Ovi -
we cover every issue
newsletterNewsletter
subscribeSubscribe
contactContact
searchSearch
Visit Ovi bookshop - Free eBooks  
Ovi Bookshop - Free Ebook
Tony Zuvela - Cartoons, Illustrations
Ovi Language
Murray Hunter: Essential Oils: Art, Agriculture, Science, Industry and Entrepreneurship
Stop violence against women
Tony Zuvela - Cartoons, Illustrations
International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement
 
BBC News :   - 
iBite :   - 
GermanGreekEnglishSpanishFinnishFrenchItalianPortugueseSwedish
The real Euro-election winners The real Euro-election winners
by Thanos Kalamidas
2009-06-01 08:39:52
Print - Comment - Send to a Friend - More from this Author
DeliciousRedditFacebookDigg! StumbleUpon
Days before Europe heads for the euro-elections and having watched four debates in four different countries, I’m seriously wondering if European citizens have any idea what they are voting for. Be careful I didn’t say who they are voting for because regarding whom they know very well but they have absolutely no idea of the why. Actually for most of the parties that participate in the elections this is a chance to measure their national strength and the only winners to my opinion are the nationalistic, xenophobic and racist parties.

People think that the members of the European Parliament are there to defend national issues and promote their country in a constant fight with other EMPs who do nothing else than planning how to dismiss their interests. The little they know but it is not their fault, it is the national parties who manipulate this and it is because it works for their agendas and internal interests.

Ladies and gentlemen, the elections for Members of the European Parliament are very serious and the elected members and their decisions affect your lives even to minor issues. Actually they are more important than the national elections. The best way to understand this is if you compare the national elections with the municipality ones and this is not an effort from me to simplify the situation, it is the bare truth everybody avoids saying.

The national governments have power only when it comes to economics and the national budget but even that has to be approved by the EU the rest, especially the things that affect our everyday life have to follow the blue print designed and voted from the European Parliament and with the latest changes the National governments and parliaments voted and agreed this power has become even bigger. It doesn’t matter if the socialists parties promise to nationalize everything and it doesn’t matter if the conservatives promise to privatize everything, in the end – something the old member states know very well – it will come the EU and say that they cannot do that and they will have to accept it. Why they have to accept it? Because they have signed a treaty that covers all those subsets and they have made those treaties constitutional laws.

And please don’t think that this is something negative, on the contrary the European laws and the European human rights institutions have often protect us from personal agendas and populist politicians. This is the main reason there are so many candidate members. Ironically the new member states especially the east Europeans who lived what lack of democracy means are the better aware of the meaning of these elections and they are the ones who probably will vote for the correct reasons.

The European Parliament has protected with its laws the European workers from an unbelievable dark future and it has interfered in times difficult for the nation members. Yes there are problems but this is the reason or at least the reason we suppose to send those EMPs to Strasburg, so they can correct the problems. We often forget that an EMP elected in Finland can defend and does defend the rights of the British or the Greek worker and this is the logic behind the EU citizens’ right to vote where they live and not where they are originate from.

The only European issue that was raised in all the debates was the immigration problem in connection with security problems. Yes there is an immigration problem is Europe but again this is an era of populations movement due to economic mainly reasons. I’m not going to refer to the good this immigration has done to the senility Europe, ironically these immigrants have saved the pension plan for most of the European countries; if it wasn’t them most of the ones who scream ‘foreigners go home’ they would have no chance to get any pension, but again the states forget to tell them that. Actually the problem is not with the immigrants but with the local parasites that found the chance to thrive.

Unfortunately these parasites are going to be the winners of those elections and that’s because the European citizens are not well informed on what the European Parliament doing, because the national parties have their own agendas and last because they all think that they can ...handle them. Well I’m sorry but history has proved that they cannot always handle them and Le Pen was one time, what will happen the next time and in which country? Do you want to see those xenophobic parasites representing your interests in Europe? The nationalists and racist parties give a party with those elections and what the national parties forget with nationalists and racists is that immigration is not their only agenda! Actually the rest of their agenda is more dangerous than their "immigrant" hysterics!

   
Print - Comment - Send to a Friend - More from this Author

Comments(3)
Get it off your chest
Name:
Comment:
 (comments policy)

Emanuel Paparella2009-06-01 10:58:04
The reason an Umberto Bossi gets more votes proportionally in the Veneto and Lombardia region of Italy than the EU parlamentarians do for European elections in the same regions is not only because there are too many far right fascists there, the usual trite explanation, but that he appeals to a strong regional identity by addressing particular and concrete issues, while the EU parliamentarian who is going to Strasburg to defend the interests of a national party is unable to convey to the same people who vote for Bossi and for secession from Italy why they should have more allegiance to a more overarching universal principle such as that of the EU polity. (continued below)


Emanuel Paparella2009-06-01 10:59:04
To repeat what I have been reiterating for two years in the pages of this very magazine and even lectured about in the same Italy, from this side of the Atlantic there appears to be is a very weak and diluted cultural EU identity, and consequently the same mistake of the Risorgimento regarding Italian national unification may be in the process of being repeated. As one of the architects of Italian unification correctly diagnosed the situation and expressed it: “Now that we have made Italy, we need to make the Italians.” That was in 1860, mind you. One hundred and fifty years later the chicken came to roost with the aspiration of secession on the part of some people in some regions who felt more Italian than the others. In reality the cultural national identity was never strong enough to be able to overcome the centrifugal regional forces. The cart had been put before the horse (see http://www.ovimagazine.com/art/2128 in Ovi: The EU Constitution: the Cart before the Horse): a political entity had been created which was an amalgamation of discreet regions devoid of a solid cultural foundation embraced by most people. (continued below)


Emanuel Paparella2009-06-01 11:00:04
The Italian people ought to have been educated first to universal phenomena which have always been alive in Italy despite their rejection by the same national unity architects who wished to place Italy in the straightjacket of nationalism thus aping the other nations of Europe. Some of these phenomena, which has always influenced the Italian cultural identity, are: the Roman Empire and Latinity, Christianity and the Church, Humanism and the Renaissance. The first false step was taken by Machiavelli himself, when he enthusiastically advocated Italian unification with a return to the Roman identity and simply forgot that the Italians with some fifteen hundred years of Christianity and Humanism already behind them were no longer “Romans” and to insist on that comparison was, as Guicciardini explained to Machiavelli, to insist on comparing a noble horse to a donkey. My interpretation of that statement is this: the Italian too could have been a noble horse if they had simply remembered the whole and not just part of their cultural identity. Food for thought!


© Copyright CHAMELEON PROJECT Tmi 2005-2008  -  Sitemap  -  Add to favourites  -  Link to Ovi
Privacy Policy  -  Contact  -  RSS Feeds  -  Search  -  Submissions  -  Subscribe  -  About Ovi