By Costas Efimeros

In statements made today Dijsselbloem remarked that, even if the program is agreed to, there still remains a great deal of worry as to whether it will actually be implemented given that Europe has lost faith in Tsipras’ government. If, however, the government itself is called into question, they’re most likely going to try to change it. Sound like a coup to you?

I am in a position to know that the Commission’s legal team has already prepared the “legal framework” for Greece’s exit from the euro, to take place over a period of 4 months, with simultaneous provisions for “humanitarian aid” and more than 30 billion euros worth of funding (alongside a freeze on payments). This plan was already used in recent days to put pressure on the Greek political system.

Europe hasn’t hidden its antipathy towards Tsipras’ government. At every turn it reiterates that it respects the will of the Greek people, but with its actions demonstrates the exact opposite to be the case. The leaders of this organized mafia attempted to bring about the fall of the government on the Monday following the announcement of the referendum. It was then that certain European officials leaked that its annulment had already been decided upon. The pressure for the referendum not to go forward was tremendous, and the only way for it not to occur was for the government to fall. This didn’t happen, though, and it became clear that their attempt came to nothing when everyone agreed to meet on Monday.

But why did Alexis Tsipras seek a meeting of the Council of Political Leaders when he had just won an enormous victory in the referendum? With full knowledge of the coercion involved, I hypothesized that there was some hidden precondition for this political consensus. I tried to reign in this thought, but no one was willing to confirm or deny it.

Yesterday my concern grew as I watched the process unfold in Parliament. Why had Alexis Tsipras called this meeting when he knew that he would take a beating and incur losses? Why did the entire conversation hinge on the words “responsibility” and “coercion”? Why did he twice insist that he hadn’t deceived the Greek people? And in particular, why did he say “I won’t become a Papademos”?

The government had no need for this degrading process. It could have been satisfied with the request that it sent and simply travelled to Brussels to negotiate. And yet it chose to create real and true chaos, to vote on an unclear bill by resorting to loose interpretations of the constitution. In a mock-assembly in which even the opposition participated, but without uttering a peep. With Stavros Theodorakis coming -again- from a meeting he had in Brussels.

Why did Panos Kammenos spend so many hours in the Prime Minister’s office? Why did Juncker speak to Tsipras via Stavros?

I’ve been tortured by all of these questions over the last few days. I speak with government staff and officials and try to piece together this bizarre puzzle. And the only way that the political parties are sticking together, however crudely, is on the interpretation of a “democratic coup”.

Thus when the Europeans asked for guarantees regarding the implementation of the program, it might have signaled more than strict supervision and control measures. It might also have signaled a demand for a government of national salvation. Because last time, when they just asked that the program be co-signed by the opposition, a third party won the elections. So perhaps this time they want a little something more.

What worries me the most in all of this is whether Tsipras can weather this attack. Because these last few days he has shown his defeat and has been constantly pulling back. Now he needs to prove that he truly has no intention of becoming Papademos.
 
But the problem now is that we’ve already taken so many steps backwards that the program which we sent to Europe is nearly the same one which the people rejected. And have no illusions about it: as long as we keep on negotiating, they’ll keep insisting that we do even the tiniest things that weren’t included in “our proposal”.

Can the Prime Minister turn all of this around? That would be tough.