|
Archived Articles
Simeon Mitropolitski is a Canadian analyst, of Bulgarian origin, and a former syndicated columnist with the Bulgarian News Agency (BTA). He is the author of several hundred articles dealing with hot political and economic topics, both national and international.
He was part of the first group of Bulgarian intellectuals and students that began the opposition movement that finally put an end to the communist regime in this country in 1989, and in 1996-1997 participated in international observation teams during the elections in several Balkan countries - Romania, Albania and Bulgaria.
In 2002 Simeon and his family moved from Bulgaria to Canada where they live now in Montreal, province of Quebec. Simeon is a Master of Political Science from McGill University and a B.A. of Political Science and History.
Global Real Estate Project
|
 |
Europe: New iron curtainNow, it's official. The European Union (EU) won't help its new post-communist members with direct money grants in order to bailout the financial crisis. Instead, these countries would have to ask for help the international financial institutions to which the EU would provide some additional funds. The difference may seem very little, almost insignificant, but in fact it shows fundamental shift in the minds of the West-European governments. The solidarity as a code word is moved out; the responsibility is what they are expecting now from their new club members. It was a common sense truth that the financial crisis in Europe will hit mostly those economies that are more dependant on their financial sectors than on the "real" economy. This means, in fact, that countries like Hungary and Estonia will suffer more than Austria, and that Britain will suffer more than Sweden. And this is precisely what did happen in the recent months. More dynamic and opened and dependant on financial flows economies were hit more because the sudden outflow of these same financial flows made bigger difference. What wasn't expected was the answer that the European Union gave to bailout the countries that suffered most. Within the Western Europe, the countries within or outside the Eurozone cooperated through their central banks to minimize the consequences of the crisis. When some governments from the region (Spain, Ireland) tried to act independently, they were usually called not to break the common policy with amateurish responses. The picture in the East looks very different. It was the regional governments that asked the Union for coordinated answer and common policy. It was the Union that finally decided not to provide any direct help. Instead, Brussels will provide some additional funds to the international financial institutions such as IMF to help its new members. So, instead of close to 200 billion, credits and grants, the help will measure tens of billions in credits only. And only if some conditions are respected. The difference isn't only that money will go as credits and not as grants. It's also a common sense truth that some IMF credits are never returned. And also a common sense that the EU doesn't provide grants only. The major shift is in the philosophy of the Union. The new members aren't considered as truly European, not in the sense as Spain and Ireland are. The governments in the East aren't to be trusted to manage the European money directly. The IMF, an organization that treats the governments as potential cheaters, looks much more adapted, in the eyes of Brussels, to do the dirty job. Left alone, more precisely under IMF supervision, the new EU members will suffer more from the current crisis, a crisis, that we should always remember, didn't start and wasn't caused in any size, shape and form by these countries. The EU policy returns the entire region to the "dark" ages of international financial dictate of the 1990s, a time that most regional governments saw wrongfully as completely gone.
--------------------
See also the directory of companies providing real estate services in, and general real estate information of Europe.
|
See also:
