Launching of the European Year of Citizens 2013, in Dublin City Hall.

This year marks the 40th anniversary of the accession of Ireland in the European Communities and it is also the 7th time that the country holds the rotating Presidency of the EU Council. The beginning of 2013 has kick-started the first months of Ireland's reigns of the EU and also the launching of the European Year of Citizens 2013.

It was an idea developed in the European Parliament, that called on the European Commission to make 2013 the European Year of Citizenship. MEPs wanted to boost the debate on EU citizenship and inform EU citizens of their rights.

Today it was its official launching in the Dublin City Hall. The speakers included Ireland's Taoiseach Mr Enda Kenny TD, An Tanaiste Mr Eamon Gilmore TD, EU Commission President Mr Jose Manuel Barroso, EU Commission Vice President Mrs Viviane Reding and Ireland's Minister for European Affairs Mrs Lucinda Creighton TD.

The event was kick-started by its moderator, Mr Pat Kenny with a brief introduction. Soon after that Taoiseach Enda Kenny, President Barroso and Mr Eamon Gilmore TD opened the debate with their speeches and answering few of the audience's questions.

Mr Kenny stressed in his speech that we need to create a new Europe of peoples. We take for granted what we have achieved but in years such these we need to remind ourselves about our achievements. This year should be a year to consider what Europe means to us and that it is important for all of us to deepen our cooperation and relations.

Mr Gilmore stated that the economic crisis lowered the public trust in EU and that we must restore it. It is an Irish tradition to submit great change in the EU through the country's referendums on further agendas. And this year we need specific changes of the EU Treaties. Restore the financial and economic trust, promote stability, create new jobs and solve the crisis. "It is up to us to decide our future, it is in our hands," he stressed. The EU should become a union of rights guaranteed by law and we should encourage citizens to exercise these rights.

President Barroso talked about the need for further integration, stability, a banking union and how all European countries are dependent on each other. "Even countries with high standards are finding hard to solve problems alone," he mentioned. He underlined the need for new rule in banking so that "it should be not up to the public who shall pay again for the banks in the future."

He also made positive comments on Ireland's efforts to battle the crisis and he explained how the country has now a unique opportunity during its 6 month presidency to help other members get back to sustainable growth. He also added that while it is important to get the economy growing again, "we can not do this without the support of the citizens. Europe needs to gain their trust again and engage them."

President Barroso closed his speech by vowing that young people under 25 will be receiving a quality offer in a job within 4 months of leaving higher education in the future. He also added that constructive criticism of the EU does not pose a threat, but a constant negative outlook does.

The three speakers then answered a few questions by the public and the debate focused on the issues raised by them. The discussions focused on if the EU is doing enough to tackle the crisis and how Ireland is dealing with it. Sorting out the country's finances and recapitalizing the banks is very crucial, while cooperating with the EU Commission and the ECB to achieve that.

The efforts should focus on international, pan-European level but on national as well and so far Europe is doing well on structural reforms, reducing deficits and dealing with the crisis.The future of the euro is not in question anymore.

On a question of what will Ireland gain out of its EU Presidency this time, Mr Kenny mentioned that "we can demonstrate that as a small country we can emerge as an example to other countries on what can be achieved." Mr Gilmore stated that "Ireland's agenda is Europe's agenda" for the next 6 months: growth, employment, banking union, expanding trade with other countries that will increase employment. "Our priorities as a country are aligned with the European agenda."

President Barroso agreed and added that "what is good for Europe is good for Ireland, and what is good for Ireland is good for Europe." The discussion then focused on future plans to promote trade with other blocks dealing with large powers like China and investing in "Blue Growth", meaning the exploitation of maritime energy, the wind and the currents of the seas around Ireland and Europe. During the Irish Presidency there will be a number of conferences organized, debating on climate change and the environment.

The conference then welcomed Mrs Reding and Mrs Creighton on the platform and moved on to the second part of the open public debate. Three videos were shown on screen, focusing on three different subjects: the current economic crisis, rights of European citizens and the future of the European Union.

Mrs Creighton stressed that we need to go through this painful process to meet our targets, as we are laying the foundations for future growth. The discussion focused on youth unemployment and how to deal with it, but also how to deal with the fact that Europeans will have to work longer. Will that postpone young people in entering the job market? We must ensure that we pay our way and not force older people out of work to benefit the young. But in the same time it is the young who have been hit the hardest by this crisis.

"If we want young people to continue to have faith in democracy, the economy and the EU we need to gain their trust and give them opportunities for jobs," stressed Mrs Creighton. Mrs Reding added that "Europe is not about institutions only, it is about people. We need to start thinking out of the box. We must not break the solidarity mechanism in our societies. We must not overstretch the age of retirement and in the same time we need to develop the capacity of training."

The speakers continued discussing how we ended up in this situation, when in the past it was decided that the EU Commission should not be given the full power to handle EU money, but this power was given to the national governments. Now we see that this does not work anymore, we need to learn from this situation and adapt, ensure the same mistakes won't happen again and break the cosy relationship of national banks with their national supervisors.

Mrs Reding also made a comparison between Ireland and Greece and described the current situation in the Balkan country. She noted that we must help build up the taxation system in the country that was not working for years. "Greece as a state did not function," but we have to keep with the very difficult work of building new structures to get out of this situation. The EU gives its members the freedom to take initiatives to deal with the situation, but we must close the gaps that were left out by the Maastricht Treaty and restore the damage.

She then introduced Mrs Antogoni Papadopoulou, a Cypriot MEP who was a rapporteur when the creation of the European Year of Citizens was debated and decided in the European Parliament. Mrs Papadopoulou wished all the best for the Irish Presidency and reminded us that to solve the common problems we are facing we need the synergies to find common solutions. "We are here to hear your voice, we can make a miracle," she stressed.

The conversation continued to social issues like the gender pay gap. It was stated that so many years of legislation exist to deal with this issue but we still fail to implement them. We need to create "more responsibilities for fathers, more opportunities for mothers," Mrs Reding noted. Ireland's situation on women's equality was also mentioned after 40 years of EU membership and the huge leaps the country achieved on this issue.

Solidarity and the discrimination of the small EU states was the next topic of discussion, with Mrs Reding dismissing such claims. She brought as an argument her own native country, Luxembourg and how it benefited from EU and got protection from the big powers it is surrounded by. "The EU gives a chance to small states to survive," she claimed. If it wasn't for the protection of Europe, Luxembourg would not exist.

The future of Ireland and the EU was the last topic discussed. Ireland needs to change the culture that exists in Ireland on having property. For Europe's future the environment, the Chart of the European Citizens of Fundamental Rights, reforming the CAP, the EU expansion and more dialogue with the citizens became the hot topics.

We also need to change the way we are doing politics. That we have to push for the respect of the human rights in all EU members before any new country's accession and that we, as citizens must know our rights. "65% of EU citizens believe that their voice is not heard or count in Europe. That is not true," Mrs Reding claimed.

The two speakers concluded the debate with the plans and next programs of the European Year of Citizens. Today is only the beginning of the process. We must appreciate what we have and improve it and have politicians that are listening. This project is a new adventure: it starts with the citizens and we should ask them what they want to happen in the future in Europe. The citizens have a part to play.

We have to improve accountability and democracy to the citizens. The evolution of Europe is in process, we are in the middle of a journey. Concluding, Mrs Creighton promised that 2013 will be an interesting year for Europe.

I personally would love to see all that was mentioned above to be implemented as soon as possible. They must not remain on paper. If we indeed manage to achieve the proposed plans in a short period of time, then yes 2013 will be the start not only of an interesting year,but of a very interesting future for the EU, Europe and us citizens. If only we grasp the opportunity our politicians are giving us, become more active and have a positive outlook and hope.

 

Should Europe help developing countries?

In periods of economic difficulties like the current we are living,often the issue of charity or aid comes to the surface of any political or social debate. Should a state offer aid to other poorer nations? Should Europe be helping developing countries, or the EU be the World's largest donor of aid?

The logical answer to this would be of course that we all should do what we can, to help other fellow humans and show solidarity with them. We are all after all, citizens of this great wide planet. But giving aid to poorer countries is not anything new. It has always been taking place for as far as I can remember, yet somehow we still haven't managed to create a more equal world.

Perhaps we are doing the right thing, the wrong way. All these money collected or promised by our governments or social and political elites,somehow fail to create a permanent impact; ending poverty in this world and create a more equal planet. Maybe it is not just money we should be giving but something else as well.

The best way I believe for Europe to help developing countries is by NOT giving money to them. But expertise, assistance to develop their own abilities and exploit their own resources, advice and shared knowledge. What Europe does though is keep offering them money, that is often being misused and it creates a dependency.

It helps establish a corrupt elite that misuses the aid money portraying the limited success as their own to perpetuate their rule in the country. Trust me, I am from Greece I know. It happened over there during some of the most troublesome decades in our and Europe’s history and now we see the results.

A poor country does not need money to become rich or at least wealthier, if that is what we want in reality in Europe and not a new type of dependency for these countries. A new type of colonization and exploitation.

A poor country needs direct investments, jobs, factories and education so it can stand on its own feet and start exploiting all the best that it has, investing then in innovation with its own money. It needs the knowledge and organization skills to develop, as well with a better or more appropriate education system.

So all that Europe could do is set up companies that will promote the exploitation of the country’s natural resources, schools, factories – but not sweat shops to exploit the local population with cheaper salaries for the continent’s rich elite benefit.

Sadly, before Europe decides to offer help and invest in one nation it demands certain obligations. Help does not come without price. They want to establish an ever pro-Western regime and transform their “aid” into an investment. And investments usually mean a return in profits, so here is where the problem lies.

By being so selfish and offer help but with many strings attached, we are doing more harm than good in some cases. We sink nations into deep debt and  establish a pro-Western elite, to make sure we are going to get the return of our investment we are counting for. So we actually promote corruption and injustice in this country.

If that is not the case, then with these money we create a dependency that is hard to wean off. To promote certain "standards" for a country that usually reflect our own Western ideology, the money given is also helping to establish an elite that our own ones favor. This results into nothing really developing or changing. Countries that are in dire need of aid, usually remain in that condition for decades. 

I am all for European aid and help to any country in need, because as many others have argued, this is what Europe must stand for for the future: human betterment, across the continent and beyond. But only if this help comes with a totally selfless attitude. Instead of looking down on those “poor” “Third World” nations, we should actually try to inspire them to be proud and confident in achieving greatness. Be a invaluable member of the global community.

Because it is in our interests to create a prosperous and equal world. More stability results in more wealth and prosperity for EVERYONE. But that is something that some of the elites both in the West and the East do not want. They prefer a fragmented world with extreme poor and extreme rich nations or people to serve their own interests.

Scenarios of a British exit from the EU.

During the past few months certain debates have gained momentum in Europe. Catalonia seceding from Spain, Scotland from the UK and the UK leaving from he EU altogether. 

The United Kingdom has had an uneasy relationship with Europe ever since the creation of the European Communities. To them, Europe should never proceed to a full political union, they prefer to keep things as they are and keep the EU just a large market. 

I guess the interests of the political and leading economic elites are better served if things remain as such. Britain outside the EU could do well, in fact if any member state decided to leave would not be the end of the world for them. But are the citizens interests best served in the EU or outside?

Britain always wanted to safeguard the interests of the City of London and its financial services sector. They have invested hugely in creating the sector that dominates their economy and allowing it to be subdued to any interference from outside could prove costly. 

But they did reform their economy in the past to the detriment of the ordinary workers and their unions. It happened during the "Thatcherite" years when Britain's financial sector was established and the country's economy shifted dramatically. 

Then the ordinary workers suffered and the country went through some very difficult years socially and financially. So why can't they do it again? Is it because the rights or interests of the workers are not as important as those of the Bankers? Is protecting the banks and ensuring the favor of the markets far more important than having access to the European Single Market and influencing European affairs? 

Of course it is not about only protecting the financial sector of the City of London. It is also a reflection of different mentalities or a cultural issue. The British elite and the press always believed that Britain should remain outside a European "superstate" and pursue a more global economic, political and cultural influence or even dominion, through their cooperation with the US and the Commonwealth. That is why the majority of the British press was not very friendly to the European project for many years now. 

The question is, will the other Commonwealth countries be willing to always be part of this "British" club? India for example has grand aspirations of its own. And what about the other aspirations of the British "euro-sceptics" for their country, that want to be just like Norway and Switzerland? 

Norway is an oil rich country but is also part of the EEA (European Economic Area) having access to the European single Market without being an EU member. It is through all the treaties it has signed to be part of EEA, three quarters member of EU. They have to follow and adopt most of EU legislation and even pay into the EU's budget.  

Oslo gives around €350m annually to fund capital projects in the newest EU states like Poland and Romania. They recently helped build a smart new maritime museum in Gdansk, Poland.

But they do not have a voice in the EU, as they do not have a seat in the EU Parliament. Of course being a rich country very few bother or complain about it. But if Britain left the EU, they would lose their seats too and they would also have to find alternative ways to deal with the rest of Europe. 

They would most probably seek to remain in the EU Single Market as Norway or even Switzerland have done. It would be certainly be catastrophic if they chose to leave the EU totally and not be even part of the EEA/EFTA. In theory they would do so, only to cut the ties totally with the rest of Europe, a move that would be unwise.

But unlike Norway, Britain is a large country. And they do not have the resources that Norway has. Can such an important country just follow regulation that has been decided elsewhere but have no chance of influencing? If Britain wants to play a far more important role in the world politics and economy, can they lose their voice and influence in the continent on their doorstep? How can they assert themselves in the rest of the world if they ignore Europe? 

And what will happen if Scotland decides to leave the UK too and join the EU as an independent state? Then the oil in the North Sea will most likely be claimed by the newly formed Scottish state. Can the United Kingdom adapt to all these changes at once?

Even their relationship with Ireland will change. The two countries have signed numerous agreements that have made the two countries very close partners. The Common Travel Area, the Good Friday Agreement and many others between the two countries could be forced to be revisited. 

That would make it more awkward for Ireland to be fully integrated into a more federal EU and keep intact its agreements with Britain. Because of the Common Travel Area, there are no borders between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. Irish citizens also do not require passports to travel to the UK, just like in the Schengen Agreement Area. 

If Britain withdraws from the EU that will mean that Ireland can never join the Schengen unless it agrees to reinstall its borders with Northern Ireland; something that no side would want. And if Britain decides to withdraw totally from the EU and the EEA or EFTA, this situation could become even more complicated. 

The people of Northern Ireland can have under the Good Friday Agreement any nationality they want (Irish or British) and hold any of the two, or both passports. If the UK leaves the EU and decides that it does not want to be part of EEA and Schengen like Norway has, will the N. Irish people chose to keep their British passports or rush to get an Irish one? Can this have an effect in the change of status quo in Northern Ireland? 

Ireland will have to rethink its relationship with the EU too, but I do not think that it has much choice. Most multinational companies that have settled in the country have done so because Ireland is an EU member and an English speaking country. The multinational companies want to have access to the EU Market, plus enjoying the benefits of Ireland's lower corporate tax rates. 

Should Ireland be forced to leave the EU too after the UK, it won't have the above advantage. 

Britain is one of the most important business partners of Ireland. Britain is Ireland's biggest export market, while Ireland is Britain's 5th biggest export market. Most British retail companies have also branches in the Republic of Ireland and vice versa. A complete British withdrawal from the Single Market would be awkward for both sides. 

So the UK has two options, either to join EEA or stay in the EU for good. By staying in the EEA they will lose their influence in Europe and they will allow France and Germany to fulfill their vision for the continent. The British will still have to abide to 3/4 of EU law but they will have no voice or no influence on it. This situation in my opinion is not ideal if you wish to have a greater say and influence in the world. You still have to follow EU law that was decided by any other country in Europe, but not you. 

Preferably I would like them to stay in but become more active, committed and leading members of EU. They can achieve far more if they share the lead of the Union than being increasingly isolated in Europe. If only they could understand that and see that instead of always being the awkward member, they have more to gain if they became an active one. 

Europe needs Britain too and perhaps might eventually make it easier for them to feel more comfortable in the Union. A bit more cherry picking like the Swiss are doing and they will be happier. The truth is that neither Switzerland nor the EU are happy with their bilateral relations and both seek a revision. The EU is looking to corner Switzerland and pull it closer, while the Swiss are not happy with the lack of representation of their interests. 

They always rely on Britain in representing their interests in the EU, as they both have a large financial services industry. If Britain also leaves, will this alliance last and who will represent those two countries then? 

How can we build a functioning union if every state picks only what suits them and opts out from what it doesn’t? There will be no "union" if this happens, we will have to revert back to EEA or EFTA . Many "euro-skeptics" of course will be delighted for this, but not me. I want to have a vote on what is being decided for me on a European level, I do not want to end up being a Norwegian or an Icelander. 

And if the UK is allowed to get all the opt outs and still remain in the union, then why not every country do the same and only accept laws that do not interfere with their sovereignty? But if you want to keep your sovereignty then why join a union in the first place! I do not want a free trade agreement only because there will be no European Parliament (EP) and the laws of the Single Market will be decided for me, but without me. 

In the end of the day you can not keep them in by force and it is becoming annoying for everyone to have one country constantly complaining and moaning about everything. Perhaps we should let them be out for a while. Sometimes when we wish for something for too long, when we eventually get it we realize it was not what we wanted in the first place!

What is wrong with the Greeks and Europeans in general?

I often try to explain to many fellow Europeans how on Earth the Greeks have allowed their country to reach this point. How a country with so many resources and a great geopolitical strategic position can not achieve stability and become like many other developed European nations. One would of course ask; is this country meant to? 

Besides the Greek "condition" in my opinion is not just Greek, but European overall and in fact it affects all developed countries. It's been around 60 years since the '50s where the world started recovering from WW2 and there was a post war boom in every aspect of life. The economy, population, discoveries, industrialization, innovation, all driven by the rebuilding of Europe and other regions badly affected by WW2.

In my opinion that generation, the generation of post WW2 baby boomers is the main driving force of this crisis. They are all in their 50s or 60s, middle aged and it is the generation that dominates the political and economic life of Greece and Europe. And since they are during their middle life crisis years, they pull our continent with them. Old ideologies, attitudes, political ideas, social stereotypes and way of life, that is what they represent. 

And it shows in our political and economic life of today. Yes they do have experience and knowledge, but they suffer from lack of new ideas and vision. That I am afraid will come from us, the younger generation if only we get seriously involved in our country's and Europe's politics. 

In Greece the generation of over '50s inherited a country in tatters after an era of numerous Balkan wars that lead to the expansion of Greece's borders but also the Asia Minor disaster. A situation that forced Turkey and Greece to exchange their populations. Many impoverished Greeks arrived in today's Greece with nothing but their own clothes and whatever they could fit in their pockets from their livelihoods.

More than a million people were displaced like this and all efforts of the newly formed Greek state went into providing these people with housing and integrating them. But peace was not meant to last. The great European powers had other plans for the continent of Europe and the region of the Balkans. Two World wars broke out in the space of a few decades and Greece was dragged into both of them.

After those wars the country had to endure a bloody civil war that wrecked and devastated the country, economically, socially, morally and politically. It divided the nation and its scars have not fully healed until today. A few decades later and the country had to endure a military junta with the backing of USA. Another black page in the country's history that caused even further damage in Greece's politics and economy. 

Foreign powers always meddled with Greek affairs and politics. They helped to establish kings, democracy and  junta all in the space of half a century. But the Greek public was left with deep wounds and negative influences by all this instability. 

First of all corruption was established in all levels of the society. When the country was so poor and its people deprived, it is only natural. But it was also established by the state itself, in order to help keep control of the population and oppress them. Greece always had a strong socialist or communist population and in order to control them and keep the country under Western control, Greece became a police state.

If you were suspected of being a communist you were under surveillance by the police and if found guilty you were deported from the country and your fortunes seized by the state. Many children of communist families were given up for adoption in Greece, former communist countries of even in the USA and other western countries. 

Such cruel decades of poverty and deprivation, taught the Greek people to seize every opportunity they could to make a living. The state corruption soon became a way of life for everybody, as it was the only way to prosper. Very few people attended school and even fewer managed to go to college or university and get a degree. Emigration was widespread and a lot of the islands and parts of the mainland were abandoned. 

For example none from my family finished school. Neither my parents, nor my aunts, uncles never mind my grand parents who did not even go to school. They were all forced to leave studying and receiving any education to go and work at an early age. My father started working at the age of 13. My mother at 15. That was the social norm. Almost none of their cousins or friends ever finished school.

And it was not only the lack of education. They had to deal with a oppressive state that used a strong corrupt police force to oppress them. That is the reason that it is not in the Greek psyche to write to their mayors or ministers to complain about something, but only to court them for favors in return for their vote. You could not freely protest in Greece during the 50s. 

The police had too much power, and it kept this power until the '70s and the "Metapolitefsi" years. But even today the police has kept its old mind frame when dealing with its citizens. Authoritarian, corrupt and violent, especially when it comes to Greece's latest citizens, the immigrant communities.

 

When living under these conditions, in poverty, deprivation, social injustice and inequality, under an oppressive state and police system, with no education or a chance for a better life, generation after generation of Greeks learned to have a very limited and narrow minded perception of their political and social life. First of all they were not encouraged to be political creatures, rather to obey with no questioning. 

Similar situations existed in most countries of Europe after WW2 and that is correct for most of the Eastern part of the Continent that fell under the Communist rule. But countries like Ireland also had to endure their own oppressive institutions, this  time coming from the Catholic Church and not the police. One can really see this in the older Irish population, that also grew in poverty, deprivation, oppression and a brutal Catholic regime.

People like that can not protest or express any political opinion. They are ignorant and easy to manipulate as they accept the country's status quo without question. And even if they did have the ideas, they would keep them to themselves and do not protest in fear of losing the little that they had and be deported like in the Greek case. How can you have active citizenship under those conditions? 

So a whole generation of Greeks, Irish and many other European nationalities learned not to question and just follow what was happening in their countries. And when the boom times came, they just went mad and were spending like never before. Well it is natural, don't you think? Once you live in poverty for decades, you will of course try to make the most of it while you can and use any method to accumulate more and enjoy the good times to the maximum. 

But they only fell into a trap, that was set up by the those who control the global economy. They knew what would happen to a poor country that accumulated wealth so fast and they gambled on them. Now that Europe is changing, we see a greater citizen involvement in European affairs, even if in many cases that happens with a negative way. 

European youths that have access to the internet, have studied, traveled abroad and even worked for some years in another country than their own, they are becoming more aware of politics especially European. There are various EU funded forums and portals on-line that one can receive information and even come in contact with various EU officials and politicians. 

And from my experience they are far more willing to respond and get engaged with the citizens, than the national politicians.They usually tour a country only to gather support and gain votes from the people, by making promises that most likely won't keep. 

The future looks brighter for citizen involvement in European politics. But we still ignore the generation of over '50s, in trying to educate them or show them the benefits of EU membership or what are their rights as EU citizens. 

What we need is to reach out to them through the media they use and trust the most, the television. We should promote more awareness and information through television programs for people of an older age and encourage them to get involved too. Help them understand how the EU and politics in Europe work, and offer them unbiased information detached from any national interests and propaganda. 

Imagine for example if the British public that are the most "euro-skeptic" of all EU nations, found out the real benefits of their country's EU membership. If they were offered another point view, apart from the obviously and openly "euro-skeptic"  media, especially the press. It is again the British populace over 50, the pensioners and others near that age that are most conservative and vocal of their anti-EU sentiments. 

It is also true that the German people over '50s are far more inclined on being conservative and oppose any major change in their country's politics, any bail outs or transfer of funds to poorer EU countries. It is them that control the country's economic and political reigns and influence of course European politics as the largest member of the EU. 

In Greece too, it is that age group that rules and has an outdated, conservative idea on how to run the country. They do not like change or modernization simply because they will lose all their power and influence in the country, by bringing a new way of doing business or reforming the country's economy. How can anything change with such conservative approach?

 

Yes in the future Europe will be more "European", but if we do not focus on the older generation, that development will only take place decades later, when they pass. Until then, they may do permanent damage with a rise of nationalism, xenophobia, conservatism and protectionism. The younger generation that has studied abroad and speaks foreign languages, it is natural that they will feel more "European" as I am. 

What about people in my parents' age group, will we let them be indifferent? They do have the right to vote and they use it. And the more we leave them uninvolved or ignorant in many European issues, the more we will be delaying any real progress in Europe.

 

Defining corruption.

I often wonder what makes a country corrupt, what are the reasons that some countries riffed with it and how we are defining which countries are more corrupt than others. In the recent list published last Wednesday by the anti-corruption watchdog Transparency International (TI), we saw this year's worse offenders and the "shining examples" of the least corrupt countries.

But I often wonder who and why decide to place certain countries in such place. And under what criteria? The list showed that Afghanistan for example is right at the bottom of this list, while the USA in the top 20. That is a thing that I find hilarious. Afghanistan, a country is still under foreign military occupation is being placed at the bottom. 

Could the country have done any better? Can a country better its system when under an occupation? And what about America being at the top 20? Is this country really "transparent?" Well it depends how you see things, and how you define "corruption!"

Perhaps you think of corruption as only when it happens in a poor country with other traditions than the dominant "Western" and "Anglo-Saxon," but when it happens in a developed country it is just "lobbying." Or is it perhaps only when it happens between bribes and financial transactions of certain parties of the public with certain parties of the national or local government? 

Then how can we explain the fact that America is in a state or perpetuate war with the excuse of providing certain "unfortunate" countries that lack "democracy" with "freedom," when the real reason is to make their arms and oil industries richer, thus helping their economy?

What is the difference between me going to a civil servant in the country I am living in, paying him/her with a lump sum in order to gain a favor for my business or me, with when an arms company is lobbying a country's government to engage in a war that is not justified, for profit? And of course this is a profit shared, as this company in return will support that government in its future political campaigns or even worse will share some of the profits with that government. 

Please do not be surprised this is not a scenario, this is happening as we speak. The war in Iraq and Afghanistan was all about oil and profit, nothing more. And some companies made huge profit, helping in return some lobbies or political parties in their country of establishment. 

Because despite the public outrage or lack of support, Britain, Spain and Portugal for example went on and joined the Americans in their campaign in those countries right away. Isn't this a show of lack of democracy, when despite the public disapproval, the government enters a war that will have no benefit for the nation whatsoever, rather for the global oil companies?

And why the "corruptor" that is corrupting a country with money or other means in order to serve his interests is never listed as being corrupt, like in the case of Afghanistan/USA? The first country is being invaded and has its resources exploited and not only that, is being forced to a regime change that will only serve the invaders, then this country finds itself at the bottom. While the second country is considered less corrupt, simply by judging its GDP or wealth, even though that it uses this wealth to corrupt other countries.

Do you want another example? The case of the Greek government and many German multinationals like Siemens. The German multinational was bribing the Greek government for years in order to be appointed the main constructor of many public works before the Athens Olympics. 

When they got it they made a huge profit out of the Greek public wealth, they avoided taxes and overcharged the Greek state. This is the so called "Siemens scandal" that rocked Greece a few years ago. Yet it was the Greeks who were branded as a "corrupt" nation and not the "corruptors" the Germans. I think it should work both ways shouldn't it? They were both part of the equation.

I have also always wondered how a tax haven make it towards the top of the list. Like the "corruptor" states, they are a part of the global corruption plague, simply by having secretive banking policies and lower their taxes for the rich or the multinationals. In this way they offer the ground for corruption to exist elsewhere. Without them, corruption would be difficult to hide as those who tax evade would have no place to hide their money that they stole from the state or other decent tax payers. 

So why exactly most tax havens also make it to the top of the list, like Luxembourg, Switzerland, many Caribbean and Pacific islands, Monaco, etc. If they could not act as tax havens, if we imposed sanctions against them if they did not comply with international laws, the corrupt fat cats would have no playground to stash their money. You will think that it would be outrageous to place sanctions against tax havens? Why? We place sanctions against any country that does not play with our rules, like Iran or Cuba for example. 

Is it perhaps that "the West" is corrupt as a economic and political block? In my opinion yes. Wherever there is a lot of money and power involved, there you can find the worse corruption of all. In that way, the USA, Britain and yes even the EU can be the most corrupt states or organizations that exist. For example whenever a banker's wife steals money in Switzerland it is not breaking news. 

Or when a French President is involved in a scandal (and my God almost all of them have) that is something  natural. When there is a scandal of pedophilia, a scandal of police corruption or tax evasion in Belgium there is not an outrage across Europe, or whenever there are problems in Holland with some failings in the legalization of prostitution and cannabis.

When British MPs are involved in a scandal, stealing money from the tax payers to build a much needed duck house in their pond, or a large establishment of the British press is involved in one of the worse cases of corruption that is not something shameful. If the same happens in Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria or Greece of course there are plenty of fingers pointing. 

And isn't it more natural, wherever there is poverty and decades of human deprivation to have more severe cases of corruption? Poverty urges people to find a corrupt way to make a better living. It seems though that wealth has the same effect, but only when rich nations or people do it then it becomes more "glamorous."

Eastern European states for example, had to suffer decades of communism and poverty while the Western part of the Continent was progressing fast. Why are some western European countries so critical of Bulgaria or Romania and instead of helping them, they point the finger towards them? As if everything is crystal clear in their affairs. 

And very few countries in Europe had more turbulent past in their modern history than Greece. Decades of a war after another, foreign meddling and intervention left whole generations of Greeks in poverty and absolute deprivation. These are the "ways" that they learned to survive and make a living. Why instead of helping to find a solution on a European level, correct the mistakes of the past and reach a reconciliation, the rich western states prefer to throw all the mud against other states instead of cooperating to eradicate corruption from Europe, or at least minimize it?

Is it because it is nice to have a scapegoat, and divert their public opinion towards the misfortunes and faults of others, rather on letting them focus on what is wrong in their own backyards? And since in most cases they are partially responsible on what is going on in the poorer countries is it ethical to criticize them? European states especially have a lot to answer for their colonial and post colonial influences in the poorer regions of the world. Likewise America is practicing unethical policies that force many poorer regions into deprivation and of course corruption.

Or is it because if any action is to be taken to deal with corruption in the poorer European countries, the same will have to apply in the rich ones and that can cause a lot of trouble to the corrupt political elites of Europe and America? They are all interconnected anyway.

Privatising European healthcare to make it more innovative? I do not think so!

Recently many leaders in Europe are discussing ways on making Europe and its economy more competitive and promote innovation. Of course  one of the things they love doing in situations like these is to cut the much hated by the capitalists social security funds. And privatize everything.

So with those two in mind, many leaders and policy makers in Europe are debating on if we should privatize healthcare, to make it more "innovative!" They want to make us all pay for our health services and allow some people make money out of our health issues.

I strongly disagree. Health must be free and available for all. Health and education are the only two things that I believe they should not be privatized. Private companies may do a good job but they charge a whole lot of money. Why should better health be the privilege of the rich only?

It is the state that must invest in health and education. That is why we are paying all those taxes, aren’t we? Let them privatize everything else but provide their citizens with good health and education. Those two are an investment. If you have a healthy and educated population, it is the best investment you could make as a statesman or woman.

Good health means less social welfare for the sick and good education means a capable workforce that can attract investments.Why on earth would you give that on private hands, so that any multinational can manipulate the health and education of your population? Thus owning the fate of the young and the old or weak.

A private company cares only for money. Little does it care for assisting citizens in need. And the worse example of a bad health service is the USA. They have privatized their social security services and they have one of the worse systems in the world. While Cuba that has kept them in public hands, has one of the best health services in the world.

I am not saying that we all should become like Cuba, but on the health care debate I am absolutely against privatization.