Thoughts on the European Elections 2014 results.

Three weeks after the European Elections 2014 took place across the continent, nobody has clarified to the citizens of Europe what their decisions will mean for them.

After years of austerity and increase in social injustice, it was inevitable to have a surge in the popularity of populist, "Euro-skeptic" parties across the union.

Until the economic crisis, they remained in the periphery of the political life in each member state. Yet they have now managed to gain significant support and increase their presence in the European Parliament (EP).

In certain core EU states like France and the U.K, the Euro-skeptic parties UKIP and the National Front, have claimed victory in the elections by winning the majority of the votes. In other countries such as Italy, Greece, the Netherlands and Austria, far right, radical left or anti-EU parties gained a significant number of seats in the EP.

In Italy, the Movimento 5 Stelle party came second in votes, while in Greece the Golden Dawn, in Austria the Freedom Party and in the Netherlands the Party for Freedom came third. In Greece we had also the radical left party Syriza also winning the elections, although they are not hard-line anti-EU party.

Of course the majority of the seats again went to the "establishment" parties, despite the significant gaining of the Euro-skeptic ones. And while one would think that having a diverse European Parliament, with many smaller parties being included is a good thing, in this case is anything but.

A large number of smaller parties with a pro and pan-European agenda in the EP like the Federalist Party, would actually be of benefit for democracy in Europe. In the EP's case, we need to start having politicians and parties that have an EU wide agenda, if we want to have real democracy on European level.

But with parties that not only oppose any further integration, but they have a very conservative, nationalist and radical approach to politics, the EP will lose its power and influence. A divided European parliament by an increasing number of Euro-skeptic MEPs, makes it difficult to reach to decision fast and effectively, thus weakening it.

In return, a parliament that is not as efficient is being stripped of the citizens' support, as they see no use of it. And rightly so. When considering the circumstances that led to an increase of anti-EU parties in the heart of one of its institutions, we can not but blame the European elites for their handling of the euro-zone crisis.

Under the lead of Germany, Europe's governments for years have tried to make the working classes of the continent pay for a crisis that they did not start. They have nearly destroyed the continent's middle class, pushing millions of Europeans near or under the poverty line in many countries, especially those of the periphery.

And not just that, but they placed the EU as an institution in the forefront of every disastrous decision they have taken the past few years, shifting the blame from the national governments to the EU institutions. A very clever diversion to have an institution to use as a scapegoat, when it suits you!

Understandably the European citizens have voted for radical parties, as a protest. For years they have seen their wages, social security and worker's rights being slashed, so the results of these European elections were expected.

What the citizens do not understand, is that if they continue to place Euro-skeptic politicians in the European Parliament, they are actually harming their own interests. The EP is the only tool that we, the voters have in the EU. It represents our voice. And that is why our leaders do not give it the power that it needs to have to be effective and efficient.

They want to have an EU to promote the European elites' interests, but an EP with just enough power to give the European project enough legitimacy, so the people won't protest. Yet if we judge from Mr. Cameron's recent staunch opposition to Mr. Juncker's election as the head of the new EU Commission, our governments do not want to hand over too much power to the EU.

That is not necessarily a good thing for us, the citizens. From the constant power struggles between the three main EU institutions, the European Parliament, the EU Commission and the EU Council it is we, the people who pay the price.

When the EU is governed by inter-governmentalism, the bigger states like the UK, France and Germany have a bigger and more decisive say in the institution's direction. The governments of the rich nations can control and shape the EU's agenda, according their own interests.

That is of course anything but a democracy. If we want to have a more equal and fair Europe, it is the European Parliament who must have the major role in policy making, in most Europe wide affairs. And that does not mean absolute centralization of all power in Brussels, as many fear.

Europe must be governed in three levels, local, national and European. For all matters European, the decisions must be taken solely by the European Parliament, while the national governments must keep control on national issues. And that is where the clash takes place.

The governments of the core European economies, do not want let go of the control they have over their affairs, or the influence they have over the smaller European nations. They want to arrogantly lead Europe according their own interests, ignoring the needs of the peripheral states or refusing to share the wealth and decision making with them.

That I am afraid is not a sign of a united Europe, rather of an unequal continent that the rich elites, of the rich elite nations rule to the detriment of every worker across the continent. Is it bold to think that the weakening of European Parliament by pushing citizens to "democratically" elect extreme parties, was planned by the European governments and the elites they represent?

In other words, Europe's citizens "democratically" decided to weaken the EP as a protest towards their national government's actions and disastrous policies over the years. That is against their interests in one hand and in second, I personally believe that their decisions were widely manipulated by the European establishment, that is against a radical shift of power.

They want to take back control from "Brussels" and keep "national" interests under the national governments. That is a fallacy, considering the extreme neo-liberal policies they have pursued during the past decades, which have undermined the interests of the ordinary citizens, in every EU member state, either rich or poor.

Their policies widely favor big banks and multinational businesses, to the detriment of all European workers. Through populist and inflammatory media context, they also incite a war among the European peoples and the continent's classes. Immigrant against native, Eastern against Western, Southern against Northern European. While us citizens, have a common enemy: our own "national" governments and their policies.

So if we really need to achieve real change in our continent, voting for far right or radical parties, is certainly not the way, as we are making our governments' work easier. We are shooting ourselves on the foot. The far right parties are helping the establishment to keep the status quo in place, not our "nations" to defend their interests.

What we need is a Europe wide action and cooperation, a strong European Parliament and European political parties to be more dominant in it. Thus bringing our continent under a federal political formation, in which solidarity, equality and other similar values will prevail.

Secondly we need our governments to start listening to their citizens and respect their vote! The attitude of Mr. Cameron and other who support him in his opposition in Mr. Juncker's election as a head of the EU Commission, even after he has clearly a legitimate claim and support of most political parties in the EP, is scandalous.

You may want to join this Facebook page, Respect our Vote,  and express your support for democracy in Europe.

Time for Europe to alter its view on its LGBT communities and human sexuality.

On May the 10th Conchita Wurst, a drag queen from Austria won the Eurovision Song Contest in Copenhagen, Denmark.

The result was seen as a major breakthrough for the LGBT community in Europe by some, but for others it was outrageous. Many described how Conchita's appearance in the contest would turn it into a "hotbed of sodomy".

Countries such as Russia, Belarus and Ukraine unsuccessfully tried to ban Austria's entry in the competition, while public opinion in many countries was also divided. Comments in social media platforms were either condemning and showing outrage, or showing support for Conchita.

What is peculiar about the behavior of those who criticized Conchita's participation in the Eurovision, is mainly the fact that it is not the first time is that we had a LGBT person in the competition. The contest is very popular among gay audiences and it is inevitable to have drag acts participating.

In 2007 the song "Molitva" sang by Marija Serifovic, an openly homosexual woman, won the competition. In 1998 it was a transsexual from Israel, Dana International who managed to come to the first place. There was little condemnation in Marija's entry and as for Dana, her song went on eventually to become a big hit in many European countries, despite condemnation from ultra-Orthodox Jews.

Conchita's appearance of course is very provoking. A drag-queen with a beard, is an unusual sight to most viewers. Yet, that did not stop her from winning the competition. Her victory might be a political statement towards Russia, whose entry was apparently booed during the competition. Nevertheless it was heartening to see conservative countries such as Greece, Israel, Italy and Ireland giving their 12 points to Austria.

If Conchita's critics fear that the "behavior" of such individuals will become the new "norm" and they will have to see more of "these people", then they should wonder: did her appearance made or encouraged anyone to wear a dress and rename themselves as Chiquita Pastrami? No! 

I may not be the greatest fan of her look either, but her voice and song were good and that is all that matters. All that this individual wants and desires is acceptance, for whatever she is or represents and for the many transgender, transsexual, gay, transvestite or other individuals that exist and find themselves outside of the "mainstream"  social norm. 

Conchita's appearance promotes tolerance, not homosexuality or transvestism itself. If you don't have it in you, no matter how many drag queens you are going to watch in song contests, they are not going to make you or your children homosexual.  

There are scientific researches showing that children of gay/bisexual individuals in homosexual relationships, are no more likely to become gay themselves, than children who have grown up in a traditional family. That is about 5-10 % of a chance, just like as any heterosexual, traditional family!

Acceptance is what Conchita is seeking, not to make all of you and your children to wear dresses . Besides transvestism is nothing new, there are evidence that even in ancient Greece and Rome, transvestites were not something unknown. People like Conchita exist in all countries, ethnic groups, religions, races and social classes.

And what is really hypocritical about our societies, is that we all know that these people live among us, yet we chose to ignore them. When I was serving my military service in Greece, there was a transsexual serving too in the batallion. Technically, as he was physically still a man, he had to enroll and serve in the Greek army. 

The stories he was telling to the rest of us, about how many "real" men were seeking to have sex with people like him, then they were abusing them verbally or physically were sickening. There is a great deal of pretentiousness in our societies and I do not think we should be judging or condemning.

Besides, not every man who wears dresses is a homosexual. Many straight men in heterosexual relationships, like to put on dresses. They are the so called cross-dressers and there is a huge stigma and misunderstandings about their condition too. 

Transvestism, transsexualism, cross dressing, homosexuality are only terms that remind us that human sexuality is as complex as our brains and psyche. There is simply every "shade of grey" out there in sexual preferences so instead of condemning, we should first accept this fact, try to understand it or even explore it.

It would be easier to just admit the fact that human sexuality is much more complex than that of the cow or the sheep. Humans are far more complicated beings, mentally, biologically, spiritually and emotionally to just have sex with a partner of the opposite sex and only for reproduction .  

Even so there are plenty of cases of "gay" animals, especially among the most intelligent life forms like mammals and birds. Thus any argument of "normality" on sexual relationships and practices is absurd by any conservative folk that are offended by people like Conchita. 

Europe must become a continent of tolerance and to do that we need to start exploring outside of our traditions to find answers. Millions of people live in unhappy relationships, or unfulfilled emotional, romantic or sexual lives, because of the self imposed restrictions and taboos that we have placed upon ourselves. 

It could be your children or grand-children facing what Conchita has gone through, to find acceptance and tolerance. No one has the right or authority to prevent other human beings from finding happiness and love with anyone who they desire.

Happy and balanced emotional human relationships, mean happy and balanced, highly creative people. Not a demoralization of our societies or "sodomy" as many view homosexuality. It is in fact the current misplaced sense of morality that is a greater threat to our social fabric, as it drives millions of people into unhappy lives.

If Europe really wants to be a place or equality for all its citizens, then eliminating prejudices and promoting LGBT rights in all its member states, must become as important as any other initiative for equality and prosperity. 

And so the victory of Conchita Wurst is only a reminder of our continuous battle against prejudice. It is only a small victory among the many battles that must be fought in changing people's minds, reversing the injustice that has been inflicted upon all people of different sexual preferences.

The Russian Bear awakens. Perhaps it will convince Europe to unite.

The ongoing developments in Ukraine and Russia's aggression and annexation of Crimea, bring again on the spotlight the original ideas of the founding fathers of the European Union: peace, stability and counterbalancing the big powers.

Small individual states can not defend themselves against a global player, like Russia. The Euro-skeptics have long convinced us, after the developments in Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia, that federations do not work.

These countries are a living proof according to them, that trying to bring different ethnic groups together and uniting them under one government, not only does not bring peace and stability, but it is a time-bomb that could bring on-going conflict.

There is a point in this argument, but they forget one major factor: Russia. During these break-ups, the Russian Bear was recovering from the collapse of the Soviet Union. They did not pose a direct threat to any of Europe's smaller states, but now things have changed.

Russia invaded and annexed Crimea, in an effort to stop the expansion of NATO and EU ever East-wards. A few years ago they entered into a conflict with Georgia, just to show the Bear's teeth. Now, after many decades, they have committed something that was absent from our continent for a long time: ending another country's territorial integrity.

Even worse, many people fear that they won't stop in Crimea, or even Ukraine itself. Other countries with relatively large ethnic Russian minority, like Moldova and the Baltic states, are very wary of the recent developments. Besides, not only they have a Russian minority, but in the case of the Baltic states they share common borders with Russia.

NATO forces are making their presence felt in the region, trying to remind Russia that the alliance will protect its members, no matter how small. Naturally this is very unnerving for all in the continent. If these developments escalate, we could enter a new era of a cold war in Europe and the world.

The EU is trying to bring certain countries quickly closer in its sphere of influence, by offering economic support in the form of trade benefits for Ukraine and a visa-free regime for Moldova. But if Russia decides to keep pushing West-wards, what will Europe do to stop them?

The answer of course is the relevance of NATO. The importance of the alliance is going to be a key player in the conflict, though personally I support the creation of a European common defense mechanism and organization.

If Europe keeps relying on America for its protection, it can never form independent foreign policy. Let's be honest about it, their protection does not come for free. The American influence is evident throughout the continent and that is the price we got to pay for relying on their military might and supremacy.

Not that I support the ending of Europe's alliance with America. But if Europe wants to become a global player, it must form its own military and defense.

Of course to achieve that, it needs to increase its spending on its arms industry and proceed with militarization, something that under the economic crisis most European leaders refuse to do. But if we think that over 40% of EU's budget goes to one industry alone, agriculture via the Common Agricultural Policy, then perhaps there are some funds that could be found.

By reducing what we spend on CAP, we can invest and diverge more funds in our protection and also becoming more energy sufficient, ending Russia's monopoly on Europe's energy needs and supply. If we invest in green and renewable energy industries, we could limit our dependence on Russian gas and oil and of course Russia itself.

The solution that Europe should take to deal with the re-awakening of the "Russian Bear" and its expansionist agenda, is of course an ever closer military, political and economic union. In this case, Russia might act as the necessary bogey-man that Europe needs, in order to stop going in circles over its further integration plans.

It is clear why there are links between the Russians, Europe's far Right political parties and their rise to prominence. Many of Europe's extreme Right leaders are supportive of Russia and vice versa. Obviously for Russia, the empowerment of these parties means the weakening of European unity and integration, that could mean the disabling of a united European response to Russia's plans for reclamation of its old territories.

Leaving of course America as the only competent threat and challenger of the Russian aggression and expansion. Just like it was before the fall of the Berlin wall. Both the American and the European leadership must acknowledge that uniting and empowering Europe as a global and military power, benefits both.

The Americans can not keep playing the role of the stabilizer in the world alone. They need Europe to become an equal partner, but with an increased might and influence in the world. And Europeans need to grow up and stop relying on America for their protection. Even if hat means digging the hands deep in their pockets and shaking up their relationship with America's arms industry, or America itself.

EU citizenship for sale.

The question of citizenship, nationality and identity is in the news constantly these days, from the recent tensions between Eastern and Western Ukraine to the upcoming referendum on Scottish independence. 

In this regard, one interesting development is the decision of Malta to start selling passports to foreign nationals. 

For the modest sum of 650,000 euros, it is now possible to obtain EU citizenship without ever being required to live in Malta (though applicants are required to invest in Maltese property and buy government bonds).

By flogging passports on the open market, the Maltese government hopes to bring in an extra 30 million euros in the first year alone. Interestingly, Malta is not the first country to grant citizenship to non-EU citizens: Austria, Cyprus, Belgium and Portugal already hand out passports in exchange for investment in the country.  However, Malta is the first country to put a price tag on an EU passport.(Debating Europe).

Interestingly the above "trend" has got even more serious with revelations that Bulgaria is the newest nation to sell passports to non-EU citizens. Non-Europeans can buy Bulgarian and thus European Union citizenship for as little as €180,000 under a scheme operating in Bulgaria, an investigation by The Telegraph has disclosed.(The Telegraph).

These practices by all EU member states concerned,  are outrageous. It seems that after having turned everything in commodities in Europe, the largest market on the planet, we have now just ran out of things to sell. And so we are selling what the whole world wants and is interested to avail from us, the only thing we have left to sell: our citizenship.

It is understandable that we are still facing an economic crisis and we need money to rebuild our economies, or at least keep them afloat. Europe needs investments and especially the smaller, or peripheral states are in dire need.

But there is one thing to try to compete for investments and another to put a price tag on a document that will entitle anyone to be not just citizen of that country, but the whole of Europe. Without of course having set foot on this country's soil, or being able to speak a word of its language, or knowing any basic information about its culture, history and life style.

At least some nations like Austria and Cyprus, only hand out passports to people who invest in their country and buy property. We could call this as "facilitation", in order to do business. But such practices open dangerous loopholes that could attract criminals and other dubious personalities in our continent.

Europe will at best become a place for the rich people of the globe, either their wealth is coming from lawful or not practices. If anyone with enough money to spend can get his hands on a European passport, then he can move and settle anywhere in the continent, no questions asked.

The only way to safeguard who is entering our continent, would be stricter regulations and background checks. Provided of course that the responsible authorities in each state, do their work right and exam the background of the potential "buyer" before granting him citizenship.

If this continues, we will transform Europe to a place where the rich will turn it into their playground, invest and make profit, influence local politics; but with what cost to us, the ordinary citizens? If our continent becomes a place for the elites of this world, how could we influence policies that would be beneficial for us and have our voice heard, among such powerful interests?


These are practical issues of course. The other issue with such practices is more of an ethical one. Using the lure of a EU passport in exchange for money and investments, is a degradation to what most people identify with still in our days: nationality and citizenship. Either they are native nationals or naturalized, people still want somewhere to belong, a root where they can branch out and which identifies them.

According to what most people believe, nationality is something that you can not just buy; you either receive it by birth, or you acquire it by the naturalization process, after you lived for a certain amount of time in a country. You worked, paid taxes and have integrated yourself in the society and so you can be part of it.

Now our governments want to scrap this status, but only for the rich people. The poor immigrants will still have to queue long hours out of the immigration offices, trying to get their hands on a visa, that will allow them to work, pay taxes and contribute in the society for the long term.

How low can us Europeans get? Since there isn’t much more to sell, as our governments are already sold to the banks and markets, they now trade with our nationality. Though I believe in living in a Europe of open borders and a globalized world, my citizenship and especially my nationality is something I am proud of and bring always with me when I talk, travel, work or live anywhere in Europe.

The ultra-liberal voices that just do not get why people identify themselves under a nation flag, are of course delighted if not supportive of such development. For them, belonging to a nation is merely an accident of birth and it should not matter. They desire a border-less, nation-less world, where nationalism is banished.

I am afraid that is a utopia, at least for now. People do not want to forget who they are and where they are coming from. They have a deep instinct of belonging in a group, either it is ethnic, religious, social or political in their hearts. They are deeply interested in their history and past.

Even in America, a great melting pot of cultures, people still identify themselves as Jewish-American, African-American, Greek-American, Irish-American and so on. They are American citizens but they all want to hold on to this special set of values that they have inherited from family ties.

And a passport is not just a travel document, as long it describes citizenship as nationality on it. If we want to offer citizenship with a price, then we have to remove the word nationality from our passports and replace it with the word citizenship, which is a different thing.

As long as governments issue passports to their nationals, then such development undermines the value of nationality and what it means to the majority of people. It is deliberate of course and it aims to destroy any sense of nationalism and ethnic identity, turning us all into "citizens of this world".

While I do not necessarily object to this, it is the way they are trying to achieve this that I find outrageous and morally wrong. For me this is a mistaken way of achieving such thing. You can not abolish the instincts of the people, or their heritage that was in the making for thousands of years.

I believe in a Europe of nations, unlike the ultra-liberals that want a Europe without them, people with no identities and ethnicity. The best way to integrate European nations, is not by destroying or erasing our national heritage and culture, but on the contrary empowering it by constant cultural exchanges.

Share our culture with all other nations, thus eventually creating a single one in which every nation will contribute and identify with. It is culture and common heritage that binds people together, not a common currency or a single market, or the "nationality" that is written on your passport.

People with no history or sense of ethnicity are easier to manipulate and more prone to satisfy the lack of identity with consumerism. To close the gap that the lack of ethnic consciousness leaves, people follow trends that are promoted upon them, like fashion, music and products that are marketed towards them. The irony here is that they do so in order to belong and identify themselves with a wider, global community, by doing or having what everyone else has.

In this way we are creating a new kind of global, capitalist culture and identity and that is what the global capitalist elites are trying to do, by working on destroying nationalism and ethnic identity. First in Europe and then the world. And the fact that our governments condone with such thing for investments and money is shameful.