“What next for Europe and the UK after Brexit?”

On the 31^st of January 2020, the United Kingdom has finally left the European Union. After three years, numerous debates, arguments, twists and turns, the Tory leadership of the country has managed to strike a deal with its European partners and come to an agreement within its own government.

This is the first time a country leaves the EU and it is of great significance, since it is one of the oldest members. However, the British leadership was never too keen on European integration. Euro-skepticism is nothing new in the UK and the country’s press was for decades habitually EU bashing, with little effort to counter their arguments by the government.

During the EU membership referendum, we have witnessed lots of propaganda and misinformation from the Leave campaign, but also an inability from the Remain side to present convincing arguments to persuade the British public.

They resulted on focusing mainly on Russian meddling, US takeover and numerous doomsday scenarios, for when the UK leaves the EU. The truth is, the country is one of the richest nations in the world and it can survive outside the EU, although surely weakened.

But it is sad that not just the British public, but Europeans all over the continent are failing to realize the uniqueness of the EU as a concept, but chose to fall for populists that bet in their greatest concern of all: their pockets.

All EU bashing is revolving around the most basic instincts of the European populace, their nationalistic sense of identity and their wealth. Money is the reason why many countries chose to stay outside the EU and why the UK decided to leave.

Money is also the reason why others chose to join or are keen to do so in the future. They want to access to the single market, yet once they enter the club, they often forget the obligations they have signed in order to be accepted in the EU.

Few in Europe yet, see the EU as those who worked to establish it in the past. It is the manifestation of an altruistic idea of a united Europe, which arose from the ashes of a continent, torn by war.

Those visionaries who have witnessed its madness and cruelty and lived through Europe’s most shameful pages in history, had as a goal, the unification of our continent. However, since the 80’s, only years after it joined, the UK started deviating from this vision. 

Soon after the “poison” of Euro-skepticism spilled over to other nations and how couldn’t it, since European politics became a fight over interests and money, among our national governments. But the EU as a project should not only a financial one. It is evident that if it is to succeed in the future, it needs the citizens’ support.

And that can only be accomplished, once they get to share the same vision as Europe’s forefathers, plus ideally, have their needs met, their pockets and living standards filled and raised. Other unions operate differently. They have a president, common language, religion and one of its representatives, or a monarch to unite their populace.

What does Europe have, since if we focus solely on wealth and money, we will inevitable fight over it. We need to start promoting our ideals, values and vision among all layers of our social structure, from the poorest to the richest, either that be nations or individuals.

I would be proud if Ireland or Greece ever became net contributors to the EU’s budget for example, because that would mean that they achieved to be considered among Europe’s richest nations, plus they can help others reach the same goal. And that would be an honor.

However, that transfer of wealth can only be monitored through a centralized governing body, just as it happens in other federal or confederal political structures, like the USA. Thus, we need the EU, even if it has itself problems with corruption, lobbying and red tape; we do not seek to dismantle our national governments or parliaments, because our politicians are corrupt, so why do we require this from the EU?  

Our generation hasn’t lived through destruction or war, so we take for granted the freedoms we enjoy. And it is sad to see our willingness to sacrifice them, in order to satisfy the will of the rich minority. Because those will be the ones who benefit the most from the disintegration of the EU, not the average citizens.

The British public was conned to believe that by exiting the EU, they would enjoy more wealth, save their NHS and they could manage the levels of immigration in their country. Straight after they “got back control,” their government announced that they are seeking to attract workers from all over the world, to fill job vacancies.

As for the NHS, it was never in a bad shape because of the EU, rather the mismanagement of the consequent British governments. It was plainly used as a carrot to lure the public and fall in the trap.

  

The country’s leadership simply wants to be free of EU regulation when conducting business, but not for the citizens’ benefit, rather for their own and those who finance their political careers and campaigns, such as the British and American business elites.

Therefore, we can see a very different UK from now on. Surely not a much poorer country, albeit a more unequal one, a tax haven that is competing with Europe in order to attract more businesses. The ordinary British people won’t see much difference in wealth “trickling down” from this shift, rather they plainly lost their EU citizenship and the rights that came with it.

Funnily enough, they haven’t realized that for one year until they finally agree on their future relationship with the EU, during the 2020 negotiations with the block, Britain will have to obey EU rules without having any say, as it lost its representatives.

And that is a far more serious loss of control and EU meddling, something that Norway- the model country for many Brexiteers- must deal with for decades now. But while Norway, a small Scandinavian nation can manage, how will this go down with Britain, a country with global leader aspirations?

In addition, even Norway is looking closely how Brexit will pan out for the Brits and perhaps rethink their position on EU membership. Their EEA (European Economic Area) Agreement will be affected if Britain ever tries to join or get a similar deal.

The EU as expected will play hardball during the negotiations with the UK, which may well be extended for years. It must really. If it allows the Brits out too easily, or with a very favorable agreement, then other member states might seek similar treatment and that will cast the EU’s doom as we know it. Perhaps that is what the UK bets on, however there is little appetite shown for compromise in other member states.

To conclude, the United Kingdom will be fine outside the EU, just as many other countries. Yet, why aren’t we collectively still convinced about our greatest accomplishment as a continent and chose to remain behind nationalist trenches?  As if our greatest enemy to our wealth is poorer European nations and their citizens.

Ultimately, if the UK ever decides to re-join, it won’t happen for another 10-20 years. When they do, they will have to join the euro and Schengen and that will be a much greater humiliation for the British leadership, but perhaps a much necessary one.

However, there is also the risk that the United Kingdom as a country won’t exist in its current form. With a potential departure of Scotland in order to be in the EU, comes that of Northern Ireland too, now that Sinn Fein has gained great support in last weekend’s election in the Republic. 

Leaving a very different country as potential new EU member state, Anglo-centric and potentially met with suspicion by all other member states. Unless, during their absence the EU manages to solidify its structures and become more unified, it is unlikely they will ever allow “little Britain” back in, with all its demands and opt-outs.

“Europe commemorates the Holocaust; however, it still forgets.”

On the 27th of January, Europe marked 75 years since the liberation of Auschwitz, a grim reminder of one of Europe’s darkest pages in history. 

It is a landmark that demands of us to remember, not out of shame as many see it, but as our duty to our future generations.

Naturally, the extermination of millions of people, not just from the Nazi’s but their collaborators across Europe for simply who they were, should make us feel ashamed. 

However, the purpose of such commemoration, should not focus on making us feel guilty or hate, rather it could be an opportunity to educate and learn to tolerate.

Because even after being exposed to numerous commemorations, documentaries, films and inspiring political speeches about the Holocaust, its causes and aftermath, Europe-although it has made huge progress- hasn’t managed to rid off old prejudices and nationalism entirely.

Even nowadays there is a reported sharp rise in Anti-Semitism across our continent, with Jewish cemeteries being vandalized in France, Germany and elsewhere, but even the UK’s Labour Party, being investigated of its alleged anti-Semitic views.

It is peculiar to think that after such catastrophe, that costed the lives of millions of people-not just the Jews of Europe- people would still see an ethnic group as responsible for all their troubles and problems. So much in fact that they would prefer to align themselves with outright criminal ideologies.

And it is even more worrying, that this hatred spreads to many other ethnic or religious minority groups of Europe. Our continent has become multinational, multi-religious and multiracial and that is a direct outcome of the Holocaust’s legacy.

People for many years have chosen to abandon hate, prejudice and preferred to include and tolerate individuals of different background, as result of the horrors of fascism, nationalism and populism they have experienced. The EU itself was created from the ashes and remains of the old Europe, with a promise that never again would Europeans die in such wars, fueled by hate.

However, our continent is still struggling with its identity and future. And it is not just the Jewish people that are being targeted this time. Islamophobia is also a worrying trend, in addition to the rising xenophobia and Euro-skepticism. Seventy-five years ago, it may have been the Jews of Europe that faced the brunt of our hate, however if we are not careful in the future it could be others.

  

In addition to commemorating the loss of nearly 6 million Jewish lives in the most horrid manner, we could also start telling the stories of others that perished in the same way. And even though the numbers were fewer, their deaths should not be forgotten in history.

With the European Jews, the Nazis exterminated a large part of Europe’s Romani people, homosexuals, Jehovah’s Witnesses, people with disabilities and their political opponents. According to some estimations, about 1.5 million Romani people have died alongside those of Jewish descent.

Some historians bring that number down to anywhere between 200,000 and 500,000, however the numbers should not be the only thing that we should be concerned, rather the reason and the manner.

Many of them died in concentration camps, while wearing a brown inverted triangle. Others were shot while fighting against the Nazis and alongside their compatriots. Many found a gruesome death, while Nazi scientists were conducting experiments on them, like pouring chemicals into their eyes to attempt a color change.

Yet while the Jewish Holocaust is greatly discussed and commemorated, the “Porajmos” or Romani Holocaust is still not being spoken about, or as extensively studied. There are no films or documentaries made about the suffering of the Roma people those days and even if the German government has officially recognized it since 1982, it has never paid any reparations to the Roma victims, like it did with the Jewish ones.

Perhaps that is one reason why the Romani victims are not portrayed in any Hollywood blockbuster movie, together with the fact that they do not have a strong lobby in America to promote their rights and even worse, not even in Europe-their birthplace.

Romani people are part of our continent for centuries. But even today, they are among the poorest of people, facing discrimination and lack of opportunities in all countries they reside on the European continent.

About 80% of the 12 million Roma in Europe today are living below the poverty line, while in average they live 10 years less than the average European with high infant mortality. Only one out of four Roma people are employed, while fewer than that have finished their education: 20% cannot read or write.

Perhaps if we started viewing them in a different manner, we could end this outrageous discrimination and maybe we could start by telling their stories during the Holocaust, to sensitize people about their rights and cause.

Another group that usually is left out of the commemorations are homosexuals. They do not get as much sympathy, as they are not an ethnic group and nowadays, they enjoy their rights and equality in most European nations.

However, their stories should also be told, as a reminder that hate and intolerance is not always targeting foreigners, ethnic or religious groups. In addition, viewing the unjustifiable suffering that these men and women had to endure, could once and for all silence critics of LGBT rights.

An estimated 100,000 gay men in Germany were arrested as homosexuals between 1933 and 1945, with 50,000 being sentenced. Of that number, around 15,000 of them ended up in concentration camps with a high mortality rate, of about 60%.

Homosexuals in concentration camps faced an unusual degree of cruelty, with experiments being conducted on them, in order to find a cure for their homosexuality or other medical diseases.

Others were forced in having sex with Jewish women, prostitutes or lesbian women, in order to force “normal” sexual desires onto them. Castration, boiling of their testicles and violence driven by the homophobia of the Nazi guards, were often reported.

Many were beaten by other inmates, while Nazi soldiers used to practice their shooting skills, by targeting the pink downward triangles sewn on their uniforms to distinguish them, ultimately killing them on sight. Homosexuals in concentration camps were considered the lowest of the low, classified as “asocials” and the true number of the victims remains unknown.

Again, many would not consider the stories of these men worthy of being told and brought into the greater public knowledge, since the gay community enjoys a great number of freedoms and degree of equality. However, we must never forget how easy it is for a society to slide backwards and what can happen to people of minority groups if we allow it.  

Germany prior the rise of the Nazis, had a vibrant gay community and in Berlin, gay and lesbian bars and clubs were abundant. Just because at one given time, a social group enjoys a certain set of freedoms, it does not mean that it can be taken for granted; sadly, that is why the commemoration of the Holocaust is still necessary today.

It is becoming evident that it should not be focused only on one ethnic group’s tragedy and the injustice inflicted upon them, rather view it as a lesson of what we can lose if we make the same mistakes again. It will not only be millions of lives, of many ethnic or religious minorities, but above all it will be our humanity and some of our most cherished values, that contribute to Europe’s uniqueness and success: our diversity, equality, tolerance and freedom.

“Europe should unite and act over Libya”.

For the past decade, there have been not one, but three wars raging right at Europe’s borders. The most known and reported is the one in Syria, which has forced millions of refugees into our continent, however we cannot be too complacent about what is happening in Ukraine and even more so, in Libya.

Since the NATO backed overthrowing and killing of the Colonel Muammar Gaddafi in 2011, the North African nation has experienced instability, two civil wars and a growing foreign intervention. Most of Europe was focusing on its internal troubles like Brexit, however it recently became apparent that this conflict should not be ignored.

Thus-and rightly so- the German Chancellor Angela Merkel organized in Berlin a Conference for Libya on the 19th of January. Invitations were sent to both warring parties of Libya, the Tripoli based GNA and its leader Fayez al-Serraj, plus the Tobruk Government’s (HoR) Libyan National Army General, Khalifa Haftar.

With them, a selection of foreign powers with interests in the region were also invited, most of them already present and engaging in the conflict, siding with either party. The leaders of France, Turkey, Russia, Italy and the United Kingdom, together with US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo were present.

In addition, representatives from the EU, the African Union, the UN, the Arab League, Egypt, UAE, DR Congo, China and Algeria.

The Conference’s outcome seems to have been successful, if only the participants- especially the two rivals in Libya and their foreign supporters, stick to what it has been agreed; that is an end to any interference in the country's ongoing civil conflict, plus to uphold a UN arms embargo.

Twice before, in Paris and in Palermo similar agreements were made, but not upheld. In addition, there was a failed effort for mediation by Greece in 2016 between Libya and Egypt and in 2011 between Gaddafi’s regime and NATO. Thus, one would wonder, why now Greece was excluded from the talks, since it has played an active role before.

Many in the Balkan nation, were angered by Germany’s snub towards Greece, especially since Turkey’s President, Mr Erdogan was present. The German government chose to keep the reasons away from the public knowledge, while many notable Greek politicians such as Dora Bakoyanni, called the move “a mistake”.

  

Yet, there are many reasons why the German initiative should be applauded, although they could have involved Greece in some ways. The US has hinted that Libya is mainly Europe’s problem and it avoided until now in getting actively involved, apart from sporadic attacks on ISIL targets.

To fill this void, Turkey and Russia have both stepped in, each siding with a rival warring group. In order to promote its interests, Turkey has signed two agreements with CNA, one on maritime borders and the other on military cooperation. The first one has hit a nerve with Greece, as it considers the maritime memorandum a violation of international law and an attack on its sovereign rights.

Turkey and Greece have seen their relations deteriorating the past few years, with Turkey trying its best to interfere or sabotage the developments in East Mediterranean and the successful cooperation between Cyprus, Israel and Greece on gas exploration.

Bitter because it has been left out, Turkey went on to sign its own deal with Libya, although not only it is illegal, it is supported by no one. Both the US and the EU have thrown their support around Greece, yet sadly only in words.

The EU has numerous times condemned Turkey’s actions around Cyprus and East Mediterranean; however, it has until now avoided to actively and decisively penalize Erdogan’s antics. Similarly, the US government although supportive of Greece, they are too passive when it comes to Turkey, a major and valuable ally of theirs in the Middle East.

The whole dispute between the two NATO “allies” is around the right to oil and gas exploration, just as in Libya. It is such a pity that Turkey is not focusing on its recent successes, such as launching their first ever Turkish made automobile and its own economy, but instead is trying to bully two EU member states- Greece and Cyprus- while extending their sphere of influence.

Such attitudes have kept the whole region backwards and harmed the economies of both Greece and Turkey. The latter is now to trying to infringe on Greek national maritime territory- all the way close to the island of Crete- in order to satisfy the megalomaniac plans of Mr Erdogan and his government.

Turkey maintains that the Greek islands do not constitute Greek sovereign rights on the continental shelf. In this way, it wants to extend its right to drill all the way deep in Greek waters. It is only to be seen when Europe will truly treat Greek and Cypriot national maritime borders as European, acting accordingly and cutting the appetites of Erdogan once and for all.

Because of Turkey, Greece was forced to intervene in the Libyan crisis and declare allegiance with HoR. The Greek government invited the group’s leader Khalifa Haftar in talks prior the Berlin Conference, plus it clearly indicated that it would block any decision adopted by the EU regarding Libya, unless the Turkey-GNA maritime deal is cancelled. 

 Overall, we should be hailing Chancellor Merkel’s initiative as Europeans, although ultimately, it should be the EU taking such lead. It is about time Europe started flexing its muscle in its own neighborhood and taking the lead in solving international disputes. How does it want to be taken seriously as a global player, if it cannot decide collectively or show determination during such threats and crises?

Until now, EU member states were fragmented or indifferent towards the Libya conflict, too absorbed by Brexit and Syria at best. Italy is supportive of the Tripoli based GNA, while France and the UK switched sides according to their and US interests. Now that Greece is forced to enter the game by Turkey’s antics and Germany by its own accord, it is evident that this conflict is becoming a European issue.

If we leave Russia backing HoR and Turkey supporting GNA, we will have an outcome that ultimately will affect Europe, but without any of our input or our interests protected and promoted.

Germany might have made a blunder by not inviting Greece to the talks, or it may just have saved the day. With a Turkey so hostile towards Greece, if the two were engaged in the Conference, it could possibly derail any agreement and turned it into another heated debate and diplomatic incident between the two.

That was not the point of such meeting after all. Besides, Greece has not attained a great record of diplomatic success in the region previously. Plus, Erdogan was unable to get what he wanted from the Conference and had to-seemingly at least- accept a ceasefire, a UN arms embargo and a peacefully resolution to the conflict.

No word was made about the Greek concerns, at least not openly and the Germans with their European counterparts were wise this time around to avoid it. It is always better to focus on one issue and not try to carry two melons under one arm. However, if there should be a continuation in this dispute, Greece cannot be ignored again.

At least not since it pledged and showed interest in sending together with France, Germany and other European nations, a military mission to monitor the ceasefire. It is the country of entry for many refugees from the Middle East and Africa, it has maritime borders with Libya and since Turkey’s stance, will be most affected by the Libyan civil war outcome.

Following the Berlin Conference over Libya, Europe is debating about what path to follow next. Ministers are currently in Brussels, discussing ways of how to treat Turkey, with Hungary being one of the states opposing sanctions against its aggression towards Greece.

Another topic is focusing on the realization, that since Europe needs to secure the outcome of the Conference, it really needs to get both militarily and politically involved, even if it is with the collaboration of the UN and the African Union.

In conclusion, Merkel’s initiative has finally got Europe talking about Libya and Turkey. It now only remains to be seen how able EU member states can be, in showing solidarity with a member state, leadership in the region and agreeing decisively on a matter that can shape their future.

Europe needs a common immigration policy, if it wants to secure its future integration.

With Brexit now cemented after the British elections last month, we are starting to taste the first consequences of the populist and Euro-skeptic policies and governments we all chose to adopt since the economic crisis, from the newer EU members to the old.

The sad thing is that we resolved to those choices when our pockets were hurt, however we disturbingly opted to vent our anger and frustration once again towards migrants and in addition, to turn against our greatest political achievement of the past decades; the EU.

Admittedly, it is hard to have all countries of Europe agree on something. They have different economies, mentalities, cultures and historical “baggage”, that even though they strive for the same thing, they squabble.

Take immigration for example. One would have thought, that while having established freedom of movement and a market economy which every political elite on the continent reveres and defends, immigration especially within the EU would not have caused such ripples.

Our economic model needs immigrants, so unless we chose to radically change it and alter our social template, we must accept that immigration is here to stay. We cannot have the welfare benefits we enjoy, without someone working and paying for them.

Of course, there must be a distinction between migrants and refugees, the second causing such a terror in Europe lately, that people would happily prefer to give up their freedoms and privileges as EU nationals, in order to keep them out.

Not that the arrival of so many people outside or Europe in such a short time, does not pose serious challenges and problems, or it is only our problem to tackle. But for most, it is the least we can do until their countries are livable again.

With the people escaping from war torn regions, come naturally economic migrants and others who see our continent as a land of promise and opportunity, just as many of our ancestors saw other continents in the past.

They are the ones that are most unwanted. Understandably, native Europeans fear the drastic change that a large number of new comers bring, especially when politicians fail to explain to them the conditions these people live and work in, the benefits they bring and of course, how many enter but also are repatriated or deported.

  

With a single market and freedom of movement long established, Europe should by now have its common immigration policy and unity, when dealing with such crises and challenges. However, the EU is comprised by states with a very different view on citizenship, nationality and immigration laws, that have formed through very different paths in history.

The Western part, had for centuries colonized other continents, resulting in vast, multi-ethnic and multi-religious empires. To them, citizenship and national identity is more tolerant of multiculturalism, because their elites had to convince their subjects that they share a common identity, in order to justify their rule over such a mosaic of peoples.

In addition, they enjoyed economic growth and wealth far earlier, thus they experienced immigration into their countries since the ‘50s in some cases; enough time to develop a new sense of ethnic identity and citizenship, or at least get used to migrants.

Contrary to them, many Eastern and Central new EU member states have a more nation-oriented sense of citizenship, as they were not as exposed to multiculturalism for as long as their western piers. So, when they were faced with such societal alterations such as inward immigration and dealing with refugees, understandably there was fear and skepticism.

Something that local populists exploited and used the failures of Western Europe as an example, in order to help promote their xenophobic agenda. Because yes, even after so many decades of experiencing inward migration, the western European states haven’t in all cases achieved to manage immigration properly.

In a discussion with a Belgian national last year, we ended up talking about the state in the city of Brussels, in which large parts have turned into immigrant ghettos, an image that often is used by populists as an example of “what is to come”, if other countries fall under the “islamisation”  of Europe.

He explained some of the grave mistakes that the Belgian government has made, when out of guilt for their actions in their African colonies in the past, in combination with their need of labor force due to their nation’s industrialization, they have decided to attract many immigrants from their former colonies like Congo to live and work in Belgium.

With them, others followed from countries like Morocco and the Belgians loosened their immigration laws in order to facilitate the enrichment of their country’s labor force, plus to compensate many from their former colonies.

When their economy and industries changed and they clearly did not need as many immigrants, the establishment found it hard to touch the sensitive matter of immigration, out of complex and guilt, or simply out fear of being branded racists. 

As Brussels is divided in different districts and jurisdictions and Belgium itself in two major language-based authorities, the immigration issue soon became a matter that was passed on from one authority to the other like a hot potato. In the end nobody took responsibility for it, so any efforts for integrating or controlling the number entering the country was left to run by old laws and an outdated approach.

Thus, we have today not just Brussels, but many other western European capitals and large cities, faced with the same problem and that is something that others use as an example to refuse to open their borders to refugees; breaking the ranks with their European partners and exposing the EU’s inability to promote solidarity among its members on such issue.

In the western part of Europe too, immigration has become a hot topic, one of the main reasons-or excuses- for Brexit, the rise of the far Right in France, populist government in Italy, terrorism in Norway in the face of Anders Breivik.

These incidents simply express Europe’s identity crisis, but also the failures of our governments which are the real cause of the problem and not immigration itself or the free movement.

Although everyone benefits from them, in dire times it is easier to blame Eastern European workers for unemployment and the loss of jobs, even though in recent years, large numbers are returning to their economically booming homelands.

Under the current social and economic model we adopted, non-EU immigrants are necessary to maintain our social security, growth and investments. Yet we are finding hard to integrate them and once we do not have jobs for them anymore, out of guilt and complex we do not encourage them to return to their home countries or seek new opportunities to other EU member states.

They are forced to live in poverty-stricken ghettos, with less opportunities than the rest and naturally, wherever there is poverty and exclusion, come institutionalization and radicalization. The native population is confused, as they fear they are losing their identity and control over their communities and societies.

In addition, when their governments fail to secure them jobs, they become desperate or angry and rightly so. However, they also often oppose necessary reforms, in order to maintain benefits and privileges that are not in sync with the modern reality.

Thus, consequently and out of desperation they want to return to what they know best: the nation state that raised them comfortably. European countries have shown two trends when dealing with the refugee crisis, some like Sweden and Germany accepted many people in, while others like Hungary are trying hard to keep as many out.

  

It remains to be seen how well the first two countries can integrate their new arrivals on their own and not conduct the mistakes of Belgium, or for how long Hungary can have the tolerance of their European partners.

Europe needs strong leadership right now and an EU that will convince its members to agree to a common immigration policy, that will heal these divisions and soothe the mistakes conducted by the national governments in the past.

A policy that will complement the freedom of movement and allow people from within, but also outside the EU, to be able to contribute with their knowledge and expertise, move freely in the block and enrich their own skills.

We could decide on the educational background of the immigrants we would like to attract, just like Canada and Australia are doing. Perhaps we could even open immigration centers in the regions of the migrants’ origin, instead of allowing them to enter illegally in Europe.

The list of what we could do to streamline Europe’s immigration policy is endless, however all is blocked by national governments who wish to maintain control over this issue; but in most cases it is them who are failing.

Sharing responsibility and resources, could be the solution and the answer to the immigration question, which has become so prominent in our continent recently. Yet we are a long way in accepting this reality and thus, we prolong the problem with a negative impact on everyone individually, but above all the future of European unity and integration.

The Wall 30-Europe after the fall of the Berlin Wall; a troubling image.

On the 9^th of November 1989, Europe was changing forever. The Communist Block across the continent was collapsing and the divisions that once existed, were crumbling.

No other event could portray this historic development better, than the Fall of the Berlin Wall. A city divided in a country partitioned by war and ideology decades ago, was finally tearing a landmark which manifested those divisions down.

People from both sides were taking part and the whole world was watching. Europe, just like Germany itself will never be the same again, in fact their fates would be entwined more than ever.

The Fall of the Berlin Wall was the crescendo of a process that started prior some time in neighboring Poland, when after months of campaigning and civil unrest, saw the trade union “Solidarity” winning overwhelmingly a partially free election.

Soon after Hungary and the then Czechoslovakia followed suit, as the movement was spreading to East Germany and every other state in the Communist Block. It led to the collapse of Soviet Union and Europe was once again at the epicenter of a global shift, leading it.

The collapse of the regime was brought about by a series of civil resistance movements, which opposed the communist one-party rule, demanding change. The series of the revolts across Europe that became a full-blown revolution, came to be known as the “Autumn of Nations”.

Wired fences between Hungary and Austria were removed and thousands of East German refugees were escaping from Hungary and Czechoslovakia, into Western Europe. Soon after, as East Germany was being destabilized, the Berlin Wall was being dismantled by the same people it was supposed to hold back and separate from one another.

The outcome of this was the reunification of Germany and ultimately, that of Europe. The euro, the Schengen Agreement, the Maastricht Treaty, the EU expansion to include most of former Soviet Republic states, none of that would have happened in the Berlin Wall was still there.

There was for two decades a euphoric sentiment in our continent; that of brotherhood and unity, of European integration, dialogue and free movement, lack of borders, walls and anything that separated people, ideas, goods and capita from moving from one corner of the continent to the other. 

Fast forward 30 years and Europe is at the epicenter once again, while this time things appear to be moving in reverse.

Barbed wires are still being established on Hungarian borders, this time not with Austria but with Croatia, to keep another wave of refugees out. These people that try to escape war and oppression, do not come from within Europe’s borders, but predominantly from Syria.

Poland and Hungary are not leading a change to more freedom and democracy, rather show signs of liberalism fatigue and isolationist tendencies. Two countries that were in the forefront of the collapse of Communism, that inspired a change so drastic for millions in Europe and beyond, now prefer to shun Europe and further integration, while electing Euro-skeptic governments.

The euro itself, one of the symbols or European unification, barely survived the economic crisis a decade ago, while is still feared by many across the continent, that see it as the cause of their country’s economic woes.

Britain decided to leave the EU, primarily after objections and fears deriving from “waves of immigration” coming from the Eastern European states. They want to “take back control” of their borders and escape the EU’s “interfering,” in their internal affairs.

Polish people and other Eastern Europeans, who were once welcomed in Britain and the rest of Western states, they are now being scapegoated for “stealing jobs” and causing a strain in social cohesion, services and national resources. Together with all EU nationals, are now being threatened to “go back”, in order to save the British economy and lifestyle.

Across Europe Euro-skepticism and populism thrive, while there is an overall indifference to the EU and its institutions, if not hostility and suspicion. And all it took were one economic and euro-zone crisis, combined with a refugee emergency to completely change European minds.

EU expansion is under “fatigue,” and many states in Western Balkans like Albania have been put in a long waiting room, while euro-zone membership is not as appealing. Seemingly, the European public opinion just does not want any more foreigners entering, no matter where they come from.

Yet, nowadays the average European is taking what he has gained thirty years ago for granted. They can travel with ease- even three times a year- live or study in every country they want, gaining experience and maximizing their potential, however that is trivial now that immigrants from other regions are knocking at our door. 

The fact that the decisions we took collectively 30 years ago, made Europe one of the most stable and prosperous regions of the world and that is why so many outsiders are wishing they could live here, or achieve similar standards is outrageously forgotten.

Infighting over resources, national interests, money, power, status and our inability to abandon our nationalism and chauvinistic mentality are threatening to tear what we have built all these years. People are willing to come to Europe now, for the same reasons Eastern Germans were so desperately trying to escape their regime back then.

The European integration process and the single market are the only reasons why Europe is so rich and a magnet for investments, try to destroy this and Europe won’t be as appealing anymore. Is it worth it I wonder, only because we do not like to live among “newcomers”?

Not that immigration and the refugee crisis do not pose a serious challenge, however we could learn from the mistakes made so far by Western European countries, when dealing with such issues. There is no reason why their failures should become a catalyst for regressing to what Europe was once; divided and poor.

It is true that the corruption and scandalous arrogance and indifference of the European governments and elites, as well of those very EU “bureaucrats,” have soured the European people’s relations among them and added to their frustration and skepticism towards the EU.

However, if we destroy what we have built for the past 30 years, it is us that will have to pay the price and face the consequences, not the elites that we so much want to punish and hold accountable.

The last time we turned against the establishment in Europe, we brought down barbed wire fences, the walls they built to separate us, and we welcomed one another; We chose to live in border-less societies and travel freely within our continent. Now why do we choose to do the opposite?

Africa is about to create its own integrated market and political block, modeled after Europe’s achievements, yet we are seeking to destroy what others are trying to copy from us.  And not just Africa, but many other regions of the world.

I hope they are watching how Europe is ridiculously shooting itself on the foot and try to avoid our mistakes. Perhaps in the future, they will be the ones to remind us of how great Europe once was.

“To those who are triggered by Greta”.

There are a lot of discussions, pictures and memes circulating social media for the past year, that are mainly focusing on politicians, Brexit, Donald Trump and other celebrities. 

However, one person that does not fit in the above categories and has made the whole world talking, is a 16-year-old from Sweden.

Greta Thunberg, the daughter of two Swedish celebrities, became known for her activism in her home country in August 2018 at the age of 15. She started sitting out the Swedish Parliament with a sign saying, “School strike for Climate,” yet soon she was not alone.

Together with other students from other communities, they have organized the Fridays for Future Movement, a school climate strike. That movement became global and after Greta’s 2018 UN Climate Change Conference speech, student strikes are taking place every week somewhere in the world, involving millions of participants.

One would have thought that the achievements of this young lady would inspire and be applaudable, however she also attracts scores of negative comments and publications around her image, cause, age and disabilities.

It is a pity that so many people cannot see the good that can come out of her initiative. Over the past few months that I have been following Greta’s presence in social media, I came across numerous articles, comments and memes, claiming that climate change is not real, that she is funded by George Soros, or even more disturbingly making fun of her Asperger’s syndrome, her looks and speech abilities.

I won’t even bother commenting on the later, malicious commentary; however, it is evident that Greta has hit a nerve in many. It is either a fear of change that leads to denial, perhaps coupled with vested interests that hide behind the intentions of such individuals. Or perhaps it is simply envy; a young girl with disabilities, have managed to sit face to face with many world leaders and address them.

Instead of applauding, they chose to slander. I personally have a niece and in all honesty if I would like her to be inspired by anyone and choose a role model, I would prefer if that was Greta and not someone from “Love Island” or any other reality TV program, that shamefully promote a distorted cause for fame.

And I find it very peculiar how some are skeptical about the funding she gets to engage in her activism. Obviously, she receives funding from somewhere, otherwise how could she at that age, cross the Atlantic on a boat? Her parents are celebrities in her home country, so from that aspect, it should be easy for her to attract investments, never mind her newfound fame.

But if this is what we should be focusing on, then why don’t we do the same for her critics and in fact all our politicians? We do not really seek to know who funds any of our elected representatives or journalists, knowing the fact that all electoral campaigns are partially privately funded, and all journalists are getting paid by someone.

Additionally, even if for one moment we accept that climate change is not as serious as some think and calls like Greta’s are in vain, well would it harm anyone to switch to more environmentally friendly industries and finally live more harmoniously with our planet’s ecosystem?

Besides, science and evidence do not lie, however let us for one moment entertain the skeptics. Must we only change our industries and way of life, if the climate change is man-made, I wonder.

Since we have found alternatives to our energy needs, or ways to reduce our one-use plastic addiction, pollution and irresponsible wastage of our natural resources, then why we should be compelled to do something about it, only if we are convinced that climate change will destroy us.

Thus, it comes apparent that it is her critics that should be scrutinized of their intentions and funding. They could be simply trolls that target a young ambitious girl with disabilities, or maybe people who fear the change she brings with her actions in all levels.

Imagine if all young people followed her example, if industries were forced to change to more environmentally friendly practices or if we collectively stopped eating meat, traveling by plane, etc. Our whole economic model would have to be altered and that is not only frightening to some, but it will also be devastating to their pockets.

In addition, Greta’s success could mean a more engaged and vigilant future generation, socially, politically and environmentally that would send shivers down the spines of many of our elites, that are used to make decisions unchallenged, promoting the financial interests of the few.

On the other hand, Greta’s haters can simply be losers. Underachievers, that envy the drive and success of this young girl, because she simply reminds them of all the chances they did not take, all the times they should really have made a stand and express their ideas without fear, but they didn’t. Yet she not only did, but succeeded in it.

Greta Thunberg has been nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize and is personally liaising with many world leaders, scientists and academics. If only every each of us have decided to make a difference in this world, in any way we thought most appropriate, perhaps we would not be bothered by Greta’s actions, rather be focusing on our own very causes. 

She is calling for a radical change in all levels in our society, politics, economy and lifestyle; that is terrifying for sure and that is why many chose to try and keep her quiet. However, one thing is even more terrifying and that is a future where Greta was right about everything and the world chose not to listen, but mock and silence her.

Finally, we don’t have to adopt all of Greta’s vision for the future. If each one of us made just a small change in their lifestyle, if the only promise we made was to manage our resources better and limit our impact and pollution in our environment, then ultimately it would be for our own benefit, not Greta’s.

Religion’s role in Europe needs to be redefined.

Europe is becoming an increasingly liberal, tolerant, modernized and irreligious continent; however, this transformation does not happen at the same pace in every country.

Besides, we observe a rising trend of nationalism, xenophobia and conservatism that often not only questions the permanency of those changes, but also brings back dark pages of Europe’s history that a lot of us would like to leave in the past.

One of the most remarkable developments that occurred in our continent during the past few decades, is the acceptance of almost of all our minority groups, such as the LGBT community.

While not so long ago, people had to hide their sexual orientation or face imprisonment, exclusion, expulsion from their job, rejection by their families, daily ridicule, bullying and intimidation, nowadays LGBT individuals can finally be accepted for what they are; a valuable asset of every society and equal members of it.

Yet, there are still many that see the change of attitudes towards not just homosexuals, but ultimately every person’s sexuality as a threat, or something that needs to be analysed and explained with anathema or outdated, pseudoscience.

Instead of finally accepting that each person’s sexuality is as unique and different as its personality and it is linked to its ability to identify, express and think itself freely, many want to box this side of human nature into two categories that they have learnt to think as “normal”.

Sadly, among the harshest critics not just of the LGBT community, but any “deviant” form of sexual relationship can still be found among our religious leaders. Funnily enough all those priests, bishops and other church representatives, think of themselves as people of “God”, that reflect somehow the divine love for all humanity, apart of course from those who are born “different.”

In Poland, a country that had initially a promising European path when it joined the EU-before it allowed its religious and political conservatism to get the better of it- the archbishop of Krakow, Marek Jedraszewski has recently made some outrageous public comments.

At a homily to mark the 75th anniversary of the Warsaw Uprising, he warned of a "rainbow plague", reflecting the ongoing tensions in the country over gay rights. The archbishop compared the increasing demand for LGBT rights, with its communist past that “took control of the country’s peoples’ souls, hearts and minds."

By linking Polish citizen’s human rights to the country’s former communist administration, he intentionally tried to associate LGBT activists to the authoritarian and oppressive past of the country.

Obviously, the only argument he can use to convince his compatriots of his bitter homophobic tirade, is to compare gay individuals to something that the people of Poland have very bad memories of and loath.

The Polish Catholic Church, sadly used to stand as a bastion of national identity, intellectual freedom and hope during the decades that Poland was under communist rule, but now it rather represents all that is bigoted.

As the country made the leap and joined the EU, a club that is comprised by some of the world’s richest and most progressive nations, Poland should have anticipated that together with the economic reforms and benefits, come the social ones too.

And since most of the Western European nations have decided to offer LGBT individuals the recognition and security of the human rights which they deserve, then how can Poland refuse its own citizens theirs?

It doesn’t make sense to have half of Europe offering full rights to members of this minority group, while the other half refusing to modernize on such issues, while maintaining the free movement of individuals and an EU citizenship. Under those circumstances, Europe is forced to resemble America of the ‘50s, when in some states African Americans enjoyed certain rights while in others they did not.

How can the religious elite of Poland justify hate speech towards a considerable percentage of the country’s citizens, portraying them as the enemy, a plague and something as oppressive as the communist regime; the irony in this is that they are the intolerant ones and the persecutors.

Why do they hate LGBT activists so much, people which are only fighting for equal rights with the rest of their society, like recognition and acceptance, something that especially in countries like Poland, a nation that fought so hard to maintain its identity and freedom, should at least be admired.

Yet it is not just in Poland, that religious conservatism has become a toxic, bitter and often laughable example. The same week a Church of Cyprus bishop, Neophytos Masouras, in a speech describing that homosexual (male) children develop when pregnant women are having anal sex!

He went on to claim that homosexuality is a “problem” that is transmitted by the parent to the child by engaging in “unnatural” sexual acts. However, if for a minute we accept that his theory is correct, then how can he explain the existence of lesbian women, or other “problematic” individuals?

His peculiar justifications and explanations are based on the “teachings” of a Greek Orthodox saint named Porphyrios, who died in 1991 and tried to advice all homosexuals that their lives should be dominated by celibacy and constant prayer to rid of their “tendencies”.

Porhyrios believed that when a woman enjoys anal sex during her pregnancy, a desire is created, and then the desire is passed on to the child. Simple as that. Of course, it is doubtable if Porhyrios, Neophytos or any of their naive followers have bothered to study any scientific analysis on homosexuality or listen to members of the LGBT community on their experiences and challenges they are facing in modern times.

These two examples are coming from high ranked religious representatives in Europe in 2019. Both Cyprus and Poland are EU members, relatively developed economically and socially, politically stable, democratic and with a highly educated population.

Yet somehow, it is allowed for priests to speak about things they do not understand, thus should not have a say on, plus project their own bitter, outdated, uneducated and spiteful views on people that often need support, acceptance and love; something the all religions in Europe claim that they offer to their followers.

Members of the LGBT community have proven that are highly valuable in a society, since they are very active and creative-if we only allow them to be. They often hold key positions in politics, arts, education, civil administration, health and medicine, sports, entertainment or science.

They could be your brothers, your children, sons, daughters, sisters, but also your own fathers and mothers. How can anyone allow such ignorant and hateful comments to be made regarding them, especially coming from the Catholic Church which itself has a lot to answer for, regarding millions of sexual child abuse cases across the world.

As for trying to explain how homosexuals are being born, religious representatives should leave such attempts to science, it is not their field. Religion in modern Europe if it is to survive, it will have to drastically reform itself and stop following doctrine which was conceived by men with limited education, centuries or even millennia before our times.

The purpose of religious leaders in our continent, should not be to judge people of how to be basically themselves or live their lives, rather to offer them guidance in their spiritual search. They should offer unconditional love and support, rather target anyone who does not feel cisgender with fascist-like intolerance.

Times have changed and with them our societies and thus, the people living in them. We cannot allow such men to poison the minds and hearts of people against their fellow humans. Any religious organisation, dogma and sect should discourage their representatives from promoting such doctrine, as it is harmful not only to our society but the religious bodies themselves.

How do they expect for young individuals to join any religion that does not accept them or a member of their family, plus refers to them with such diminutive manner, without any justification or evidence, rather the preaching of men who lived centuries ago in a society totally different than ours.

Can we maintain such attitudes or beliefs in our modern societies and if we accept this for LGBT people and activists, then why not for women, ethnic and religious minorities, people with disabilities, migrants and even children?

If we resist change and progress when it comes to attitudes towards homosexuals, then why not regress to the times when we jailed men who had sex with men, when women could not vote or own property, children had to work, slavery being normal and interracial marriages were forbidden. This is not the Europe we should aspire to live in.

We need to establish across our continent, the same basic human rights of all communities and if that challenges some narrow-minded bigoted fascists that hide their true nature behind religion and priesthood, then shame of the Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, Muslim, Jewish or any other established religious body and authority that exists in Europe nowadays, for allowing them to hijack religion, in order to spread their hatred and ignorance.

LGBT people do not need to be excused or their existence explained to be accepted, they just need the later. They do not need to be patronized, feared, forced to repent, ridiculed or hated, they need equal opportunities to showcase their talents and contribute to the progress of humanity and its civilization, as they always have done.