Catalan independence: What will Catalonia gain?

When I think about my favourite European cities, there is only one city which always comes out on top. Barcelona.

I love Barcelona, it's almost the perfect the city. You have the mountains, the sea. Beautiful architecture, an historic Medieval quarter, great bars and restaurants and a successful and glamorous football team. It has everything I want from a city.

I've naturally taken a great interest in the referendum vote and the declaration of Catalan independence by the President of Catalonia Carles Puigdemont. The question that dominates my thinking about the crisis is this: What does Catalonia expect to gain from independence?

Catalonia is the richest region in the Spain. I remember back in 2001 I spent two weeks in the city studying Spanish. One afternoon after my lessons had finished I got chatting to an English guy in a Tapas bar on Las Ramblas.

He lived in the Pyrenees and had come down to Barcelona for the day. He explained to me how Barcelona and the Basque country are the two richest regions in Spain. Many people emigrate from other parts of Spain to Barcelona.

Catalans he said had a reputation for being a bit 'stuck up' they think they're better than other people in Spain. Only a few weeks ago I read something similar from the Times journalist John Carlin. He argued that Catalans aren't snobby they're just reserved in comparison to other regions of Spain.

Unlike in this country, Spain is a more federalised and de-centralised state. Different regions have autonomous control which have been significant features of the country since the end of Franco's dictatorship in the 1970s. From an outsiders point of view Catalonia has vast regional powers which they now appear to have lost as a result of this referendum.

Catalonia seems very good at telling a story that they are an oppressed people. I studied Spanish history at university and I have a book about the history of Barcelona FC by Jimmy Burns which talks about the political oppression Catalans suffered during the civil war and under Franco's dictatorship. The question now is whether this history of oppression still rings true today.

Both the Madrid government under Mariano Rajoy and Carles Puigdemont must take equal responsibility for the crisis. Unlike the UK's Scottish referendum, Catalonia's was illegal and with a turnout of only 43%. 90% who voted may have voted for independence but with such a low turnout, I don't understand how Catalan separatists can claim they have a true mandate for independence.

However, the government and Mariano Rajoy's reaction was totally over the top. Why not just ignore the result and say it has no legality, rather than cracking down on independence demonstrators and thereby falling into the role of the centralised Spanish state bad guys. Surely that's what Catalan nationalists want?

The impression that Catalan nationalists give is that they are a nation being held back by the rest of Spain. They think of themselves as being more sophisticated and European than the rest of Spain. There's no doubt that the recession in recent years and issues over tax distribution have played a part in fuelling the separatist cause and the notion that Catalonia will flourish under independence.

What's needed is better dialogue between Madrid and Barcelona and agreements on the level of economic and political power that Catalonia should have.

This crisis has echoes of Brexit here in this country. It's a movement based very much on passion and emotion. Sadly for supporters of Catalan independence, I struggle to see what the economic and political benefits of independence will be for ordinary Catalans.

Article 50: One small victory

For those of us who voted Remain in the EU referendum we may have lost the war but there are still lots of smaller battles to be won.

Yesterday's Supreme Court decision on article 50 felt like a small victory for Remain voters. The decision means the government can't trigger Article 50 without approval from Parliament.

As expected critics have labelled the decision as some sort of attempt to thwart the will of the British people and Gina Miller the woman who started the legal fight to get Parliament to vote on the act has received some horrific abuse and threats.

Like many people who voted remain I accept we are leaving the EU, I don't feel I need to pretend that I like it but I've come to terms with it. What hasn't been decided is how we leave and the process and debate involved.

Brexit supporters love to go on about how the British people have decided to leave the EU but the way this narrative is presented you would think that over 75% of people voted to leave rather than the small majority of 52% who voted for Brexit.

There are still millions of people who did not want to leave the EU and it's right that their views and opinion on the type of Brexit we have are heard. This is the role Parliament should be taking and Parliament should play a role in representing all of the electorate and properly debating and scrutinising the terms and conditions by which we leave the EU.

In these anti-establishment, anti-politician times that we live in too many people seem to think a vote for Brexit is the beginning and end of the matter. The people have spoken and we need to get on with it!

Well it might upset quite a lot of leave voters but we do still live in a parliamentary democracy. The referendum was a simple in/out question. We voted out but the terms and conditions on how we leave are up for debate.

It's only right that Parliament are involved, I've had quite enough of 'direct democracy'. The reason we have MPs is precisely for such occasions, the effects of Brexit will be felt for decades to come and how we leave needs to be debated and assessed properly.

It looks as if we're heading for a 'Hard Brexit' something many people did not vote for. My hope is that before Article 50 is triggered we arrive at a deal that better reflects the views of the electorate. Of course I know this will be difficult. Brexit is arguably the most divisive issue I've experienced living in the UK.

With more than 6 months now gone since the referendum result, I'm quite happy to admit that my disappointment and anger has only increased. I would say it's now bordering on a loathing for what I feel Brexit represents.

There's no doubt in my mind that individually and as a nation we will be poorer but for some the bigger issue is controlling borders.

Immigration is a fact of life, the country needs some for immigration. The volume and type of immigration (particularly in certain parts of the country) is the real issue.

But for me it's not just the economic and financial impact of Brexit that I'm opposed to, there's the cultural issues that Brexit represents. It's a kind of arrogance where the UK feels it can turn its back on its nearest neighbours, unwilling to make concessions and accept rules of membership of a club. Instead we will go out into the world and believe we can have all these great trade deals with the rest of the world which will always be in our favour.

Brexiteers will hate my analysis but I simply don't care.

Finally, a moment of sanity

This week's ruling on Article 50 by the High Court seemed to be a moment of sanity that us Remain voters had been crying out for since the Brexit result.

The decision by the three senior judges means that the Prime Minister, Theresa May cannot trigger Article 50 without approval from parliament.

This would seem a perfectly sensible and reasonable thing to do, before we go ahead with such a crucial decision. We should at least have some idea of the kind of Brexit we're going to get as a country and it's only right that Parliament has a say on such a significant matter.

This however is not the thoughts of your Brexit fundamentalists and the right-wing press. This week's decision for them was a case of unelected, out of touch judges blocking the will of the British people.

The reaction of the Daily Mail and The Express was ridiculous as they descended into a collective melt down. Not only was it totally predictable but I couldn't help but quietly laugh to myself. Brexit was never going to be an easy straight forward affair and so it's proving.

First things first, the UK will still be leaving the EU. Even as a Remainer I accept that decision. What's now important is the kind of Brexit we're going to have.

What annoys me is that Brexiteers think that because they won the referendum, those of us who voted to stay in the EU must now shut up. It's as if we're not allowed to debate or question the terms of Brexit.

What seems to have been completely overlooked is the vote for Brexit was only 52%. It's a majority but not a huge majority. A significant number of people in this country did not vote to the leave the EU and those thoughts and feelings have to be taken into account.

When I think about Brexit and those who most advocated the UK leaving the EU, I'm reminded of a chant commonly sung by football fans around the country.

Fans will be familiar with moments in matches when the referee makes a series of wrong and strange decisions in a short space of time that gives the impression that he's lost control of the game, a familiar chant of: 'You don't know what you're doing' rings out from fans of the team on the wrong end of these decisions.

I think about that chant in relation to Brexiteers and feel compounded to shout 'You don't know what you're doing' every time someone tells me that Remainers should shut up and that Brexit will prove to be a brilliant success.

It's quite clear that within the Brexiteer vote there are different visions of what a post EU world will look like for the UK; there's no clear consensus on what Brexit will mean.

Last week's High Court decision on Article 50 is about implementing the necessary checks and balances needed in this process. Applying appropriate scrutiny and ensuring that over the next 6 months we get some clarification on what the long term plan is.

If this country is now going to leave the EU then I'd like to leave in a way that I think is best for Britain. If you asked people who voted for Brexit you will find a whole range of different reasons for their vote. Immigration, more money for the EU, an end to EU red tape and regulation.

It's quite clear there is no clear consensus or idea on what a post Brexit world should look like for this country. Brexiteers and the right-wing press might want to remember this before they accuse Remainers of being enemies of the people.

My mind hasn’t changed, I’m still voting to remain in the EU

How are you feeling about the EU referendum? Do you know what you’re doing tomorrow? Have you had enough of the endless claims and counter claims from both sides?

Tomorrow I'll be voting to remain in the EU - it's never been in doubt for me. I'm one of those people who have always known their feelings towards the European Union. We could have had a referendum last year, 5 or 10 years ago and I will still have voted to remain in the EU. There was never anything the Brexit camp could say to change my mind.

I'm glad the vote is finally upon us. I've had enough of the debate. A few weeks ago I was really beginning to get fed up of the whole thing. Firstly because I've always known how I was going to vote but secondly because I was getting fed up of the nature and rhetoric of the debate.

At various points during the campaign I really feel as if both sides have insulted my intelligence. Comments such as the one made by House of Commons leader, Chris Grayling in which he said Brexit would help young people get on housing ladder!

Really! Surely building more houses might make a difference?

Then you have the NHS. We've had to listen to how leaving the EU could free up more money for the NHS? Or how staying in the EU is a threat to the NHS.

When it was announced that we would be having a referendum on EU membership I thought it was a good idea but now that we're at the end of the campaign I think holding a referendum has been a mistake.

Debating the merits of EU membership covers a whole number of different issues in regards to British jobs and the economy, national sovereignty, EU Laws and regulation, immigration, EU subsidies.

For those of us who follow politics and current affairs, understanding all the complexities of the issues and getting to the facts isn't easy and is arguably more difficult for those people that don't normally follow politics.

After reading this article in the Birmingham Post today: Opinion: Lets not have anymore referendums

I've come to the conclusion that having referendums aren't a good idea. Let our elected Members of Parliament make these decision on our behalf. That is the role of Parliamentary democracy and the reason why we elect MPs.

What we've seen is the debate reduced to simplistic soundbites like 'lets take our country back' or project fear from the Remain campaign. The one issue that has totally dominated the debate is that of immigration and even that isn't debated properly in an objective manner.

What I thought could be a really great exercise in democracy has for me been a bit of a disappointment. The Remain campaign have at times presented a vision of Armageddon should we leave the EU, while the Brexit camp have presented a vision of a glorious utopia ahead for the country should we finally cut ourselves free from the EU which for too long has held us back and forcing their laws on us.


The EU vote represents many different things for different people.

One thing that has really stood out for me about this referendum is that the way people feel and decide how to vote is very much a reflection on how they see and experience living in the UK. It's also about what type of you country you think the UK is and should be in the future.

I'm quite happy to admit that my vote to remain in the EU perfectly reflects my demographic background. I've lived and worked in London for the last 15 years. London and Scotland have the biggest support for remaining in the EU. I'm university educated, in fact I also have a post graduate degree. I'm reasonably well traveled and have visited many countries in Europe.

In terms of my job and annual salary I'm pretty much Middle Class. Although I certainly don't consider myself wealthy I earn an above average salary and in many ways I'm quite comfortable. All of these things point towards someone who would naturally vote towards remaining in the EU.

However, I've begun to realise that the country is incredibly divided. What's been really interesting is seeing how many traditional working class Labour supporters in the North and the Midlands are keen to leave the EU. There views and experiences of life in the UK are very different.

If you're in low paid insecure work, you live in communities which have received high levels of immigration from Eastern Europe, if you feel that mainstream politics has little to say to you or even understand your life you're more likely to want to leave the EU. Not necessarily because the EU is the cause of these things but because the EU referendum is an chance to express those feelings of unhappiness about the status quo.

During the last few weeks I've been watching a series of short films by the Guardian journalist John Harris. He's been travelling to towns and cities across the UK to discuss people's feelings about the EU referendum and how they feel about the state of things in the country.

I've found it fascinating to watch. In his latest film which you can click on below, he talks about a divided and angry Britain and the referendum campaign has highlighted this split.

EU referendum: welcome to the divided, angry Kingdom – video https://t.co/uo1nRCgdlv: Great series of short films on EU ref: by John Harris

— Rodney Dennis (@Rodneyd75) 22 June 2016

From my own personal point of view, I don't share some of these concerns or frustrations but I understand and recognise that there are a lot of people in parts of the country which aren't thriving, where job opportunities aren't great, who feel threatened by EU migration and they want to make their feelings heard.


Leaving the EU won't solve these problems

As someone who believes it's better for Britain to remain inside the EU, the argument I would make to those people who feel fed and disillusioned is to say that voting to leave the EU won't solve many of the problems and concerns they have. It's as if voting out of the EU is a way of giving the establishment and the elites a bloody nose.

This would be all well and good if it somehow made a positive difference but I don't think it will. Even if we leave the EU, there will still be some form of immigration. There will be some downturn in the economy which many business leaders and economists believe will happen and many of the problems and frustrations people are feeling will remain.

Many of the problems people are protesting about are of the result of globalisation and economic policies of the last 35 years and what could be described as the crumbling of the neo-liberal economic consensus.

Admittedly it's up to individual people how they vote and their reasons for doing so; but I feel that some of the frustrations people feel shouldn't be directed solely at the European Union.

Why I want to remain in the UK

I've had a think of some of the reasons why I want to remain the in the EU. Here's a selection:

I want the UK to play a major role in the European Union, I don't want us to be outsiders. I think we will have more influence on a global stage by staying in the EU

The EU needs reforming and I want the UK to be part of and shaping those reforms

Economically we'll be worse off

Leaving the EU could lead to the eventual breakup of the EU

Part of me feels European

THe EU has given us rights and protections that many us benefit from even though we may struggle to recognise or identify these benefits

leaving the EU will probably mean a change of leadership in the Tory Party. I'm not interested in seeing Boris Johnson as PM

Tomorrow's vote is going to be close. I can't see either side winning more than 55% of the vote but I'm quietly confident that by Friday morning, those of us on the Remain side will have won.

The Brussels terrorist attacks

Following this week's bombings in Brussels, I've been thinking what I could possibly say that wasn't already said after last year's attacks in Paris.

The bombings are both shocking but not surprising and raises the question of which European capital will be next. Knowing that in all likelihood there will be another major attack is one of the most depressing aspects of this story.

We've had the show of solidarity for the Brussels victims, the calls for how we must not let the terrorists alter our way of life but after all of this what comes next?

It would appear that the Belgium counter-terrorist authorities have proved a weak link in Western Europe's overall strategy against Islamic terrorism. From what I can tell the Belgium authorities simply don't have the same level of experience of dealing with terrorist groups in comparison to say Britain with our history of dealing with the IRA.

Britain's security forces have been fairly successful in preventing terrorist plots which explains why we haven't had a major attack since 7/7. But as the old saying goes, the terrorists only have to be lucky once while the security forces need to get it right every single time.

Europe will need to improve its overall joint strategy in tackling ISIS and Islamic terrorism. Europe needs to develop its own counter-terrorism network to confront the network of ISIS.

The next issue involves a long-term challenge of tackling Islamic extremism at its roots and targeting those communities in Brussels, Paris and in cities across Britain where young Muslim men turn to violence and extremism.

This will be a slow and long process and if I'm honest I don't know the causes or the answers as to why so many young Muslim men of second and third generation immigrants in their country of birth decide to reject the values of their home country for a violent and destructive ideology of ISIS.

A weekend in Berlin

Last weekend I spent a few days in the German capital Berlin.

It was the first time I'd been to Berlin since spending a day there in 1995. At the time I was inter-railing across Europe. I wasn't there long enough to get a real feel for the city. My lasting memory was the feeling of amazement that only 6 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall I was actually in the city itself standing in front of the Brandenburg Gate!

I remembered looking over towards East Berlin and seeing what looked like a massive building site. I always thought it would be great to come back again one day once all the rebuilding had finished.

Brandenburg Gate

Berlin has a reputation of being a kind of cool hipster capital of Europe, similar to London's Shoreditch and Hoxton. I have to admit it does have that vibe about it. I was surprised at just how chilled and laid back Berlin was for a capital city.

Cities like London, Paris and New York have that feel of places that say to you: 'this is where it's at' They are cities that have the confidence to say we are the biggest and the best. Certainly with London, Paris and even Rome, you also have that European grandeur.

Even though Berlin is an historic capital I get the feeling that it doesn't have those kind of pretensions, it feels like a city that doesn't take itself too seriously which is something I quite liked.

What Berlin does have is a heavy sense of 20th century history hanging over it. No city in the world represented the division between the Capitalist West and Communist East than the Berlin Wall. I remember when the Wall came down in 1989 and realising that I was watching a truly historical event.

Other historical sites include the government parliament the Reichstag which was famously burnt down by the Nazis in 1933, Checkpoint Charlie and The Topography of Terror, both an in and outdoor museum on the site of the ruins of the old Gestapo and SS headquarters.

Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe.

I wasn't aware of the memorial until my friend pointed it out to me. It was designed by the architect Peter Eisenman and inaugurated in 2005. The memorial is made up of hundreds a grey blocks which have been formed into a grid system which once inside feels like you're in a maze. The slabs are of varying sizes and when you walk inside, can feel quite disorientating.


Berlin isn't all about the darker side of European and World history. Berlin is also famed for its nightlife. I have to admit I found Berlin's nightlife a bit confusing to begin with. The city is very quiet and doesn't have what you could call a traditional city centre, there are different neighborhoods. When you go out in the evening you didn't really come across a row of bars or clubs in the way you might do on a UK high-street.

Berlin's bars and clubs all appear to be quite discreet, its as if you have to stumble across them or know exactly where you are going to find a place. What I liked was that when you do find somewhere there are some really nice intimate chilled out bars to discover. Busy enough to create a good atmosphere but not overly crowded to make the experience tiring. a couple of the bars and clubs we went to had a bell you had to ring to get in before being confronted by a curtain. It was like you were being allowed into an exclusive venue that once inside was pretty chilled and very inclusive.

I realised that's what Berlin is all about, nice bars and cool clubs that you need to hunt down or keep your eye out for. There's no need to dress up, nobody seems to care what you look like and this is what I quite liked about Berlin.

It's definitely a cool place to spend a weekend.

Hertha v Schalke: Hertha Ultras

One of the main reasons for visiting Germany was for the chance to watch a Bundersliga football match. The Premier League may be the richest and most popular league in the world, but Germany's Bundersliga has a growing reputation were fans can watch affordable games in some of the best stadiums in the world and where the fan culture and support is second to none.

Watching Hertha v Schalke was a great experience. Hertha aren't really one of the most glamourous or famous names in German football but they're having an exceptional season. Before the start of the match they stood in 3rd place in the league behind Bayern and Dortmund. They have a great chance of qualifiing for next season's Champions League.

This was an important match as Schalke were one place behind them in fourth; if Hertha could win it would help cement their position in third. It was an good match, fairly even in the first half with Hertha taking the lead just before half time. The second half Hertha were very much the better team and deservedly doubled their lead in the middle of the second half. They had chances to make it three which they failed to take but overall they deserved their win.

Apart from the football what really stood out were the fans. Hertha's ultra supporters behind the goal were superb. They never stopped singing and chanting. It was an impressive sight to see thousands of fans all jumping up and down in unison. I should also give credit to Schalke who also brought some numbers with them as well and contributed to the atmosphere.

One of the things I loved most about Berlin is the graffiti and street art you see on buildings all over the city. I know you find graffiti in many cities but Berlin seems to have taken it to another level and forms part of the city's look and identity.

The legacy of the Wall

In various districts of the city you can find parts of the Wall that still remain. They form part of a memorial to those people who risked and lost their lives trying to cross from East to West Berlin. It's very poignant to see and it's good that they've kept bits of the Wall up, if only to remind people of the destructive nature of building barriers between people.

Italian politics is no joke!

I had to laugh last week after the results of the Italian elections.

Former television comedian Beppe Grillo won 26% of the vote as leader of the Five Star Movement and now holds the balance of power as no party won an overall majority.

Seeing as Grillo doesn't want to form a coalition with the centre-left Democratic Party which won the most votes, it looks like Italy will be having another election in the next few months.

It's easy to laugh but is Grillo anymore a comedian than Silvio Berlusconi? His behaviour has made Italy a laughing stock for years. Perhaps last week's results show just how serious Italians take their politics.

The results raise some important questions for Europe's leaders. A number of Italian voters have rejected the political mainstream and made it clear they don't support the austerity measures introduced by Prime Minister Mario Monti.

It's another example of the crisis in politics across much of Europe and in Britain, where people are losing faith and have no confidence in mainstream politicians.

Governments have racked up huge debts in borrowing over the last decade and now ordinary people are having to suffer through policies of austerity demanded by European Leaders in Brussels.

It's no wonder the likes of Grillo appeal to voters, when he attacks the corruption of Italy's political class and calls for an end to austerity.

You can argue that voting for mavericks and independents like Grillo are wasted votes but I don't see it that way.

I don't think Grillo wants to be in government and he's probably not qualified enough. But in voting for him, Italians are making their feelings known about how broken the country's political system really is.

You can't say their voices aren't being heard. Political leaders in Italy and Europe might not like it but it's called democracy.

Many Italians feel politicians in Italy are a joke so what better way to express that feeling than voting for a comedian.

To veto or not to veto

I'm still struggling to decide whether or not I think David Cameron's decision to use the veto at last week's EU Summit is a good or bad thing for the UK.

I think the main problem is we just don't know at the moment and it could be months even years before we see the true consequences of this decision.

I have to say I'm not comfortable with the thought of the UK being pushed to the margins of European politics. We're now the outsider and we won't be able to take part in major EU debates where decisions will be made that will still have a huge influence on the UK both politically and economically.

Surely it's better to be inside the big tent having some sort of influence rather then looking in from the sidelines?

That's the one thing I'm not happy about, but then another part of me thinks that it's good we're excising our own independence and acting in our own national interest.

I would never describe myself as a Eurosceptic, but I do have doubts about how much economic and political integration you can have before things start to become undemocratic. I'm all for the UK being a major player in Europe but it shouldn't be at the expense of being able to make your own decisions.

Cameron's decision certainly haven't done his standings within the Conservative Party any harm.

Many on the Tory right have been sceptical about everything Cameron has stood for, ever since he become Tory leader, but by using the veto, he's managed to bring this wing of the party onside.

Obviously the main downside to this is that the Tories are in a coalition government and have the small problem of the Lib Dems to think about.

People are already suggesting the future of the coalition is at risk, but it was only a matter of time before something in Europe highlighted the differences between the two parties, so this isn't really a surprise.

I suppose after last week's historic decision, it's a case of lets see and wait until we find out whether Cameron was right or wrong.

Europe in crisis - What's happened to democracy?

I've got a feeling that in 100 years time you'll have history students in universities across Britain and Europe studying the economic and political crisis that's going on at the moment.

It might not feel like it now but we're living in historic times that academics and scholars will be studying in years to come.

A few weeks ago I was thinking about what I was going to say about the Greek crisis and the Euro, but that's yesterday's news - now it's all about Italy!

Not long ago I was thinking about how the Greek people are suffering and how they're having to put up with austerity measures forced upon them not by their own government but by the demands of EU leaders.

It made me think that decisions affecting their lives were being made by unelected leaders from the European Union - hardly democratic!

I've started to notice that this problem of a lack of democracy is being spoken about more and more by commentators.

Over in Italy it was becoming increasingly obvious, that Silvio Berlusconi had no real plans to tackle Italy's debt, but he wasn't kicked out of office by Italian voters. The financial markets did that, after they lost faith that he could introduce the economic reforms needed in the country.

In his place we have the 'technocrat' economist, Mario Monti. He might be the man to tackle Italy's debt crisis, but he's not been elected by the Italian people.

Many Italians will be glad to see the back of Berlusconi. Even as a non Italian you could see he was an embarrassment to the country, but it would still have been better if the Italian people removed him at the ballot box.

I've never considered myself to be a Eurosceptic - I'm generally all for greater European cooperation, but Europe is in a mess and greater economic and political union seems to have made things worse, particularly in terms of democracy.

I think many European leaders have let their voters down over the years, with excessive government borrowing and spending, and now tough decision are being imposed upon people who were unaware of what was really going on.

The problem is that many of these tough decisions are being made by faceless financial investors and European Bureaucrats who have never been elected by anyone.

That's not how democracy is supposed to work.

What should we do about Greece?

If someone asked me what's the biggest news story that's been interesting me in recent weeks, I'd have to say the financial crisis taking place in Greece.

Before you start thinking that's boring, I'm gonna click onto something more interesting, hold on a minute!

This is interesting - you've got Euro politicians and political commentators arguing this is the biggest crisis to hit Europe since the Second World War!

I've been giving this story a lot of thought. There's a number of questions that I've been thinking about in the last few weeks.

1. Is there much point in giving the Greeks anymore money?

2. Should the Greeks even be in the Euro? Would it be better for them to leave?

3. Does this crisis just prove that there's a limit to how much economic and political integration you can have in Europe?

Greece is well and truly f*cked! I'm sorry I can't think of another word that best sums up the situation the country is in.

The Greeks have no money to pay their national debt which stands at around 340 billion euros - that's one and-a-half times the value of everything the country produces.

In return for a new EU Loan to stop the country from going bankrupt, the Greek government is having to implement severe austerity measures, which means government spending cuts, jobs loses and tax increases.

No wonder the Greeks are feeling the pain and taking to the streets to protest against their leaders. If I was Greek I'd be thinking why should we stay in the Euro if it's going to mean so much economic pain.


What's best for Greece?

It's generally accepted now that it's only a matter of time before Greece defaults on its debt repayments, so what should it do next.

Probably leave the Euro. Write off some of its debt, and devalue its currency which will hopefully mean a return to economic growth.

Greece has too much debt which it can't meet. It doesn't matter how much more loans the EU give the Greeks, they're never going to be in a position to pay it off.

One of the things I've discovered is that nobody in Greece pays taxes. Well only half the population. They have a small private sector and a huge public sector. The country simply doesn't generate enough revenue to pay its debts.

There's probably no point in throwing more money at Greece if it can never pay this money back.


What's best for European Union?

The complete opposite from what I can see.

The last thing the EU wants to see is Greece default or even leave the Euro. If that happens the Euro itself is at risk. Not only that, it would mean enormous losses for the European Central Bank, which would be humiliating, but also for a number of French and German banks.

On top of this, there's the domino effect everyone keeps talking about. If Greece defaults on its debt, then the worry is that Portugal and Ireland will do the same and have their debts written off.


The question of Spain

Last week I was watching a video featuring the BBC's economic and business editors Hugh Pym and Robert Peston give a briefing on the Greek crisis. Interestingly they talked about the issue of Spain being crucial to what's going on.

The EU doesn't want the Greek crisis to spread to Ireland or Portugal (this could cause problems for British banks). If it did it could potentially spread to Spain which would the nightmare scenario for the EU.

Spain's economy is bigger than those two countries along with Greece, but it's economy is only just emerging from recession. If Greece, Portugal and Ireland needed a bailout it could knock the Spanish economy back into recession, which would be a disaster for the Euro. Spain itself could even need a bailout. The costs for that would be huge.

Hope you're keeping up with this!

Their opinion is that by propping up Greece with further loans, this will hopefully allow the stronger and more important Spanish economy to grow, so that if Greece was to default sometime in the not too distant future Spain would be in a stronger position to counter any domino effect.

It's complex stuff, but it got me thinking; what's best for Greece simply isn't in the best interests of the Euro, the EU, and particularly Germany.

I don't really know much about Greece's economic and political history, but from what I've learnt in recent weeks, I'm beginning to wonder whether Greece should have been admitted to the Euro in the first place.

The economies and political cultures of some of the Europe's southern states are completely different to those countries in the north.

You can't have a one size fits all economic model for all of Europe. I suppose this is the argument that Euroceptics use.

Although I don't consider myself a Eurosceptic, I understand where they're coming from. There's probably a limit to how big the Eurozone can realistically be.


Germany are the real winners

I'll probably sound like a real Eurosceptic when I say this, but Germany appear to be the biggest winners from having the Euro and the crisis in Greece. For years countries like Greece used to borrow cheap cash from the EU and they used that money to buy lots of German goods.

German exports have benefited from having the Euro. If they still had their old Deutsche Mark it would have been valued a lot higher against other euro currencies which would have harmed German exports.

For the Germans its better that they keep the Euro going in the long run. Great for them but not what you want to hear if you're Greek.

See this wasn't that boring at all was it?

It's complex but fascinating stuff as it's made me think more about the benefits of having a single currency. Who really gains from it? Maybe a common currency only works with a smaller number of countries who have similar political and economic cultures, like many of the northern European states.

We might be facing tough times here in Britain but at least we're not Greek.