A United States of Europe? by SA Aiyar

The Eurozone crisis has led some to predict its collapse, and others to fear that Europe will become a German empire. But a third line of thought, from those wanting a far more integrated Europe, holds that the crisis is actually a god-given opportunity that will force European countries into a far closer political union than they would have contemplated otherwise.

This thesis runs as follows.

“Our aim has always been to create a United States of Europe, bigger and stronger than the USA. However this can only be done in stages, since national identities in Europe are very strong. Europeans have fought one another through history, leaving bitter memories.

“Besides, the countries have very strong social and cultural differences. For instance, Germans are high-saving, high-productivity Protestants, while Italians are high-spending, high-borrowing Catholics. Melding different national identities and cultures into a European whole cannot be done by negotiations.

“The crafty way forward is to force the pace of European integration faster than the public wants. This will, of course, lead to crises. But every crisis will force voters to choose between greater unification and the huge costs of de-integration. Hopefully they will repeatedly opt for greater unification. In the process, they will give up facet after facet of their national identity and culture. In stages they will develop a unified European identity, while retaining plenty of their original identity and culture.

“Seen in this light, developments in Europe are not calamitous. Rather, things are going absolutely according to script. A decade ago we created the Eurozone, whereby 17 of the 27 countries of the European Union gave up their national currencies and adopt the euro, overseen by a European Central Bank.

“ Many economists like Martin Feldstein said we were asking for disaster by creating a monetary union without a political union. Why? Because a monetary union (common currency) deprived uncompetitive areas of the ability to devalue to improve their competitiveness. This would not matter in a political union like India, where funds flow automatically from surplus states like Maharashtra via New Delhi to deficit states like Assam and Bihar. But the Eurozone is not a political union, so funds do not automatically flow from Germany to Greece or Italy.

“Every transfer from the northern Europeans to southern Europeans causes resentment and heartburn. The Germans and Dutch resent unending transfers to what they see as lazy southern bums, and insist on forcing draconian conditions on the lazy bums. But these draconian conditions will push the southerners into recession and wage freezes for a decade, and have sparked street riots against what is seen as neo-Germanic imperialism.

“Feldstein and other critics are wrong in thinking that we did not see the dangers: these were obvious to us too. But we saw more opportunity than risk. We knew a monetary union was unviable without a political union, or at least a fiscal union as a half-way house. But there was no public support at all for a political or fiscal union. How, then, to proceed?

“Our solution was Machiavellian: go ahead with the unviable monetary union and let it cause a Eurozone crisis. Once this happens, we theorised, voters in both surplus and deficit countries will refuse to face the terrible consequences of abandoning the euro. Hence they will agree to once-unthinkable changes in their policies and attitudes to stave off collapse.

“This strategy has worked marvellously, exactly as planned. Greece has slashed pensions, staff and holidays, and is already looking less Greek. Spain has amended its rigid labour laws. Italy has reduced pension and welfare benefits. Even Germany has changed.

“The European Central Bank started with the conventional German position of no rescues. But it has now, by subterfuge, facilitated indirect rescues. In December it gave European banks half a billion euros of cheap three-year loans, and will give a second installment next month. This flood of money, ostensibly to meet liquidity needs, actually enables banks to start buying government bonds of distressed states. So, the distressed countries are now able to raise fresh loans at falling interest rates. Italy and most Eurozone countries are beginning to look viable again, though Greece is clearly an exception.

“Remarkably, even Germany looks less puritanical or Germanic after agreeing to back-door rescues. It is changing no less than Italy, Greece or Spain, developing a new European composite identity.

“Jean Monnet, intellectual father of the European Union, predicted that a united Europe would be forged through crisis. We are implementing his vision. Sooner than anybody expects, we will have a United States of Europe.”

Is this a bit too slick and optimistic? Probably. But it surely has a kernel of truth.

NIGEL FARAGE A NEW ADOLF HITLER, A “DINNER FOR TWO”, HIS SECRET LIFE(BISEXUAL),UKIP NEO-NAZI YOUTH MOVEMENT AND THE UNITED STATES OF EUROPE, BY Nick Alexandropoulos

Adolf Hitler (German: [ˈadɔlf ˈhɪtlɐ] ( listen); 20 April 1889 – 30 April 1945) was an Austrian-born German politician and the leader of the Nazi Party (German: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (NSDAP); National Socialist German Workers Party). He was chancellor of Germany from 1933 to 1945 and dictator of Nazi Germany (as Führer und Reichskanzler) from 1934 to 1945. Hitler was at the centre of Nazi Germany, World War II in Europe, and the Holocaust.    WIKIPEDIA, The free encyclopedia                                                                                                                        NIGEL FARAGE:  He co-founded UKIP in 1993. He was recently re-elected Leader of the party with 60% of the vote. First elected to the European Parliament in 1999, he has
become one of the most outspoken critics of the EU and often makes
global headlines with his interventions in parliament. His ultimate
objective is the UK’s total withdrawal from  EU. Huffington Post                                            “He used simple, straightforward language that ordinary people could understand, short sentences, powerful, emotive slogans… There were no qualifications in what he said; everything was absolute, uncompromising, irrevocable, undeviating, unalterable, final. He seemed… to speak straight from the heart, and to express their own deepest fear and desires… Such uncompromising radicalism lent Hitler’s public meetings a revivalist fervour”.History Book-A

“One cannot imagine that the Fuhrer ever spoke differently than he does today, or that he will ever speak differently. He speaks his heart, and therefore reaches the hearts of those who hear him. He has the amazing gift of sensing what is in the air. He has the ability to express things so clearly, logically and directly that listeners are convinced that that is what they have always thought themselves. That is the true secret of the effectiveness of Adolf Hitler’s speeches… The essential characteristics of his speeches to the people are: clear organization, irrefutable logical reasoning, simplicity and clarity of expression, razor-sharp dialectic, a developed and sure instinct for the masses and their feelings, an electrifying emotional appeal that is used sparingly, and the ability to reach out to the souls of the people in a way that never goes.”History Book-B                                                                       “Germans, generally depressed about post-WWI conditions, looked to Hitler for guidance out of their dismal circumstances. Hitler’s rhetoric and symbolic representations furthered this notion of Hitler as a savior. However, these are not the only factors that contributed to the personality cult around Hitler. Further research could include the role of the media and propaganda in fueling the personality cult, as well as other influences. A comprehensive understanding of the personality cult around Hitler could supplement the debate over how seemingly ordinary Germans participated in the implementation of the Final Solution. This theory helps to show how ordinary people became emotionally attached to a charismatic leader like Hitler and, because of this attachment, were willing to embrace his ideas and carry out his plans”. History Book-C      

“What is concerning about UKIP is it has become very much a one-man band and a bit of a cult. There is a followership and even the constitution has been changed to favour pro-leader candidates. I don’t think that’s healthy”.David Campbell-former deputy leader                                                                                                                                              “He is, after all, the man who has recently been voted the most popular party leader in a poll. Enigmatic, eloquent, jovial, captivating, these are all words which have been used to describe him. Heck, even his final school report said the college “would be a poorer place without this boy’s personality”.Catherine Dalton                                                                “Farage turns out to be one of the most surprising politicians I have met – charismatic, funny, indefatigably good-natured and essentially cheerful towards absolutely everyone, apart from the prime minister and Rotherham council”. The Guardian                                 ” I am  fighting  the rise of  EU  nazi superstate…I  am spartacus”Nigel Farage                     After reading the above, it is obvious ,  we came  to some conclusions.In  general  speaking,   Farage  is a  copycat  of Hitler’s  personality   and tactics(forthright,honest,simplistic  opinions, rhetoric abilities,  e.t.c)   or, is, just,  the new version of  Hitler  with two differences:A) Hitler  as a person, was very serious , Farage instead,  is  a funny  person (a clown, read my previous article).  B)Hitler’s intention  was the extermination of ” sub- humans”, in particular jews ,as well as other minorities(gypsies, homosexuals  and handicapped people),  Farages’ instead, is,  the  disintegration   and  dissolution  of the  United  States  of Europe(currently, european union(EU), the extermination of all immigrants,  the  emergence  of  the  little  island   of    Britain      as  European and international power  and  the continuation of   the occupation  in northern  ireland  and  Las Malvinas(ex-Falklands).Farage’s   speaking  style is very similar  to  Hitler’s.  Overall, the two men, have almost,  the same personality  and the same(general), characteristics.                                                                              UKIP(UK  independence   party),   doesn’t have a political agenda,just,some directions, include:   Deportation of all legal and illegal immigrants(job creation for UK citizens,only). Increase of British jails-military spending and nuclear weapons.layoffs and salary pension cuts of all  public sector employees.Cancelation of all EU treaties and going back to the  “old good  British   law  and systems”(example:if a  european person  wants to visit UK ,a valid  visa, should be  issued). Simultaneously,a visa should be issued for a british national, to travel  across  europe.                                                                           In other words   a National,independent,secular country.What an irony!!! I am writing this article in my office and i have  in front of my eyes a  not very old political agenda of Golden Dawn(The Neo-Nazi party of Greece).What a surprise?It’s not similar to UKIP’s   political agenda.It is,EXACTLY THE SAME.                                                                                                                                          Why UKIP   doesn’t  have a political   agenda? I don’t see the policy  on the following issues:Press freedom and regulations-Economy(national debt,investments(domestic and international), manufacturing  sector)-R&D(research  and development)-enviromental protection(climate change,green energy)-National defence- foreign  policy and international relations-public and private education-social security benefits-health-elderly-welfare reforms,  e.t.c  As i have explained in my previous article,UKIP is an undercover ,Neo-Nazi, terrorist  , violent  organization  and the only agenda is:A)Get UK out of  european union(EU).  B)All foreigners should go home(control of the borders).We,also, know the UKIP’s  association with other euro-nazi parties (ex:LAOS of  Greece). UKIP discriminates against all ethnic groups,   wants to call for a mass extermination, but, in our times this will end up its existence.   Most of the supporters are anti-EU, Nazis,Fascists and Racists, however , there is a significant number that came from other  parties(Tories,Labour,Liberals).      Unfortunately, some of them(The very old),  fought Nazis and  now, belong to a Neo-Nazi, organization.     UKIP is the same  as  BNP(British National Party), which    claims  the “British race and Nation”. The BNP    openly  described as  far-right, racist, fascist  party. UKIP,   is  exactly  the same,but  is not open , just  undercover.     How  Mr Farage will shut down ,any   democratic voice(if any)? The terrorist    organization called UKIP, has a rule(interior) book.His intention is to change the rules, so he can remove any democratic voice.                                                                                                                What was the   reason for the “DINNER FOR TWO”?According to the daily telegraph, mr Farage suggested to mr Murdoch  at the meal  that he would form an electoral  pact with the conservatives if David Cameron stood down as leader.      -”Rupert  Murdoch is “interested”  to find  out what is the UK independence  party is up to and how much support it has, its  leader  Nigel Farage has said after meeting the tycoon for first time”. BBC news.                         The “dinner for two”, actually was,the  drawing of a secret plan- based on the   increased popularity of  the fascist party- which is the creation of  a  “British Young Independence Organization” equals or even better to Hitler’s youth movement.The Hitler Youth was a logical extension of Hitler’s belief that the future of Nazi Germany was its children.The Hitler Youth was seen as being as important to a child as school was.In the early years of the Nazi government, Hitler had made it clear as to what he expected German children to be like.History Book-D                                                                    According to that, Mr farage wants to  mold the future generations of british in the following main disciplines:1)Brain wash with the nazi ideal 2)anti-europeanization(United states of  Europe, is the enemy)3)British is the upper class race 4)loyalty to nazi-ukip and the royals.The famous now,”dinner for two”,also, reflects the  severe failure of the dominant parties(tories,labour),the inability to  push for reforms,to stop the downfall of the UK economy,to have a strong voice within European Union and in international affairs.  In very simple words:The desperation of the average British citizen to have a nice and decent life leads to  an open embrace   of  nationalism,fascism,UKIP, Nigel Farage, e.t.c.                                         What is  Nigel Farage’ personal secret?This is a political site,promoting, the online ALEXANDROPOULOS FOUNDATION, with  the ultimate goal the assistance for the direct creation of the United  States of Europe(U.S.E).I’m fully  aware of my responsibilities for the content of the site, which is basically,  analysis, criticism  and the promotion  of  theories and ideas. As you can understand, this site does not involve in personal affairs,with a great respect to personal life, however this time(hopefully  for  first and  for  last time), i will break the rules and i would like to share an information i’ve received,not long ago.If the information is completely false, i would  like  to apologize ,deeply, to Mr Farage.So far,i have been informed,the reason for   Mr Farage’s   divorce in 1997,was his secret BISEXUAL LIFE and his current marriage , is following  the same path-   because of his bisexual passion(I  know, he has four children). He mentioned the strip clubs, is anything more , we should know? Perhaps,this is the real reason of UKIP’s philosophy,against homosexuals.My personal opinion, about the crucial subject of homosexuality,will be seen in my next article ,titled:”non- homosexuals(gays and lesbians,etc) in the United States of   Europe”, will  publish   in ,just, ten days.If this information is accurate,the leader of UKIP, is  going to come out of the closet to explain the situation to the supporters?                                                                                                      Mr  NIGEL  FARAGE, i   know ,you have seen   my site. I asked you nicely, to get a real job. You are  not a politician,it’s not your profession,you don’t belong  in politics.      You don’t listen.  do you?   You are a comedian , a funny figure, a good clown(maybe, dangerous now)   in the UK’s  political circus. It is time for you to leave,before the situation  gets more serious. Don’t you ever  use  the word  “spartacus”.Spartacus is a greek word(GREECE  is the birthplace of democracy and has nothing to do with your nazi-fascist-disgusting  “ideology”). Don’t you  dare  to  say  “i am spartacus”,again.You are not  Greek(how can you be?),  Greeks are  Europeans(future  citizens of the United States of Europe) and you   are, just, a British(do you understand the concept, now?). If you,still,have some good feelings, about the little island of Britain,then, try to convince the UK political system to exit  EU as soon as possible(BREXIT).Britain is  a  non-european little island,never was and never will  be  European, otherwise  we  will  exit you by force.I will assure you that  the United States of Europe,will demilitarize,  the  little island of yours,for the simple reason, a superpower(U.S.E),does not want  in any case  a Cuba-style island(with nuclear warheads), next to its borders.The United States of Europe, will   watch  very closely , the  nazi-fascist “career”  of yours and in case of  dramatic changes  in  the UK political  scene- UKIP in  power(I don’t think is going to happen, but, just in case)- an intervention will take place for corrections and application of international law and stabilization of a democratic system.Always, the United states of Europe ,will make sure the little island of Britain is a democracy,safe and   weapons-free.As far as  Mr farage  and his political future,i’m afraid, he will end up in one of our Euro-jails, like the most dictators and war criminals in  history.                      Finally,  i   feel sorry for you  Mr farage and in  general  you , average   desperate-poor-uneducated( most  British are)-   British citizen , because, you will never feel the pride,  the superiority, the prestige, the   sense  that you  belong to the Greatest  superpower in the history  of Humankind,  the  EMPIRE OF THE UNITED STATES OF EUROPE.                         NICK  ALEXANDROPOULOS

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            

A United States of Europe?, by Bruce Ackerman

Are we witnessing the birth of the United States of Europe?

There are uncanny similarities between the current round of wheeling and dealing and the founding of the United States of America. The Philadelphia Convention of 1787 represented America’s second try at continental union. In 1781, the 13 states had come together behind a treaty-constitution that broadly resembles present European arrangements.                       America’s first effort was the Articles of Confederation. Like the European Union treaties, it guaranteed each citizen’s right to move throughout the confederation and exercise all the economic privileges of home-staters. It also created a weak unicameral Congress and a judiciary for resolving inter-state disputes. But it did not grant the confederation independent powers of taxation, preventing it from guaranteeing the large war debts issued by each of the states. Because many states were in shaky financial condition, their bonds had dramatically depreciated in value, undermining the confidence of European investors in New World projects.

This was one of the problems motivating the movement “for a more perfect union.”

The Constitution of 1787 granted new powers to impose taxes and set up an analogue to the Bank of England. Once it came into effect, the federal government moved quickly to create a national bank and to pay the depreciated state debt. This ended the credit crisis and established the credibility of the infant republic in European financial markets.

But before all this could happen, the founders confronted a threshold problem: So long as they were living under the laws of the confederation, it would be impossible to get their new Constitution ratified. Like the current European Union treaties, the Articles of Confederation explicitly required unanimous consent to any revision of its terms, and it was perfectly obvious that no such consent would be forthcoming.

Rhode Island was the Britain of its time — this small trading state was unwilling to give up its sovereignty to the federal colossus. It refused to send delegates to the Philadelphia Convention, denouncing it as an illegal secessionist assembly, which is precisely what it turned out to be. After a summer of secret sessions, the Philadelphians went public with a document proclaiming that, despite the articles’ requirement of unanimous consent, the new Constitution would spring to life when only nine of the 13 states ratified.

Confronting this revolutionary change in the rules of the game, Rhode Island simply refused to play, as did North Carolina. When the first Congress met in 1789, there were 11 states in the union. The dissenting states caved under pressure — with Rhode Island entering in 1790 only when Congress began threatening to impose tariffs on its trade unless it abandoned the veto solemnly granted to it by the Articles of Confederation.

These embarrassing facts have long been forgotten, even by most serious students of the U.S. Constitution. But they put the current crisis in a new light.

The members of the new Eurozone treaty won’t bludgeon Britain into Rhode Island-style capitulation. But if British Prime Minister David Cameron stands firm, his veto will likely lead to the ultimate exclusion of his nation from the EU. The projected treaty will create a large bloc whose interests systematically diverge from other members, but which will depend on a steady flow of supportive decisions by EU institutions to maintain the Eurozone’s credibility.

Given these dynamics, Cameron is simply fooling himself if he really believes “that the EU institutions — the court, the commission — [would] work for all 27 nations” when this would compromise the euro bloc’s fundamental interests. When Britain tries to undermine ongoing support for the Eurozone, it will predictably provoke a constitutional crisis — in which the euro bloc will eject Britain to prevent its continuing acts of sabotage.

This is a time for some serious diplomacy from the Obama administration. The United States should help bridge the gap between the Continent and Britain’s divided coalition of conservatives and liberals, encouraging both sides to return to the bargaining table. If left unchecked, the current institutional dynamics will generate a United States of Continental Europe at an unacceptable price, gravely weakening the West for a very long time to come.

Bruce Ackerman is a professor of law and political science at Yale and the author of “We the People: Transformations.”

THE UNITED STATES OF EUROPE:THE NEW SUPERPOWER AND THE END OF AMERICAN SUPREMACY, BY T. R. Reid

At the dawn of the twenty-first century, a geopolitical revolution of historic dimensions is under way across the Atlantic: the unification of Europe. Twenty-five nations have joined together-with another dozen or so on the waiting list-to build a common economy, government, and culture. Europe is a more integrated place today than at any time since the Roman Empire. Americans have largely ignored this European revolution. Like one of those heavy, powerful SUVs that Detroit turns out, the United States has been cruising along at a comfortable speed, completely unaware of the well-engineered European sedan coming up fast in the passing lane. It’s time to take a look over our shoulder. The new United States of Europe-to use Winston Churchill’s phrase-has more people, more wealth, and more trade than the United States of America. The New Europe cannot match American military strength (and doesn’t want to, for that matter). But it has more votes in every international organization than the United States, and it gives away far more money in development aid. The result is global economic and political clout that makes the European Union exactly what its leaders want it to be: a second superpower that can stand on equal footing with the United States.                                                                                          Since it was born, in the rubble of World War II, the vision of a united Europe has grown dramatically from a coal-and-steel trading arrangement to a “common market” to a “community” to today’s European Union, a new kind of state in which the member nations have handed over much of their sovereignty to a transcontinental government in a community that is becoming legally, commercially, and culturally borderless. The EU, with a population of nearly half a billion people stretching from Ireland to Estonia, has a president, a parliament, a cabinet, a central bank, a bill of rights, a unified patent office, and a court system with the power to overrule the highest courts of every member nation. It has a 60,000 member army (or “European Rapid Reaction Force,” to be precise) that is independent of NATO or any other outside control. It has its own space agency with 200 satellites in orbit and a project under way to send a European to Mars before Americans get there. It has a 22,000-person bureaucracy and an 80,000-page legal code governing everything from criminal trials and corporate taxation to peanut butter labels and lawn mower safety.                                                                                                                                    In pursuit of economic union, Europeans have thrown their marks, francs, lira, escudos, drachma, and so on into history’s trash can and replaced them all with the new common currency, the euro, a form of money that has more daily users than the US. dollar. At the end of the twentieth century, the strong US. dollar reigned supreme. Five years into the new century, the young upstart, the euro, ranks as the world’s strongest currency. In the first three years after it hit the streets of Europe, the common currency rose more than 50 percent in value against a struggling dollar. Europeans want to see the euro replace the dollar as the world’s reserve currency-a development that would cost the United States a pretty penny … But Europe’s new money is more than money. It is also a political statement-a daily message in every pocket that cooperation has replaced conflict across the continent.                                                                                                                                    To forge a physical linkage that enhances their political and economic union, Europeans have invested hundreds of billions of those euros in an ambitious network of bridges, tunnels, ports, and rail lines. Most of the continent has done away with customs and immigrations controls. When I drove recently from the Arctic Circle to the Mediterranean, I passed through eight countries, never saw a border guard, and never had to bother with foreign exchange. The New Europe has all the symbolic apparatus of a unified political entity. The citizens of the EU use a standard license plate, birth certificate, and passport (although each country still gets to pick its preferred passport color: a red cover for Britain, dark blue for Poland, and of course green for Ireland). The whole continent plays a common lottery. Europeans tune in by the tens of millions each May to watch the Eurovision song contest, the pancontinental TV extravaganza … The EU has its own flag, its own anthem, and its own national day … Europe’s new constitution even establishes an official EU motto: “Unity in diversity,” or “Unite dans la diversité,” or “In varietate concordia,” and so on in three dozen languages.                                                                                                                                          At first glance, the disagreements in 2003 surrounding the Iraq war seemed to expose more diversité than unite in Europe. In fact, the dispute over Iraq turned out to be another powerful unifying force for Europeans, particularly for the largely borderless young people known as Generation E-people who consider themselves not Spaniards or Czechs but rather Europeans who happen to be living in Toledo or Prague. No matter what their prime ministers said about the war, large majorities of the population in every European state opposed the American-led effort. The war enhanced the growing feeling across the continent … that Europe and America are fundamentally different places-and that Europeans need to stick together to confront the behemoth across the Atlantic. Among diplomats and scholars who study the transatlantic relationship, the concept of a united Europe standing as a superpower to match the United States is taken so seriously that the idea has a name of its own: the “counterweight thesis,” or the “countervailing power thesis.” Naturally, this theory is more popular in Europe than in the United States. And it is not just Europe’s professional America-bashers-a fairly large category on the continent these days-who see the EU as a counterweight to US. dominance. At one of the union’s endless summit meetings-the one where the Finnish and Italian prime ministers argued bitterly for two days whether the European Food Agency should be headquartered in Helsinki or in Parma-I went up to Britain’s prime minister, Tony Blair, the closest US ally in Europe. I asked him whether these long, wordy sessions around the conference table were worthwhile.                                                                                                                       “They do go on a bit,” Blair said. He sounded bored and weary. But then, as he got talking about the prospects for the EU’s future, he came to life. “You know, these summits makes sense if you try to have a sense of history. I mean, when the thing is getting tiresome, you have to remember what we are doing here. We are building a new world superpower. The European Union is about the projection of collective power, wealth, and influence. That collective strength makes individual nations more powerful-and it will make the EU as a whole a global power.                                                                                                                  “Look-the United States is plainly the superpower of the world today,” Blair continued, now rising to his rhetorical finish. “But the argument is that a single-power world is inherently unstable. I mean, that’s the rationale for Europe to unite. When we work together, the European Union can stand on par as a superpower and a partner with the U.S. The world needs that right now.”

BUILDING THE UNITED STATES OF EUROPE,BY, JACOPO MORELLI

Europe is facing a deep identity, social and economic crisis. Unemployment is rising, companies are closing and social tension is posing a big threat to the Union. While the ongoing financial turmoil in the eurozone has drawn attention mainly to the public debt sustainability, hampering the development of growth-enhancing structural reforms, the EU has been losing market shares on a global level, undermining long-term development prospects. Despite European leaders’ efforts to redefine the settings and rules, EU politics continue to be dominated by short-term considerations and national interests.

Thus, what we really need to be more competitive globally is the creation of a European industry: a strong, diversified and competitive industrial sector. It would be a source of growth and jobs, and a driver of innovation. Industry’s competitiveness and productivity should return to centre stage in EU policies.

We have to adopt a harmonized labour law, to define a common wage policy primarily based on workers’ productivity and to modernize the dialogue between the education sector and industries. We need to refocus funding from the new EU Multiannual Financial Framework 2014-2020 on growth, minimize regulatory burdens for enterprises and avoid big differences in terms of costs and access to the factors of production within the single market.

We must envisage the settlement of a de minimis common tax policy strategy and encourage private capital investments, ensuring that the European Central Bank and other European banks’ financing goes to the real economy.

And, since unemployment disproportionally affects the younger generation and erodes their autonomy, dignity, future working and social expectations, we have to rethink the role of young people as leading figures of a developing Europe and as crucial actors of strategies to overcome the crisis. Young people could be the principal agents during the change process. They have energy, passion, ideas, self-confidence, knowledge, and a global vision, which are the main values to create employment, to unleash the full potential of the European single market and consequently to promote growth in Europe.

In other words, the delays we have been recording in the past decades can be filled only if we replace the incremental reforms with a bigger jump, boosting the concept of integration. If we want to avoid conflict and crisis, from an economic and financial point of view, we need a radical shift in perspective: we need to build the United States of Europe. Starting now.

Author: Jacopo Morelli is National President of  the Confederation of Italian Industries – Young Entrepreneurs in Rome, Italy.

ts.

LAS MALVINAS(EX-FALKLANDS), THE ARGENTINIAN GENOCIDE, AND THE UNITED STATES OF EUROPE BY ANTONIO CASTILLO AND NICK ALEXANDROPOULOS.

Las Malvinas or Falkland Islands: British or Argentinean?  by Antonio castillo

The first buildings in Las Malvinas – or the Falklands as the British call the islands in the South Atlantic – were houses made of stone and were built by Argentinean hands.

It was in 1831 when forty men – led by Luis Vernet, the first Argentinean commander in Las Malvinas – settled here. Along with him came his wife, María who gave birth a girl who was christened Malvinas. The Argentinean settlement in this merciless land didn’t last long though.

In 1833 the British colonial power invaded Las Mavinas, and what happen afterwards is now called “ethnic cleansing” – hundreds of English settlers were artificially introduced while all Argentineans were expelled.

The British invasion and the thorny question of who owns Las Malvinas – has been reignited with unprecedented fervour on April 2, the date marking the 30th anniversary of the Argentinean and British war, in 1982. The tension between Buenos Aires and London has escalated.

The war of 1982 was a folly led by the madness of the then Argentinean dictator General Leopoldo Galtieri, who couldn’t find anything better to do than recover the islands by force. The conflict, which lasted 74 days, caused the death of 649 Argentinean soldiers, 255 British and three civilians. His military jaunt – more of an attempt to divert attention from his crumbling dictatorship than anything – had nothing to do with the genuine aspiration of Argentina to recover Las Malvinas.

The current push by Argentina to recover Las Malvinas, encapsulated by the energetic diplomatic offensive of the Argentinean president Cristina Kirchner, is today not only genuine but also legitimate. President Kirchner has described the recovery of Las Malvinas as a “struggle against colonisation”.

Kirchner has transformed the recovery of Las Malvinas into a central piece of her renewed political mandate; she was re-elected recently with an overwhelming majority. And – in contrast to the military adventurism of 1982 – President Kirchner’s renewed claim for La Malvinas is not a political “gambit”, as the British media and commentators have tried to discredit it.

President Kirchner is articulating a genuine national aspiration and she is playing by the rules. Her foreign minister Héctor Timerman has been tireless running up and down the corridors of the UN trying to get the British government to sit down and discuss a peaceful solution to the conflict. He has sought mediation at all levels of the UN, General Secretary, General Assembly and the Security Council. All of them have pledged to help.

But London has plainly ignored the diplomatic efforts made by Buenos Aires and has stated that it will not negotiate over the sovereignty unless the inhabitants of the islands wish to do so.

Similarly, the UK has never acknowledged the United Nations 1514 resolution – the Declaration over the Independence of Countries and Colonial People – that establishes that any attempt to break the national unity and territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the principles and purposes of the UN.

The uncooperative approach taken by London has been further worsened by the UN British ambassador Mark Lyall Grant “warning” Argentina that any attempt to use the April 2 anniversary to launch a “military adventure” would be confronted by a “robust defence.” As if the Argentinean government was planning to do so.

Lyall Grant’s unhelpful statement is a reflection of the aggressive approach taken by London, one that has been accompanied by the British government’s hasty militarisation of Las Malvinas and the Southern Atlantic.

In the last few months this remote part of the world has witnessed the arrival of several Typhoon II – the latest generation of warplanes (they have been used in Afghanistan, Libya and Iraq); HMS Dauntless – the most advanced war ship of the British navy; and HMS Vanguard – a nuclear submarine. This in contravention of the 1967 Treaty of Tlalelolco that banned nuclear arms in Latin America, the Pacific and Caribbean region.

“Great Britain has transformed Las Malvinas Island into a key military base for the control of the South Atlantic, the inter-oceanic access and projection into the Antarctica securing the exploitation of the natural resources of the South Atlantic that belongs to the Argentinean people,” an Argentinean Ministry of Foreign Affairs communiqué said.

Buenos Aires has no doubt that the militarisation of the zone – a bit disproportionate by all accounts – has nothing to do with the defence of the 2,500 British citizens living in Las Malvinas. But it has everything to do with the control of the vast natural resources in the area.

The British government announced an ambitious plan to drill in the area that seems to contain, according to some experts, the equivalent of 60 million barrels of crude oil.

The British action is in contravention of the United Nations ban on unilateral development and exploitation of territories still under dispute. On this, one has to concur with Argentina’s foreign affairs minister Héctor Timerman that the British government is acting “above the judicial international order.”

The militarisation of the South Atlantic and certainly the British colonial presence in the region has not gone down well in Latin America. After all, this is a region that has suffered to this day the damaging effects of imperialism and colonisation; first under Spanish colonial rule and then under US imperialism.

No wonder Las Malvinas’ sovereignty is no longer an Argentinean aspiration only. It has become a Latin American claim. The largest majority of Latin American countries have acted in block to support Argentina’s legitimate claim, including Chile – a traditionally pro-English country that under the military dictatorship of General Pinochet provided logistic support to the British in the war of 1982. Last December several Latin American countries announced they would block any ships navigating under the “Falklands” flag.

In addition several Latin American leaders have expressed their support for Argentina’s claim. Ecuadorean president Rafael Correa wrote on Twitter an impassionate message: “Las Malvinas is a Latin American cause, dear Argentina not one step back!”

In the light of this overwhelming domestic and regional support, it is very unlikely that President Cristina Kirchner will take a step back. On the contrary, she will strengthen her position around a legitimate post-colonial ideal sharply expressed by Cuba’s leader Fidel Castro – “the English have nothing to do here, they have to negotiate and leave.”            LAS MALVINAS ,  NOTHING  ELSE, IN THE UNITED STATES OF EUROPE BY  NICK  ALEXANDROPOULOS  :“ Britain,s  stance over  las Malvinas  was  “colonialist, ludicrous and archaic”, calling the Duke  of  cambridge’s  deployment to the disputed islands  “unthinkable”“.SEAN  PEN,  hollywood star                                                                “My view  is that  certainly it saved Margaret  Thatcher’s  political  career at the time at the cost  of a  great  many  Argentine  and  British  lives,  which  disgusted me  then  and  still does now.“          ROGER  WALTERS,   pink floyd                                                     The  United  states  of Europe will   never recognize the british   colonialism   and atrocities.Falklands  should  be known  as the malvinas  and belong  to Argentina,everyone  knows it.The british imperialism is gone forever.After so many years of occupation,britain must give ,malvinas back to the real owner.The colonizers  cannot use numbers to legalize  their hold on lands  they  had stolen  from the natives    who were original  owners of the  lands.The  Falklands  goverment  is holding  a referendum  to show  the international   community,  what?     What is the  reason  of the referendum on  las malvinas?             British will vote, against britain? Well, i do not think so, and where is the logic?                       British  colonists  occupied the islands  by force in 1833, expelled  most  of the Argentinean-inhabitans. Unfortunately, the rest of the poor inhabitants, were killed by british military forces-genocide- without mercy  for the simple reason, they didn’t speak english.                 Mass   murders, another british atrocity took place for the total extermination of the poor inhabitants.   I am very surprised that historians, did not emphasize the genocide of Argentinians by british military forces, in las  malvinas.I,also, think there is a comparison to settlers in the West Bank which  is an occupied land.                                                      There are  two reasons,  Britain  wants to keep the islands : A) Numerous oil deposits  have been found around  las  Malvinas.  B) In the 21st century,  Britain  continues to decline    to the status of  a middling, non-european, regional country.The little island,now, is in a lot of pain:The manufacturing sector is,almost,gone, the country doesn’t produce anything, high unemployment,day by day the average british citizen is getting poorer and poorer.The  UK  general goverment  debt, is now, more than $2 Trillion. The capitalism  system is not working for  England. The European union is moving towards a federation and britain must exit the  euro-train.Perhaps,they think, the continuation of occupancy,will contribute to the continuation of the UK’s prestige as a “mini” power. If that’s the case,then, i feel sorry for  the ignorance, stupidity and the political and social depression.Why the little island called Britain,continuously ,occupy las malvinas, in legal terms?Because, the little island has powerful friends:The United states of America, The  United   Nations , even,   the European Union(The leaders, not the citizens) .                                                                              From now on,no more ” falklands” in this site and hopefully in the web, just , las malvinas.Is that  clear enough  for you, average british citizen?                                              The situation in the little island of Britain is worsening.Neo- nazi party of England(UKIP ), is on the rise   and  Nigel farage ,is,the  new stalinist dictator.Perhaps, the island  will  turn  to   a violent bloody dictatorship. Even ,  US President  Barack  Obama, refers to  the falklands as the Malvinas, however,under these circumstances ,Britain, never will leave    las malvinas.  As we proceed to the final step of the European integration- the creation of the Federal Europe-  a new foreign policy  , must   be, against  the  neo- colonization  and  the  United States of Europe Military, must liberate las Malvinas and to give back to Argentina with  Use of military force .Then must neutralize and demilitarize  Britain .Cuba, a little island next to the coast of the United States of America, does not have  nuclear warheads. The  United states of Europe, must transform England to   a neutral and safe  little island.                                                                                                                                          Macau  belongs  to china,cyprus belongs to greece,Northern  ireland   belongs to              Ireland,definately  Las Malvinas   belong to  Argentina, and we(Europeans)- not you, average British citizen-  belong, to the Greatest   superpower  in the history of  humankind, the EMPIRE OF THE UNITED STATES OF EUROPE.

NIGEL FARAGE, THE SICK MAN AND THE UKIP(The fascist party of Britain), IN THE DOORSTEP OF THE UNITED STATES OF EUROPE BY NICK ALEXANDROPOULOS

Nigel  farage  is a British  politician  and  leader  of the   UK Independence  party(UKIP)   since  2010,  a  member  of  the European  Parliament  for  South  East  England    and co-chairs  the  Eurosceptic  Europe  of Freedom  and Democracy  group.  WIKIPEDIA,the free  encyclopedia                                       Some  UKIP  members  are ‘hooligans’  and “bar fighters”, and ” are  against everything  in  the  European  Union, apart   from  the money  and  the allowances  they get themselves”,claims  ECR-Vice president.                                 Justin stares,PUBLIC SERVICE EUROPE  .                                                                           The UKIP(UK Independence  party)   is a right -wing  Eurosceptic political party(or organization, if you like)   in the  United   Kingdom.                                    Euroscepticism, is the body  of criticism   of the  European  Union and  opposition  to the  process  of  political integration   existing   throughout  the political spectrum. Nigel  Farage  has been a  UKIP   MEP  since 1999   and  is  founding  member   of the party, so, his  “career”  was built  in the  opposition  of the integration  of the European  Union. Instead  of  constructive  policies  and  actions  for the benefit  of Britain(and  the European continent),  an  opposite   path   took   place , just  for   Mr farage’s      financial  and  ‘political’  career.                                                                                                                                                  UKIP   refuses  to  oppose  EU  funding    for  far-right  parties. According   to Nigel  Farage,  UKIP   are a    libertarian   party   which  believes  in  freedom  and  democracy.If  that  is  correct,  then, why is  not  associated   with  the  folllowing  words :equality-human rights- freedom-   non  descrimination- human diguity- democracy e.t.c  ?   .In the reality   UKIP  are  a far right   nazi-type  party.                                                                                                                 “UKIP    has  always  denied  any  alliance    with the extreme   right  but here  we have  the evidence .Godfrey  MEP  has set up  a transnational party   with the French National front, Austrian  Freedom   party  and  Flemish  interest.”     My  personal opion is   the UKIP   party is very similar   to  Golden  Dawn- neo -nazi party- of Greece  and  not   a coalition  of   thatcherite   libertians   and   swivel-eyed   little  englanders. It  is  a  protest  party , against  immigrants,  political  parties  , gay  marriage ,  democracy. UKIP’S(‘Political  views’) fascism   characteristics  are :Nationalism,  EU- the enemy  of our  country, muslim  terrorism, UK   citizens  being treated  as second  class citizens,  lost of  british identity, Euro-  fears,  throw  the immigrants out,  dictators of brussels,  decision -making  far away  from home(London), who are you? i never heard of you,     e.t.c.                                                                            Why  UKIP is on the rise?  Some of the reasons include:High  unemployment , inflation, huge national    deficit, cost of living is getting  higher  compared to   family income, UK  economy  weaker then ever, poverty  and nationalism  is on the rise, the  economic crisis  has turned  people  against traditional parties,  Euroscepticism   from the mass media  has  created  a Euro- fear.        Is  UKIP    party,here, to  stay or as   many  analysts  afraid , will  collect  a very strong  following   in the  next  years?                                                                            After  David Camerons’  proposal  for  the  EU- referendum,  mr farage has  to  convince ordinary UK citizens  that  UKIP  is  not a single- issue  party and that’s why  is  trying  to reach  out to:  old  labour supporters,   part of conservatives ,   anti-immigration groups  ,  left- wing parties,  liberals, far-right  parties, nazis,   poor-angry-uneducated   citizens  without  political  ID .Perhaps  in the next elections , some conservatives will  vote for  UKIP , but ,this  is,  just, a   temporary  phenomenon, we have experienced  the same, here in greece. It is  simple   for a political party to  critize  and protest in everything,but, is ,also, hard  to address a  political direction,  a program of governance, solutions  about various  political issues, foreign policy, a completed EU plan.The UKIP  ,simple, doesn’t have that  and is not considered as  a political party. I would say, it could turn  to a violent and  terrorist organization under the  right circumstances. However, is not  going to last, because ,England  is well known country for  wars against  fascism,  ,land of freedom and democracy.                                                                                             “Leaving the EU  doesn’t solve  all our problems , it will just give us  back  the ability  to solve them”.  NIGEL FARAGE                                                                                Well, it is  obvious , he is questioning  the  democratic legitimacy  of the EU and, really, wants its  disintegration.According to Guardian , he is  charismatic , funny,  indefatigably good nature, and essentially  cheerful.         His economic  views include:Rediscovering  Britain’s links   with commonwealth, being an independent ,global  country,  engaging  in free and fair trade with non-european countries.The idea of  Britain  leaving the EU now is  widespread   across  europe and  UKIP  party , played a significant role,but, the situation will be very complicated.                                                              The current financial crisis  has  created  a unique and  complex situation. The eurozone  needs to  integrate much more  if it is to survive.At the same time, Britain doesn’t really want to turn  away from Europe, but, an “ever closer union” is out of question.   A UK departure  from the EU block ,  automatically means severe   doubts   of the multinational  companies  and  international   investores in the UK   region.That means the key point, will   be   the  “special” new economic relationship  with  EU. Britain   must secure    a free trade agreement ,because  EU-block is the  largest economic block  in the  world.                                                                                                                                           What about Mr  farage?                                                                                                                 Nigel farage is not a politician(traditional or modern times). He  is ,basically, an  entertainer,   a comedian  or a clown if you wish. Some times make some good points, accidentally, but  his theories, ideas, political  and economical  understanding are outrageous,  very simplistic,  not according to his age, just, as a little child. His ideas  are rediculus  and nonsense, perhaps, he is  not smart enough to  understand (despite the   2M gains)  the very basic economics. His   enemies     call    him     arrogant,  totally   incompetent, liar, dishonest, corrupt and  stupid.He states the facts  and points  but  with his own reading. Then he suggests the unthikable, obvious and  ideal solutions, but   without   application.That  is unique  and funny   and a great   political entertainment.I  dont agree  with other europeans, as a  dangerous   and  hostile  political figure.  My point is: He  took the british   political scene   and he put it , in a theatrical stage,  in a show  which is a comedy,  playing in any  theater near you, average  British citizen.   I  can’t imagine  a normal-educated person to  take Farage  , seriously.I   would  say ,that, he probably, could be an actor  or comedian  or   TV  host,  producer, director, even a good clown in the circus.                                                                                                                        Mister  farage, you are not  a politician  and     under any  circumstances,   you do not  have to fight  for your country’s  “liberty”. David    Cameron  will  give freedom  back to England, so, don’t worry, the  national(british)  sovereignty is coming back.Your  little  island  is been there(EU)    by  mistake,  but,   its about time to change. The majority  of  europeans (not the political leaders and officials),   don’t even think Britain is Europe and  will be very  pleased to see the  exit(BREXIT),   so,  your little  neo-nazi  organization(UKIP),  has no longer   reasons to exist,  and – you  sir- YOU NEED to get a job( a real job),   otherwise,  you   will  always   be the  sick man of    the  European continent, but  of course,  you  will never have any relation  to the glory  of   THE UNITED   STATES OF EUROPE. NICK ALEXANDROPOULOS

                                               

DAVID CAMERON, A LITTLE ISLAND CALLED BRITAIN , AND THE REFERENDUM FOR THE UNITED STATES OF EUROPE BY NICK ALEXANDROPOULOS

“Germany  wants an  ambitius reform  of the economic  and monetary  union  in such   decisive issues as  the future  of our  common  currency.We  do not need  less, but  more integration.”GUIDO WESTERWELLE, german FM.  “What cameron  has to understand  is that  you can’t  put the brakes  on the  (Euro-train).”JOSE MANUEL GARCIA-MARGALLO,  spanish FM.                             In his long -awaited  speech, prime minister of Britain pledged  to hold a referendum during the early part of the next parliament-by the end of 2017- if the conservatives win  the general election.If you read  my  last article(Mr david cameron, tear down this wall), i  have, predicted, most of  his speech(even  the little  blackmail ), however, is fair to say , he  shocked  europe, insisting for the upcoming referendum.                                                              What’s  that supposed to mean  to the ordinary  citizens of Britain? Is this a mathematical   equation? If  Mr  cameron  is not  re-elected ,won’t   hold  a referendum?. Is he trying to associate   the two  words  :CAMERON=REFERENDUM?                                                                                                      It is true , Prime Minister  cameron, is  created  a timebomb with the referendum  and there are so many explanations   for his decision. Some of them include:  His coalition  failed(in critical issues), doesn’t understand  simple economics, is playing old fashion politics,he hasn’t  eared respect, Ego-man, he would stay  until 2020,he  is trying to  buy   the   UKIP(The anti-EU UK   independence party)  votes(running scared  of UKIP), and  of course has been accused  by all the european leaders.  As far as the modification   of treaties concerned , Mr cameron will get 27  different countries  to co-sign  for changing   Eu-treaties?   The speech  won’t change  the voters attitude ,i think  his supporters will go  for the UKIP party  and i’ m sure is  taking  gamble with  economy on EU-opposition.  European union  will not negotiate  and provide  a new treaty  that suits Britain’s needs.Mr cameron  and all the political parties  know, a “new”  relationship  is impossible to achieve.It is not, also, clear  what powers he would like to see  the UK  take back  as part as a new settlement.                                                                  Mr David Cameron , in his  (LIFETIME) speech, did  the right thing and  we should give him some credit. His proposal(referendum), no matter if you agree or not,is  the  application of   democracy, in the  UK  political    system.   He is the only Prime Minister , after many years in the union , to allow british to have their say.He, just, put the UK future(in ihe european  union)  not upon the  politicians , but, direct to the hands of  UK  citizens.                         The  clock is ticking for more european integration and  i do not agree, Prime Minister  lives  in his “ideological dream’ world.                                                              The referendum  is not about  suitable   re-negotiation, new treaties ,new shift  of powers back to London, e.t.c. The  referendum  will be the  direct vote  of  the UK  citizens  to  accept  or  reject  the   proposal of   the    UNITED  STATES OF EUROPE.   Laurent   fabious, the french foreign minister said:”If  britain    wants to  leave europe ,  we will roll out  the red carpet for you”, I say:Mr David Cameron,just  tell the whole true(you said something few hours ago in Davos:The club we belong to is changing. we can’t ignore this.change is underway), to british citizens. They voted,long time ago, to join the E.E.C(european economic community), not the  coming Federal   Europe(United states of Europe).                                                                                            Why   Mr Cameron  keep saying  his wish   to keep  UK  in the European Union? Because , he understands  the future Federal Europe  formation,  but is not sure(“just in case”), yet. To my opinion, even, an earlier  referendum  with a “yes” vote for the UK to leave the Union ,won’t have significant  implications to us.                                                                                                                          What  about   the little island ,called Britain?                                                                   “England  is   just a small  island .Its  roads and houses are small . With few  exceptions , it doesn’t  make things  that people , in the rest of the world  want to buy. And if  it hadn’t  been separated  from the  continent  by water , it  almost certainly  would  have  been lost to Hitler’s   ambitions.”MITT ROMNEY.  I would  add  to that,  is  no  longer   a world power , is  just a middle -ranking country ,  not even a power in EU,    no longer has a large economy(similar to Germany or French), a rapidly   shrinking   military    and diplomatic  influence .                                                                                                                  European    Union   approaching  the final destination, a half  way Federal Europe  first  and then  the United states  of Europe.  UK , really  , is  in trouble , will fight  to make sure  new rules  are fair to  out of eurozone  members ,but,  the question is : How britain, will deal  with the United states of Europe?Britain  has  to stand up   its feet  as an individual and  sovereign country.Must try to get  the  best deal in a   new  free  trade agreement  and focused  in  job  creation,  promoting  growth   and  making a strong  and   competitive   international economy.UK ,also, will lose global role as a member of the EU powerhouse, but,is not important.                                                    I do not know , at  this point,  if a Federal  Europe  will agreee,  but a good economy  of  a  foreigner   country  in  the doorstep   of   Europe, will  be essential.                                                                                                                                             Mr  David Cameron,  after   many  years  in the  Euro-jail ,the time has come   for the british people  to get back their country. Let them repatriate  british sovereignty.  United  Kingdom can’t function in the european Union project(Do you imagine in the United states of Europe?).Taking   Britain  out of the  European Union  should be  a positive outcome   for both  European Citizens and British.                                                                                                                      It is time for Britain   to break free, and  now , time  has    come for the rise  of the new world country,      our  european   country,  our  european  family,   THE EMPIRE  OF  THE UNITED  STATES OF EUROPE.                          NICK  ALEXANDROPOULOS                                                                                       

Mr DAVID CAMERON, TEAR DOWN THIS WALL, BY NICK ALEXANDROPOULOS

David  william  Donald  Cameron, is the  Prime Minister  of the United Kingdom, First Lord of the  treasury, Minister   for  the civil  service  and Leader  of the conservative  party.                                                                                                                                WIKIPEDIA, the  free encyclopedia                                                   Cameron’s plan to renagotiate  with European Union  is ” incredibly dangerous” and threatens  to lead  the country out  of the European family, Labour party warns on high tones. “I think  what makes  David  Cameron is  dangerous .I believe  it goes  like a sleep  walker  toward the door of exit  from the European Union “. It is not  in the national interest ,said  the leader  of the opposition  Labour ,  Ed Miliband on BBC. He ,also, said: Cameron’s plan  means  that  we will have a  referendun  on a deal,  which has not  started  with an unknown  outcome, so, it ‘s an incredible bet.                                                  “It is  in  the  national interest the country(Britain), to  remain in the European Union(E.U),  but  with a different  relationship. “                                                                                  David Cameron-British prime minister                                       What is happening in the kingdom? The political scene, seems to be complicated, confused  and  not making enough sense or is, just,plain politics?                                                                                                                                               The fact is ,Mr Cameron, in the past has stated  he wants Britain  to stay  within  the European Union ,but  insists   that a redefinition  of its  relationship   with  the Union   is essential.                                                                        The core of Eurosceptic   Tories  press cameron to go further and make  a commitment   to  a refererendum   on the question   of staying or not Britain in the EU , the so-called  vote  “in or out”.At the same time, the  Anti-European  UK  Independence Party  is rising  steadily  in voting  intentions ahead of tories, the latest poll shows.Meanwhile, European Union is on severe ongoining  financial crisis, and correctly  Martin   Schulz(President  of the  European Union parliament) ,said:”We must not make a mistake, we are already  in crisis with Britain.                                                  Mr Cameron  on Monday -in his long  awaited – speech-will say , the  Eurozone  crisis  has caused  declining public support  in Britain  , a growing frustruation     and  he wants  a “new’ relationship  with the European  Union, downplaying  the  importance of  conducting  a referendum  seeking to retain  or not  the country in the European Union. He will ask for a  “new start”,  unbundling  of the country  by the measures   relating to  Police   and Justice  and the proposition  of “repatriation” in terms of social  legislation.Simply, less powers to Brussels, less Europe.                                                                                      At this point, i would  recommend   to read  my   previous  article(UK  does not  belong to the United States of Europe)  and you will see the connection   with Mr Cameron’s’ political actions(I would call it, a healthy reaction).            The United States of America ,would appreciate  the  UK  as part of a strong  European  Union, president  Barack Obama, has told to the media. This is  a direct  involvement  in the   European politics, but, why now?Because Mr cameron on monday will play a  little hardball  -a touch of blackmail(he, already mentioned, UK won’t collapse out of the  European Union)-but in the end he will agree to stay  in the Union  and  to   find a “special “‘ relationship(even ,United states of America “wants”  him to stay  within).However,  Mr Cameron won’t say anything ,about the real  causes of the   shift in   UK  politics.                                                                                                          The  Eurozone  is  facing  the inevitable  consequences  of the financial crisis  and is heading  towards  a fiscal and banking  union.All the political parties in UK  are  witnessing the desire  of the Eurozone member states  for a  deeper  integration,a pre- step  before the creation of the Federal Europe.        That is the explanation of the UK politics, the protection of  British  sovereingnty , the view of  not-ever  closer Union.                                                            The full integration of the Eurozone members  will require the full exit(BREXIT)  of the UK,and that means  the “new “  relationship will have a form of a free trade aggrement.They want a  special and priviliged relationship with  the EU ,but, i do  not   know  if  is acceptable.   There are,alredy, voices   against it.  Perhaps, the future federal  Europe should treat  britain   the same way as  any other foreigner country.                                      The eurozone crisis  changes  everything.Now, we  know  the  real europeans(eurozone members) and the  others(The “financial partners”).      United   Kingdom   didn’t ,really, worry  about the EU future. I think ,always, the concern was about the Union’s   direction and ,now, time  has come and  UK   reacts  accordingly. Even the labour party that wants  Britain to stay in the Union(as a small player),  is not in favor of a Federal Europe.    UK  is no longer  exist as  world power ,the overall   global  influence   is limited  and  leaving the Union  won’t weaken the  European idea ,instead  will  strengthen   the Union  in the global arena.                                                              Now is the right time for Britain to take  the big step in the right direction(EXIT).The majority of UK citizens are not europeans, don’t feel europeans , don’t act  as europeans and  are in favor  of living  the EU, so, what is the reason to stay?  I understand ,Britain ,is  very careful , because the economy is still recovering   from the worst economic crisis  and  doesn’t  need a period   of  uncertainly,but, unfortunately , the time has come.                  Mr Cameron, your non-European  country  has nothing to do with the United States of Europe,so, it is time to open the gate.  I hope  on monday the British Prime  Minister  won’t  bluff,  playing politics . Mr  David Cameron ,you are  surrounded  by the European Union  wall .No matter what , always,  in front of you, will be a solid wall.                                                                                                   MR  DAVID  CAMERON, TEAR  DOWN THE UNITED STATES OF EUROPE WALL,  and  free the British citizens   from the  Euro-chains.                                 The UK  exit will be a relief  for both    United States of Europe and Britain.        In case UK insists to stay, a pan-european referendum ,has to take place in      order  to force the exit. Mr Cameron, you are an elected president(not like the  unelected   brussels bureaucrats ) as many times you mentioned and lead  Britain  to its final destination:A  little island,  poor, isolated  with underdeveloped  areas, proud citizens  they live in the  ruins of a  never-come back Empire , off   the   coast of    the  greatest  superpower    of our time ,THE UNITED   STATES OF EUROPE.        NICK ALEXANDROPOULOS                                                                                      

LESSONS FROM HISTORY-2

“Europe   thus  divided  into  nationalities  freely formed  and  free  internally, peace  between  states would   have  become  easier:The  united states of europe   will become a possibility”        Napoleon Bonaparte,st Helena                   “The  ocean  is rough and whirling , and  the currents  go to  two possible  endings:  the autocrat, or  the United states of Europe.”                                                                                        Carlo  cattaneo,  Italian philosopher                                            “In order to  achieve  the triumph   of liberty ,  justice and  peace in the international  relations in europe and  to render  civil war impossible  among the  various    peoples  which make  up the european  family, only a single  course lies open:to constitute the united states of Europe.                                                                                        Mikhail   Bakunin, anarchist                                                        “We  must build a Kind  of    United   states  of Europe.  In this  way only will  hundreds  of millions  of toilers  be able to regain  the  simple  joys  and hopes  which make life worth living”.    Winston Churchil, 1946                                              ” A day  will come when  all nations  on our continent   will form  a  European    brotherhood…. A  day   will come   when  shall  see…. the United  states  of  America  and the United    states  of     Europe  face to face,    reaching    out  for each other   acrosss the seas “.                                                                                        Victor    Hugo,   Paris,  1849