Georgia Skitzi (ERT): Mr. Prime Minister, the management of the migration problem is becoming a difficult equation, as it was demonstrated at today’s Summit. I would like to ask you whether in the pre-summit meeting that you attended, which was initiated by Italy, the Netherlands and Austria, were there possibly any points of convergence? What are the main points of disagreement between the countries?
And a third question, if I may, how acceptable do you think it is for a European problem, which clearly has a humanitarian dimension, not to be dealt with collectively, but possibly for some states to set their own national characteristics? Thank you.
Kyriakos Mitsotakis: First of all, Ms Skitzi, the fact that we managed to reach an agreement on the conclusions of the migration chapter is a very positive development.
And, if I may make a more general observation, Greece since 2019 has been defending a tough but fair migration policy, with a strong emphasis on the external dimension of migration, that is, the protection of the external borders of the European Union.
The problems that Poland is facing today, with the instrumentalization of the migration problem by Belarus and Russia, Greece was the first to face them – I want to remind you – in March 2020. Therefore, we are showing full support to a country which is facing similar problems.
During these years, however, Europe’s migration policy has changed and has come much closer to the Greek positions. This is now a self-evident conclusion, which also derives from the European Council’s own conclusions.
The external dimension of migration, the protection of European borders, the Pact on Migration and Asylum constitute successes of Europe and are positions that are close to the Greek positions.
Europe has made a decision -it is a decision that obviously serves Greek interests as well – that it is not possible for traffickers to determine who will enter the European Union.
What we are now adding, as a next step, is to launch a European framework for returns. Because our argument will only be complete if we say that we are the ones to determine who wants to enter the European Union, but those who cannot and have no place in Europe because they are not entitled to asylum must return to their country of origin.
This is precisely the purpose of the directive we have given to the European Commission, to quickly develop new European legislation around return issues.
Therefore, I believe that Europe is slowly but steadily moving in the right direction and in a direction that certainly serves the Greek positions as well.
Spyros Mourelatos (ANT1): Mr. Prime Minister, I wanted to ask you about the Italian case. Italy is creating reception centres in Albania. You appeared in your interview with the Financial Times skeptical. I would like to ask, if European legislation were to change, would you be in favour of such a practice? What do you propose as an alternative if you think that the Italian example is not productive? What do you propose as an alternative about returns as we have seen that this is also not working bilaterally with Turkey.
Kyriakos Mitsotakis: First of all, let’s clarify what Italy does and does not do, because obviously every country has its own peculiarities.
It is a new, interesting, I would say, solution – I did not reject it in any way – for those cases of migrants who are collected in international waters – Greece presumably does not have such issues – and whose asylum applications will be processed, under Italian law, in Albania. However, these people will eventually, one way or another, pass through Italy again.
And, let me stress this, it is a bilateral agreement between Italy and Albania. It is not a decision which, at this level, has a European dimension.
What is of value, Mr Mοurelatos, is that in Mrs von der Leyen’s letter on returns, there is a phrase that “we will also look at innovative solutions”. And among the innovative solutions that can be considered is this idea of centres outside the European Union to which migrants whose asylum applications are rejected will be sent, if they cannot be returned directly to their countries of origin.
This is still an idea, it hasn’t been worked out. In principle, I find it positive. And obviously when we see the specific proposals of the European Commission we will be able to take a position.
Maria Psara (STAR): Let me ask a follow up question, you may have already answered: are you for or against closed centres in third countries regarding migration.
Now, my question is about the EU-Turkey agreement. Returns were foreseen, but they never happened. Have you made any proposal to change this attitude of Turkey?
Kyriakos Mitsotakis: What you point out is correct. I have stressed many times that our cooperation with Turkey on the refugee and migration issue has improved, but this concerns the operational dimension and better cooperation between the state authorities of Greece and Turkey and, above all, better cooperation with the Coast Guard.
However, you are right to point out that there are no returns to Turkey. And there should be. Obviously this is an issue that we are concerned about, we are raising it with Turkey, we are not the only ones raising it, and I think it is an issue that we have to insist on.
Greece is making returns, but I want to stress that returns are a difficult process overall, not only for Greece but for the European Union. Statistically, only one in five of those who have to return to their countries of origin are eventually returned.
That’s why it’s so important that Europe and the European Council comes and acknowledges this problem and basically says, to put it in very simple terms, that “if you don’t have the right to enter Europe, you have to go back”.
And this is the only way that we can send a message to both traffickers and those who know that they are not entitled to asylum, that if they come to Europe they have an increased chance of returning to the country they came from.
It is absolutely the right policy. Greece has insisted for many years on this direction, which I stress that we complement with legal migration agreements, bilateral agreements, such as the ones that Greece has. But there again, the conditions under which an economic migrant will come are determined by us and not by the traffickers.
If you enter the European Union illegally, there must be a way to go back to the country you started in. To put it very simply and very simplistically, I would say that this is the meaning of the new effort that we have to make as the European Union, which must also complement legislatively, as you know, the Pact on Μigration and Asylum, as we have left this chapter out of the European discussions.
Maria Psara (STAR): Inaudible
Kyriakos Mitsotakis: As I said, I am not opposed in principle to any innovative proposal and we need to examine them, we need to think outside the box. We have a problem today as Europe. We have a problem that we have to address.
And I want to remind you that a lot of what we were saying four or five years ago seemed very foreign at the time. When we said, in March 2020, “we are temporarily suspending the asylum process because we are receiving a hybrid threat from Turkey,” some people looked at us sideways. Many right-wingers said “what are you doing now?”.
Now that Poland has the same problem, everyone is rushing to support it. So Europe has come closer to national positions on the migration issue.
Giannis Kantelis (SKAI): I would like to take you to another aspect of Greek-Turkish relations, because on November 8th Mr Fidan will be in Athens and he will explore with Mr Gerapetritis whether the two countries can agree within the framework of the dialogue, whether they can reach a compromise for The Hague on the basic difference that we have, on the maritime zones. And I would like you to tell me how optimistic you are about this course of the discussion.
And I would like your comment, because at the same time there are voices in the country talking about “sell-outs”, talking about the “Cyprus and Aegean package”. In fact, these voices have been joined by that of the former Prime Minister, Mr Samaras.
Kyriakos Mitsotakis: First of all, let me make a distinction between the views of Mr Samaras and the other voices that are being heard around these issues.
Regarding Mr Samaras, I will say that his views are respected. I want to remind you that he was a former Prime Minister, he was a man who met with Mr. Erdoğan and during Samaras’ administration and with Mr. Venizelos as Minister, there were also exploratory contacts. Just to recall a little bit of what was going on at that time.
But now I will leave this issue aside. I realise that there are many very extreme voices in Greece, coming from parties that are to the right of New Democracy and from various media, which sort of accuse the government, me, the Foreign Minister, of “making concessions on national issues”, because we are doing what? Because we are talking to Turkey?
I ask myself: where were all these “ultra patriots” when we were protecting Greece’s borders in Evros? Where were all these “ultra patriots” when we were extending the territorial waters to 12 nautical miles in the Ionian Sea? When we signed the Exclusive Economic Zone with Egypt, creating sovereign rights by law? Where were all these “ultra patriots” when we were buying Belh@rra, Rafale? When we placed the order for the F-35?
I have spoken in the past about “pseudo patriots”. And, in any case, today Greece is in a position to discuss with Turkey in a civilized manner, but also in a much stronger position than it was in 2019. And the fact that we are discussing it does not mean that we agree. We are neither selling out nor betraying anyone.
The country has paid dearly in its history for this extreme rhetoric, which ultimately does not serve national interests and certainly offers no real alternative on the discussions.
Greece, therefore, and I fully support the Foreign Minister in this, will continue to talk to Turkey, as we have already done. I have met six times with Mr. Erdoğan. This does not mean that we have agreed or that we are close to an agreement on the issues of maritime zones, EEZ and the continental shelf.
We still have a long way to go to get to that point, but I wanted to give this slightly more extended answer to all those who consider themselves more patriotic than the rest of us. I suspect that in a real crisis they would be the first to put their tail between their legs.
Nikos Armenis (AMNA – MEGA): Mr. Prime Minister, high prices continue to put pressure on households and businesses, especially with electricity bills. I want to ask whether you discussed the issue of competitiveness or did you leave it for the informal European Council in Budapest, given that you had recently sent this letter to Ms. von der Leyen as well, where you pointed out the major distortions in the wholesale energy market compared to other European countries.
Kyriakos Mitsotakis: This letter has had an effect, because there is now a paragraph in the European Council conclusions which gives a clear mandate to the European Commission to investigate the distortions that were observed in the energy market, not only in Greece, but throughout South-Eastern Europe, for two months last summer.
These are distortions that are not easily explained, which have to do with the extremely complex way in which the European energy market is structured. However, it is very strange, not for a few hours or a few days, but for two months, that an entire region of Europe – and I am not just talking about Greece – should pay electricity prices that are much higher than the rest of Europe, in a supposedly single market, without any increase in gas prices.
Therefore, the European Council accepted our request and we are looking forward to the European Commission’s proposals on how this distortion can be addressed.
George Papakonstantinou (Action24): Good evening, Mr. Prime Minister. I will stay in the field of the economy. Today, the revised GDP figures were released by ELSTAT. There we see that the original estimate is revised upwards, GDP is growing by 5 billion and investment is growing equally. And I want to ask you what these figures signal about the government’s economic policy, about its economic planning and the possibility of changing it or how many more opportunities are being created? Thank you.
Kyriakos Mitsotakis: I would be worried if the opposite had happened. As you know, ELSTAT at certain intervals undertakes a comprehensive review of economic data, including GDP, and it is very encouraging that the final GDP figures show that the growth that our government achieved was even higher than what we knew, at least as reflected in the previous figures.
It does not change anything in our economic policy, it just confirms that the Greek economy has a strong growth dynamic, that this growth dynamic is not only fuelled by consumption, as was often the case in the past, but that investment also plays an important role in this dynamic.
And I would say that it is an acknowledgment of the government’s economic policy and certainly an encouraging message, which, ultimately, because the whole basis of GDP is changing, will be reflected in the indicators, such as the debt-to-GDP ratio, but also in all the statistical data that take into account GDP per capita. If this increases, obviously the country’s overall position improves, and compared to other European countries, in all these indicators.
