A section examining the question of media freedom, EU media coverage and citizens in the EU.

The United Nations Education Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) announced its digital  publications will now be inclusive to the public and free of charge. This announcement is a result of its recent adoption of The Open Access Policy. UNESCO is the only member of the United Nations to carry out the policy so far. The principle of open data and the element of progress have been recognised by other institutions including The World Bank and The Wellcome Trust, who have started to operate the Open Access Policy.

The policy states that anyone can freely download, translate and distribute UNESCO’s publications and data. The irrevocable right of access to copy and make derivative works in any format to the organisation’s collection of publications however must be within reason and under lawful conditions. Moreover, the Open Access Policy stipulates that from July 2013 hundreds of downloadable digital UNESCO publications can be made available for the utilisation of users through an Open Access Repository which has a multilingual interface.  This feature allows people of different backgrounds to access the same information globally according to their linguistic preference.

The reason behind why UNESCO is allowing a broad and unfettered access to its informational knowledge is due to its commitment to the rhetoric that open data equates to human development. Open data will also enable policymakers, researchers, and the general public to build and expand on their  existing knowledge. As UNESCO is an intergovernmental organisation, its fundamental interest is to ensure data and resources are made available to the widest possible audience.

This progress is of interest to Open Discovery Space as it focuses on how information can be made more accessible through ICT innovation to ensure human development and progress in education.

If a non-governmental organization releases a book on an educational topic, it means that it contains information that is not included in the school curriculum. This is happening frequently and all over the world. The appropriate ministers can then decide if they want to allow the issued book into the schools program, or not.

When writing this, I’m referring to the book „Lekcja równości” (lesson of equality) written by Kampania przeciw Homofobii (Campaign against homophobia), which received necessary recommendations from Agnieszka Kozłowska- Rajewicz, Minister for Equal Treatment. There is an argument being evoked by the Law and Justice (PiS) and United Poland (Solidarna Polska), around the issue of the way homosexuals are being treated. It shows that the parties’ only response to the issue is to sweep it under the rug or shout about it.

The European Commission recently carried out a massive study on the behaviour towards homosexuals in the European Union. After interviewing more than 90,000 people in the European Union and Croatia, 25% admitted that they had experienced physical violence, and another 25% had been verbally attacked. How much of the hostility comes from ignorance? Probably a lot.

The problem is not so much homosexuality, but the way it is treated by society.

However, to make it less sad, I have enclosed a reprint of the American press,”10 Reasons to Oppose Marriage Equality.”

1. Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester and air conditioning.

2. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

3. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behaviour. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

4. Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn’t changed at all like many of the principles on which this great country was founded; women are still property, blacks still can’t marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

5. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of marriages like Britney Spears’ would be destroyed.

6. The only valid marriages are those which produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn’t be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren’t full yet, and the world needs more children.

7. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

8. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That’s why we have only one religion in America.

9. Children can never succeed without both a male and a female role model at home. That’s why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven’t adapted to cars, the service-sector economy or longer life spans.

Mr. Nikos Chountis is one of the oldest and most ardent members of the Left in Greece, currently serving as Deputy of SYRIZA-EKM in the European Parliament in Strasbourg. He kindly discussed with us the crisis in Eurozone, the future of the EMU, the deadlock of austerity politics, the European Elections of 2014, as well as the fight of the young Europeans that is necessary to bring changes in the Union.

1. Do you believe that under the current exceptional situation the European Union finds itself, the European Parliament is considered as an efficient representative organ of the European citizens clearly expressing their voice and concerns?

The crisis, currently affecting the whole of Europe, is a multifaceted crisis. It is not just a crisis of the economy, or of one sector of the economy, such as the banking or the public sector. The current crisis has to do with both the economy and the political superstructure, as well as, the modern european societies, the environment, the geopolitical sphere etc. In this sense, the European Union, as a whole, as a Union of different nations and supranational institutions, like the European Parliament, is crucially affected.

Today, in the European Union takes place an extreme, violent and antisocial attack on the European people, planed and implemented by the neoliberal forces, under the hegemony of the German government. Everyday we read in the press for new austerity measures taken by the European governments, that curb labor rights, in the name of “competitiveness”, privatize public corporations and public goods, in the name of “unfettered competition”, cut public spending for health, education, social welfare, infrastructure etc, in the name of “fiscal adjustment”. Additionally, we observe the unfolding of a slow but steady “totalitarianization” process of the EMU and EU frameworks, in the name of an inexistent “fiscal adjustment” which has, as an effect, the limitation of democracy at all levels – both national and European – and the establishment of austerity as the constant economic tool of EU.

Against this tide of economic and social “violence” imposed by the European governments and the EU, the European people react, struggle against austerity and require their dignity back. Unfortunately, the rulers of the EU do not hear the voices of the European people. Neither the European Parliament, since the neoliberal alliance of Conservatives, Liberals, Social-Democrats and Greens, has served as the best ally of Ms. Merkel and Mr. Schäuble’s plans, as, for example, happened in the voting for Economic Governance.

2. There is a growing debate inside the European Union regarding democracy, especially with reference to austerity policies and the increasing phenomena of racism. What is your opinion on these major issues?

The implementation of austerity measures in Greece has led 22% of the population below the poverty line, 26% of the active population to unemployment, with more than half of them being young people, while the cumulative decline of GDP, since 2008, is now estimated at 21.8%. This is a total economic and social disaster that takes place with blessings of the EU, the IMF and the Greek oligarchy.

Such an unprecedented disaster of a european country, could not be achieved without the circumvention of fundamental democratic rights and processes, even of the Greek Constitution. All the Memoranda of Understanding (MoU) that accompany the aid packages to the Greek economy, have been approved via “parliamentary coups”, while at the same time the demonstrations of the Greek people against the austerity measures have been supressed by the violence and tear gasses of the police.

With democracy and its institutions under seize, but also with millions of greek citizens striken by the economic crisis, the far-right and fascist movements find a fertile ground. If the European Union and the european governament are really worried about the proliferation of the racist phenomena, they should take into account seriously the consequences of the implemented austerity policies, unless racism, xenophobia and right-wing violence are part of the dominant neoliberal response to the economic crisis.

3. Has GUE/NGL developed an alternative program in order to combat austerity politics in European level or should we consider austerity as the one and only political roadmap?

GUE/NGL brings together MEPs from Left parties, which are fighting against the austerity policy and for the reestablishment of Europe. For a Europe of solidarity, of social justice and of socialism. Therefore, GUE/NGL opposes the logic of neoliberal one-way road of the dominant economic and political elite. Inside the European Parliament, it struggles to halt the policy that loads the burden of the crisis on workers and youth.

The alternative proposal is based on the denial of the memoranda and the implementation of a development program that will address the unemployment and poverty, the breakdown of social and labor rights, the environmental protection, the commercialization of social goods, the destruction of the environment, for peace and democracy.

4. Why do you believe we do not have deeper political integration in the European Union?

In my opinion, the European Union is being integrated deeper and deeper, though in a neoliberal, undemocratic and antisocial direction. The “unifying base” of this integration is the failed and unjust neoliberal model of economic development, under the hegemony of the German Government, which limits labor rights, strengthens the powers of capital and dehydrates the democratic processes at both, national and European level. Therefore, for the Left, there is a growing concern for the fact that the EU is moving away from the fundamental democratic principles and the tradition of the “social contract”, despite any delay in the realization of the political project of European federalization.

5. The European Union is spending unlimited funds for the purposes of its Neighboring Policy. Should this policy be reconsidered as far as we cannot even have a mutual agreement on how to allocate and gather the necessary funds for the member-states?

The European Union, as a supranational institution, has the duty to defend, by its acts, the values ​​of humanism and peace. To support, for example, peoples and countries that are being torn by food and humanitarian crises and wars, not only in its neighborhood, but also around the world. This need, however, must not cover particular imperialist interests that are served through the assistance to the third countries.

6. What is your opinion upon Dublin II Regulation and the restrictions it creates to migrant flows inside the European Union?

The European Union needs a new progressive immigration policy in contrast to the Dublin II Regulation, which has to change radically. Unfortunately, the ongoing debates show the exact opposite. The EU leadership and the majority of governments are dealing with the migratory flows towards Europe, with the neoliberal logic. At the same time, they do not take up any international initiatives that could possibly reduce any new outbreaks of immigration flows and tensions in the near region.

7. Greece is consistently spending much on defense budget. Is there any actual threat the country has to be protected from?

For many years, Greece has been spending huge amounts on armament programs, ranking it first in the rankings of NATO and European Union, as a percentage of GDP. This fact is mainly justified by the attitude of the neighboring country of Turkey, especially after the military invasion and the occupation of northern Cyprus. Nevertheless, this is not the way to justify these expenses, which have significantly contributed to the current, extremely high, level of government debt. The inflation of the armament programs cost comes as a result of the overall NATO requirements and the so-called “diplomacy of armaments”, as many military purchases were made in order to ensure the political support of Germany, France and others. Our suggestion is to achieve a large decrease of military expenditure, since it does not ensure the actual defense needs. At the same time, we politically promote the mutual reduction of military expenditure in Greece and Turkey and the subsequent transfer of these funds to social policy programs.

8. Do you believe that Eurozone will survive?

What I can say is that the structural errors and the functioning mode of the EMU are being exacerbated by the ongoing neoliberal policies that expand regional and social inequalities inside the Eurozone. The global economic crisis has a particular ferocity, intensity and depth in Europe, and as a result it brings forward your question in the daily agenda.

9. Is there any way to address European Youth and make them get involved in European Affairs? What is the vision you could personally give them?

The austerity policies implemented in the European Union alienate the european people from the political and democratic processes. The same happens, maybe to a greater extent, with young people, who face huge social problems, such as unemployment especially for those who live in the countries of European South.

Young people in Europe are no longer envisage any sustainable future life. Even the well-advertized EU-programs, such as the Youth Guarantee, that combat youth unemployment, are a mere farce, since their budget is only 6 billion for the 2014-2020 period. Furthermore, even these EU financed programs, will create jobs without ant substantial insurance or any other labor rights, as they re-inforce the so-called “flexicurity”.

European youth must respond and fight against the neoliberal regime. They must be coordinated in order to ward off further attacks from the austerity programs and the new structure of the EMU and the Euro. They have to fight for a new political direction for Europe, for a new Europe of the people, of solidarity and peace.

10. What you consider as the most important topics that European Elections 2014 should focus on?

There are two issues of high importance that will have to be discussed on the way to the European elections in 2014. The first has to do with the austerity policies implemented by the EU countries, under the guidance and hegemony of Germany. The second important issue is the very course of the EU and EMU, in particular. That is, to what extent the structures and processes of the EU, by imposing extreme austerity programs and limiting the scope and power of democratic institutions and labor rights, keep up with the will of the majority of European citizens, who are seeking for a new European direction, towards solidarity, development and cooperation. I believe that in the forthcoming elections, the forces of neoliberalism, the forces of austerity, unemployment and poverty, the forces that patronize the extreme-right and fascism in Greece and elsewhere, will receive a powerful message from the peoples of Europe.

EU elite celebrated again Europe Day when they had succeed to maintain the fasade their to the score rotten creation with taxpayer money squeezed from the common people. The Day went again so that I noticed it only next day from newsreel. It might be not so exceptional as the institutions – the commission, the parliament and the council – and its 27 member states use the day for celebrating mainly themselves. For the rest of Europe as well for people outside elite there was not any reason to celebrate.

The EU is a bold and unique project. It resembles less that of the United States of America and more that of the Soviet Union. Until the last decade the EU has been more or less a community of democratic nations. While the USSR was a communist dictatorship the EU has been following its steps last years due a full-on economic crisis. Vladimir Bukovsky a former soviet dissident, once made a comparison: ‘We were told, that the purpose of the Soviet Union is to create a a new historic entity, the soviet people, and that we must forget our nationalities, our ethnic traditions and customs. The same seems to be true to the European Union. They don’t want you to be British or French, they want you to be a new historic entity: European.’ There is amazing similarity in decision making between EU and ex-Soviet Union. USSR had also some “democratic” institutions like parliament and government, but the real power was in party machine and its “politburo”. Anyway as USSR already went so when will we celebrate EU remembrance Day.

The supranational organisation planned by Nazis?

‘In 50 years’ time nobody will think of nation states.’ (Joseph Goebbels)

EU gratuitously got Nobel award as a peace project: to underscore the very reason that it was created on 9 May 1950, which was to limit any future wars or conflicts on the continent (more in my article Devaluation of Nobel Peace Prize Continues But EU Could Show Way For Better Crisis Management ). An alternative history shows that EU is continuation of war with economic means. This view came to my mind while reading about now published secret report about how Nazis were planning the Fourth Reich.

The document, also known as the Red House Report, is a detailed account of a secret meeting at the Maison Rouge Hotel in Strasbourg on August 10, 1944. There, Nazi officials ordered an elite group of German industrialists to plan for Germany’s post-war recovery, prepare for the Nazis’ return to power and work for a ‘strong German empire’. In other words: the Fourth Reich.detailed how the industrialists were to work with the Nazi Party to rebuild Germany’s economy by sending money through Switzerland.

They would set up a network of secret front companies abroad. They would wait until conditions were right. And then they would take over Germany again. The industrialists included representatives of Volkswagen, Krupp and Messerschmitt. Officials from the Navy and Ministry of Armaments were also at the meeting and, with incredible foresight, they decided together that the Fourth German Reich, unlike its predecessor, would be an economic rather than a military empire – but not just German. The Third Reich was defeated militarily, but powerful Nazi-era bankers, industrialists and civil servants, reborn as democrats, soon prospered in the new West Germany. There they worked for a new cause: European economic and political integration.

Ludwig Erhard (economist) pondered how German industry could expand its reach across the shattered European continent. The answer was through supranationalism – the voluntary surrender of national sovereignty to an international body. German industrialists were also members of the European League for Economic Co-operation, an elite intellectual pressure group set up in 1946. The league was dedicated to the establishment of a common market, the precursor of the European Union. Ludwig Erhard flourished in post-war Germany. Adenauer made Erhard Germany’s first post-war economics minister. In 1963 Erhard succeeded Adenauer as Chancellor for three years.

Germany and France were the drivers behind the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), the precursor to the European Union. The ECSC was the first supranational organisation, established in April 1951 by six European states. It created a common market for coal and steel which it regulated. This set a vital precedent for the steady erosion of national sovereignty, a process that continues today. However one should remember that the German economic miracle – so vital to the idea of a new Europe – was built on mass murder and gold looted from the treasuries of Nazi-occupied countries and that a European federal state is inexorably tangled up with the plans of the SS and German industrialists for a Fourth Reich – an economic rather than military empire.

Note: I have summarized this secret report item from: The secret report that shows how the Nazis planned a Fourth Reich – in the EU by Adam Lebor
EU today

Forgetting EU’s organogram as illusion and speaking today’s reality one can easily find different decision making practices in EU depending about importance of issue. Most important core group is cooperation between France and Germany sometimes earlier (pre-€) adding UK to group. Commission of course has great de facto power not only on implementation level but also designing proposals handled in EUs inner cores; the same can be said about bureaucrats in national ministries who are designing policies decided EU meetings at summit/ministry levels.

So where is this leaving European Parliament? It may handle some energy bulb level issues but honestly the whole institution seems to be unnecessary creation only to keep some democratic illusion on show. As EU citizens are not so stupid to keep his institution more than a puppet theatre they show their attitude by low turnout percentage. Before last EU Parliament elections I proposed and argumented (in my article Let’s elect Donkey Parliament) why replacing MEPs with monkeys might not be so bad idea. Today EP is practical place to locate some second class politicians for retirement or out to not make any mess in national policy. They also can show good places to get fresh mussels while voters are visiting in EP as their quests. Designing EU policy happens anyway somewhere else.

EU Out

Today there is increasing EU Out movement lead by Britain. Besides populist UKIP party many leading Tories are supporting cutting ties with Brussels. Former Tory chancellor Nigel Lawson supports a referendum for Britain to leave the EU while Michael Portillo, former Tory cabinet minister, describes the Euro as a “disaster” and says the UK does not share the EU’s vision. The Tories might have their own motivation to pull out from EU (to save speculators and money laundry in London City) as well UKIP and other populist movements in EU (to keep poor immigrants out, rich ones can bye entrance anyway as usual) and leftist grassroot movements (to stop austerity measures). Whatever reasons are the aim is against EU’s federalist development.

Quite common view is that EU is an opaque bureaucracy cut off from the citizens it was (publicly) intended to serve. The unofficial core and value of EU in my opinion is that EU is a system to protect, favor and facilitate the interests of big economic powers. A steady decline in voter turnout over the past three decades for European elections has lent credence to the idea that citizens feel increasingly estranged from the European project. The crisis appears to be making this worse by prompting politicians to rush through policies that concentrate more power in Brussels with limited public understanding or support.

From my point of view subsidiary principle should be widen so that more legislation should be implemented at national level and those few remaining issues could be decided between governments and implemented by slimmed European Commission and its agencies. With this approach the whole EP could be closed as useless extra body. This outcome – which I have called as EU lite version – is about the opposite to ongoing federalist tendency and indeed I support rebuilding EU with confederalist approach. This subject I dealt recently with my article My 1st May Manifesto .

Epilogue

The two dominating trends among EU leaders are to cut losses of players in virtual economy at the expense of taxpayers and to guide EU towards strict federation at the expense of democracy. (Ari Rusila)

After 63 years of existence of EU what do we have to celebrate? Financial speculators, banksters and EU elite can congratulate themselves for creating such a massive well connected system that it is hard to break. The citizens have enjoyed from few benefits such as student exchange programme, Schengen area and common agricultural policy which subsidized farmers to produce goods that nobody wanted, dumped excess supply on world markets creating falling incomes for world farmers. The decline of EU as actor in international politics continues with its disastrous European External Action Service (=foreign policy, EEAS) so that the union can concentrate to its core function as distributor of agricultural funds and as aggregate of high-flown statements. The present challenge is, how to distance unsatisfied citizens and state parliaments away from disturbing egocentric and sel-governing elite. I hope that grassroots finally will get fed up with this experiment and starts to demand some power back.

In September 2012, Ministers responsible for Youth from 47 Member States of the Council of Europe congregated for the Ministerial Conference in Saint Petersburg, Russia, to agree on ensuring equal access to Youth Rights for every single young person in Europe. The aim was to achieve this through the adoption of the Declaration “Young people’s access to rights: Development of innovative youth policies in Europe” which would have served as a guideline to all the Ministers’ work in their respective countries. Some officials, however, had problems with ensuring access to Youth Rights for ALL young people inclusively. Ministers failed to agree on the issue that there should be no discrimination towards people of sexual orientation different from heterosexual, and with recognising other gender identities different from man or woman. In AEGEE we find it truly alarming that this vision came from some Member States of the Council of Europe – the European institution which core values are to uphold Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law. Yet, we very much appreciate the fact that several bodies within the Council of Europe indeed did make sure that a proper follow up to the Ministers’ fiasco at the Ministerial Conference will take place.

This year, in April, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe adopted two important documents: “Young people’s access to fundamental rights” and “Young Europeans: an urgent educational challenge”. Moreover, one of the recommendations coming to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe was to adopt a legally binding document on Youth Rights, a policy document that will recognise and respect Youth Rights in their uniqueness, that European governments can then decide to implement in their countries.

This is where young people are stepping in. Several organisations came together to develop a Youth Rights campaign with three main aims: (1) to raise awareness on the situation of Youth Rights, (2) to make the topic of Youth Rights a priority on political agendas and (3) to strengthen the voice of young people in the Council of Europe Member States and structures.

The organisations starting the campaign:

· European Students’ Forum (AEGEE-Europe)

· Young European Federalists (JEF)

· International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer Youth and Student organisation (IGLYO)

· European Federation for Intercultural Learning (EFIL)

· Youth for Exchange and Understanding (YEU)

· World Esperanto Youth Organisation (TEJO)

· National Youth Council of Portugal (CNJ)

· Flemish National Youth Council (VJR)

· Organising Bureau of European School Student Unions (OBESSU)

Together with a legal advisor – the European Law Student Association (ELSA), and a local youth organisation from Kosovo – MUSE-E. And with the support from the Advisory Council on Youth and the European Youth Forum and with many more organisations to join.

The campaign comes at a very important moment in Europe. Today, Europe is a continent where national governments do not always value the voice of young people in decision making processes. It is a continent where governments are continuously making financial cuts influencing young people’s welfare drastically in a very negative way. It is a place where youth organisations are not recognised and are often not given proper support. As the Ministerial Conference showed, it is also a place where young people cannot be guaranteed safety and inclusion.

This is why we are calling for action through a campaign called “Youth Rights. NOW!”: a campaign that aims to mobilise young people to fight for our rights and influence decision makers to put this matter high on their agendas. From 25th to 28th April, the campaign took the first steps, but it will take time to implement all the steps planned, gain finances and provide other prerequisites to set up the campaign.

Nonetheless, the Comité Directeur of AEGEE-Europe will mobilise its members to initiate a dialogue with national decision makers and to start a process of recognition and respect of our Youth Rights! We call also for other youth organisations to join the campaign and to mobilise their members. Finally, we call on policy makers – Youth and Education Ministers, Foreign Affairs Ministers (members of the Committee of Ministers of CoE) and Ambassadors accredited to the Council of Europe, each in their own capacity – to team up with young people and use our ideas and their power to make Europe youth-friendly, NOW!

The German political system is  known for its general stability. Generally there is not a great deal of fluctuation in terms of political parties.This however might be changing recently. After the success of the ‘Pirate Party’ over the last two years (bringing them into four state-parliaments), a new party has stepped onto the scene in April this year.

The Alternative for Germany (Alternative für Deutschland), short AfD was initiated by a group of (well-known) Euro-sceptics, academics as well as former members of Angela Merkel’s CDU party. The central and so far only recognizable party goal is the abolition of the euro in its current form. What should step in its place is however left vague. Both a smaller currency union involving mostly ‘Northern’ states as well as a return to the D-Mark seem to be under consideration. Exactly how such a transition would be handled is also not made clear. But the mantra of the party is, that there is an alternative to the Euro and that such an alternative should be embraced because the euro is bad not only for Germany, but for other European countries and Europe as a whole.

What are we to make of a party such as the AfD and how should we deal with it?

Does it have a real chance of success?
If success is defined as gaining seats in the German parliament (the Bundestag), for which a minimum of 5% of the vote is necessary, success is a possibility. At the moment polls see the AfD at around 3%, but support for its core political aim, the exit from the Euro, is supported by over 20% of Germans. It will thus be important to what extent these people cast their vote with ‘the Euro’ being the decisive issue for them.

How should other parties (and pro-Europeans) deal with it?
It does not make any sense to ridicule the party and its voters or to continuously portray it as extremely right-wing. This might even help the AfD and lead to a greater extent of protest votes from those wanting to send a message to the political establishment.
Free speech and the freedom to form political opinions should be truly valued, also when it comes to the AfD. In the long run, this can even help the cause of those wanting to maintain the Euro. John Stuart Mill held that we ought to allow those who disagree with us to speak up freely, because only in that way does what we hold to be right not become a ‘dead dogma’. For many the continued existence of the Euro has become a sort of a dead dogma. The mantra that the Euro is not to be abandoned because doing so would have disastrous consequences for Europe is more often said than explained. The challenge from groups such as the AfD should  lead those in favour of the Euro to engage in an open argument. The logic for an abolition of the Euro is compellingly simple and the arguments for its continued existence are complex. But if we believe that they are right, we should not shy away from making use of them in open exchanges with the Euro’s critics.
Such an approach offers greater chances for success than the current dogmatic repetition of sound-bites.

This is the title of Bulgarian daily “24 chasa” yesterday (25 April). I thought this was a decent newspaper, but I was wrong. The article was included in the daily press review of the European Commission (see photo).

I know how the Bulgarian press works. This is a publication commissioned from very high places, which the newspaper had no other choice but to write according to specifications from the client and publish.

The aim of the publication is to discredit the European Commission. Without any doubt people in high places fear that messages from the Commission could make them feel very uncomfortable ahead of the 12 May early parliamentary election.

So whatever the Commission will say, they would respond: “Before you accuse us, look at yourselves, you bunch of Maoists, Communists and totalitarian secret police agents!”

Will badmouthing the enemy do the trick this time?

Those who commission such publications are from the former ruling party GERB, which is embroiled in an eavesdropping scandal of Biblical proportions.

Media in Bulgaria have dubbed the unfolding eavesdropping scandal “the Bulgarian Watergate”, alluding to the 1970s secret taping of the Democratic party headquarters, which led to the downfall of President Richard Nixon.

In recent developments, a minister from the GERB government, Miroslav Naydenov, confirms that all ministers and other personalities have been illegally spied by former Interior Minister Tsvetan Tsvetanov, who is the N.2 in the party after Boyko Borissov and the engineer of GERB’s election campaign.

The leader of the opposition Bulgarian Socialist Party Sergei Stanishev, who is also leader of the Party of European Socialists (EPP), called Tsvetanov “toxic to Bulgarian politics”. He also said that the support of the European People’s Party (PES) to GERB had become “untenable”.

Meanwhile, an eavesdropping recoding was sent anonymously to several Bulgarian media, including to the daily Sega where I have worked for several tears. The audio file, the authenticity of which leaves no doubt, features Borissov, Naydenov and Sofia’s prosecutor Nikolai Kokinov. Leaving aside the many cynicisms in their gangsters’ language, this is what is been said:

Naydenov complains to Kokinov that he is been harassed by the prosecution (Naydenov is in the centre of several corruption cases. I have reported about one).

Kokinov too complains to Naydenov that he is not in command any longer, that somebody is trying to isolate him from the important issues.

Naydenov says he had asked Borissov who is after him. He adds Borissov told him it is probably Tsvetanov.

Kokinov replies that in fact this is probably the recently elected prosecutor general Sotir Tstatsarov. He adds that Naydenov’s case is been hidden from him, so he cannot help.

Borissov arrives. Kokinov complains to him as well about the “repressions” which he suffers. He tells Borissov he wants to be moved from Sofia prosecutor to the job of Appellate prosecutor. Follows a long exchange in which they discuss the homosexual inclinations of various magistrates.

Borissov asks Naydenov for advice regarding the court proceedings against Naydenov.

Naydenov says he is not optimistic and warns Naydenov that the woman he lives with has been promised a plea bargain if she testifies against him.

Borissov interevenes and says he warned Naydenov about that woman.  (She is one of the beneficiaries of the Twitter-Facebook affair.)

Before leaving, Kokinov gives Borissov the results of prosecution inquiries which are not yet made public.

At the end, Borissov tells Naydenov that his problems are serious, because there is European money involved.

As I was writing this text, Kokinov resigned, following a meeting with Prosecutor General Tsatsarov. It also became known that the recording was made on 15 April in Borissov’s house.

Borissov basically confirmed that the conversation took place, blaming “parallel structures” for being “impudent enough” to spy in his house.

A suivre…

Blog series of Gabriella Lovász

****

“It is the paradise of rational people” (Aldous Huxley).

Dutch people are brave, confident and strong-minded. They face their own problems and they face together the problems of the country.

“The geography of the European part of Netherlands is in that much of its land has been reclaimed from the sea and is below sea level, protected by dikes.” (Wikipedia) Dutch people have been continuously fighting with the elements, which explains their need and appreciation for the clean environment.

“Another factor that has influenced its physical appearance is that the country is among the most densely populated on Earth.” (Wikipedia) No matter how many different religions, society blocks exist in the country, they can live in peace together, but also, their thinking is stiff because the closeness of these blocks (more in the past than nowadays).

They are not really individualists, independent; Freedom of the individuals is highly appreciated of course, but they will not be the main initiators in a project. Collectivism, team-work is more their approach, they are very family-oriented and generally holding together. They use the word gezelligheid “which, depending on context, can be translated as convivial, cosy, fun, quaint, or nice atmosphere, but can also connote belonging, time spent with loved ones, the fact of seeing a friend after a long absence, or general togetherness”. (Wikipedia)

Dutch people are tolerant, trustworthy and have strong moral principles that sometimes they can turn into dogmatism. As a Dutch psychologist said, “we think it is important to help people, but only when people do not help us”.

Or “We like to indoctrinate and educate others in topics, which are none of our businesses” (said by a Dutch person). Dutch are highly qualified, well educated, their confidence also derives from this fact. Normally they are less flexible, more bureaucratic.

It is a small  country, surrounded by big nations, they have no strong political of physical power. So they convince others with arguments. Belgians are creative, Dutch are rational.

They have a strong ego (individual and collective as well), which, if linked strongly with their feeling of superiority and dogmatism, it can be annoying. This is more visible in stressful situations, which may happen often in EU projects. They may seem overbearing in such cases.

On a meeting, typical Dutch people would accept external support and would appreciate it. So money saving does not mean that they are not willing to invest into quality. Their general cautiousness with money could result in a tight control over the budget spending, but they are also excellent gamblers and they can be creative when needed. Between these two facts there is no conflict. They are not always keeping the rules and following all the words of the written agreement, you can count on their creative solutions in doing the job from less money.

In summary:

• Dutch are very direct, they will speak clearly, with no extreme emotions, there is no need for small-talks with them

Tip: this style shows honesty and openness, but your partners may see it as a rude style. Make sure all your partners understand the communication style positively.

• Their decisions will be based more on facts, and their arguments will be also relying on facts and numbers

Tip: Would you need to turn the discussion from emotions to facts, you may ask the Dutch partner to do a pro-con list, or a summary e.g.

• You can negotiate and achieve open consensus with Dutch partners, but in stressful situations their style might be too overbearing

Tip: When there is a need for a consensus, it might be a good idea to appoint the Dutch partner as the mediator/moderator of the discussion

• Dutch people are very good team-workers

Tip: Would you compliment the work done by the Dutch partner, always address the whole group of people, not just the representative attending the meeting (to be noted as such in the minutes of the meeting)

Source: Richard Hill, We Europeans (1997)

Do you have any experience? What do you think about cultural differences in EU projects? Share your opinion with us!

Gabriella Lovász

Yesterday the European Parliament held a debate on visa facilitation for the Ukrainians. The issue seemed indisputable since it applies to a small group of citizens – youths, students and seniors. The idea in question concerns mainly prolonging the visa validity and in some cases reducing the cost of issuance. I used the word SEEMED deliberately, since it had been indisputable until the LGBT lobby started to criticize the draft.

The representatives of LGBT group claimed that a country which openly fights against homosexuals instead of fighting homophobia does not deserve any kind of gestures of goodwill from the European Union. In addition, on that occasion also Russia was punished for showing off in Europe with its “fight against promoting homosexuals”.

I participated in that discussion and I presented my view. We cannot throw the baby out with the bath water in such case. How can we punish people who want to immigrate to the West with visa procedures which are already cumbersome anyway? There are also LGBTs among these people. The only ‘genuine’ instrument of enforcing changes in Ukraine is not a visa facilitation agreement but Association Agreement. Therefore, it is absolutely necessary to sign it during the Vilnius Summit. Also with regard to this issue.

Se me ha muerto como del rayo, José Luis Sampedro, a quien tanto debía. Y espero me perdone mi admirado Miguel Hernández en la gloria de los poetas muertos por robarle un gesto de su Elegía por Ramón Sijé, para traer a la memoria a mi sabio profesor que longevo y prolífico ha dejado la vida y el mundo esta semana. Lo traigo a este blog por devoción, que en boca de un descreído como es mi caso cobra doble valor; por que me lo pide el cuerpo sediento de vida ejemplar y porque la actualidad plagada de valores perdidos puede encontrar en su palabra caminos ante la encrucijada que nos provoca la crisis. Seré más breve que de costumbre porque mi querido profesor por recato y decoro odiaba los homenajes y censuraba la grandilocuencia por innecesaria.

Recuerdo la mañana de estudiante que cree poderlo saber todo, enfrentado a la Estructura Económica Mundial cómo apareció su figura clásica entre los clásicos, enjuto de rigor de quien le sobra la grasa porque daña al pensamiento. Mirada profunda de la profundidad de la hondura de quien lleva las preguntas del ser humano en la mochila del subconsciente. Arropado por una barba reflexiva entonces al uso de eruditos a la violeta y en su caso de por vida estética. Pero, sobre todo, imponía respeto a primera vista su sencilla humildad, la que confiere la categoría de sabio por decantación. Llegó a mi clase en silencio como se fue de este mundo, pero su palabra se hizo presente propio porque Sampedro no callaba para ser plácido a nadie. “Escuchadme bien, atendedme bien, aunque sea el único día de clase que queráis entender algo de lo que os diga a lo largo del curso . Primera y última lección de la que estoy seguro: el rico existe y es rico, porque el pobre existe y es pobre. La codicia humana explica la Estructura Económica Mundial. Mientras no cambiemos los valores de nuestra sociedad, seguiremos buscando teorías económicas para justificar la injusticia social”.

Y así pasaron los días escuchando la simplicidad de sus palabras sin necesidad de fórmulas alambicadas, sin adjetivos que maquillan las verdades. Verdades como puños de esa izquierda universal que se remueve en la conciencia de hombre ante el dolor ajeno. Que denuncia la misericordia porque demanda la solidaridad. Que busca el reparto porque entre todos las penas son menos y la alegrías plenas. Lecciones de siempre, que no entienden de primas de riesgo, de ingeniería financiera o de especuladores de dineros negros. Al final todo resultaba fácil de explicar y de entender cuando se está dispuesto a aceptar la verdad del egoísmo como bandera corsaria de ir por la vida.

Luego vino la Literatura y sus libros mayúsculos de prosa poética nos dieron la medida de su capacidad de trabajar la belleza desde cimas de sensibilidad también sólo a recaudo de los sabios. Le llegó la fama y le abrumó la popularidad a la vez que nuestro mundo se volvía más y más frívolo. Nos sobraban las ideas y sus pensadores, a la velocidad que nos comprábamos el último adorno de consumo o que nos hipotecábamos para la tercera vida. Y se fue yendo a su exilio dorado de sabio incomprendido y un punto de incómoda conciencia de una sociedad simia que ni oía, ni pensaba, ni hablaba.

Sus alumnos seguimos leyéndole, escuhándole en las catacumbas de nuestros compromisos conscientes de que su doctrina nos hace libres, laicos pero libres. Y a medida que la crisis nos puso desnudos contra la pared del absurdo de un neocapitalismo borracho de si mismo, sus palabras retumbaban más fuerte en nuestra memoria como el martillo pilón de la razón. Ahora que se nos fue su presencia y que nos queda su memoria escrita, os dejo un racimo de pensamientos deslabazados de mi sabio profesor José Luis Sampedro en una suerte de liturgia barata o recordatorio agnóstico para transitar éticamente por la vida. Espero que os sean tan útiles como para mí lo han sido. Gracias profesor.

1. Sin libertad de pensamiento, la libertad de expresión no sirve de nada.
2. El tiempo no es oro; el tiempo es vida.
3. Se habla mucho del derecho a la vida, pero no de lo importante que es el deber de vivirla.
4. Poner al dinero como bien supremo nos conduce a la catástrofe.
5. Los recortes se aceptan por una de las fuerzas más
importantes de la humanidad, el miedo.
6. No hemos aprendido a vivir como humanidad, la humanidad está por hacer.
7. En abril de 1939 comprendí que no habían ganado los míos. Ni los unos ni los otros eran los míos.
8. Seguimos sosteniendo las mismas barbaridades, las mismas crueldades, las mismas salvajadas. ¿Cómo es posible eso? ¿Cómo no hemos aprendido a vivir, a vivir en paz, a vivir con la
naturaleza, a vivir con sosiego?
9. Cuando digo Humanidad exagero, porque creo que Humanidad no hay; hay seres humanos. Llevamos dos mil años desde la Antigua Grecia, se ha progresado técnicamente de una manera fabulosa (…)
10. El sistema capitalista se acaba.