Breaking up the euro to end the crisis? Not unless you break EU.

Recently there was a discussion on the Debating Europe website, following suggestions of a number of prominent economists like Roger Bootle, that a solution to the euro-zone's crisis would be to break it in two currencies.

Such move would be a radical one and not without its costs or dangers. Breaking up the euro can have the same effects to the countries leaving the main euro-zone area, as if they were changing back to their old currencies.

The economists suggesting that a euro break up is the solution, may have an agenda other than the benefit of the euro-zone economy itself and of course the citizens that live in the block's member states. A break up of the euro would mean its weakening as a global currency, thus a decline of its importance. Imaginably even to the dissolution of both new currencies.

It may provide an appealing solution to the nations facing deepest crisis and a relief to the rich core euro-zone countries, that won't have to bail out the peripheral economies anymore. But what will the potential cost be for the EU, if we decide with a break up of one of symbols of European unification?

The euro is not just an economic project but also a political one. If we decide to break it, we risk an eventual break up of the EU itself. If we dismantle it in two zones, then from what we have learned out of  this crisis, a currency union requires a political union. Breaking up the euro could result in breaking up the Europe in half.

Creating two separate currency unions would mean creating two separate political unions, two governments in Europe. One government for each new euro-zone, for the north and the south one. But who would ever dare to suggest such thing?

Breaking up the euro will also legitimize the creation of a two speed Europe, an unequal and divided continent. In the past Europe was divided by two different ideologies, now it will be divided by economics. We will be creating a rich core of European countries and a peripheral, poorer group of countries, using a weaker euro.


The euro was launched with great expectations and plans to harmonize Europe’s economies. It meant that the poorer countries would bit by bit become as rich as their richer partners, or so they have promised us. But in the end not only that did not materialize but the opposite happened. The inequality among EU countries deepened.

The cause of this is the unwillingness of the richer nations to allow the gradual transfer of wealth to the peripheral economies. If the euro was set up the right way and as any currency union should be, then this would resulted in the economic and political unification of Europe, under a centralized treasury.

It would have been a longer process of course, but the results would be more permanent and without the tremendous for the citizens consequences. Or maybe the creators of the euro, counted on its weaknesses to push for a different agenda for Europe's social policies and balance of power among its nations.

Perhaps the euro-zone crisis gives the opportunity to certain political and economic elites of certain EU members to push for an agenda that will lead to a new political reality in Europe, that otherwise would be unachievable.

Let us not forget that it is in fact Germany and its satellite states who benefit the most from the euro that still refuse to either dismantle it, allow the peripheral countries to leave or allow the creation of the euro-bonds, or any other viable solutions because it would hurt their economy.

If all the zone's nations are to keep the euro, then all including Germany must compromise. Right now Germany's economy is boosted, while the peripheral nations' economies are destroyed. Will this eventually lead to a more harmonized European economy, with Germany sharing the accumulating wealth with its partners?

Or will this wealth remain in the hands of the core euro-zone nations? If this is what is in the agenda of the German leadership, then possibly the break-up of the euro should be the solution. But this must not mean that the ECB in Frankfurt will be controlling the new euro of the south.

With a new euro we should establish a new Central Bank, possibly located in one of its members' capitals. It will be illogical for Europe's new currency to be controlled from a central bank of another currency union. So this will result in the political and economic division of Europe, something that no one wants at this stage.

But if the policies of the European elites continue the barbaric austerity policies imposed on the periphery, plus their stereotypical portrayal of the Southern European nations as "lazy," then we might have no other choice.

Europe is gripped by another ideological struggle, this time not between the Western Capitalist and the Eastern Communist. But the dominant Anglo-Saxon inspired "neo-liberal" financial traditions, versus the more socialist ones of the southern European countries.

In an effort to create a single European economy, the more affluent Northern European elites, see as an obstacle the Southern nations' economic and social structures or traditions. So they apply pressure on their governments by placing them on the mercy of the Markets.

For the moment the plan seems to work, but for how long will the citizens of Europe's South put up with the austerity? Or will the citizens of the North be happy to see their taxes being given to Europe's banks, through the bail-out loans towards the southern nations.

This has already caused a great division among the European population, that may in the future be an obstacle itself to the fulfillment of European unification. How can anyone unite the peoples of two regions that were encouraged by their leaders to see each other in a stereotypical way?

If Europe's leaders decide to break the euro, they should be ready to break the EU as well. Unless of course they take the more logical option and proceed with the political unification of Europe, that must include the harmonization of the continent's economies, resources and salaries. Thus the transfer and redistribution of wealth, to create a more equal European economy.

Ukraine-EU relations must deepen, but with what costs?

The European Union is in advanced discussions with the International Monetary Fund on providing standby financing to Ukraine should the country come under economic pressure from Russia later this year, senior EU officials have told Reuters. (Reuters)

The reason being the potential signature of a free trade agreement between Ukraine and the EU, at a summit in Lithuania on November 28-29th. 

In other words because Europe wants to expand its sphere of influence Eastwards, it is planning to throw the country into the arms of the IMF, an organization that is responsible for a lot of misery to citizens in many other European countries. 

Understandably Russia will retaliate in some ways, most likely by cutting the gas supply in Ukraine and in extend in many EU states. Especially those who were part of the former Soviet block and still rely on the block's infrastructure for their energy supplies. Like the Baltic states for example. 

Nobody can really blame the Russians for acting they way they do when it comes to Europe's ever expansion of influence. Many European former colonial powers still feel entitled to meddle with the affairs of their former colonies and have established blocks or agreements that allows them to maintain their influence. 

The British Commonwealth or the French Francophone Festivals across the globe, exist for the sole purpose of keeping the cultural, linguistic, economic or political influence over these two powers over their former colonies. 

In similar way the Russians, feel angered when the West is trying to expand their influence in territories that they consider as part of their sphere. We can not forget that a large proportion of the Ukrainian population in the eastern part of the country, is ethnic Russian. And many Russians still consider Ukraine as a culturally and historically Russian region. 

Although the Russians must eventually accept that Ukraine is a sovereign state and is allowed to follow its own policies, create its own alliances and sign its own trade agreements, the way that Europe is planning to cut off Ukraine from the arms of Russia can have a negative effect in the Ukrainian public opinion and support for EU membership. 

The IMF is an organization that is based and controlled by the US, a country that the Russians have had and in extent still have, a complicated relationship with. This organization is the reason why many countries in Latin America, Africa and recently Europe, have seen their living standards dwindling by the accumulation of huge debt, imposed by loan repayments provided by the IMF.

In other words throwing Ukraine in the hands of the IMF, thus under the economic supervision or mercy of the Americans may cut off the country from the Russian influence, but with a huge cost to the people of Ukraine. 

European policies are favoring American foreign policies above all and that is something that does not help the EU-Russian relations. Every new state that joins the EU, must also automatically join NATO as well, thus be allied to the US. 

American TV channels like the CNN are quick to start broadcasting in every new EU state that joins the block, that was formerly allied or under the influence of the Russians. With CNN follow myriads of US TV dramas, documentaries and films that are expanding not Europe's, but America's cultural and political influence in these countries. 

So how can the Russians not feel angered by any further EU expansion to the East? Similar attitudes exist to former European colonial powers, when they have to deal with China's expansion of influence in Africa, a region that for decades was considered to be under clear European influence. 

If the EU includes the IMF in its effort to cut off the Russians from  Ukraine, it may eventually turn the Ukrainian public opinion against EU membership.

If the IMF imposes austerity on Ukraine, of the kind that has already imposed in many EU bailed out nations like Greece and Ireland, then will the Ukrainian citizens still be so strongly for EU membership? Knowing that the price they will have to pay will be similar to what Bulgaria and many Baltic states had to pay, in order to meet the criteria and join the block.

I do not understand why Europe must work to fulfill America's ambitions and foreign policies and not start creating its own. It is not good for us to have the Russians always hostile to us, at least not until we manage to become independent from their gas and oil. 

Even if we do manage this, Russia is our neighbor and many ethnic Russians are already, or will be if Ukraine ever joins the block, EU citizens. Europe, Russia and America should all leave their past competition and hostility, entering a new era of trade, political and economic relationships. 

The Russians must change their attitude towards Europe and all countries between them. If Ukraine or even Belarus one day decide to join EU, that should not be seen as negative for Russia, which must itself inevitably form closer relations with Europe, that will not be confined in gas and oil monopoly trade.

To achieve such thing, Europe itself must form its own foreign policies and relations and distance itself a bit from USA, moving closer and establishing a new kind of relation with Russia. And so the US should change their traditional stance towards both Europe and Russia. 

Their foreign policies since WW2 saw Europe under their absolute influence, acting in a patronizing or paternal supervision, or even as Europe's care takers and rulers. Towards the Russians they always had a hostile, competitive attitude with a great dose of mistrust. 

All three players must move on from the cold era and realize that their interests lie in forming closer cooperation. Sadly, such thing is in nobody's current agenda. 

The sad thing that it will be again the Ukrainian ordinary citizens that will pay for the East-West political and economic tug-of-war. Ukraine has the misfortune of being located right in the middle of the interests of two world's colliding, the clash of two economic and political superpowers. That of America and Russia, with Europe playing the role of America's middleman.

So I doubt that Ukraine will ever be political or economically stable, until these two big blocks solve their differences in some way. But if their political games persist, Ukraine is in risk of not just instability, but even partition. Hopefully the Ukrainian officials will keep that in mind in their effort to disentangle themselves from Russia and asserting themselves as a country in the region and the globe. 

Europe must help Ukraine in its effort to achieve this goal, while forming its own united voice as a global player and foreign policy, that will mean changing its overall traditional relationship both with Russia and America. Ukraine should ideally join a European block that has its own agenda and foreign policies, not a block that is still operating in a post WW2 mode.

Russell Brand's call for a "revolution," is the wrong kind.

Just five days ago the well known comedian and actor Russell Brand, gave an interview on BBC with his usual style of speech. Minutes after this interview was broadcasted, the video went viral on various social networking sites.

In this video that many described as "inspirational" and "revolutionary," Mr. Brand admits that he has never voted, nor will vote in any election. 

What I find intriguing is that many people fell for the message that not Mr. Brand himself, but the BBC wants to promote among young people who probably are followers or admirers of Mr. Brand. "Do not vote" because it is revolutionary, voting is pointless and we need a revolution. And because "Rock and Roll" celebrities are advocating that they do not see the point!

I do not trust someone who has benefited from the Hollywood stardom and media machine. What he says is absolutely true and inspiring, but he is not the first to express these views. To encourage people NOT to vote is nonsensical. People must continue to vote, though do so for different parties that do not represent the establishment. Socialist, liberal, progressive or green parties. 

What we suffer from is the two party system and a political establishment that guess what? It exists in all countries. That is the model we should all strive to break away from. But we must continue to vote, this time with a cause, conscience and wisely. 

For someone to pretend that speaks for the people, but encourages political idleness and apathy, it seems that he supports the establishment that wants people to become idle to democracy and indifferent to their country's political reality. In other words Mr. Brand perhaps unwillingly, acts as a wolf in a sheep's skin. 

People be ware! The establishment wants to just ridicule any potential revolution by making a persona like Brand the face of it. The key to any reforms or revolution is to continue to vote and participate in your country's politics, but this time start doing so with an educated opinion. 

Something that the established media and governments do not want you to do. If only anyone who advocated for a "revolution" fell under the image of Mr. Brand and be associated with him. A real revolution can start from a farmer, a teacher, student, a housewife and not a "cool," drug using and famous celebrity with distorted views on politics. 

You may watch the full interview of Mr. Brand and make up your own mind on the video link bellow. Though I agree with everything he expresses, I am compelled to disagree with the encouragement that he gives to his young followers to not vote. What BBC is doing and how it promotes Mr. Brand and his views, is something that we need to be cautious on. 

God forbid if we allow our youths to follow Brand's example and become idle and apathetic to voting and their country's political reality. Real revolution needs more engagement in politics democracy, not absolute abstinence!

The issue of the French deportation of a Roma student.

For the past two weeks there is a very divisive topic being discussed in France. On October the 9th, a Roma girl from Kosovo has been deported from the country together with her family. 

The school girl aged 15 years old, spent most of her life in France and was a French speaker. 

The decision to deport Leonarda Dibrani and her family was taken by the French interior ministry, in an effort to return all undocumented immigrants to the country of their origin. 

This action caused a heated debate once more in France on immigration, integration and the safeguarding of French national values. Protests in support of the girl and her family took place in France, for two consecutive days.

It is not the first time that the Roma community is finding itself at the epicenter of an immigration row in France. Just a few years ago Roma people this time from Romania and Bulgaria were also deported, even though they were EU citizens. 

The problem is why it is only the Roma community who is being stigmatized by the French media or authorities? They are not the only group of undocumented immigrants in the country and certainly not the only one who fails to "integrate itself into French society and accept its values," as many who support the deportation claim. 

Will the French authorities deport many people from their former colonies that haven't integrated well into French society? Perhaps they won't because they are former colonial subjects and France still wants to have a meddling influence in their country. Or perhaps they will equally deport all illegal immigrants.

Then why we never read any reports about protests of deportations of people of other ethnic origin in France? The Roma people are being stigmatized and brought to the forefront of an issue that all countries have, yet as it is a sensitive issue when other ethnic groups are concerned, nobody really bothers about the Roma. 

If we think about it, there are many vocal groups or lobbies that protest to safeguard the rights of people of black African or Jewish  decent, gay people, women or the rights of the Muslim community. But very few to do so for the Roma.

And that is because in every country they have settled, they have been discriminated against for centuries. No government of a country with a substantial Roma community has managed to successfully create policies, that would encourage the full integration of the Roma into their communities. 

And while it is true that in many cases it is the Roma people who do not want to change their way of life and integrate themselves in the country they are living, we have to examine if the approach of the governments was always understandable and fair to them. 

The Roma are Europeans and in most cases they are also EU citizens. They have been living among us for centuries. People forget their influence and contribution in European culture and heritage, like our music for example. In Spain, Greece, Hungary and Romania their music has been adding to these countries' heritage for centuries now. What would Spain be without a flamenco, a music that the gypsies gave their soul into? 

I do not object to the right of the French authorities to keep up with their work of enforcing the law. Nor do I object to the deportations of illegal immigrants, if those are justified and these people do not have the right to be in a country, or fail to abide by its laws.

What I object to is that the Roma people are being victimized and stigmatized. They are always the ones who are used as scape goats in the French struggle to deal with their immigration problem. Because it is too sensitive to put any other ethnic group on the spot, the Roma have become the face of this political and social issue.

And the worse thing is that the whole issue with the Roma, has been used to keep Romania and Bulgaria out of the Schengen Agreement and place restrictions on the free movement of people from these countries to certain EU countries. These two nations are also stigmatized as result, by having different rules apply for their citizens even though the real problem is about Roma immigration.

If certain countries have immigration problem, no ethnic group should become the focus of the media attention. The issue should be dealt by treating all immigrant groups with the same respect, keeping their dignity while proceed with the enforcement of the law.

The EU Commission has already many times warned France over its stance on Roma people, but still the country failed to comply. How do they expect to create an equal European community if they fail to protect all ethnic groups that live in it, even the indigenous ones?