8th of May, a day before Europe traditionally and increasingly apathetically celebrates Europe's Day, US President Donald Trump decided to pull out the Iran Nuclear Deal.

This was a deal that was discussed by the representatives of Iran and the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (the United States, the United Kingdom, Russia, France, and China, plus Germany) and the European Union, for months.

It was finally agreed and signed in April 2015, while by July the 14th of the same year, a comprehensive agreement based on the April 2015 framework, was announced.

The deal was welcomed by most world leaders, either participating in the discussions or not, apart from Israel's. The country's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, strongly opposed the deal and claimed that it actually threatens the survival of Israel. He also wrote that "such deal would not block Iran’s path to the bomb, it would pave it".

And although many analysts have pointed out some of the agreement's weaknesses or shortcomings, this deal offered a full access of the international community to inspect the nuclear program in Iran. Something that no other country with nuclear plants ever agreed on, or was obliged to give permission to. 

Now that Trump decided to trash the agreement, how can anyone trust American foreign policy, if it changes with every US president? The deal might not have been perfect, but it was a good start to try to smooth out some thorny issues in the region, potentially leading to a breakthrough and a solution for a lasting peace in the Middle East. Is no access or control in Iran's program, better than a deal that allows it? 

It is doubtful after all, that that's what the US administration aims for. Rather it clearly is interested in its regional allies' interests promotion and safeguarding, even if it means that Iran and any other nation which stands in the way, is bullied and humiliated. That's not how you work for peace though.

Personally, I've never felt threatened by Iran or its nuclear ambitions and it is evident that the whole problem is embroiled in Middle Eastern regional politics and power struggles. Yet somehow, Europe is dragged into them with the continent's alliance to the USA, plus the participation of three of its powers in the negotiations.

I have also never understood, how some countries are allowed to invest in nuclear power and develop it, while others are forcibly forbidden by doing so, by another country and its allies. Is Pakistan more stable and reliable than Iran, for example. 

Until now, it was mainly Iran and other Middle Eastern countries that either the US administration or its allied states in the region-such as Israel and Saudi Arabia-felt that pose a threat to their interests, baring the consequences and hostility of American foreign policy. 

However, Trump's recent move hurts Europe directly this time. In 2016, the European Union exported more than €8.2 billion ($9.7 billion) worth of goods to Iran, while importing almost €5.5 billion ($6.5 billion) from there, according to the European Commission.

"U.S. sanctions will target critical sectors of Iran's economy. German companies doing business in Iran should wind down operations immediately," Richard Grenell, the U.S. ambassador to Germany tweeted on the same night the scrapping of the deal was announced.

Carl Bildt, the former leader of Sweden who is now co-chair of the European Council on Foreign Relations, highlighted that the sanctions would have the biggest impact beyond America's borders.

"U.S. Iran sanctions are hardly hitting any U.S. companies, but aim primarily at European ones," he said in a tweet. (Euronews)

Trump has now directed maximum economic sanctions to be applied. This is nothing less than a massive assault on the sovereignty of European states and the European Union. 

They are deprived of their right to decide on their policies and actions by brutal dictates from a foreign and allegedly friendly country.  It relegates Europe to just abiding by and implementing policies with which it profoundly disagrees. (The Washington Post)

It is becoming increasingly obvious that the USA cannot be regarded as a reliable ally of Europe forever, unless of course, our leaders abide with American foreign policy to the letter, regardless if it hurts our economies.

The Trump administration not only previously opened a trade war with Europe, but now it additionally forbids us to conduct business with third countries, unless they agree to it or the terms. It is time for Europe to get the message that the new US government is trying to give; we either get ourselves together and look after our own affairs, or we follow their command to the letter if we want to continue to receive their protection and investments. 

Perhaps Europe should consider its weaning from American influence and guidance, while seriously look into becoming self-sufficient and reach out to new blocks and partners to trade with and forge alliances with. Maybe that's what the new US government also wants, as it appears.

There was always some healthy competition between the two sides of the Atlantic, but recently it has become obviously more intense, with under-the-belt hits.

Just before the US scrapped the Nuclear Deal, Iran decided to start reporting foreign currency amounts in euros rather than U.S. dollars, as part of the country’s effort to reduce its reliance on the U.S. currency due to political tension with Washington.

Bank transactions involving the dollar have been already difficult for Iran because legal risks make U.S. banks unwilling to do business with Tehran. Foreign firms can be exposed to sanctions if they do Iranian deals in dollars, even if the operations involve non-U.S. branches.

As a result, France started offering euro-denominated credits to Iranian buyers of its goods later this year to keep its trade out of reach of U.S. sanctions, the head of state-owned French investment bank Bpifrance said in February. (Reuters)

Europe's response to Trump's announcement is to potentially shield individual European companies from US pressure by deploying its so-called “blocking statute,” banning EU companies from complying with Washington’s sanctions and protecting them from penalties imposed by overseas courts.

There is a precedent. Washington issued a similar threat against European companies in 1996 over Cuba. The EU evoked the “blocking statute” and the Clinton government backed down.

Thus Brussels is now considering it and a final decision is expected at the European Summit in Sofia on May 17. Right after the summit, European Energy Commissioner Miguel Arias Canete is expected in Tehran for consultations on May 18.

The EU could open a credit line to Iran in Euros and continue to absorb Iranian oil; Italy already has a €5bn credit line for investment in the Islamic Republic. These combined moves would keep the agreement afloat. The question is whether all EU 28 have the consensus to play hardball with Washington. (New Europe)

It is shameful that the USA is behaving like a bully, even towards its oldest allies. Hopefully, Europe will stick together in this case, showing Trump and its administration that our continent needs the freedom to conduct business with countries that are of economic or political interest to us.

Unless of course, the USA desires us to always rely on its own businesses to achieve economic growth, something that doesn't comply with Trump's "America First" policies. They cannot have both; if America looks after its own first, then Europe has no other option but to do the same. 

Maybe this is for the best interest of both sides, as the USA was carrying the weight- but also ripping the benefits, of monopolizing European defense, protection and economic stability or growth. 

Under that arrangement, Europe can never claim its own role in the globe and expand its influence, while America will always solely bear the burden-and indeed the privilege, of promoting Western values to the rest of the world. 

No one has agreed to give to the USA this privilege though, we were all bought into this by circumstances and in the case of Europe, our own grave mistakes. The times are changing and we are receiving an ultimatum from our American allies.

The rift across the Atlantic maybe not permanent or necessarily bad. It will certainly help establish new rules in this old alliance, ones that will push Europe out of its comfort zone at last. Re-evaluation of a relationship is always good and our continent was too hesitant to challenge the status. This time it is our American friends that are initiating the change. Will Europe step up to the challenge and form a united front towards Trump's ultimatum? 

Europe must pressure Israel to adopt a more humanitarian role on the Gaza issue.

On May the 14th 2018, the world woke up to yet another gruesome reality, in an already very unstable and troubled region.

As Israel and the USA were celebrating the relocation of the US Embassy in the country, from Tel-Aviv to Jerusalem, thousands of Palestinians from the Gaza strip, rallied to the borders with Israel to protest against the move.

Soon things got out of control and by the end of the day another 60 or so Palestinians, among them many children, were lying dead from Israeli fire or tear gas.

As usual, European governments were quick to condemn, but this has happened too many times before already, the situation has reached beyond the point of condemnation and criticism of the Israeli government.

I have been watching incidents such as these my whole life, all 40 years of it. Yet nobody seems to be willing to do anything to stop this madness. Ever since the creation of the state of Israel back in the '40s, the region is locked in a never-ending war which has claimed way too many lives, from both sides.

Understandably, the Palestinians are angry since they feel that their homeland was taken away from them; they are right. When the West decided to "fix" Europe's sectarian problem that resulted in one of the worse atrocities in human history, the Holocaust, the outcome was the creation of the state of Israel, in the nation's ancient historic lands.

The problem was that by then, the region was already populated by Palestinians. The international community decided that they should simply give up the land they grew up, to make way for the creation of the new country.

Obviously, that sowed the seeds of the current impediment, as the Palestinians felt the injustice that was placed upon them. The world should have dealt with the problem better then, but understandably during the '40s, it was recovering from the disaster and horror of WW2. Thus, another one was created.

Both the Israelis and the Palestinians thereafter entered a deadly circle of violence and hostilities, fueled by religious and nationalistic fanaticism. Sadly with the involvement or protection of third parties, either regional or global powers like the USA, they turned the Middle East into one of the world's most unstable and deadly region.

The pro-Palestine or Arab side, never really accepted the creation or existence of the state of Israel in its current form, while the Israelis hold this fundamental belief, stemming from their religious and cultural heritage, that this land is theirs and only.

Neither side wants to back down, yet Israel with the funding from the USA, plus the support from Europe has the upper hand. But instead of using this power and influence to solve the problem and end the stalemate, saving both Palestinian and Israeli lives, it chooses to perpetuate the situation.

The country's leadership has to understand, that they cannot make over of 4 million of Palestinians to disappear unless they want to be the initiators of another holocaust. Particularly in the case of Gaza, they have created a prison of around 2 million people, with no prospects or quality of life, living in poverty and desperation.

The more these people remain living in these conditions, the easier will be for them to be radicalized by certain organizations and schedule attacks against Israel. They simply have nothing else to lose, apart from their lives. The Israeli leadership must accept this, then take control and show compassion.

Not only for the Palestinians' sake, but for their own people too. If Palestine is allowed its own statehood, the last thing that its youth will have on its mind, will be throwing petrol bombs towards Israel. They will have a world waiting for them, to study, travel and prosper. The more they remain poor, the more they adopt and anti-Israel mentality which is passed on to every generation.

Sadly that doesn't seem to resonate with anyone in the region. And so both nations are entangled in a decades-old conflict, with third countries getting involved and using it to promote their own interests, defining local politics and agendas.

The European population and their governments are also divided on the issue, although in general they reinstate their support for Israel, yet condemning its actions. That hasn't helped much until now. Europe owes to get decisively more engaged with Israel, constructively lobbying its leadership for a solution.

It is, after all, our continent's responsibility too. Centuries-old hate, fear, sectarianism, racism and anti-Semitism have contributed to the creation of this problem, while indeed a reversed version of the same attitudes are perpetuating the Palestinian drama.

During the opening of the new US Embassy in Jerusalem, only 4 EU nations and 9 European overall have attended the ceremony. If we want to make any difference in solving the problem, we have to show unity and speak with one voice. That for European standards has always been proved to be hard.

Condemning Israel's actions while siding with the USA all the time, especially under Donald Trump is simply not good enough anymore. Europe needs to actively engage and convince Israel to change attitudes towards Palestine and its people. In addition, our leadership could mediate to both sides for an end of this situation.

Otherwise, another generation of Israeli children will be raised with the constant fear of Palestinian bomb attacks, while Palestine will lose more of its own to either Israeli gunshots, bombs or simply poverty.

The solution could have been a federal state between the two nations, during the beginning of the creation of the state of Israel. We have passed this stage, we've lost this opportunity. There is simply too much hate and fanaticism to bring the two sides together now.

At this moment, a two-state solution is the only way to end this conflict, preferably with a withdrawal from the settlements to the more or less previously agreed territories. However, it is Israel that blocks this outcome. To the more radical and nationalistic elements of Israel's leaders and citizens, the land is simply theirs. And since America backs them, there is no way of moving on from this stalemate.

So this is where Europe could step in and gather support from other regions or nations too, to convince Israel of the damage that this hostile stance towards Gaza and Palestine, does to its people. Is controlling all the land more important than peace and stability?

Why would any nation want to be surrounded by enemies, viewed in a negative way by the international community and maintain a warzone climate for its future generations to grow up in, does not resonate with me.

Israel is rich, developed, powerful and much respected in Europe. It has a lot to offer to the world in many fields as it already has, yet somehow it is best known for this ongoing conflict and its role in the Middle East. That doesn't make any justice to this nation.

Understandably, one will question the intentions of the Palestinians and their Arab allies in the region. But even if they did want an open war or the destruction of Israel, the protection of the USA and support of Europe, are enough to deter them. Israel has powerful allies.

But it uses its power the wrong way. By allowing a state of Palestine to exist, while itself supporting it, nurturing it and helping it to prosper, not only it will end this conflict, but it will have an influence on its future generations. Israel should be investing in Gaza, not cutting it off from the rest of the world.

In this way, young Palestinians will have options. Then all Israel will have to do is let capitalism take over and do its work. A stable and prosperous nation, rarely risks its status to attack a richer nation that is depending upon for investments. Why have Palestinians hate you, rather than need you and ask for your money and help?

By keeping your country as a highly militarized zone, you are only making the global arms industry richer. Plus you insist on becoming a hate figure for most Muslims, while for once you could be seen as their partner and benefactor.

Similarly, the Palestinians and their supporters have to accept where their interests lie. And they are definitely not in the constant radicalization of the region's youth, in hate, conflict, war, anti-Semitism or anti-Americanism.

Modern Israelis have as much place in the region as any other nation, for the past 70 and more years they exist as a nation. They were born and raised in the same land, thus they have as much right to it now as anyone else born in it. They are there to stay, have the right to self-determination and yes, even to chose their own capital.

Rather than the Palestinians being nostalgic for what has been in the past, it is better to embrace what it is now and try to make the most of it. If Israel changes its attitude towards the Palestinian people and stops expanding its settlements, agreeing in addition to a Palestine statehood, then as it is a richer nation it could be a valuable asset for the whole region.

Including of course the Palestinians, if both sides get over their racial and religious hatred. Europe should finally mediate but first, it must itself change attitudes towards the conflicting parties. Selling weapons to the one side, while condemning it lightly whenever it does wrong won't do it anymore.

We need to have this conflict finally ended. And that must mean a decisive engagement, plus the formation of the appropriate foreign policy from our part. Our continent must finally realize its role in the world, that of a global influencer for the betterment of humanity. Perhaps starting from Israel and Palestine.

Building European Civil Society - New tools and social media platforms.

On the 12th and 13th of December 2013, the city of Vilnius (Lithuania) hosted the closing conference of the European Citizens' Year. 

Lithuania held the EU Council Presidency until the end of 2013 and the event was part of a series of discussions and workshops that took place across Europe throughout that year.

Many prominent speakers delivered speeches to the attendees of the conference. Among them was M. Algirdas Butkevicius, the Lithuanian Prime Minister, Mrs. Viviane Reding, the EU Commission Vice-President, and Mrs. Emily O’Reilly, the European Ombudsman.

After the speeches, various workshops took place in different chambers of the Seimas, the Lithuanian Parliament. Many representatives from European NGOs, social groups, political parties, EU institutions and national governments, as well as journalists, bloggers and members of European think-tanks participated in the gatherings.

Their debates focused on how to empower EU citizenship, make citizens more active, and help them influence policymaking. There were also discussions on participative and representative democracy, EU citizens’ rights, the upcoming 2014 European elections and how Europe could increase voters’ turn-out.

Various issues were raised throughout the conference, and e-participation tools were one of them. Nowadays, the internet has become a tool for people to discuss their views. Indeed, most EU citizens have the opportunity to express their opinion online on various websites. However, it has been a one way communication so far, from people to governments. Europe should create online platforms to help politicians present answers to the citizens’questions in the right way, opening a two-way communication.

The importance of social media to the civil society was also discussed and was described as “essential.” It represents the collective intelligence of a population and reinforces the public opinion.

However, the Internet is only a tool to mobilize citizens that are already active and aware. More needs to be done to create an active civil society. As citizens’ participation is necessary in a democracy, there is need to design tools to achieve a greater level of it.

With the help of Internet innovation, Europe can beat the lack of citizen interest in public affairs, which is mostly due to the lack of trust and/or knowledge. We have had on our continent many initiatives that “died” at the project's end. We should create permanent tools for the people to express themselves and get involved.

The technology for e-participation is already there - the real challenge that Europe is facing is to gain the trust of the citizens. The language used in the platforms should be made easier to understand. 

Democracy requires two things: participation and governments' cooperation. Until now, the majority of people did not have the mentality to actively engage in civil society. If this trend changes and the citizens start demanding a larger say in policy-making then their governments will react to their needs.

Another point discussed at the forum was the need to teach people how to stage organized protests with clear demands and the need to start thinking of democracy as an active operating system, in constant need of updating.

The people must become aware of their rights - those they do not know that they have and those that they have lost over the years. Developments in countries like Ukraine and Bulgaria were also discussed and used as examples of how civil society can get organized and act.In fact, the most important events in Europe right now are taking place outside the EU, in the Ukrainian capital Kiev. The speakers expressed their wish for greater support from the rest of Europe to the Ukrainian people, as we could also learn from them ways to get organized and engage in civil society.

The need to educate our youth to become European citizens was underlined. The ongoing austerity policies implemented in Europe were blamed for the lack of education and information.Austerity is taking people out of schools and by that is killing democracy, as young Europeans tend to vote for populist parties. Europe wide educational projects such as Erasmus were considered to be invaluable in creating a new Europe, as they give the opportunity to young people to travel and live in a country other than their own, ending certain misconceptions about other nations.

The right use of social media like Facebook has also been noted. It is not just a platform for promoting narcissism, but can also become a place for action if only we stop limiting ourselves to “clicktivism", with most of us just “liking” pages on the website.

The quality of democracy depends on the policies that are implemented. If these do not express the values that the people would like to be dominant in their society then obviously democracy in this society is of low quality.

Finally, the idea that Brussels can solve all problems and is responsible for everything was condemned. European institutions have limited power and it is up to the citizens to become engaged and demand for things or reforms.

“Nothing should be decided about us without us” was one of the mottos that were recurring in the debates. This summarizes the attitude that all of us must start cultivating towards national and European affairs if we want to achieve a high qualitative level of democracy in our countries and in Europe.

What Europe's Day should mean for the EU citizens?

It is that 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 on our calendar and what does it stand for? 

Why should I be bothered at all and what does it mean for me? Is this day something that only a few bureaucrats in Brussels use to pat themselves on the back for their achievements?

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

So why should we celebrate?

What we are celebrating is not the creation of a super-state, an empire or the next superpower, even if many may mistakenly believe this. We are celebrating the creation of an organization that promotes co-operation, prosperity, development, peace and dialogue, having its impact on many fields such as culture, finances, climate change, politics and society. It directly affects us all in our everyday lives.

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

That is one reason why Europe should be proud and commemorate this day. The day on which over 60 years ago  European leaders put aside their differences and agreed to create an organization that would bring the continent together. When a dialogue was started that would serve to solve differences in peace instead of through war. When the same leaders realized that much more could be achieved by working together than by competing against each other.

European integration: Bringing benefits to every citizen

If that is not a reason for you to celebrate, think of the degree of stability, wealth, progress and opportunities for your personal development you enjoy today in Europe. Many of these achievements make your life a bit easier, either on a national or on a European level. These achievements would have been impossible without the EU. 

Achievements such as the ability to travel, study, do business, work or live in any EU country, without restrictions hassle or red tape procedures. Or the benefit of having your rights secured and recognized in all states, no matter your nationality, race, religion or sexual orientation.

If these advantages do not convince you yet consider 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 think about the benefit of having roads, ports and stations built or upgraded in your community with funds from the EU. The list could go on and on. 

The possibilities and chances that an 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 it away and you will be shocked at 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 this day.

United in Diversity

It is also a great way to create a feeling of “togetherness”, a feeling of belonging and sharing. A reason to be proud of your nation is that it belongs to this unique organization that is considered to be democratic and developed, to respect the rights of its citizens, and to contribute 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. The EU is not trying to scrap any national identities, otherwise its motto would not be “United in Diversity”, and it would not have 23 official languages all recognized by the EU. 

Progress through constructive criticism

The only excuse I could imagine for anyone to feel 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. 

That would require explaining its 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 should not participate in the commemoration. 

If the situation is not what you think it should be, the EU gives you so many chances to express your 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 the EU, but constructive criticism that can lead to progress and corrections. Any other attitude is not "skepticism", but simply narrow-mindedness, ungratefulness, and propaganda.

Europe Day: An opportunity for exchange and debate

So next time on the 9th of May, 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 this 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 or country, sharing what you love about the country you live or come from and what it means for you to live in the EU. You could also debate how the EU has helped you and your country and what must still be done for EU to develop, or what vision you have for its future. That is what the 9th of May should be all about and how you should celebrate it. 

Happy Europe’s Day to everyone! 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 no matter if you like how the current EU works or not. 

Is a European Federation the solution to Europe’s woes? Can the European Left play a more decisive role in European politics?

There has been a lot of debate on how to solve the economic crisis that affected all the European nations for the past decade. 

Since then, there have been many calls from many European politicians, that a closer political union or even a European Federation could offer the solution.

I have arranged an interview with Paul Murphy, a former Irish Member of the European Parliament (MEP) for the Dublin constituency, to discuss his thoughts on the issue. Paul represented the Socialist Party of the European United Left-Nordic Green Left (GUE/NGL). 

He believes that something has to be done on a European level, as the crisis is a European wide phenomenon. “Though in reality, it is a strategy pursued by the EU Commission,” Paul clarifies. “I do not think it will be a question of the Commission changing its mind. Because it represents certain dominant interests, like those of the bondholders and the banks”. “In a sense, they do not really care if the European economy is destroyed as long as they get the maximum return. They do not have a long-term vision for Europe’s economy at the moment,” Paul continues.

“I do not accept this notion of the people of the periphery against the people in the center, but there is a question of the establishment within the center, against people everywhere,” Paul clarifies, in regard to the growing division between Northern and Southern countries. Paul mentions as an example of what needs to be done, one of the most positive events that took place last November. There was a general strike, to some degree, called in Greece, Spain, Portugal, Cyprus, Malta and in Italy, more or less successful in different countries. 

“Currently I do think that a closer political integration or a federation would solve Europe’s woes,” Paul says. He believes that this is the strategy of the most far-thinking elements of the capitalist class in Europe and there is logic to it. In a sense that if Europe becomes more like one country, our problems will disappear. At the moment these problems are about the monetary union. But if the political union is going to be built on the basis they want, austerity will be at the core of it and be written into its rules. “That is what the European establishment wants and what the fiscal treaty is all about,” he explains.

“What the establishment wants is the fundamental diminution of people’s democratic rights. They are using the crisis to create a Europe that is even more removed from ordinary people across Europe, where neoliberal rules define what the EU is,” Paul states. Part of their solution is about removing power from people, in putting pressure on their governments to oppose policies.

“Ultimately I am in favor of a European Union, but on a fundamentally different basis. The road to a democratic socialist Europe, does not lie in further integration and political union from the current EU, but from a different kind of union,” Paul argues.“Because the whole thing is built completely undemocratically and ripe with an economic agenda are at the very center of what the EU is today,” he adds.

Furthermore, Paul thinks that within or without the EU, if our governments continue with the austerity policies it is going to lead to a disaster anyway. “The main thing I would say to do is to break with austerity policies. Pursue socialist policies and refuse to be blackmailed about the question of euro because that is going to happen”. 

The European establishment will say that if we chose not to pay the bondholders, we will be kicked out of the euro. “If the price of defending public services is to be kicked out of the euro then we should take it, because it is better”, he explains. Moreover, he emphasizes that “being kicked out of the euro does not have to be a disaster. It could be, if it is not combined with policies of major investment plans; nationalization of the banks and capital control for example. There are a number of social policies that have to be implemented together with the exit from the euro to prevent a disaster”.

He believes that we also need more coordination among the Left parties in Europe to achieve a fairer continent. “It is not an easy thing to do, because of the different traditions people are coming from. The best thing we can do right now is to really try and create common struggles around austerity and privatizations,” Paul claims.

Ultimately, we could create a fundamentally different kind of Europe. “This Europe, as in the European Union and the institutions that we have, can come under pressure and give more concessions with struggle from below,” he explains. “If we had genuinely left governments in a number of countries in Europe, then we could have a majority in the European Council, the Commission and then we could shift things leftward. I do not think that this is going to happen and I do not think that this European Union can be transformed into a real vehicle for socialist change,” Paul says.

Because if a series of governments coming from Greece, for example, implement left-wing policies, then those policies are against the law of the European Union. “That is the reality”.If governments try to meet the expectations of the people, then they would have to refuse to pay at least a large portion of the debt. The European establishment is not going to accept that and then these governments would lose their vote in the European Council, because it would be in defiance of many other of things.

“There is sort of a Left party in Europe, the so-called European Left Party, but I think it needs to be broader in a sense. Its main political line comes from a certain political tradition. In the Left, we have many differences towards the nature of the EU”.

“We need to create something with a different political complexion so that evoke forces coming from different political traditions. It is useful to have GUE/NGL and work within the European Parliament, but actions must take place outside the Parliament as well,” Paul suggests.

“Neo-liberalism is at the heart of the European Union project now and I do not think it is possible to break the rules and remain inside. What is most likely to happen if you break the rules, is that you will be forced out of the euro and perhaps out of the EU,” he explains.

But in doing that you will also inspire people in other countries to do the same and then, we could have a basis for a new federation of countries coming together on a fundamentally different basis. “Like trade relations based on solidarity, mutual assistance and perhaps having a new common currency or common exchange rate,” Paul believes.

“European unification has to be done anew, fresh starting over again from below. It won’t happen overnight. A lot of struggle would be required with the institutions of the old EU,” he concludes.

Young Greeks in crisis, in a post crisis country.

Over 427,000 people left Greece since the onset of the economic crisis in 2008, marking the third wave of mass emigration in the 20th and 21st centuries. (Greek Reporter)

The country experiences a wave of mass emigration. The experience of expatriates may be a key to learn best practices from other countries.

Many of the emigrants are young and well educated, resulting in a brain-drain for the Greek society and economy that ultimately is bad news for the country. 

A lot of these job opportunity seekers, migrate to other EU member states with stronger economies which offer more opportunity to develop their careers. Yet some of them have found themselves in a peculiar situation. The Greek community in Ireland is growing, despite the difficulties that the Irish economy went through during the past years.

It is estimated that the number of Greeks in the country has doubled - if not tripled, over the period that followed both the Greek and the Irish bail-outs programmes. Partially because Ireland was the first country to exit the EU/IMF monitoring program, there are many other factors that despite all flaws, make the Irish economy more competitive than the Greek. 

Apart from the obvious advantages of the English language, its strong ties with the USA and strategic location close to most major European economies, plus of course the much-debated corporate taxation system, Ireland has established a more business-friendly economy.

"In 5 working days, you can set up your business"
Giorgos Stamopoulos is originally from the city of Patra in Greece. He moved to Ireland about 5 years ago, where he started working in various jobs in customer service and the IT industry. But 4 months ago, he decided with his partners to open “Eat-Greek,” a takeaway restaurant in Dublin. Back home, he used to run his own business in the frozen meats trade, but as the economic crisis took over the country, it was hard to make any profit. “People just did not have the money to make any payments,” he describes.

His new business venture in Ireland is doing very well so far. Overall Giorgos is very impressed and satisfied with the way business is conducted in the country.

“It is very easy to get a license and open a shop in this country, as the license is being issued on the property rather on the individual owner, like in Greece,”  he says.

“There is less paperwork or red-tape and dealing with the banks or the local authorities is very much straight-forward,” Giorgos continues. 

“Back in Greece opening your own business takes too much time and money, as there are a lot of parties involved; from solicitors to public servants, the owner of the premises, the business partners,” he describes.

In addition, taxation is made easy in Ireland and everything is streamlined to do business faster and with less effort.

The working conditions are better too. There is far more meritocracy in Irish businesses and if you work hard you will succeed, according to Giorgos. Adam Kritidis moved to Dublin around 22 years ago, from his hometown of Edessa. He is also a business owner in Ireland, although for much longer than Giorgos.  He opened his first restaurant 16 years ago, and since then he has co-owned to another 8 restaurants in Dublin. 

Adam also points out Ireland’s “business-friendly” mentality. “In 5 working days, you can set up your business and additionally, 7 days are required for opening a bank account for it,” he states. That is something that Greece is still lacking behind, hindering naturally much of its business and economic development.

"There is a better work culture" 
People that arrived more recently in Ireland, have noticed major differences between the two countries.

Theodoros Zioutos came to Dublin in 2015, while already being married with two children. He arrived on his own, while his family stayed back in Greece for a while. They were reunited once he settled into his new home. He is a sound engineer, a profession he has been doing since 1995 in Greece. With 20 years of experience, Theodoros decided to resettle in Ireland, as he saw his working rights being scrapped in a country disintegrating under a deep economic crisis.

“I felt that I had no career prospects anymore, while I was seeking to find a financially safer and stable environment to raise my two kids,” he describes. 

“In Ireland, working experience is being rewarded and acts as a bonus when seeking employment. There is a better work culture, with staff getting lunch breaks and receiving the necessary rest between shifts,” Theodoros continues.

He adds that health and safety issues are being taken seriously, there is a meritocracy and adequate training is always being given. “Overall there is far more professionalism in an Irish workplace, than in Greece,” he adds.

Theodoros thinks that Greece could follow Ireland’s example in many ways. This includes a better organization and prioritization, less red tape and a more transparent taxation system. In short, streamlining the state’s institutions and their functions.

"I need to work fewer hours to make ends meet"  

His quality of life has improved since he moved to Ireland. “I need to work fewer hours to make ends meet, thus I can spend more time with my family, which is important,” he says.

Under the current economic climate, Theodoros does not consider returning to Greece. Yet because of the uncertainty that exists in Europe due to Brexit, he does not exclude moving on to another EU country. There are some things though that some new arrivals from Greece find harder to adopt, although in general, their experiences remain positive.

Matina Velonaki is originally from Athens in Greece. She studied English Literature and prior to her moving to Ireland, she worked as an English teacher. She was also working freelance as a translator but unfortunately, she was not making enough money from either job. Her income in Greece during the crisis was amounting to about 50 € a week.

Matina visited Dublin in 2009 and stayed in the country for one year for studies. After two years back in Greece, she returned to Ireland to find a job. She settled in the city of Cork where she started working in a Greek-speaking, customer service industry related job.

Matina feels that working conditions in Ireland are far better than Greece overall, but she also came across various working conditions, some that she was unfamiliar with, in her home country.

"Bogus Contracts" 
“I have never heard of the so-called “bogus contracts” that several multinational companies offer their workers,” she explains. 

“Working with no sick leave, demanding working conditions, flexible hours with the minimum wage, plus no worker’s benefits, is something I was not aware that existed in Ireland,” she describes.

During her career, she experienced lack of job security in some multinational companies and in addition, very tough competition among Greeks. She believes that because of the hardships back home, several Greek workers in Ireland have become extra competitive to maintain these jobs.

She plans to remain in Ireland for the long term, but preferably move to Dublin. She got used to the way things work here, although she misses her home country occasionally.

Lessons for Europe

These examples showcase a different work culture that Greece and other EU member states could consider in order to make their economies more competitive.

Not all of them might be applicable to other places in Europe, however examining and debating on them could offer valuable insights on how to reform the way we conduct and attract business, copy the beneficial parts, avoid the mistakes. Thus, expatriate communities could prove to be the best source of experience and knowledge on such issues. I wonder how could their voices be heard, both by their adopted and native countries, to create a constant database of shared apprehension on how to conduct business across Europe.

(Originally written for One Europe by me in 2017)