«Me first», the new motto of the EU

Five years of economic crisis put in questions the old single ideals behind the EU architecture

"Hollande, save your citizens before saving the Greeks"

by Emanuele Bonini

Europe in a picture. French farmers asking to be helped before other peoples is perhaps the best representation of a change of mind which should be seen with concern. The common ideals of solidarity, union of peoples, single market are over. Or, in case they are not over yet, they are at stake. The economic crisis is hitting hardly everywhere, and every single government has to deal with a recovery which is mild and very slow. National interests are today the first priority in each national public opinion. Lithuanians first, Hungarians first, French first. Once the member States of the EU had in common the single project, today, on the contrary, they share single national priorities. Watching French people asking the French president to think about France before Greece can be understood, of course, but must bring to ask what about the common values. Officials in Brussels said recently the main problem is that Member States don't take into account the EU recommendations any longer. It happened with migration, it happened with Greece. Basically the so-called "central power" has lost power, with Member States who are acting in isolated manner. «United in diversity», the traditional motto of the European Union, today has been changed in «Me first». The main EU institution - the European Commission - is not considered any longer, and it has been replaced by a little group of States leading the political agenda. A very dangerous manner, since a confederation of State - what the EU is today - can work only if all the different States are united and have a common will. So, or the European Union turns the page and gets a federal organization through a huge political process or the confederation risks to collapse.

FACT SHEET / Turkish Stream & Turkish politics

(click to enlarge)

(click to enlarge)

Putin to make Greece his gas supplier for Europe

Entering the EU from the Hellenic country, where already runs the TAP pipiline, Turkish Stream would make Athens a strategic player. Syriza leader is thinking about

(click to enlarge)

My article for eunews.it

Greece out of the single energy strategies? Everything is possible. Nobody knows what may mean an eventual Grexit, so nothing can be ruled out. Not even an energy rapprochement of Athens to Moscow - however in place - with a change in geopolitical balance. In eastern Europe the race for gas has been started since at least a decade, and this race involves several actors: energy companies, consortia, governments, associations of states (the EU). Economic interests, political games and changes in balances have turned and are continually turning the cards on the table, and pushing Greece out of the EU may open new scenarios. Starting from the end, the 1st of December, 2014, Russia and Turkey launched the Turkish Stream pipeline project in response to the EU blocks against South Stream, the pipeline controlled by Gazprom which was supposed to provide gas in Europe via Bulgaria. Given the diplomatic crisis between the EU and Russia due to the Ukrainian issue, what would happen if Moscow decided - as is doing - to realize Turkish Stream and hijack all gas currently flowing in Ukraine?

Prime minister of Greece Alexis Tsipras is seeking answers. On April Panagiotis Lafazanis, Energy Minister and man of Summit Syriza, was in Moscow to discuss energy questions and Turkish Stream. Tsipras himself met with Vladimir Putin, and actually is working in an international consortium in order to participate to the project. Greece, Serbia, the former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia and Hungary are negotiating Russia, also because of a missing European energy union. The president of the Russian federation, Vladimir Putin is offering Athens the chance to be the key player for gas supplies in Europe. «The new route respond to European needs, making Greece one of the main distribution centres in the continent», said Putin during his last bilateral meeting with Tsipras. Turkish Stream will enter the territory of the EU through Greece, making the country the strategic hub for the European Union considering that on Greek soil will also run the TAP pipeline, which is expected to supply Europe via Albania and Italy. Putin's intentions are not to bad Tsipras. On the contrary the Greek premier is seriously considering what Russia is offering. «Our pipeline will receive gas from the Turkish border, ensuring energy security for Greece and the European market», stated Tsipras. So, what would happen in case Greece left the European market?

EU turned to a European Disunion

No mutual trust, no constructive spirit and egoism. What prerogatives to move forward?

opinion

Disappointment, disaffection, disregard. A European Disunion is what we have today. The plenary debate in Strasbourg was maybe the perfect image of the EU today. People complaining, accusing, blaming, screaming. Political groups fighting one against the other, MEPs hailing the Euro crisis in name of national autonomy, Spanish openly accusing «the arrogance of the German Government and the financial totalitarianism of banks». There is unbreathable air in Europe, with the tone of dialogue - whether it is possible to define it as dialogue - extremely deteriorated and just focus on holding against the partners what has been done during the past. There is no trust, and there is no constructive spirit. Without these prerogatives building bridges is totally impossible, dreaming cohesion even unthinkable. One of key messages coming from the European Parliament has been offered by Glenis Wilmots, a British member, and this sounds ironic considering the United Kingdom is reconsidering its EU membership and will hold a referendum on that. «Please, put your ego aside» are words which resound as a last desperate call for Europe. Nationalism and individualism are the tiny red line where the European governments lie. Looking at Europe in perspective, the only perspective possible can only be a strongest union, since today Europe appears to be on pieces. Rather than a European Union it is a European Disunion.

Lamberts: «Greece needs a debt restructuring»

The co-chair of the European Greens parliamentary group blames Tsipras' referendum, but - he adds - creditors haven't been wise

Philippe Lamberts

by Emanuele Bonini

In any case a negotiating table is need, because «if there is no negotiation there will be a default». The co-chair of the Greens/EFA group in the European Parliament, Philippe Lamberts, has no doubts. Whatever can be the outcome of the referendum in Greece, the two sides will have to restart negotiations. It won't be easy because the prime minister of Greece, Alexis Tsipras, is trusted by no one, even though creditors have their responsibilities as well.
Mr Lamberts, should Alexis Tsipras resign in case the Greeks will vote YES?
«I think it would be logical. The only logical scenario would be to resign and convene new elections, working to develop a way to remain within the Euro zone».
With new elections, who would be entitled to negotiate? A technocratic government, as suggested by Martin Schulz?
«I think Greece has the right to hold a referendum, and I find unacceptable what he said».
Given the fact the president of the European Commission campaigned for YES, should Jean-Claude Juncker resign in case the Greeks will vote NO?
«This referendum is not a choice between Tsipras and Juncker. This referendum is a decision on the conditions set by creditors».
What can we expect with a NO? A Grexit?
«I think we can expect a renegotiation within the Euro zone. But we haven't to omit a factor: humiliation. The creditors wanted to humiliate Greece, and if the conditions remain unchanged, we cannot exclude that Greece can decide to leave the Euro».
Juncker and the president of the Eurogroup said in case of victory Tsipras' position will be no stronger. On the contrary, it would be weaker. Do you agree?
Yes. Calling a referendum made all more complicated. Of course in case of victory Tsipras will have to renegotiate the debt within the Euro zone, but a solution is possible only if there is political will. Creditors had the impression Tsipras never wanted to reach an agreement, and I think he will have problems even in case of a victory. Both a NO scenario and a YES scenario are critical. The question now is to choose the lesser evil. If I were a Greek, I wouldn't know what to do.
Can we imagine a third program without the IMF, as proposed by Tsipras by asking an ESM financial assistance?
There is no way out with the IMF. They are creditors now, and creditors should be wise. Generally creditors act in order to have the loans repaid, but this was not the case of Greece. The IMF said that a debt restructuring was needed. The Greek debt restructuring took place in 2012, but it was not enough and it arrived two years later than the need. Then we saw the IMF say "we need a debt restructuring at my conditions", while the other said "we don't need a debt restructuring but new conditions". If creditors had proposed a debt restructuring, Greece would have accepted.
Was the referendum a right decision?
The referendum made the situation worse, and we are where we are.

Alexis Tsipras, a right battle with a wrong strategy

The leader of Syriza is trying to change Europe in a moment where scepticism for the EU ideas is rising up, but a lot of people turned against him

Alexis Tsipras

by Emanuele Bonini

 Alexis Tsipras represents an opportunity. Some people would say he is an hope, perhaps the last hope of Europe, but we can affirm with no doubt the Greek prime minister is an opportunity. He run for a change, and he's coherently asking for a change. The task is challenging, and for such a reason the confrontation can't be soft. If it is true that the current European Commission «is the last chance» for the European ideal, as Jean-Claude Juncker said when he took office, it is also true that Tsipras is a fresh air for the old and conservative European Union. Time for change is now, or it will be never. The entire Europe is at stake, not only Greece. The concept has been continuously repeated over the last months, by the Greek side as by the creditors side. Despite the allegations, Tsipras is acting to reform the Union while the creditors are acting to preserve the actual structure. There are two different ideas of Europe facing each other: the one of preserving the "status quo" and the one of change the rules. Tsipras belongs to the second school of thought. The problem is Tsipras and his minister of Finance, Yanis Varoufakis, made the situation more complicated through a wrong communication strategy and because of political mistakes. Tsipras could win his battle, but now the general environment changed. Of course everything is still possible, but as usually happens when there is a crisis, responsibilities lie in both sides. Let's try to analyse the situation.

Greece wants the IMF out of the Eurozone

The Hellenic government asked a new ESM financial assistance program. According to the EU laws the International Monetary Fund can be involved only «where appropriate»

Chrstine Lagarde, the IMF director

by Emanuele Bonini

Greeks want the IMF out of the negotiating table and out of the Eurozone. This is the idea behind the latest proposal from Greece, as written by the prime minister of the Hellenic Republic, Alexis Tsipras, in a letter sent to the presidents of the European Commissions, ECB and IMF the 30th of June. Together with the measures Tsipras engaged to put in place, the Greek prime minister asked «an extension of the expiring EFSF program and the new ESM loan agreement». The request itself appears to be surprising, since an extension of the expiring program (now expired, and so no longer extensible) would mean to accept the conditions set by creditors. At the same time a new program can mean a financial assistance without the involvement of the IMF. According to the main legal texts of the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) when a Member State asks financial assistance it necessary table negotiations «between the Commission – acting on behalf of the ESM or the EFSF, in liaison with the European Central Bank (ECB) and, where appropriate, the IMF – and the beneficiary Member State on the possible policy conditions attached to that Member State's financial assistance». Basically treaty say that a direct involvement of the IMF is not automatic. On the contrary, the International Monetary Fund can participate only «where appropriate», which means "whether" appropriate. So, in case the other European Institutions don't consider appropriate to proceed with the IMF, the latter will be out of the game. The Greek latest proposal clearly wants to exclude the IMF from the restructuring of the Hellenic debt, but the problem is countries within the Eurozone don't agree. Especially Germany wouldn't like having a financial program without the IMF, and this represents one of the main challenges for Greece.