PASOK-Movement for Change leader Nikos Androulakis referred to protests in France and other European countries during a radio interview on MEGANEWS 104.6 with journalists R. Tzima and G. Papachristos, identifying rising inequality as their root cause.
“A new generation sees that it will not live better than its parents, with no strong welfare state, housing policy or opportunities for the future.
In other words, they think: ‘On the salary I earn, my parents, who were middle class, could buy a house. I will never be able to buy one. My parents managed to put me through university; how will I pay for my children’s education?’
Let me give you a simple example. It is the devaluation of the dream and of the chance to put your plans for the future into practice.
Now, of course, things have taken a different, ugly turn, with clashes. Young people should protest and put forward their demands, but all of this must be done within a framework of respect.
And I don’t think ruining a small business owner or setting a kiosk on fire helps anyone’s cause.
I also don’t think these acts are carried out by young people themselves; they are mainly caused by elements that infiltrate protests and wreak destruction,” he said.
He also identified as a priority for the EU “the need to reinvent the European social model for public health, education and housing policy.
You cannot say you will take resources from the cohesion funds and put them into defence.
You need defence too — that is, a European army, joint defence procurement and a common foreign policy — but you also need cohesion funds.”
Turning specifically to the political landscape in France, the PASOK leader noted that “we have the Putin-Trump agreement, an agreement reached after Trump’s defeat in the Middle East and the mistaken move over Iran.
Ukraine and the peoples of Europe will pay the price, and we need to consider how to respond.
And amid all this, we have a France where it seems that Le Pen is calling the shots today”.
Turning to domestic politics, Nikos Androulakis said “Mr Mitsotakis — as some say — is positioning himself as the candidate of reason and responsibility. Was he part of that camp?
In 2010, if PASOK MPs had voted for what Mr Mitsotakis voted for, the country would have ended up on the drachma.
Mr Tsipras says, ‘But I got the country out of the bailout programmes; I took over a bankrupt country.’ Why is that completely false?
Because he took over a country whose deficit at the time was 5%, whereas PASOK had taken it over at 15%.
In other words, the prime minister who took over with a 15% deficit and brought it down to 5% was Pinochet, while the one who inherited a 5% deficit and brought it down to 2% was a success.
So everyone built various narratives at PASOK’s expense, detached from historical and political reality. We have a duty to say so, because some people want us to forget,” he said.
He cited two examples of political unreliability and inconsistency by both Mr Mitsotakis and Mr Tsipras.
“Look at the 120 instalments. Mr Pierrakakis said they were unnecessary, that they were populist, but they introduced them — in whatever form — just a few days later.
On the other hand, Mr Tsipras argued that the 13th pension could not be paid and that it would be populist.
So he could not pay a 13th pension at the beginning of October, but he could pay it at the end of October!” he remarked.
He described PASOK’s political plan as: “winning the election and bringing about political change.
What does political change mean? It means the New Democracy party, whose policies are in force today, must go into opposition — in other words, New Democracy must be defeated.
Political change means the defeat of New Democracy and the implementation of our programme.
With whom? With those the people point to and vote for; the balance of power will determine that.
What am I committing to today? If I receive a mandate and PASOK comes first, New Democracy will be in opposition and we will implement our programme as I presented it at the Thessaloniki International Fair.
And one more thing: we will have a cabinet. We have people to serve as ministers of foreign affairs, the economy and so on.
So PASOK has both a programme and people to govern. Do others who aspire to govern the country have these advantages?”
He added: “My opponents are populism, corruption and policies that do not move the country forward.
If some people think all this inconsistency is a solution for the country, I’m sorry, but I don’t. It is a return to the past.
The confrontation that suits New Democracy is to take the debate back to 2015.
Instead of talking about the issues facing us today — the cost of living, banks, health, education and housing — Mr Mitsotakis would steer the discussion towards the referendum, the bailout programmes and all the rest, to duck his real responsibilities.
With PASOK, the debate will be about today and tomorrow.
We have no opponent other than New Democracy and the prime minister, but when necessary, we will respond; we will not remain silent,” he said.
He called on the prime minister to bring PASOK’s bill on private debt before the full parliament.
“Thousands of families are being held hostage by funds and servicers. They don’t answer their calls; they respond after months and threaten them.
We say: give borrowers who have shown an interest in their loan a second chance to preserve their dignity. We must not throw out the baby with the bathwater.
The prime minister must bring it to parliament for discussion. If he does not, he will once again prove that, just as he protects the banks, he also protects the funds and servicers,” Mr Androulakis said.