Marinakis: If Samaras’s party is formed, it will justify his expulsion

There is an unwritten rule in a large political party: you can disagree, you can take a different stance, you can take a step back—but if every time you don’t like something, you go and form a new party, then New Democracy becomes—though it will never actually become New Democracy—the New Left, DIMAR, or anything else we’ve seen in this political landscape.

Marinakis: If Samaras’s party is formed, it will justify his expulsion

This article is an AI translation of an original piece published in Greek. Read original

“If Samaras’s party is formed, it will justify his expulsion, commented government spokesperson Pavlos Marinakis on the possibility of the former prime minister forming a party. In his interview with Action 24, when asked to comment on the stance of the two former prime ministers, Antonis Samaras and Kostas Karamanlis, he emphasized:

“New Democracy has managed to remain the sole major political party for 52 years for two reasons: The first reason is that it is rooted in an ideological foundation; it was built on certain ideas as described by Konstantinos Karamanlis, which obviously evolve over time. The second reason is the people involved—and not just those in high positions. There are also people who contribute to this party without expecting anything in return.

There is an unwritten rule in a large political party: you can disagree, you can take a different stance, you can take a step back—after all, politics isn’t a profession—but if every time you don’t like something, you go and form a new party, then New Democracy becomes—though it will never actually become New Democracy—the New Left, DIMAR, or anything else we’ve seen in this political arena. New Democracy is New Democracy. It has principles, values, and leaders, and it has learned to remain united.”

When asked about this, he also emphasized that Mr. Karamanlis’s criticism is directed within the party itself—“that is the big difference”—and that he has never left New Democracy.

v
Privacy