The government’s position on the removal of former Prime Minister Antonis Samaras was argued in detail by Minister of State Makis Voridis in an interview with Mega, insisting in particular on the “why” of the removal.
In detail, in the Samara interview “there was an important, in my opinion, quantitative and qualitative differentiation”, he observed by way of introduction. And, yes, “indeed the former prime ministers, the former presidents may want to point out something with their public interventions, something they want to point out to the government, to something they have a different opinion from it”, but: The quantitative part comes in ” when explanations are repeatedly given by the government on this issue and it is systematically brought back. But there is also a qualitative difference in yesterday’s interview,” the Minister of State emphasized.
“For the first time, the resignation of the foreign minister is being requested on the basis, ultimately, of questioning his patriotism. This is heavy qualitative differentiation. Because the Secretary of State is not there by chance. The foreign minister has been appointed there by the prime minister. If the patriotism of the foreign secretary is questioned, obviously the patriotism of the prime minister, who keeps an insufficiently patriotic foreign minister in place, is also questioned. This is something that cannot be tolerated.”
On the other hand, “political differentiation in matters of policy, even foreign policy, is an issue, but questioning the patriotism of the government and the prime minister cannot be accepted”, clarified the Minister of State.
“How does it support and continue to support the government?”
He said, however, something else: “If I concluded that this government is moving in the wrong direction, if I thought that it was making a mistake in foreign policy and in fact I didn’t believe it because I am not convinced by its clarifications, if I thought that it was going to opposite direction to that which the whole world is going, a question arises: why do you support this government?”. And, subsequently, “the main question is: after all this, Mr. Samaras, having said all this, how does he support and continue to support the government?”
Then M. Voridis invoked the position of the government representative, on Saturday, that the government is absolutely stable, in fact – Mr. Voridis added – in contrast to what is happening in Germany and France, which are “in deep political crisis”. On the contrary, our country has “a strong government, a strong prime minister, a clear majority and problems in the opposition”.
After all, he added, “the ND MPs are aligned with the government and it is something they have proven”, while at this point, the Minister of State literally said three “No’s”: He is not afraid of variations in bills. There is no chance that the Prime Minister will ask for a vote of confidence in the Parliament. There are no elections.
“The government has a lot of work to do, it has to deal with a number of world issues.” And, precisely at the time when “the government is focused on dealing with the problems, saying over and over and over things that have been answered, obviously a question arises”.
Regarding whether there is an issue with the parliamentary seat of Antonis Samaras, he replied that these issues are conscientious, they are “his issues” (Mr. Samaras), recalling that when he himself, that is, Mr. Voridis, changed parties in the past , “I gave her the seat, but that is everyone’s issue.”
“The discussion cannot begin unstructured”
On the occasion of Samara’s proposal that the former Prime Minister Kostas Karamanlis be the next President of the Republic, he pointed out: “Kostas Karamanlis is also an important person for both the party and the nation”, with the simultaneous observation that there is a difference that this debate be opened by a third party rather than by the person institutionally responsible for the proposal of the President of the Republic, who is none other than the president of the largest party in the Parliament.
“The debate cannot start unstructured, moreover we have a President of the Republic”, so we cannot “open such a debate, because it is degrading to the face of the President of the Republic”. In any case, he added, “we have made it clear in all tones that this discussion will open at the right time and will be chosen by the president of New Democracy”.
Specifically, regarding the proposal of Antonis Samaras, he first asked: “Shouldn’t there have been an agreement here, especially when this person has this weight?”. He continued: “It turns out that there has been no collusion. It turns out, with a difference of half an hour, that there has been no such agreement. Here there is the institutional order, which must be respected, it is important for the President of the Republic and the process”. Pointing out that the Constitution calls for an increased majority, and therefore, the President must have synthetic characteristics as much as possible, M. Voridis expressed the opinion that, yes, a person on the Right could have synthetic characteristics.
In the continuation of the interview, however, he raised a series of questions: “Is the construction of the fence a right-wing or centrist policy? Are the Rafales, the F35s, the frigates right-wing or centrist? Is lowering tax rates a right-wing or centrist policy? Is enforcing legality everywhere a right-wing or centrist policy? Is increasing penalties in the Criminal Code and a stricter criminal framework a right-wing or centrist policy? The restriction of immigration flows, the restrictive immigration policy for which we are accused, scrutinized and heavily criticized, is it a right-wing or a centrist policy?”
“The prime minister said he does not believe in the woke agenda”
While, answering a related question about the law for equality in civil marriage, he wondered: “If it was a hard ideological core, as some want to show it, would the president of the ND say that everyone should act according to their conscience?”. He reminded that just last Thursday “the prime minister said that he does not believe in the woke agenda, there is no woke agenda in Greece and, if it is up to him, there will never be one”.
On the occasion of the finding that “after the elections in America, this debate opened up intensively”, he observed that “in America, what has woken up is that they go and tear down statues of their heroes because, as they say, they had slaves”. And, at this point, he made the analogy: “Let’s go and tear down the statue of Kolokotronis in the square in Tripoli, because Kolokotronis was a slaughterer. This is the woke.”
The interview ended as it began: “We have heard the views of Mr. Samaras many times and we have them with great respect and with great attention.” But here, he repeated, there was a qualitative difference, which is “the questioning of the patriotic orientation of the government”. Rather, he concluded, “the President of the Republic of Cyprus is also involved in this. Why can’t the Prime Minister of Greece and the President of the Republic of Cyprus do favors, this can’t be done.”
#Voridis #Samaras #Questioning #governments #patriotism #accepted
What specific aspects of Antonis Samaras’s statements do you believe most effectively challenge the current government’s approach to patriotism and foreign policy?
1. Can you tell us your reaction to the statements made by former Prime Minister Antonis Samaras regarding the current government’s leadership and foreign policy decisions? How do you perceive the issues he raised, specifically in terms of questioning the patriotism of the government and the country’s direction?
2. In your opinion, how does the government’s current stance on issues like immigration, tax rates, and enforcement of the law align with traditional right-wing or centrist values? Do you believe that the political differentiation on these matters is justified?
3. As the Minister of State, how do you respond to criticisms from opposition parties who argue that the government’s policies are moving the country in the wrong direction? What measures are in place to ensure that the government remains accountable to the people’s interests?
4. Given the current state of political upheaval in Europe with the election results in France and Germany, how does the stability of the Greek government compare? Do you see any potential challenges ahead that could threaten this stability?
5. How important is it for the former Prime Minister to maintain a collaborative relationship with the current administration, particularly in regards to issues like the selection of the next President of the Republic? Do you believe that public disagreements like these undermine the influence and credibility of both parties?
6. Recent debates have focused on the role of the woke agenda in Greek politics. Can you clarify what this term means and how it relates to the government’s approach to equality and social justice issues? Do you think there should be a balance between preserving historical figures and addressing contemporary concerns around diversity and inclusion?
