‘ I look into your eyes and tell you that there was no cover-up, it is at your own discretion whether you will believe me,” said he in , adding that he stands with respect and humility towards the memory of the people who were lost and their families. “Only they have the right to make their grief a protest. They can even wrong the State,” he stressed. At the same time, the Prime Minister threw the glove at the opposition who accuses former Transport Minister Costas Karamanlis of “hiding behind his immunity” saying that if they judge that he is being burdened with manslaughter by deceit, they should document it and file a request for a Preliminary Review Committee. Mitsotakis targeted the parties that launched this parliamentary process, and especially PASOK, once again noting that their goal is to destabilise and throw the government into conflict with economic interests. “You made a motion of mistrust for a report we knew for a year,” the Prime Minister said, addressing PASOK President Nikos Androulakis. “Impressive reflexes. One suspect would say that you knew the publication before the newspaper was printed,” he added. The Prime Minister in his speech sent clear messages… “I will not co-rule with any paracentric,” he said, applauded by the N.D. MPs. “Constantinos Karamanlis had once wondered ‘who rules this place’. The answer has been given: The dominant people rather than the inflated wallets, as he said… Anyone who wants to go down to politics to do it and be measured, not with proxy,” added Mr. Mitsotakis. Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I come to today’s debate with regard to the tragedy of the Tempes, a matter much bigger, much deeper than just an excuse for tabling even a motion of censure against the government, as the parties that caused it wanted. That is why I will talk more about the truth about this accident, which so hurt our country, according at least always to my own perspective. There will be fewer references to the political issues arising from this initiative by the opposition. I stand with respect and humility against the memory of the people we lost, the pain of the wounded, and the test of their family members. After all, only those of us all finally have the right to make their grief a protest. Having experienced the injustice of loss, they can even wrong the state, seeking responsibilities and guilty at times possibly and blindly, however demanding justice, the one that will eventually be their basic support throughout their lives. I’m sure they’ll be watching us now, I’m sure some people are in Parliament today. So through them I address everyone and everyone, as Prime Minister, citizen, father. I want you to listen to me not only with the heart but also with the mind. And unfortunately, so far, in the face of this tragedy, we have not been able to walk together in a tomorrow with fewer shadows, with fewer cries and accusations like those we heard today, which eventually, you know, lead to people closing their ears and believing no one and nothing. That’s why I kept low tons in the first place. I apologized on behalf of all those who ruled the place for decades without being able to change the bad texts of the Greek railways, but without ever believing that there are Greeks who mourn more than others. By constantly supporting, despite what you are trying to distort today, which has now been proved today: that in Tempe our country has clashed frontally with its evil self. And that that fateful night timeless gaps of the state encountered human error. That’s what I was saying, that’s what I’m saying today. Unfortunately, our political opponents chose a stance that no one thought of in similar tragedies, such as the 104 people who were burned in the Eye, those who died in Mandra. They wanted to make their banners part of the pain. They wanted to turn the pain, the pain of a society into a political tool to hit the government and me personally. A collective drama that should become a sign of national reflection, split into the paths of cheap confrontation. I remember, you know, when on the anniversary, in the first year, you blacked out Koumoundurus. Remember? We could have done the same in 2019. We didn’t, and that’s our big difference, this party with yours. You said, again, Mr. Famelle, Mr. Androulakis, that “I am hiding.” I’m here, as I’ve always been present when I needed to, at the scene of the accident from the early hours – I’ll come back to it – and everywhere. I’ve been placed many times in this room. I have been absent only from one meeting for reasons of principle: from examining the findings of the committee of inquiry, as I have always done in similar procedures. But also because, as I said in my message on the first anniversary of the tragedy, the reason for the case, as it appeared, parties can ultimately have it, only independent Justice. It is true, however, that we have not spoken from the first moment and systematically about the tragedy and its causes. We didn’t talk as much as we should. Yes, I recognize that this was a mistake, and ours. And on this information gap, the most unlikely plot scenarios gradually grew. While, in general confusion, some shrewd ones made sure to throw the seed of doubt – not just towards the state, institutions – and towards Justice itself. And you did it today. And indeed, the campaign that intervened has been cynical and immoral, deeply immoral. Political forces turned into pain dealers, channeling the anger of families to their own channels. They put their signature under reasonable questions to make it appear that the government does not have humanity, emotional empathy, as you call it, to share them. And all this walking a double but blind road. You boldly introduced into your propaganda a vocabulary of other times that only charges the thymic: “trouble”, “cover-up”, “movage”. Well, it’s time today to break up some of the myths around this accident. I’ll try – I’ll say it again, no matter how loud you shout, you won’t upset me – to do it, in memory of the people we lost, as sober as I can. Today I am not addressing you, I am addressing a society which, yes, is suspicious and angry. I take responsibility, in memory of all that has been lost, to tell the truth as I at least understand it and to be judged on what I will say. Ladies and gentlemen, let us start with the recent, deeply misleading claim of the ‘Step’, which ultimately caused – I will come back to it – and your motion of distrust. “They changed,” he says, the dialogues of that evening so that all responsibility, supposedly, turns to the stationmaster of Larissa. I wonder, wasn’t all the conversations between the drivers and the station chiefs in the first place available to the investigating authorities? So why would someone want to change that fact? And I was really listening to you, Mr. Famelle, listening to you and coming back to my mind on that tragic night when I was told at 12 p.m. about the accident. In the confusion, the pain, we realized it was a great tragedy. We never hid what had happened. We knew something dramatic had happened. Sleepless… No, some people tried to hide in other circumstances. So don’t say that, please. Don’t say it. Don’t scratch wounds. I don’t want to go there. I don’t want to go there, but don’t challenge me. I don’t want to go there. Well, and you really come and say – I left in a helicopter and went and saw the most horrible thing I’ve ever seen in my life – that at that moment my concern, my thought, was “to tease the dialogues”. Aren’t you ashamed? Aren’t you ashamed? Aren’t you ashamed to imply these things? That was my concept? How am I gonna mess with the dialogues? But to go see the distortion you’re trying to do. That what the report means, which you adopted, is that somehow it’s not the station manager’s fault, is it? That’s really what you mean. That’s what you mean. That “let’s go get out,” he says, “the responsibility”. So I ask: this man, a tragic figure, is incarcerated by a decision of Justice, because it is not disputed, it is not disputed – this without any doubt – that there have been seven violations of the security regulation and that a human hand – isn’t it? -, a human hand sent the train – and this is heard in the talks – on the wrong line. Why don’t you tell me, there’s even one man in here who thinks that if the station chief had done his job right, as they do dozens, hundreds of station managers every day, would the accident have happened? Is there even one person who believes that? So why do you question something that Justice itself – at least in the first instance – has considered that it has probably happened? Business number two, go now to the other monstrosity: “Government disguises truth and hides accident evidence”. “We broke,” he says, “consciously, we can get the ground back”. Why? Why would we do that? And that this – attention – “was the decision of the government, the responsible Deputy Minister, the Prime Minister obviously,” because, in your judgment, it all ends here. I wonder: what exactly should we cover up with the “trouble”? When you know very well both you and all those who are dealing with these atrocities that at the time the concern of the crews was how to lift the train cars to find out who they were underneath. It was our only concern at the time. You weren’t there, some of us were there. And of course the fact that the “trouble” was done on the passenger side and not the commercial train, does not concern you at all, because that is what we cared about at the time, that was what the rescuers cared about. And of course, you’ve concealed the fact that all these notorious theories about wood, explosives, vehicles that were ventilated somehow, which were carrying flammable materials, all that you mean was a government plan. That we “had added cars”, collided the train, blew up the train and it was all the government’s fault and rushed to cover them up. Truly, it is no wonder how such monstrosities repeatedly can eventually create the sense of truth. So let’s go see what Justice says now. What does Justice say? The expert – because one expert exists, the rest of us, to be clear, are technical consultants – has never confirmed anything you say. Indeed, justice has done right here, because I may not be able to convince you of what I say, although I look you in the eye and tell you that never, ever, was there any order given to cover up. I look into your eyes and it’s your judgment to believe me or not. I don’t know if I can convince you. But I’m telling you the truth and that truth you can’t question, no matter what you say. Because you told me we don’t dare talk, so I look you in the eye. The evidence, then, is indeed the evidence: the justice expert says that “nothing of this is true.” And rightly, quite rightly, Justice, in order to be able to convince you, not me, and in order for justice to be done in the end, has asked a second expert to consider what I consider to be totally unruly accusations. And we got to the point – I didn’t want to refer to the “national prosecutor”, but I owe it to a man’s memory to do so -, you reached the point, Mrs. Constantopoulou, to invoke the driver of the commercial train – I had gone to his funeral, I happened to know him, not well, he was my volunteer indeed in Chalkocondyle – leaving an unimaginable hint: that he was “because he was my volunteer and had informed me of the cargo which had been carried.” Aren’t you ashamed in the memory of these people to say these things? There is a father there and a mother who hears you say all these things and who may not have the courage to come out and say “what are you saying? How dare you so tool the child’s pain and say that, without shame? “ I now come to the third paragraph: “the government intervenes so that the true guilty are not punished, preventing the investigation of Justice.” Why don’t you tell me, when has Greek justice moved more quickly than in the Tempes case? Never. He never moved more quickly, not comparing it to other cases. 34 people have already been charged. Of course, it is ‘armed’ and with a decision that we made: to remove secrecy in accident cases. Because you know what you did? When the responsible Minister of Justice informed me, in fact, because this was not provided for by the Criminal Code, “will we be able to open the phones of those involved to see their private talks if anything should come up?” and I said: ‘Surely, we should bring in a provision, to do so immediately’. You voted against the order. And you come and say that “we don’t make it easy for Justice to do its job quickly.” Fourth and very crucial issue. And a very difficult issue, perhaps the hardest of all. (Speech off the microphone from the opposition headquarters) What did you say? Don’t worry, I’ll look at you all right after. I’ll take a good look at you later, don’t worry. But no, I’m not addressing you. Now I’m not addressing you. I am now addressing a society that has unfortunately been poisoned by these theories. Well, fourth and critical issue: “If 717 had been completed, the accident would not have happened”. Yes, it is very likely, it can be almost certain – we will never know for sure – that if 717 had been completed it would in any case be much more difficult, that is for sure, to happen this accident. I don’t know if it would be absolutely certain, it would be much, much harder. I agree, I have said so. Locally, however, a system was operating and the stationmaster saw that the train was on the wrong line. He was watching. But let’s go see a little… Let’s go and see, since you were therefore in the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, let’s go see the notorious story of 717. Let’s go and remember a little bit what this 717 is, which so screwed us up. When was 717 signed? In 2014. When did it have to be completed? In 2016. How many extensions did the Minister of Infrastructure and Transport, Mr. Spirtzis? Six. If you had done your work elementaryly well, you who are now shouting, 717 should have been completed. But you didn’t just do that – listen to them and those who may not have heard them – you made sure to break it into two pieces – your practice, Patra, is known– Tower you had broken it into eight pieces – you broke it into two pieces and inherited us a contract with too many problems. And the government, the Minister, made a decision at that time: either it would completely abolish the contract, start over, or go, implementing a decision that you had already made since 2018 on the possibility of extending the contract, to complete the 717. And the Ministry’s decision, and right, was to complete 717 as soon as possible. This was a political decision. But you can’t blame the delay of 717 and at the same time say that the European Attorney’s proposal should be accepted to start over, because we would never have… This cannot be the case and the opposite and blame one person for both, that is not reasonable. Claim number five: The European D.A. – because we heard these arguments too – is incriminating the government for the Tempes. Therefore, says the opposition, “the country is accountable internationally”. You are well aware that the competence of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office is limited solely to acts affecting the European Union’s finances. The only issue that should concern Mrs Kövesi is the funds under Convention 717 and nothing more. Of course, as I said, that’s where it contradicts. She knows very well, I imagine, and she knows that if contract 717 hadn’t moved on today we wouldn’t have telemanaged and we wouldn’t have it for several years from now. And of course, for all the others he has said, he got the answers from the Supreme Court, because they concern the Constitution and Greek Justice. I am not a lawyer, but how does a prosecutor mean to intervene – be careful, intervene, open intervention – in an open case? The European District Attorney has exceeded her jurisdiction. Of course, it was very useful to you, because here a candidate MEP told you “and the European Prosecutor to bring in, if we have to bring down the government.” That is what your candidates say. He’s such a man. Well, let’s get to another difficult issue: “Ministers essentially burden with homicide offence”. You don’t say it openly. You do not say it openly – I will then come to the questions relating to the preliminary committee – but you do mean it. And of course they are responsible, each minister is responsible for what may happen in the area of his wider responsibilities. Yes, and it is time to have a debate here too, in this Chamber, on the distinction of political and criminal responsibility. I do not think there is any doubt about political responsibility. The Minister resigned immediately. She took political responsibility. But to blame someone, you know very well, for criminal responsibilities, our Constitution requires a indictment and a pre-trial committee. Of course, Mr Famellus told us this inimitable: “to make a preliminary” so generally, so abstractly, without indictment, without indictment. That’s exactly what Mr. Famellus said. You know what that reminds me of? It reminds me of something. It reminds me of Mr. Polakis, who said “to put a politician in jail if we are saved. I don’t care who, I don’t care who he is.” And you’re talking about a rule of law? Is that the rule of law in your own perception? Send a man to jail, but without charge? And in any event, if there is a causal link between the failure to complete a public contract and a tragedy, then I ask myself: when the prosecutor himself in the speech on the Eye said the right thing, that indeed “if we had the ‘112’ in Eye would have saved lives,” did we ever ask for criminal responsibilities to be attributed to Mr Pappas who was responsible for digital policy and never implemented ‘112’? And you’re laughing already? And you laugh, you laugh. No, we did not ask for criminal liability. Now be careful, let’s go a little further. A road is not complete, to take a specific example, the Patras Tower. Why isn’t it finished? Because Mr. Spirtzis made it eight pieces to get Mr. Kaloritsa settled for the pastures and the channels you wanted to do. That’s why it became eight pieces of Patras-Pyrgos and it took us five years to get her back on the road. So I’m asking, those who unfortunately died on a carmaniola road, does that mean that Mr. Spirtzis who cut the contract to pieces has a criminal responsibility for manslaughter? Yes or no? The answer is ‘no’. Here we go now, I come back to the question of Kostas Karamanlis who is “hidden behind his immunity”. I repeat that if you want, if you believe that a preliminary committee should be set up for the offence of negligent homicide, as you mean, with a possibility of deceit, you should document this, bring it to the House, discuss it. But on general charges of the type “let’s go make a preliminary one to put someone in jail”, we have no real rule of law. In 2007, a newly elected Member of the New Republic, together with very few other colleagues, primarily the New Republic, a PASOK then, had tabled a proposal to change Article 86 and to abolish the depreciation period, so that without bypassing the basic provisions, which are, by the way, applicable in all European countries, there would be no risk of the limitation. Risk of limitation, I remind you, to which the Minister of your government, Mr. Spirtzis, falls. We, therefore, with a constitutional review made by this government, changed – listen to this – changed the statute of limitations and went to 20 years, which means that all of us, all of us, all of this government, if a next House or a subsequent House comes and considers that it should give us – hear it – criminal responsibilities, we cannot hide behind any limitation. We did this, you didn’t do it, we did it. Because your entire argument is cover-up, listen a little, Mr. Androuliakis, don’t keep looking at your phone, you don’t have to talk again, don’t worry, no one has to give you directions. Well, one of society’s reasonable questions – and this is a question that needs to be answered is: “What have you done after the Tempes accident to make trains safer?”. That’s why you haven’t said a word. Do you care that much? Talk. I heard all your speeches. How trains will become safer, you never said a word. Well, our answer… (Speech off the microphone from the opposition headquarters) Mr. Pappa, I’ll come to you in a moment. Don’t be upset. And I will come to you, to PASOK, and don’t worry about it either. Well, there’s been a lot. We didn’t really talk about it. Mr Staikouras presented a number of initiatives for network security, with the first of course the completion of the multi-disciplinary Convention 717 on signalling and telemanagement systems. This photo is the command center of Larissa’s 717. What was made now, upon completion of contract 717. And indeed in everyone’s conscience, first and foremost Costas Karamanlis and all of us, this burden will always be mistaken, that if 717 had finished before the accident, this accident probably would not have happened. We recognize this first, but you will not talk about 717 when this should have been ready since 2016. You’re lying so much I can’t even watch you. I won’t talk in detail about the interventions we’ve made on the trains. I will only say that the system of telegovernment, with the exception of the piece destroyed in “Daniel”, Larissa-Domokos, is ready. I’ll say that the ETCS system is installed and now enters the trains. I will say that we doubled the funding of the OSE from 40 to 70 million to cover mainly maintenance projects needs. I will say that additional safety projects have been done: 300 cameras have been put in for continuous train monitoring, full systems of lighting, firefighting, alarm, communication across the tunnels, 14 bridges are being monitored real time through the OSMOS system and the GSM-R system was auctioned. But I would also like you to hear this, please very much: at the moment, on the European train network – and you know very well that Europe has very modern trains – only 12% of European trains today have all these security systems installed. What does that mean? That 88% of European trains do not exist. And trains do not crash every day in Europe or obviously in Greece, precisely because the general safety regulation is respected reverentially. I say this because technology will always help us make our transports even safer. But it is never the absolute, the final, the exclusive, the decisive insurance system. Mr. Androuliakis, I’ll come to you. So something’s changing. Something changes in the Greek railways. But we are far from where we want to be. Yeah, decades gone. And the economic crisis kept us pinned down. Technologies today are changing rapidly. Contest procedures were previously deeply problematic: different notices for infrastructure, different for upbuilding, different for technological equipment. All of this is streamlined. It is a great work that, however, we must carry it out. We now come to today’s paradox: while for Tempe you have actually not documented a real, supplementary indictment – you come and say “let’s go make a preliminary” in general – what do you come to suggest to Parliament? Essentially challenge the stated one. That means a motion of censure. A motion of mistrust means that I come and I want to essentially drop the government. It is the highest parliamentary tool available to you. What vehicle? A misleading headline of a newspaper. Let’s go see the sequence now. First thing in the morning comes out a report, which is denied immediately. It seems quite clear that this publication has been virtually undone by being released two days later, when state television itself revealed that the stationmaster was actually talking with two trains. Because that’s the point here, the station chief was talking on two trains. We knew that. From March 2, we knew the stationmaster was talking on two trains. So a report that says nothing new is being denied. And while it seems that there is no meaningful content, the publication is immediately adopted by you in your usual angry and angry style and you raise issues of mistrust. Impressive reflexes. A suspect would tell you that you knew the story before the paper was printed. You were looking forward. Well, be careful now. A party… A party, Mr. Androuliakis, a party that has “passed” the government fourteen generations… (Speech off the microphone from the opposition headquarters) My view, of course, is clear, I think, of what I meant here. The sure thing is – to talk a little bit about journalistic ethics, to say this – that even newspapers with which we have found ourselves very hard across the street, where we have come up with some of them and in the courts, as a rule they call, two or three days ago, to say “what is the opinion of the government?”. They probably felt that they should inform the opposition rather than the government of this report. Well, I’ll be right back. You didn’t propose to be disbelief, Mr. Androulakis, about interceptions. You have not proposed a motion of censure on the rule of law. You didn’t actually propose to be disbelief. You did not propose to distrust the climate crisis. You made a motion of censure for a report, which repeated what we have known for a year. Of course, it’s all that’s left, I’m a little involved, I don’t know if you’ve been in touch. Mr. Pappas says you were in agreement. He said it clearly, you go out and deny it. But I have the impression that all this and all that we see is done in the service of just one goal: that Mitsotakis should fall. That’s the target. So there is no doubt. There’s no doubt that with a fresh popular verdict… (Speech off the microphone from the opposition headquarters) You don’t usually get upset, Mr. Androuliakis. Keep your cool. I fear, therefore, that with your attitude and the extremes that you adopt as a whole, and with the vocabulary that you have adopted today, you are trampling on collective mourning. You essentially distort the truth. You finally, with this attitude, prevent Justice from doing its job. Why, I wonder, all this conversation has contributed exactly to the investigation of Justice, which we all accept will ultimately judge who is guilty and who is innocent? Much more so when for a spearhead you built a text that is but a mean collage of categories of all kinds. I will not comment in detail on what is written in the motion of censure on the rule of law. But it is a little strange – is it not? – rapporteur in this proposal to be Mr Pappas, 13-0 convicted of violating duty. And be careful, it’s not just the conviction of justice… You laugh again, you have a lot of humor. The ten politicians, however, who “hanged on the mantle” with Novartis, then did not laugh at your misery. And will you come and talk about the rule of law? You – this concerns you too, Mr. Androulakis – who present Greece everywhere as an almost tyrannical government. It was your MEPs who asked for the funding to be discontinued. Your MEPs, candidates… And that’s a lie? Read the resolution, read the resolution well. Well, on the issues of the rule of law, I will only say two things: the first is that today the Greek Government has tabled this text to the European Parliament, to which it answers point-by-point the inaccuracies of the European Parliament resolution. Take it to read and study it. (Speech off the microphone from the opposition headquarters). Why are you so upset? I don’t know. Perhaps, Mr. Androuliakis, you see in a prophetic way what I will say now. The rule of law, then. I read today’s article in Nikos Alivisatos’ “Daily”. As far as I know, your partner, a distinguished member of PASOK and a man who has been fighting for decades for the rule of law issues in our country. So I’m reading the text. I will read it all and listen, Mr. Androuliakis, because it concerns you, it concerns you with the text. (Speech off the microphone from the opposition headquarters) You’re not used to me. Because you have read it, that is why you have blushed. Well, listen to it, so Mr. Alivisatos writes: “I can therefore confirm that, by strictly applying the criteria of the Venice Commission, our country does not deviate from European averages in terms of most of them. Since 1974 Greece has been a rule of law as it has never been in its newest history.” “And indeed,” beware, “improved. Something only naive and unhistorical dares to question” . Mr. Alivisatos just called you “favorable” and “unhistorical”. It’s useless and unhistorical. I keep reading. Because what I am reading now is not about Mr. Androuliakis, it is about you: “In certain areas, for example the quality of elections, we are leading. Not many countries in which government changes could take place in a climate of such high acidity, as in us, in 1989, 1993, 2015, 2019, without opening nostrils.” Why do I say that? To finally stop the 20-day soldier Mr. Kasselakis the unspeakable nonsense about observers, about fraudulent elections and the departure of the government. Finally let him know that our democracy, let Mr. Kasselakis know, swears tomorrow from what I understand, is fired… Oh, was the term tiring? Yeah, tiresome. Well, let Mr. Kasselakis know that our Republic celebrates 50 years of life and prosperity. And that no one, no one has thought to question the greatest acquis of Metapolitization: free and fair elections and the smooth transition of power from losers to winners. And this acquis – watch this – was not contested, Mr Alivisatos is right, nor in 1989-1990, in times of great tension. It was not even contested in 2000, when the New Republic of Costas Karamanlis lost for 70,000 votes, to come now to question who? Mr. Kasselakis. Look, the Government Representative described him as “annumer of state” and correctly. But this is one side of the coin. The other is that Mr. Kasselakis is just sleazy and I don’t really know what’s worse. I don’t know what’s worse. Every day he takes out a different crap. He probably wants to create immunity to stupidity. At the same time, I cannot help but notice the willingness with which the leader of PASOK gradually transfers his party to “green SYRIZA” and “tails of publications”. It’s not the first time of course. That’s your business. As I see you, you will succeed in being a third party behind Mr. Kasselakis. This will really take a lot of effort, but it’s your business, it’s not ours. But I will make a report because with a sense of anxiety you mentioned the issue of universities because we identified you with what certain publishing groups might write. Well, your identification with this particular publishing complex, which published the article “Step”, on the subject of universities, was really impressive. The same was written by the band’s newspapers about the alleged fund which “we want to serve”, the same thing you said in absolute, absolute alignment. Random? Let those who listen to us judge. And since you have never changed your position, that you have never changed your position and that you are in favour of changing Rule 16, sorry, Mr Papandreou and PASOK voted against Article 16 in 2008. You did not allow this great reform to take place. Don’t forget. Well, here I want to be clear: any business interest has the right to claim what it wants. He may even want a democratically elected government to fall. It is politics that must keep it in its role. I first recognize that angel societies do not exist. As a liberal politician, I support distinct responsibilities and boundaries in an open economy, in a parliamentary democracy. It is governments that define the rules. And this, of course, sometimes leads to conflict. This is the cost of different roles. That’s not new. We have lived in our homeland when we are intertwined, we have lived in relationships “tavatzis”. They are images of an old Greece. He’s in a country he’s known a lot. He doesn’t forget either the Vatopium or his descendants. So this is Greece that we want to change. And as far as I am concerned, I will say again something that I have repeated many times: I will not co-rule with any sidelines. It is at the helm of the place that the many vote, not the few strong. Constantine Karamanlis had once wondered who rules this place. The answer has been given: the place is governed by the sovereign people, through their elected representatives rather than inflated wallets. And if people think that everyone and everything is redeemable, they’re deeply dark. One last thing to clear up: If a publisher, a big businessman, has political intentions, let him appear openly in the political arena. But he did. Not through proxy. And in other countries, you know, businessmen wanted to be treated. Sometimes they became Prime Minister, became Presidents. So if they wish to appear, be judged, compared and measured. All the above, then, ladies and gentlemen, is not accidental. Neither in terms of methoding nor in terms of time. And they certainly create an umbrella under which occasionally – because I see this heterogeneous alliance very quickly broken into the synthesized ones – the most opposing forces of the opposition may unite. And bad lies, you know, in this motion of disbelief there’s a real writer, but he’s the one who didn’t sign it. Because you adopt all the conspiracy theories that Mr Velopoulos first initiated. He is missing from your proposal. I wonder why you didn’t have him sign, since he was the first dealer of all these theories. And if this opposition front causes any concern, I wonder, where is it? Where is Mr. Velopoulos today? However, we have an election in front of us and it is certain that some people want a picture of political instability to be shown and to limit and outside Greece the power of that party which has proved to have a European line and also a national voice. It is a double reality, which I am not going to hide from the Greek women and the Greeks: this government has succeeded in establishing our national borders as the eastern borders of Europe, effectively faced immigration, brought home 36 billion from the Recovery Fund – I refer to the issues that have a European dimension. It is now called upon to contribute to the defence autonomy of the continent, it is called upon to claim more funds for our farmers and, yes, this work must obviously continue to be reinforced. This same message, continuity and progress, must also be reflected on the political scene at the beginning of a new four-year period. A Greece showing the highest growth rates in Europe, with one-digit unemployment, with the accuracy gradually being reduced, with permanent increases, such as the new minimum wage that we announce tomorrow. With national defense shielded by increasingly modern deterrents, the digital state spreading. In June, then, we will have a European battle more crucial than any European battle in the past, with immediate consequences for the future of the country. And she won’t forgive us any return. European elections are not offered for indifference or for an easy protest. As for the famous messages of society, be sure and sure that first we and I collect them personally. We always draw lessons from our mistakes. We keep trying to get as good as we can. It is precisely this sensitive situation that leads the leader of SYRIZA, in coordination with the leader of PASOK, to table this motion of disbelief, in a partnership to which the House will today respond institutionally, voting against an unacceptable and untimely motion of mistrust, and I believe that the citizens have drawn conclusions from the last events, from the dishonest anti-government strikes. And in the European elections – near psalm, 75 days left – citizens will send their own message to those who do not hesitate to use any legitimate and unfair means to destabilise not the government, but ultimately the country itself. Ladies and gentlemen, I am closing the political piece back where I started. Because in fact most of my speech was devoted to what should be the key issue of this debate: the truth, as I understand it, about the national tragedy in Tempes. I believe that those who heard this debate could possibly – I stress it – distinguish real elements from myths that some wanted to cover. And I hope that at least everyone realized that it does not fit in this Chamber the so brutal exploitation of a collective mourning for party benefits. On our side, I also tried to describe today – primarily addressing the relatives of the victims, but also to society – the best I could to do exactly what happened in this accident and what we will do to never have another Tempe again. Because, ultimately, this is society’s demand: to make the power of grief, this painful experience, a power of re-creation. A great historian, Timothy Garton Ash, has written something worth processing: “The greatest bet of civilization is to learn from our past without reliving it”. That must be our bet, too, that we’ll win. I ask you to vote against the motion of censure and to vote in favour of a government which, despite the great difficulties, is taking home firmly, boldly, forward.”
Mitsotakis: I will not co-rule with any paracentre – No cover-up in Tembis, unhistorical Kasselakis
—
in Political