Good evening to everyone,
The Informal Summit was concluded a moment ago. You may know that sometimes at the informal Councils a more meaningful discussion takes place, because there are no conclusions and there is a free exchange of views, a substantial exchange of views.
We had two very crucial issues on the agenda of our discussion, today. One regarding the process of electing the next President of the European Commission, and the second concerned the planning regarding the new Multiannual Financial Framework after 2020.
I believe that both issues are linked together. It, actually, has to do with the kind of Europe, we want. It has to do with how democratic, strong, and social we want Europe to be.
Allow me to start with the debate on the election of the new President of the European Commission. Perhaps, you know that the Spitzenkandidaten process has been introduced since 2014. That is, based on this process, political parties, the political families of the parties at a European level, nominate a candidate who, together with their colleagues, embark on a campaign open to the citizens of Europe, and they cross their swords, conduct debates on television giving a particular “European” interest, and this happened for the first time in 2014 at the European elections, in a sense that they were discussing all the major issues concerning the future of Europe.
This happened for the first time at the European elections in 2014. In this process, I remind you, I too participated at the European elections in 2014 as a representative-candidate of the party of the European Left. I believe that this was a very important institutional step, but it was still incomplete and unfinished, as there is no direct link between the results of the European elections and the election of the next President of the Commission, that is from those who participated as candidates, and the one received most votes, because this is what democracy means.
I would like to remind you that in 2014, although we all participated, apart from me, the current President Mr. Juncker from the EPP, Mr. Schulz from the Socialist Party, Verhofstadt from the Liberal Party, Ska Keller from the Greens, following the end of the Treaty-based process, many were questioning the fact that the EPP representative had to be elected president as he was the one who had presumptively obtained the most votes in all countries where the European elections were held. We, all the candidates, admitted and together we delivered a joint statement that this was undemocratic and that the current president, Jean-Claude Juncker, should be chosen by the European Council. Eventually this was achieved after pressure and conflicts. The Treaty does not stipulate that the European Council should decide based on the criterion of popular vote, but it is a matter of moral and political order, not a legal order, that the criterion of popular sovereignty cannot be circumvented.
However, as I said before that a very positive step to democratize EU institutions was hovering because, unfortunately, the European Parliament regarding the unallocated seats after the UK’s leaving the EU, did not allocate these seats based on a common transnational list. The suggestion that others and I had made was that these seats should not be left undisturbed, but should be made available through a common European list that the party representatives should compose. So we would all know what the real will of the citizens was in relation to direct disposition. As an informal European referendum and then we would have seen a complete picture, because this list would have given all the European citizens the opportunity to vote on it and so we would know the real correlations on the basis of the candidates. This did not happen, and we decided today at the Council to re-examine the issue of the transnational list but after 2019. There has been a very long discussion, an interesting one on whether the European Council after the European elections should choose the one that will gain the majority and the candidates who will have been nominated by the parties or not.
In this debate, I proposed a process through which the European Parliament will express its judgment before and after the decision of the European Council, because the European Parliament and we should not forget that, it is the only elective institution that we have in the EU, in this sense it is of utmost importance that any decisions, critical decisions, come through the process and will be democratically approved through the associations of the European Parliament formed after the immediate judgment of the people.
I, therefore, proposed that we adopt the Spitzenkandidaten process, the nomination of political candidates, on the part of the parties, and that the European Parliament should decide, on the basis of the correlations that will be directly created by the vote of the citizens through the range of candidates, 3 who will be proposed as a list based on which the European Council should elect the next President of the European Commission.
Now, as far as the second thematic area of the current European Council is concerned, it was, as I said earlier, the planning for the next multiannual European budget. The first debate is about how democratic we want Europe to be, how much we want citizens to be involved in decision making process in the EU, or how much we ignore them, how much we consider them to be useful to vote for representatives in the European Council but that important decisions are taken behind closed doors. So if this first debate concerns the depth of democracy, the second (that is the debate on the European budget) concerns the strength of the EU and, above all, its social depth. That is why, for our part, I have clarified that there cannot be a strong EU, there can be no social cohesion in the EU with a budget that is constantly shrinking.
The budget should act as a redistribution tool in order to achieve the greatest possible convergence and the greatest possible social cohesion. The withdrawal of Great Britain from the EU certainly means that there is a reduction of allocated funds to the budget. On the other hand, a series of new challenges needing to be met and to be funded, challenges of the new era – such as the implementation of the European Social Rights Pillar, an extended Youth Guarantee Program, the response to the refugee crisis, immigration crisis, the need to deepen research, growth, the digital single market, security, the protection of the external borders – a series of critical issues, new challenges, and the need to maintain social cohesion and the resources that have so far been allocated to maintaining social cohesion, lead us to the conclusion that either we must substantially increase the budget or we must all together agree for the shrinkage of the social status of the EU, and we are against this. Our view is that social cohesion, social cohesion policy is not a cost, but it is – I would say – a great asset. Because internal social cohesion translates into external competitiveness, in an increasingly internationally competitive environment. In this sense, my speech was meant to point out that, when we are talking about a budget, we should not only talk about the level of expenditure but also about the level of revenue. Because if we are talking about spending alone, without identifying sufficient revenue, then we will be in a vicious circle. In this sense and given that the UK is leaving the EU and that one would not want to burden taxpayers more, the solution is the possibility of finding new resources. Finding new resources through taxation of wealth rather than taxpayers. In this sense, I expressed some thoughts and proposals on the necessary tax on financial transactions, the so-called Tobin tax, the taxation of large Internet companies, the common corporate tax base, to institute European taxes on activities, taxes that are more efficient than national taxes, without additionally taxing European citizens. These thoughts have been tabled, a great debate has been held, with many convergences, but, of course, this debate will continue and it is a crucial debate. I want to believe that this discussion will be concluded before the European elections. And I say this, because it has to go along with the debate on institutional and social changes in the EU. If we do not do that, if we fail to take steps both towards democratization and the strengthening of Europe’s social character, I am very sorry to disappoint the citizens who thought that this debate on the future of Europe and its new structure, the major changes that are necessary, is perhaps the last hope that Europe will be redirected to a more attractive way for its citizens. And of course, we must also reject the strong current of Euro-skepticism, which has been developing lately, not only in countries with no European tradition and culture, but also in Central European countries, traditional countries, and important EU countries since its establishment.
At the same time, however, with the discussion on the two main issues of the agenda, I have had the opportunity to make a series of critical meetings since this morning. I had the opportunity, together with the President of Cyprus, N. Anastasiades to raise the issue of Turkish provocative actions in the Cypriot EEZ and the Aegean. I had the opportunity to do so also in my personal contacts with the Chancellor of Germany, the Italian Prime Minister, the French President, President Juncker, and Mrs. Mogherini. But I also had the chance to raise these issues in the Summit and inform our partners about increased provocation and delinquency in the Aegean and the Eastern Mediterranean. I should like to report on the recent unacceptable and extremely dangerous incident at Imia, but also on the generally increasing delinquent Turkish aeronautical activity last year.
I, also, stressed that as European Union it was time to send a very clear message to Turkey. Euro-Turkish relations cannot proceed with continued violations of the sovereign rights of EU Member States. And this is an issue that does not only concern the Member States, it concerns the EU as a whole. Turkey has to respect international law both in the Aegean and the Eastern Mediterranean. Only under these conditions we can build a positive agenda again in the future on many of these areas that we can cooperate. I have stressed that this position for protecting the sovereign rights of the Member States must be a red line for the EU. Otherwise, we cannot talk about upgrading European Civil Defense or the EU’s international role.
I want to emphasize that the support we received was substantial. The support received by President Anastasiades and myself was substantial. And in this context, as you may already know, President Tusk made a statement during the press conference just after the summit.
On the sidelines of today’s summit, I also met with the European Union’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs, Federica Mogherini, where besides Turkish provocation in the Aegean and the Eastern Mediterranean, we also discussed issues concerning the Western Balkans and the central role of our country, Greece, as a pillar of stability and cooperation in the wider region.
In particular, with regard to the name issue, I reiterated that we consistently, Greece has consistently pursued a permanent, comprehensive and definitive response to the pending issues with the neighboring country, FYROM. And this means an erga omnes solution which means a solution with a clear commitment to a name which will be used against all both for external and internal use, which means that this name, which we will decide, it is also going to be the constitutional the name of the neighbor, which of course implies the necessary constitutional revision.
Well, I will close here and I am open to all your questions.
PANTELAKIS (ERT): Mr. Prime Minister, you have repeatedly stated that Athens wants and is seeking open channels of communication with Ankara. Do you think Turkey’s provocative actions tend to close communication channels with Athens and Europe, or do you think they can remain open?
PRIME MINISTER: Mr. Panteleakis, Greece is the country that first lit up the green light in Turkey’s EU accession process in the 1990s. And I am the Prime Minister who was the leader in 2015 in the effort to build a positive Euro-Turkish agenda alongside with this unprecedented refugee crisis. And I am the one who, despite the difficulties, I invited President Erdogan to come to Greece to build a relationship of trust and move on to confidence-building measures. I went three times in less than six months in Turkey. I also received the Turkish Prime Minister. And I am the one who continues to believe that the security architecture in the region means a relation of understanding with Turkey. But there are limits. And I think the time has come for the EU to give a clear message, not that it does not wish for dialogue and consultation with Turkey, but that it requires the strengthening of this dialogue and the Euro-Turkish agenda with respect for international law and sovereignty rights of the EU Member States. In this sense, I believe that Ankara should take into account that Greece is not an insignificant country. It is an EU member country for more than 35 years, a NATO member country, as Turkey itself, so this reasoning of provocation does not lead anywhere, it weakens Turkey itself. We will be here to always keep the doors of the dialogue open, but it must be absolutely clear that there are limits.
PSARA (ETHNOS): Hello from me. President Tusk talked about the conditions to be discussed at the March Summit to see if there will be a meeting between the EU and Turkey in Varna. I would like you to tell us, as you mentioned the conversations are more relaxed and creative at informal summits, if you discussed the red lines on the basis of which this meeting will not take place or will eventually take place in Varna.
PRIME MINISTER: Of course. And I think the red lines have already been stated. It is the respect for international law and the sovereign rights of the EU member states. Cyprus’s sovereign right is to carry out investigations into the marine estates of its Exclusive Economic Zone – and even investigations carried out by European companies are harassed illegally. And respect for international law, of course, is also respect for the Treaties, but also respect for the law of the sea, the possibility that, of course, the Greek ships of the Coast Guard have to patrol in Greek territorial waters undisturbed. These are the conditions of good neighborliness, good understanding, it is a prerequisite, I repeat, respect for international law and sovereign rights.
ANZOLETOS (SKAI): Mr. President, I would like to address the Skopje issue. I would like to ask if there is a timetable for the government on the issue of the solution. And I am referring, of course, to the NATO Summit in July. And, of course, a second question, because this agreement will sometime have to come to the Parliament if you are concerned at all about the attitude of the government partner, who yesterday – Mr. Kammenos – said he does not want the term “Macedonia” in the final solution.
PRIME MINISTER: Mr. Anzoletos, you are talking about a timetable, you are talking about NATO and the NATO Summit. From the very first moment we spoke the truth. No one is pushing us, we are not in a hurry, and we are not under pressure. It is our initiative to solve a problem which, in our view, is affecting the country’s foreign policy, especially when it has to face real dangers. We are not under pressure because we are not in 2008, when some of us were pushing our neighboring country to join NATO. It is our view that this chronic problem should be solved with a solution, a sustainable, stable solution that will be based on solid foundations. That is why we took this initiative, met my counterpart in Davos and started a dialogue, a constructive one, I believe, for confidence-building measures, and a dialogue on how to find a mutually acceptable solution to take us a step further. For us, this acceptance, the acceptance of the solution, will be a very positive version of our foreign policy. For the neighboring country, however, it is more than that. It is of existential importance. Its European perspective is an existential issue, I would say. Therefore, if some have to be in a hurry or under pressure, it is not us, just to make this clear. All that I said from the beginning, and at an interview on Jan. 20, when I set the conditions that have been a national line for many years, I did not say anything new. Everything I said to my counterpart at the Davos meeting is still valid today. And they are also included in the Agreement that we will give, in a draft, that we will shortly give the other side to continue negotiations on specific matters and issues. Beyond that, as you asked me, it is legitimate to have different views. However, I must say to you that a crucial, nationally important issue requires an attempt to create a broad consensus rather than just a consensus within the limits of a government majority. We will pursue it, not only with our partner but also with the other political parties, if there is a prospect of a solution if we come close to a prospective of a solution.
KOUTSOKOSTA (EURONEWS): I would like to combine both, the Skopje issue and Turkey. Firstly, if you are concerned about Mr. Erdogan’s role in the Balkans, after his last visit to Skopje, and secondly if you have asked for specific moves from your European partners, beyond the messages and statements made a while ago, until the Summit of 26th of March to be held in Varna.
PRIME MINISTER: First of all, to correct you. Mr. Erdogan did not go to Skopje, but Skopje went to Mr. Erdogan. With the opportunity to say that our neighbors must understand that – I believe that the Prime Minister has understood it, and all political forces must understand it – the European prospect and the consolidation of stability in the neighboring country does not pass through Ankara. It passes through Athens. They should not seek to find a solution to Ankara. European prospect is what they seek. They are wrong if they look for it in Ankara. They need to look for it in building a meaningful relationship of trust with their neighbors, Greece, which is over 35 years of EU membership.
As for the second part of the question, I think I was clear. The message that was sent today was the strongest of the most official lips and of course I believe we will all have the opportunity to evaluate how – let’s say this – our neighbors will welcome this message and how they will work during the next period. It is also obvious that – as you well know – I have the ability to be in constant communication with the EU leadership, but also with leaders who can play a very crucial role in things.
ROUMPOS (ANA): You said before that you will seek a broad national consensus. What initiatives do you intend to take for this?
PRIME MINISTER: I said that if we come to a solution, if we are ahead of the prospect of a solution that we will find to be stable, viable and not a one-use solution, but a solution that may have a prospect, then – I have already informed the political leaders – we will decide at that moment how we will inform all political parties and, of course, we will give all the opportunity, in the institutional way, to express the views, positions and convergences that ultimately will be recorded in the Parliament, to the national delegation.
RICCARDO FRADDOSIO (AGENZIA NOVA): Today Tusk said European leaders expressed their solidarity with Greece and Cyprus in relation to Turkey’s activity. I would therefore like to know from you, on the one hand, whether you are pleased with this expression of solidarity and on the other hand, as Italy is also involved in this issue in the Mediterranean, since there is an Italian ship which was forced to leave the Cyprus EEZ, if this matter has also been raised by the Italian authorities or someone else.
PRIME MINISTER: First of all, allow me to repeat that for us President Tusk’s statement was the strongest possible expression of solidarity with Greece and Cyprus and, at the same time, very substantial. Now, with regard to the fact that research is being carried out on this site and an Italian, and therefore European, company is blocked, I would say that this is an additional element that should make the other side very skeptical about this offending behavior. Our understanding with the Prime Minister, Paolo Gentiloni, is lasting. As regards the particular company and its activities, it has stated that it does not abandon the rights it has acquired after a tendering procedure in the particular plot or of course its rights in other plots, marine plots, the Exclusive Economic Zone of Cyprus.
