PRIME MINISTER: We have reached the end of the extraordinary summit which, despite the best efforts and all-night negotiations, unfortunately came to no effect. In other words, we were not able to agree on the sum and distribution of the European budget for 2021-2027.
I think it is useful in such cases to avoid excessively dramatising things. We knew from the start that this was going to be challenging. Also, history has taught us that such complicated agreements that speak to the hearts of our politicians, that is, the resources we, as Europe, are prepared to make available for the next six-year period, are, as a rule, not achieved in the initial efforts.
This is the history of Europe. Europe reaches solutions, following procedures that sometimes require a lot of time, a lot of work and a lot of effort.
I think we all know the reason we have found ourselves in this extremely difficult predicament. On the one hand, UK’s withdrawal has deprived the European budget of a significant contributing country.
Europe and the European Council have established a framework of extremely ambitious policies concerning the future of Europe. Policies that concern the transition into a zero-carbon economy by 2050; policies that concern the digital transformation of our societies; policies which have to do with the protection of our borders. All these require additional resources in order to be funded.
On the other hand, we insist and we consider the funding of the two traditional pillars of the European Union, at least as we have known them in the last decades, non-negotiable. I am referring to the Common Agricultural Policy and the Cohesion policy. Those are non-negotiable policies that concern everyone and must, therefore, be reinforced by the European budget.
And, of course, this issue was further complicated by the insistence of four European countries, contributors, that the European budget should not –under any circumstance- exceed 1% of the European Union’s Gross National Income.
In other words, some have insisted that we should do more with less. This, ultimately, proved impossible and as a result we were unable to come to an agreement on the budget.
I wish to repeat the main positions of our country in this debate: The need to safeguard our farmers’ income and aid them in the transition to an agricultural production, to a production manner more friendly to the environment; the need to ensure more resources than those of the previous programme period for Cohesion policies. Simply put, to have available a larger, front-loaded NSRF, which will support the growth of the Greek economy and create many fine, new job posts.
The need to ensure significant resources in order to achieve fair transition and end lignite dependence in areas of the country which have, until this day, been dependent on mining and burning lignite. And, of course, the need to have policies that will support the countries which form Europe’s outer borders; policies pertaining to migration, the guarding of the borders, Frontex.
I need to say that, since an agreement on the budget was never reached, we did not discuss national policies either. Yet those same national lines, those “red lines” are non-negotiable and I believe they will be supported in the following debates, which will concern the overall framework of the European budget.
We have, therefore, made an initial effort to resolve this extremely difficult puzzle. We, the Cohesion countries, have decided to redefine ourselves as countries supporting a more ambitious Europe. 17 countries maintained a stable position, claiming the obvious: more resources, so that we can materialise the ambitious policies I talked about, on all levels.
In the upcoming weeks we will be consulting amongst ourselves and with the European institutions, so that next time we meet in Brussels, we will be able to reach an agreement that will be to the benefit of the European citizens and will be able to put Europe on the appropriate level.
We do not deserve a smaller Europe with smaller interventions in international matters. However, in order to be able to support our ambitious goals – let’s not kid ourselves – we need more resources.
I am at your disposal for any questions.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, what is your feeling following the negotiation? Do you believe that next time we meet, we will be closer to 1.069% -that is, 1.074%, essentially the amount dictated by the President of the European Council- or will we lean towards those suggested by the Frugal four?
In any case, the Commission had predicted that, in the event of a delay today, the jobs and the programmes would be gravely endangered. Is this an actual danger?
PRIME MINISTER: Let us be realistic. I think that the aspiration to reach an agreement in a single attempt was extremely unfounded. Our position on the issue of the budget is known.
I can tell you that the amount established as a starting point in the negotiation, namely the suggestion by the President of the Council, 1.074%, is the minimum acceptable amount.
And this, taking into account a dimension not much talked about; the stance of the European Council. The European Council came to this debate asking for 1.3% of Europe’s Gross National Income as budget and clearly stated: “watch out, if you fall too low, the European Parliament will reject the budget approved by the Council”. We, therefore, will return to “point zero”, having endured a significant division at the level of the top European Union institutions.
This is, therefore, a reality which must be taken into account and it is a reality resonating in all Euro Groups, not just in some of them. Consequently, the Council itself cannot ignore this reality.
I do not think there is an imminent danger of dramatization due to not reaching a decision. In addition, I would like to remind you that only a few people were able to predict from the beginning that we would have an extraordinary Council as early as this, in order to discuss budgetary issues.
I would like to believe that time will serve as remedy and allow us to be more prepared for an agreement next time.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, it seems that there is not much news due to the non-agreement, so, allow me a question on something that has been in the Greek news while you were here for the debate. It concerns the story on the protected witnesses.
With SYRIZA’s rush to defend them, with the implications whether the police found them in time or not, is there any comment on the preliminary investigation committee procedure and on the political controversy that has erupted?
PRIME MINISTER: There is no comment. The Prime Minister, the Government, we are all doing our job in an exceptionally complicated negotiation. I believe that Greece was in the epicentre of an important discussion that took place these past 24 hours, and not only – I stress this – to talk about our national interests.
We will obviously talk about our national interests. But, also, our opinion in Europe is an opinion that matters. And the preliminary investigation committee will do its job.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, I would like to ask a question on the immigration issue. In view of the fact that the proposal we have in our hands provides for reduced funds for FRONTEX, an issue you have also raised, does this concern you? Will we have to give a battle for the 4 basic goals we have set, assuming that there is some sort of priority on the Greek side?
PRIME MINISTER: Yes, the overall funding for immigration and the protection of the borders is reduced compared to the initial proposal. From 31 billion we dropped to 21, but this is certainly much higher than what we had.
I expressed my concern about this reduction in the discussion we had yesterday, when all countries talked about their national priorities, explaining that a Europe which protects its citizens -a central pillar of the Commission and I believe of all the member states as well- cannot implement these policies if the necessary tools and resources are not allocated.
In any case, regardless of the discussion at a European level, what I would like to say is that the government’s policy on the refugee-immigration issue is implemented according to the strict time frame we have set. There shall be no delay in the government’s pronouncements regarding the measures we have already announced, which will be implemented very soon, starting early next week.
Moreover, you asked me about priorities. The four main pillars are key priorities. Our farmers will not lose funding and we will receive more money for the Cohesion policies, for the NSRFs; development funds. For the first time we will have available funds, important ones – and with the current leverage, they will become even more important- for fair transition. There will also be significant funds for the protection of the borders, although we would like more.
I am fairly to very certain about these, but to be able to put all these on paper, we need a final agreement on the budget.
JOURNALIST: I would like to ask whether the “Frugal Four” front remained united to the end and whether the failure of the Summit is mostly due to the disagreement of the Cohesion friends or of the ambitious Europe, or mostly due to the resistance of the four of the North.
PRIME MINISTER: My opinion is that the four countries came with an extremely maximalist position, which could not be accepted; maximalist both in terms of budget as well as in terms of the amount of refunds they claimed, which, in our opinion, and following the withdrawal of the United Kingdom, is completely unjustified.
Apart from that, I do not want, and I do not believe it useful in these circumstances, to keep pointing fingers to whoever we believe is at fault for not reaching an agreement. I believe, however, that it is common ground that this position cannot be -objectively- supported.
And I wish to add something, which, I believe, should be explained; I also spoke about this yesterday at the Council. We are talking about countries that pay and countries that receive funds. Have we examined, however, that the countries that pay are those mostly benefited from the common market policies, which constitute the other leg of the Cohesion policies? Have we thought that much of the money of the Cohesion policies, the NSRFs, ultimately ends up back in these countries?
Have we thought that with the funding logic, we, as a country, have lost hundreds of thousands of young people whom we have educated, have paid as taxpayers, and they have ended up in these countries for work, as a result of the common market policy, the freedom of movement and the freedom of working in the European Union? Have we taken all this into account?
Therefore, this distinction between countries that pay -the good guys- and countries that receive funds -the bad guys- as well as the notion of bad guys who complain, is a very simplistic analysis that we need to leave behind.
JOURNALIST: How close or how far are we to an agreement on the budget? You told us that we are following the European Union tradition, so, now that we did not reach an agreement in the first Summit, will we reach one in the second? What is your estimate?
And one more question, if you allow me, about Turkey. This is the first Summit, I believe, where Turkey is not discussed, mainly because it is an extraordinary one and has a specific agenda. Nevertheless, I want to ask you because it is in the news, what will Greece do if Turkey sends its research vessel south of Crete? Will the reply be diplomatic or military?
PRIME MINISTER: My replies will be limited to the subject of the extraordinary Summit. If we were close to an agreement, I imagine that we would choose to stay up one more night to achieve it. That fact that we did not agree shows that we were not actually close to an agreement.
Apart from that, the only thing I will say is that, obviously, Turkey was not the subject of the Summit, but it was a potentially indirect subject, given that Turkey is a “player” – sometimes not a very productive one – in matters related to immigration and the relevant policies we need to implement.
I will make no other statement on national matters. I have already made many statements and I believe that everyone knows, inside and outside of Greece, the positions of our country on matters pertaining to the protection of our sovereign rights.
