Galery

1

Lyubov Panayotova is Director of the European Institute Foundation. She holds master's degrees in Electronic Engineering and Financial Management, she has specialised in Effective Management and Administration. She deals with various aspects of international activities and the process of Bulgaria’s accession to the European Union. She participated in the negotiations on the Central European Free Trade Agreement, the European Free Trade Area and in many bilateral agreements for commercial investment. Lyubov Panayotova talks with Polina Spartyanova.
    Why do Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras and Minister of Finance Yanis Varoufakis provoke so many comments and reactions with regard to their behaviour and appearance?
    It is a bit difficult to talk about their appearance. This is perhaps the desire of a professor with extreme liberal views to have a slightly different style of behaviour in a council that is said to be one of the most conservative councils. The Eurogroup generally is the most traditional council that unites people with great financial experience and specific ideas. It is no coincidence that this council is called a club in Brussels, not a council. Regardless of the political factions and struggles of the different governments that dominate in the separate countries, they speak one language in it and understand each other very easily. This was the standard practice and naturally, Varoufakis is now breaking it up a little.
    However, their difficulties do not stem from this. Tsipras and Varoufakis made very serious promises before Greek voters who did not realise that they could not be kept or that they were swept away by populism. Now reality and collision show that pre-election slogans and promises are one thing whereas reality is quite different when one comes to power. I think both have no administrative and managerial experience, since being a member, be it European or national, is not the same as heading a particular ministry, not to speak of being a prime minister. You have to have the right reflection on a particular point.
    What is their goal? Why are they so consistent in their attempts to set their European partners against themselves?
    I do not think that their goal is to set the partners against themselves. They want to show that it is possible to carry out a different policy. This topic, namely the end of the policy of austerity, has been very seriously raised. This policy was at the heart of all public debates, when those willing to preside the new European Commission, i.e. to take up the 5-year term, appeared. The debates were very strong two years ago too, when they elected a president in France, which is one of the main countries and drivers of the EU. This issue has been on the table for a long time, since the beginning of the crisis. Even though the figures show that some of the countries that were most affected by this crisis have started to overcome it, reporting economic growth, the people cannot directly feel the change. Citizens are out of patience already. On the one hand, it is not properly explained what is being done with all these austerity measures and I think that they rather want to be able to impose their view that it will be easier for them to emerge from the crisis and be able to more easily repay their duties. Here, despite all the rhetoric, no one has said that Greece will not repay its obligations. A transition period, extension is required, letters are being written requesting more flexible lenders and commission, and generally, everything is associated with it. This is the difference between the extreme left and the extreme right. Various things can be negotiated with the extreme left, which I do not favour, because it does not want the destruction of Europe. Tsipras himself wants to show a new face of this union. As for the extreme right, it does not want Europe but its division. Even if Greece leaves, or if it has to leave, the euro zone to solve its problems, devalue its currency, clear the loans granted by the euro zone, that does not mean that it leaves Europe. I do not think this is what Prime Minister Tsipras wants.
    Naturally, the negotiations will be difficult because conservatism in financial circles is very strong on the one hand and they do not want to arrive at a precedent on the other, because Spain or Ireland will want the same afterwards. This will result in a spiral, which will be very difficult to manage.
    Do you think the behaviour and appearance are part of a deliberate strategy for a firm course of negotiations with the European Union? If so, what are the pros and cons of such a strategy?
    It is very difficult to say that this is a deliberate strategy because the behaviour and appearance of the Minister of Finance are peculiar to him, they are part of his nature. The fact that he does not consider how to react in certain moments and in certain places where he appears for the first time shows that he has yet to learn or his colleagues will learn to accept precisely that kind of behaviour. However, I do not think this is successful at this point. Everything that happened last week shows that no concession will be easily made in this aspect. The Greek side will have to make much more effort and to show why a particular approach is better and how it will help the repayment of obligations.
    Is there a danger for other euro zone member states to take the course of Greece?