The return of the Cold War in Europe!

During the past few days, Europe is in shock and disbelief. The developments in Ukraine and its region of Crimea, would well suit a Hollywood film scenario: but no, what is happening there is happening for real.

The Russian leadership decided to "protect" the Russian speaking population of Crimea and Eastern Ukraine, by sending troops to annex the region.

These excuses that Mr. Putin and his government are presenting us with, are no different than what the Turks were supporting about them invading Cyprus. "We are doing it to protect our nationals from violence, therefore we are entitled to invade another nation and compromise its sovereignty by force".

Firstly we haven't seen any violence yet between the regions of Ukraine or among its ethnic groups. So where does this argument stand? Secondly, even if the crisis in the country escalated indeed, Russia should not have taken the situation in its own hands, without the agreement of any other UN member states.


The outcome of such actions could be similar to those of the Turkish ones in Cyprus, where the situation still hasn't been resolved after so many decades. The only difference here is that in Ukraine's case, because the West has interests in the region, they will make a serious effort to find a solution and compromise.

Even if the situation is as Mr. Putin describes it, that the crisis won't descent into a war between Ukraine and Russia, or that the troops in Crimea are not Russian soldiers but pro-Russian local self-defense forces, (The Guardian) his actions are still unacceptable.

The interests of both the Ukrainian and Russian people, do not lie with the interests of a few Russian oligarchs, but with a closer cooperation and relationship with Europe. What would be best for our continent, is for Europe and Russia to become closer partners even allies, putting the decades of the Cold War well behind them.

The citizens of these two nations would benefit more if they had similar benefits and rights to those of countries like Norway; free movement, better living standards, opportunities to study and and travel visa-free across Europe. What their leadership is doing, is creating a canyon between the EU and Russia with few chances for an ever improving relationship.

The Russian government simply is showing their true colors and nature. They do not have the best interests of their people in mind, rather they are still living in the past, in an era that should be put well behind us. The Cold War mentality should be abandoned by either side.

While Europe has a fair share of blame in the situation, by sticking way too close with the USA over the years and not seeking to solidify better relations with its neighbors and other global powers, Russia is totally wrong here.

Just because its middle aged leadership hasn't abandoned its Cold War mentality that they grew up in, wishing for things to remain as they are,or even worse go back to what they were before, the whole continent of Europe faces the threat of instability and turmoil. Perhaps that is what the Russians are trying to achieve and Ukraine is just the chess mat.

If Ukrainians want closer relations with the EU, they should be allowed to have them. Even if the day comes that the country is accepted in the EU, I do not see why this is such a bad thing for Russia. Millions of Russians will become EU citizens, as thousands are already, through the membership of the Baltic states.

Russia might lose territories to have under their "influence", but they are going to have influence in the EU itself, since millions of EU citizens and thus voters, will be of Russian origin. And what is this issue of splitting Europe in parts and spheres of influence? 

We are one continent and it will be wise to bring all of Europe's nations together, from Iceland and Portugal to Ukraine and even Russia itself. I do not believe that a Russian EU membership would be good for either party, but a closer relation and cooperation between the two would certainly benefit both sides.

The Western nations and Russia must abandon this mentality of carving Europe and the world in parts, according their interests. Last time we did that, the consequences were bad for all of us. Besides, we can not engage in war between us.

Europe is still trying to recover from the economic crisis, a war right now would be disastrous. It took us decades to achieve what we have and a new war could spell the end of our efforts.

Any sanctions we could impose to punish Russia for its actions, as proposed by many European governments, won't wear the Russians much. Sadly they are not Iran, they have vast resources and they can live with them. Besides, we are the ones who rely on their oil and gas.

I am afraid the only solution left to end this tug-of-war between Europe and Russia, is for the Russian population to do what the Ukrainians did and change leadership. Only if their current administration with its outdated mentality and policies is ousted and when Europe forms an independent from the USA foreign policy, we can eventually see stability in our continent. From the West all the way to the East.

An interview with Gay Mitchell MEP, on past, present and future of the EU.

In a recent interview with Gay Mitchell MEP, we discussed about the impact of the economic crisis in Europe, the Irish EU membership and the future of our continent. 

Mr. Mitchell strongly believes that Ireland became truly sovereign the day it joined the EU. “Everyone should think of what it was like before the country joined the block, when the value Ireland’s currency and interest rates were set by the British Chancellor of the Exchequer,” he says. 

“Our biggest export was people,” he adds.  There are 800 thousand people of Irish descent living in Britain to this day, who left during those years. “We had an economy which actually provided cheap food for Britain,” he describes. 

Mr. Mitchell recalls when he became a member of the Dail (Irish House of Representatives) in 1981; there were very few descent roads in the country, no financial services sector and though Ireland had an agricultural industry, it lacked the food industry that it has now. 

Today Ireland has pharmaceutical and information technology industries which are very big. “We export to the EU more computers for business use than the USA does,” he says. 

Ireland has also a booming tourism industry and the EU enabled the country to diversify its economy. “We have one Commissioner plus one Minister at the table in the EU council, on the same basis as Germany and France,” he explains. 

Of course bigger countries have a bigger vote, but the European way is trying to find consensus and agreement. Still Ireland has a disproportionate vote regarding its size.

The Secretary General of the EU Commission is Irish (Mrs. Catherine Day), plus the one before her, as well as the Chief operating officer of the EU Foreign affairs (Mr. David O’Sullivan). Ireland has recently had the rotating presidency of the EU Council for 6 months. “When did we ever have that influence in any international organization,” Mr. Mitchell asks. 

He believes that EU membership has changed Irish society. But additionally it preserved its cultural elements. When Ireland joined the EU, people supported the view that their language is part of who they are and wanted to keep it. 

So the Irish language became one of the EU official languages, while all-Irish speaking schools were established in Dublin. “Europe gave us that” Mr Mitchell explains, when a lot of his generation have lost their Irish because of the way it was taught in schools.

“In my heart I do not believe that Ireland has seen its best days yet. The Celtic tiger years were phenomenal for our country, but our best days are ahead of us,” he states. 

Ireland has been in the EU since 1973, yet it is still not a net contributory to the budget and it won’t become for a number of years. The country receives a lot of money out of the Common Agricultural Policy. 

Each time the Irish ministers boast that they fought a great fight in Europe, to get this money for Ireland. When things go wrong they claim that they have to implement laws because “Brussels” requires it. 

The EU takes decisions through the Council of ministers, the European Parliament and under the proposals of the Commission, in all of which all EU member states are represented. 

When there are talks about the economic crisis people hear the words Troika, the EU, European Central Bank (ECB), and the EU Commission. But they do not hear how the ECB and the European Commission provided a lot of the support which member states got. 

“We got to stop doing that to ourselves and start explaining to people what the EU is about. It is not about us getting money and transfers. I look forward to the day when Ireland is actually a net contributor, because that will be our membership fee for a very good facility,” Mr Mitchell explains. 

“I spend a lot of time visiting schools, speaking with trade union groups, NGOs and business people, explaining to them how the EU works and what it does,” he adds.

In the economic area Europe has to solve the problem of Eurobonds. “And I think that euro-bonds will come about. If we are going to have a single banking supervisory mechanism which we will have, it is sensible to have EU bonds that we can all avail of,” he also says. 

The Germans will write the cheque and give the guarantees for this, so the rest of us we’ll have to get our house in order to qualify. It is important to make it possible for the Germans to sign the guarantee. It will save a lot of money and make a big difference. 

“I also think that any ESM funding directly from banks, has to be retrospect. It is only fair to do so, plus our macroeconomic discipline is measured on our debt being a percentage of our GDP. It is done in the same basis across the whole of the EU. If on the Greek or the Irish balance sheets for example, are things that are not on other balance sheets then that is an unfair comparison. That needs to be resolved,” he explains. 

But that is not the only problems that the EU faces at the moment. Under the crisis there has been a rise of nationalism and far-right political parties. One of the oldest members which always had a difficult relationship with the EU, Britain, is holding a referendum on its membership by the end of 2017.

“I understand Mr Cameron’s dilemma but in Britain it is difficult to debate the EU, just like it is difficult to debate neutrality in Ireland. I hope we never find out through some very bad circumstances, that we really haven’t spent the money that we should on our own defense forces to protect us,” Mr Mitchell says.

Likewise, Britain in the EU is in a very precarious situation. Mr Cameron has said that he favors Britain remaining in the single market, even if the people voted to leave the EU. The rules governing the single market will be decided by a Commission, a Council and a Parliament, in which Britain will have no input but whose rules it would be required to follow. That does not make any sense. 

Britain should be leading Europe. They have the political and the diplomatic skills to do it. And more Europe would actually suit them better, but they can’t see that. 

Another key issue for Europe is the rebirth of the social market economy. It is not a socialist or a liberal invention, but a Christian Democrat one. Its ethos is not based on a religious element, but on four principles: enterprise and social justice rights and responsibilities. 

“We just stopped talking about social justice. I am in politics because of that and the reason why I spend so much time in the development committee. Anybody can talk to you about it, as a great line to get elected on. But with every right comes a responsibility. We have a responsibility for ourselves and to each other, and if you want social justice you have to encourage enterprise,” Mr Mitchell says. 

“If someone gets out of bed and goes to work every morning then they should be encouraged to do that, because that creates wealth. And if you can’t go to work part of that wealth should be used to help you,” he describes. 

But when you go to avail of the public services, in which we put a huge amount of the tax payer’s money, we have to have accountability. Because there are so many votes in the public service, there should be some kind of protected entity. 

Mr. Mitchell believes that that is the base of a new type of social market economy launch. We need a rebirth of the social market economy, because that is what happened at the end of the WW2. 

Konrad Adenauer, the first post-War Chancellor of Germany, said at the time that the European project is about people, not about money. Business people in Europe need to create an ethical environment in which to operate.

“I am pro business, because business creates wealth. But when we create wealth we got to distribute it well, have good public services and give people a fair opportunity. So all of us who are in the mainstream of politics, we need to think about this and start talking about social justice,” Mr. Mitchell explains.

Europe will have elections in May 2014.  Mr Mitchell believes that who we send to the EU Commission and to the EP, matters. “First thing citizens got to do is turn up and be committed. Also get on to the committees that are relevant to their country and express what their view of Europe is,” he says. 

He brings as example the Irish legal system. Everyday people see one or two judges reported in the papers for a number of serious offenses. They don’t hear about the other judges. But if they were not there, we would live in a jungle. The job they do is important. 

It is the same with MEPs and TDs. “It is not all about the ones who are in the media on a particular day. But about the guys who turn up and do their committee work, network and carry influence, who are measured, have a descent view of what is good for Ireland for Europe,” he continues. 

Whoever people are going to chose, they should chose the ones who are going to participate because they will have a real say for 5 years. 

Ireland is a country that has always been and still is in its majority, a pro-European nation. Yet in the last referendum on Lisbon Treaty, as well as many previous ones, the Irish citizens voted against them.

“I think De Gaul was right. He said that referendums are funny things, because when you ask people what they think, they do not answer the question you ask. In elections of that kind you can have people protesting, because they think they can,” Mr Mitchell notes.

Sometimes in a referendum people vote no, because they want to punish the government. Not all had to do with Europe during the referendum. Nevertheless there was a concern about Ireland losing its Commissioner.

The Oireachteas (The Irish National Parliament) committee collected evidence and they percolated all these issues, which later they identified. Then the Irish government went and renegotiated them. 

“I like the idea of Ireland and all the small states having a commissioner. The Germans, the Brits and the French gave up their second commissioner. But if we get to 35 commissioners, what portfolios will there be and will we end up having a commissioner for something obscure,” Mr Mitchell mentions.

Perhaps if the EU had only 20 substantial commission jobs, with every country having one by strict rotation, potentially that would be a better way. “People chose the former and for now it is probably right,” he notes. 

If there is ever a huge number of Commissioners, there may be a question of revisiting, yet this is not being pushed on Ireland by any party. The Irish people themselves might come to this stage later on, when this is no longer a concern. 

Gay Mitchell believes that his biggest impact in European politics was in the development of dealing with the 3^rd world. He was recruited by the assistant secretary general of the UN, to advice her on disaster risk reduction.

Gay Mitchell is an Irish politician and was elected Member of the European Parliament (MEP) for the Dublin constituency, on 11 June 2004. 

He is a member of Fine Gael, part of the European People's Party, and a former Teachta Dála (TD) for the Dublin South–Central constituency from 1981–2007. 

He does not plan to run for this May’s European elections.You may find more information about his work on his website here.

The second part of the interview will be published on OneEurope. 

Why a Greek citizen is not eligible to vote in Greece?

The list of the outrageous and peculiar political decisions that European leaders are taking is growing, as the European elections are approaching.

The Greek PM, Mr. Samaras and his government have revoked the voting rights of Greek citizens living abroad and the Greek citizens (in my opinion), which are second generation immigrants that were born in Greece, by legal migrant parents.

(Prime Minister Antonis Samaras’ New Democracy-led government said it will not allow Greeks living abroad, nor second-generation immigrants living legally in Greece, to vote or stand as candidates, revoking a 2010 law without debate The National Herald).

It seems to me that the Greek government is afraid that the more voices and opinions will be heard during the European and local elections, the more the result will be out of their predictions.

The 2010 law that would allow these individuals to vote has been revoked without a debate. As a Greek of the diaspora, I feel that such decision is outrageous and shows the true colors of Mr. Samaras' government.

I understand that just like the British MP, Mr. David Cameron, that has to deal with the challenging popularity of the euro-skeptic party UKIP, Mr. Samaras has to deal with the rise of Golden Dawn. Both Prime Ministers are so forced to implement right-wing laws, in order to satisfy the rising nationalist sentiments among their country's populations and keep their party's votes.

But revoking the right of citizens to vote is down right undemocratic. I will not be able to vote for a Greek MEP to represent me in the European Parliament for the next 5 years, because my country won't allow me to.

And by European law I won't be able to vote for an Irish or any other European candidate that I chose. Because there is no legislation to allow such thing, or it is as complicated as one could imagine to do so for and Irish MEP. So my voting rights as a European citizen are limited.

The Greek government is obviously afraid of the voting power of the Greek diaspora, that are informed about the economic crisis that troubles the country from another point of view. They follow the developments in Greece through European media, while living in various other political systems and so their judgement is not blurred by the Greek media.

The Greek citizens that still live in Greece, have been subjected to years of misinformation, propaganda and lies from the Greek political elite, in order to maintain or change the current balance of power in the country.

So if the Greek state gave power to its diaspora, the outcome of the elections would potentially be unpredictable for them and obviously that is something they can not risk.

The other infuriating issue is that the children of Greece's legal immigrants, won't yet again be able to vote in the Greek elections and practice their democratic rights. Being born in Greece by non-nationals that legally migrated in the country, should logically make them Greek citizens, eligible to vote. Not in Greece.

And before I continue I would like to make a distinction between the meaning of a Greek national and Greek citizen. Many Greeks and if fact many Europeans are confused about these two and I do not blame them.

Their governments have never bothered to explained the difference to them, so they can always have a card to play their divide and rule game. Poor against rich, public against private sector, native against immigrant, in order to divide public opinion and manipulate it.

A Greek national is somebody that is "of Greek blood", an ethnic Greek whose one or two of his parents is of Greek origin. A Greek citizen on the other hand, is somebody who stayed in Greece for a significant amount of time or was born in it, paid taxes, contributed to the community and was of course a legal immigrant into the country.

As long as these individuals are legally residing in the state for a period of time that the Greek law defines, that makes them Greek citizens and they are entitled to their voting and other full rights, that any Greek citizen must have. I do not understand why certain people think that by allowing a foreigner that has been living in Greece for a decade or so to vote, makes them less Greek and it erodes their "Greekness."

Of course that is an issue that does not exist just in Greece but in many European countries and it must be explained to the people. People who live legally in a country for so long, should be entitled to citizenship and equal rights like every Greek citizen or national.

Both the Greek state and the EU in general must create a pan-European common and clear immigration policy, that will protect the rights of both EU nationals and EU citizens. It will allow only the number of immigrants and with the qualifications we need in Europe, but it will grant them with rights and protect them as citizens, workers and of course human beings.

So far we had irresponsible immigration policies that served nobody but the capitalist elites and their need for a cheap working force with no rights. Illegal immigrants, or seasonal migrants in Europe play this role and these policies should be tightened or revisited. Combined with an economic crisis, they are becoming a dangerous mix that pushes Europeans to the arms of the far-right and euro-skeptic parties. 

What is happening right now in Greece is disgraceful. The Greek government is fearing the change in the well predictable Greek public opinion, that new voters would bring.  If the new Greek citizens have a different opinion or political affiliations than the ordinary Greek national, they can have an impact in the elections.

I personally welcome new voices in the Greek political life to be heard, as Greece needs it desperately. The Greeks, as most other Europeans are voting along family traditions, political ideologies, or personal interests and acquaintances to help them achieve personal and petty financial or material ambitions.

New voters means new ideas and voices that could break this vicious circle and alter the political scene of a country, for the better. If of course these new votes are not linked to naturalization promises, in order to vote for a certain political party.

Rumors have emerged in the past in Greece, of bribed Greek naturalization processes in exchange for loyalty to a certain political party that represented the establishment. These practices alter the result of the election and of course undermine the democratic process, that exists in Greece only by name as it seems. 

Either Mr. Samaras and his government, are fearing the rise of Golden Dawn in the upcoming elections or the influence of new voters, the outcome of their decisions are down right unacceptable and wrong. No government or politician that respects the very word "democracy" and the people who they are supposed to serve, should proceed with the implementation of such laws.