Nadin Chardalia (SKAI): Good evening, Mr. Prime Minister. I would like to ask you, we have been talking for a long time about strengthening European defence. Do you believe that the defence readiness roadmap you discussed today at the European Council will have and can have real substance, and what will be the benefits of this initiative for Greece?
And a second question, if I may: did you find any response to this common European lending mechanism for defence projects, which you said you would push to bring back to the table?
Kyriakos Mitsotakis: First of all, Ms. Chardalia, we have already taken significant steps towards implementing a common European defence policy. I am referring to the establishment of the national escape clause, which our country has already made use of, but also to the SAFE program, which is a lending and financing tool that encourages European countries to enter into partnerships and place joint orders.
Beyond that, I consider it very positive that the European Commission’s roadmap identifies as flagship projects proposals that have always been a priority for Greece. I refer, for example, to the anti-missile defence shield – I would like to remind you that I was the first, together with the Polish Prime Minister, to present this proposal almost two years ago-, but also to the protection of all European Union borders from drone attacks.
It is also very important that there is recognition that any European defence plan must cover all European borders, not just the eastern ones.
Beyond that, the financial instruments -beyond national capabilities- for financing such projects have not yet been specified. We are not yet at the point where we can talk about or where the idea of a European defence fund for joint financing of projects of common European interest has matured.
I will, however, insist on presenting this proposal, discussing it in the European Council, and I believe that its time will come. This proposal will also mature, because it responds to a real common European need.
Maria Psara (STAR): Beyond what you have said about the SAFE program and Turkey’s participation, I would like to ask whether it is possible for Turkish companies operating in the defence sector and cooperating with corresponding European companies to undertake the manufacture of European equipment through the broader ReArm program.
And a second question, if I may: it seems that you have not reached an agreement on the recovery loan based on frozen Russian assets. Is this discussion over? And if so, where will the money to support Ukraine come from?
Kyriakos Mitsotakis: We have stated our position on the SAFE issue many times. The relevant article of the regulation requires a third country to have an agreement with the European Union in order for that country to be able to join the SAFE program in principle. Greece has made it clear that the necessary conditions for Turkey to participate in SAFE are not currently met.
I need not repeat our long-standing position that as long as Turkey has a pending casus belli against Greece, as long as the sovereignty of Greek islands in the Aegean is disputed, we obviously cannot agree to such participation.
I wish Turkey would change its stance on these issues so that we could engage in a meaningful discussion on this matter. I do not foresee this happening in the near future, so there is no question of Turkey participating in the SAFE program.
Now, regarding the second issue you raised, no final decision has been taken. We have referred it to the European Commission so that it can come up with a proposal which, however, will be very well documented from a legal point of view.
In order to be able to utilize these committed resources, we must be sure that we are not creating an insurmountable legal precedent and that we are not also burdening ourselves with some kind of systemic risk, which we may face as Europe in the future.
We therefore expect to return to this discussion in December. What is certain is that, at this Council meeting, there was not enough maturity to proceed with such a decision.
Sofia Fasoulaki (MEGA): Good evening, Mr. Prime Minister. Today, you discussed for the first time the issue of housing and the housing crisis in Europe. Greece is not the only country facing this problem; many other countries are facing it too. In fact, according to the latest report by the European Council, there is a risk of a social crisis arising from the housing problem.
I would like to ask what the country’s position is on this issue and whether we in Greece should expect anything more than the action you are taking in November?
Kyriakos Mitsotakis: First of all, the Greek government has unveiled a thorough plan to address the housing problem, which tackles the acute problem from both the demand and supply sides.
Indeed, the measure to be implemented at the end of November, namely the refund of one month’s rent to all tenants up to a maximum of €800, is a very important initiative to boost the income of those who are currently renting. But it is not the only measure, obviously, that the Greek government is implementing.
I am pleased that this discussion took place at European level for the first time. It was an opportunity for us to discuss and compare our experiences with other European countries. In fact, I asked the European Commission to create a database so that we could examine, present, and discuss with other countries which policies were effective and which were not.
We have common problems, let’s say, with other southern countries: how do we deal with short-term rental issues? What restrictions should we put on these issues?
Obviously, these are primarily national policy issues. However, I believe that Europe has a role to play, initially by giving us greater flexibility in the use of European programs, for example for home repairs, without strictly limiting these repairs to energy upgrades. European programs, for example for home repairs, without being strictly limited to repairs related solely to energy upgrades.
You should expect announcements from the Greek government in this direction relatively soon, as I believe that we may find ourselves at the forefront of such initiatives, with Europe’s consent, of course.
Beyond that, in view of the next multiannual program – I am referring now to the current period, to the current NSRF- but also in view of the next budget, I believe that exploring European financial instruments to address the housing problem will be one of the priorities we will discuss when the time comes to discuss the new European budget.
George Papakonstantinou (ERT): Mr. Prime Minister, good evening. We understand that Europe is balancing between the green transition and competitiveness. I would like you to give us a brief overview of your discussions with your counterparts and tell us whether there is ultimately a willingness for the flexibility that you have pointed out many times.
And one more thing: how can this new green deal, its update, be implemented without placing an additional burden on households?
Kyriakos Mitsotakis: We want to be ambitious about the energy transition, but we must be realistic, not undermine the competitiveness of European industry, and certainly not cause social unrest by imposing unbearable costs on our households and businesses.
This is precisely the mix we are trying to find, and I think there is a general understanding in the European Council that we need to be flexible. We must be realistic and not prioritize the goal of climate neutrality above all other goals – competitiveness and social cohesion -, which must also be served by our policies.
There are now proven technologies that can be rolled out very quickly, have a positive economic impact, and can help us reduce energy costs. Renewable energy sources, for example, are currently helping Greece to reduce energy costs in our country. The same applies to other European countries.
However, even today, there are other areas of economic activity, such as shipping or air transport, where there is no obvious solution as to how these sectors can become “greener.”
Therefore, it does not make much sense at this point to impose significant additional costs on these sectors, in the hope that at some point a technological solution will be found that will lead to a reduction in emissions from these sectors as well.
I believe that the Greek priorities are clearly reflected in the conclusions, as agreed upon after a lengthy discussion. Personally, I am satisfied with the outcome we have achieved.
Spyros Mourelatos (AMNA – Flash.gr): Mr. Prime Minister, about a week ago you announced an interesting initiative for a forum of the coastal states of the Eastern Mediterranean. Many saw in this initiative an American “aura”, so to speak. I want you to comment on this.
I would also like you to tell me what the next steps are, whether you have already received a response to this proposal from any of the four countries, whether you have a timetable in mind, and whether this list of countries is final. In other words, could a sixth country, either from the Eastern Mediterranean or from the European Union, participate in this initiative? Thank you.
Kyriakos Mitsotakis: Very soon, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs will be able to present a clearer roadmap regarding this idea, which I have outlined.
Such an initiative should come as no surprise to us, as Greece, because Greece has participated in the past and has launched several multilateral initiatives in the broader Eastern Mediterranean region.
In response to your question, we would obviously be very open to considering this if there are other countries in the Eastern Mediterranean -I want to specify this geographically – that would like to participate.
However, there is one, I would say, indispensable condition for this initiative to succeed and ultimately come to fruition, because that would be the outcome. A great deal of preparatory work will be required to reach a summit of heads of state and government.
One non-negotiable condition is unconditional respect for International Law and the Law of the Sea, because there must be a basic framework for discussions, at least on issues relating to International Law.
Beyond that, however, there are other issues that can be discussed, which I would say are more moderate in nature and less contentious, such as the climate crisis and civil protection.
But we need to establish a clear framework of exactly what we intend to do with such an initiative and what, I would say, should be, not the terms, but the rules governing this cooperation that we envision.
