Connect with us

Latest

Hellenic Insider

Greece

Panagiotis Lafazanis breaks from Syriza…ready to start a new, anti-memorandum, political party

Greek MPs, lead by Panagiotis Lafazanis abandoned the governing party, Syriza, as Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras moved to force an early election to shore up his position.

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

7 Views

Post originally appeared on Zerohedge.

Once upon a time, Panagiotis Lafazanis had a plan to save Greece.

On July 14, just two days after Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras sold out the Greek referendum “no” vote by agreeing to a shockingly punitive bailout deal in Brussels, Lafazanis convened a meeting of Syriza party “rebels” at a hotel in Athens. There, he allegedly attempted to convince his fellow lawmakers to storm the Greek mint, seize the country’s reserves, and arrest central bank governor Yannis Stournaras. “Obviously, it was a moment of high tension,”one activist who attended the secret meeting later told FT.

Yes, “obviously.” Equally obvious once news of the meeting leaked was that Lafazanis would not be Energy Minister for much longer and sure enough, he was sacked by Tsipras as the premier sought to pave the way for a series of votes in parliament on bailout prior actions.

Earlier this month, as rumors started to circulate that Tsipras might not have the support to survive a confidence vote, Lafazanis announced he was forming his own political party, which was funny right up until Thursday when Tsipras resigned, setting off a series of events that will see Greeks head back to the polls in September. Now, Lafazanis has seized the opportunity to convince 28 other Greek lawmakers to join him and his new party which will be called “Popular Unity,” an ironic choice, given that it grew out of the desire to split with a party leader who had become decisively unpopular among Syriza’s Left Platform.

Here’s more from Bloomberg:

A group of Greek lawmakers opposed to the country’s bailout program abandoned the governing party, Syriza, as Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras moved to force an early election to shore up his position.

The lawmakers, whose names were read out on Friday by a deputy parliament speaker on television from Athens, will be called “Popular Unity” and led by former Energy Minister Panagiotis Lafazanis. The number of rebels reached 29 after four more parliamentarians joined the initial breakaway group, Athens News Agency reported.

Though his eight months at the helm of Europe’s most-indebted country were beset by turmoil and brought the economy to the brink of ruin, Tsipras used a televised address on Thursday to list his achievements, from clinching a new aid package to securing a firmer commitment from euro-area partners to consider debt relief.

Tsipras remains popular with Greek voters, who gave Syriza 33.6 percent support, a 15.8 percentage-point lead over the main opposition New Democracy party, in a July 25 poll by Metron Analysis. Polls haven’t yet offered an indication of how much support Popular Unity would siphon off.

By all accounts, Tsipras will likely be able to carry the day in new elections and indeed that’s certainly the expectation among EU creditors and within the macro strategist echo chamber. Here’s a summary of the latter courtesy of Bloomberg:

Greek PM Tsipras calling an early election could consolidate his position and is unlikely to throw the country’s third bailout off course, analysts say.

  • Yet, the vote could delay the first review of the program, originally expected to take place in Oct., and a potential eventual debt relief plan, analysts at RBS and JPMorgan say; this could mean GGBs don’t become eligible for ECB QE until much later in 2015 than had been expected, according to analysts at ABN Amro and RBS
  • While the ballot could spur further market volatility, Rabobank analysts suggest any weakness in periphery govt bonds is a buying opportunity
  • NOTE: Syriza lawmakers opposed to the bailout will form a new party called “Popular Unity,” led by former Energy Minister Panagiotis Lafazanis, the group said in an e-mailed statement
  • RBS (Clement Mary-Dauphin, Marco Brancolini)
    • With Syriza maintaining a commanding lead in polls, the election may deliver a more stable parliament but the vote is a source of volatility
    • No longer expect ECB to reinstate the waiver for Greek sovereign collateral and don’t expect GGBs to be included in asset purchase plan until the completion of the first program review
    • Skeptical that first review of Greek program will be completed in October as scheduled
    • Allows a postponement of debt relief talk beyond the horizon of elections in other periphery countries – where the topic could become controversial during electoral campaigns
    • Take profit on long GGB Apr. 19 trade in research portfolio, after it reached its target
  • JPMorgan (Malcolm Barr)
    • Most recent polling showed Syriza comfortably in lead although probably without enough support to form majority on its own
    • Difficult to imagine scenarios which return a government more hostile to third program than one already in place
    • There’s a risk that the election slows program implementation, delaying process of getting to a debt restructuring and the IMF committing funds to the bailout
    • With an interim government likely to be in place for only a month by the time the first program review is due in Oct, it’s difficult to imagine there’ll be substantive progress in many areas by then
  • Barclays (Francois Cabau, Antonio Garcia Pascual, Cagdas Aksu)
    • Latest Greek polls continue to show strong support for Syriza; this should probably be interpreted with caution given party rift
    • A poll published on July 14 said that if a new govt were to be formed, 68% of voters would favor Tsipras as its leader
    • Neutral on peripheral govt bonds outright and on a spread basis vs Germany; maintain a short-term tactical outperformance of 10Y Spain vs Italy
  • RBC
    • Elections will inevitably inject an added element of uncertainty; stress the current situation should not be seen as analogous to earlier referendum on the bailout, even though electoral campaign will intensify debate
    • Under Greek political procedures, largest opposition parties have up to three days to attempt to form a coalition, don’t expect this to prevent elections
    • In meantime, a caretaker govt should be put in place, reducing risks to the program
    • Any future reviews and disbursements under the ESM support package will hinge critically on political uncertainty being resolved
  • DZ Bank (Rene Albrecht)
    • Expect Tsipras to emerge victorious again and a more stable government to follow
    • Given the increasing political event risks surrounding

Needless to say, if Greek voters should suddenly decide that after having been burned by Tsipras twice (once in January and then again last month), it’s time to vote for someone who seems crazy enough to actually follow through on the whole anti-austerity, middle finger to the troika platform that got Syriza elected in the first place, then the entire bailout deal will not only be thrown into question, but abandoned wholesale because if the eurocrats in Brussels thought Varoufakis and Tsipras were hard to deal with, they’ll find Lafazanis downright intolerable.

So with the entire world basically convinced that despite having lied to the entire country not once, but twice, Tsipras still has the voter support to remain in power, one has to ask: is this the face of the next black swan?

Lafazanis

References:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-08-21/another-black-swan-syriza-outcasts-form-new-political-party-will-push-grexit

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement
37 Comments

37
Leave a Reply

avatar
37 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
0 Comment authors
Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
trackback

xcn5bsn5bvtb7sdn5cnvbttecc

[…]here are some hyperlinks to sites that we link to mainly because we think they may be really worth visiting[…]

trackback

Title

[…]we prefer to honor a lot of other internet internet sites on the net, even if they aren’t linked to us, by linking to them. Under are some webpages really worth checking out[…]

trackback

Title

[…]here are some hyperlinks to websites that we link to mainly because we consider they are really worth visiting[…]

trackback

Title

[…]very few internet websites that take place to become detailed below, from our point of view are undoubtedly nicely really worth checking out[…]

trackback

Title

[…]please visit the websites we comply with, including this one particular, as it represents our picks from the web[…]

trackback

datingnzcougar.info

sex wab livechat

trackback

sex cam free online

free dating nude pics

trackback

free live webcam adult chat with kolkata woman

nogelmeier nude

trackback

sexyvideochat latina

local chats without sign up

trackback

multi videochat sex free

free cam to cam sex names on skype

trackback

find random people for camsex

free chat house wife sex live

trackback

senior sex chatroom

sexchatgame

trackback

real sex no credit card ever totaly free

hotadult chat in free membership

trackback

free live webcam adult chat with kolkata woman

free peeing sex chat

trackback

best sex video chat site

naked sexy jewish free chat no private free chat no registration

trackback

sex chat no java or sign up easy

unknown sex chat

trackback

skype websex

free hardcore sex chat rooms

trackback

FREE Porn Dating Members 79616

FREE Porn Dating Members 79616

trackback

Best PORNO Meet Members 66131

Best PORNO Meet Members 66131

trackback

100% Free Porn Meet Members 43957

100% Free Porn Meet Members 43957

trackback

Best Sex Dates Members 11778

Best Sex Dates Members 11778

trackback

Best PORNO Dates Users 94301

Best PORNO Dates Users 94301

trackback

Best XXX Dating Users 52571

Best XXX Dating Users 52571

trackback

Best XXX Meet Members 36052

Best XXX Meet Members 36052

trackback

FREE PORNO Hookup Members 49597

FREE PORNO Hookup Members 49597

trackback

FREE PORNO Dates List 93169

FREE PORNO Dates List 93169

trackback

Best Sex Dating Users 56230

Best Sex Dating Users 56230

trackback

4f8399dedf47934722b63.com

4f8399dedf47934722b63.com 6wMa

trackback

notehub.org

notehub.org zBFT8

trackback

notehub.org

notehub.org L7ty

trackback

notehub.org

notehub.org PSqz

trackback

notehub.org

notehub.org O8ZA

trackback

notehub.org

notehub.org QVB1t

trackback

… [Trackback]

[…] Read More here|Read More|Find More Informations here|There you can find 77253 additional Informations|Informations on that Topic: hellenicinsider.com/panagiotis-lafazanis-breaks-from-syriza-ready-to-start-a-new-anti-memorandum-political-party/ [.…

trackback

notehub.org

notehub.org Ze6PV

trackback

notehub.org

notehub.org aZN

trackback

notehub.org

notehub.org vscCYy

Latest

High-ranking Ukrainian official reports on US interference in Ukraine

It is not usually the case that an American media outlet tells the truth about Ukraine, but it appears to have happened here.

Seraphim Hanisch

Published

on

The Hill committed what may well have been a random act of journalism when it reported that Ukrainian Prosecutor General, Yuriy Lutsenko, told Hill.tv’s reporter John Solomon that the American ambassador to that country, Marie Yovanovitch, gave him a “do not prosecute” list at their first meeting.

Normally, all things Russia are covered by the American press as “bad”, and all things Ukraine are covered by the same as “good.” Yet this report reveals quite a bit about the nature of the deeply embedded US interests that are involved in Ukraine, and which also attempt to control and manipulate policy in the former Soviet republic.

The Hill’s piece continues (with our added emphases):

“Unfortunately, from the first meeting with the U.S. ambassador in Kiev, [Yovanovitch] gave me a list of people whom we should not prosecute,” Lutsenko, who took his post in 2016, told Hill.TV last week.

“My response of that is it is inadmissible. Nobody in this country, neither our president nor our parliament nor our ambassador, will stop me from prosecuting whether there is a crime,” he continued.

Indeed, the Prosecutor General appears to be a man of some principles. When this report was brought to the attention of the US State Department, the response was predictable:

The State Department called Lutsenko’s claim of receiving a do not prosecute list, “an outright fabrication.” 

“We have seen reports of the allegations,” a department spokesperson told Hill.TV. “The United States is not currently providing any assistance to the Prosecutor General’s Office (PGO), but did previously attempt to support fundamental justice sector reform, including in the PGO, in the aftermath of the 2014 Revolution of Dignity. When the political will for genuine reform by successive Prosecutors General proved lacking, we exercised our fiduciary responsibility to the American taxpayer and redirected assistance to more productive projects.”

This is an amazing statement in itself. “Our fiduciary responsibility to the American taxpayer”? Are Americans even aware that their country is spending their tax dollars in an effort to manipulate a foreign government in what can probably well be called a low-grade proxy war with the Russian Federation? Again, this appears to be a slip, as most American media do a fair job of maintaining the narrative that Ukraine is completely independent and that its actions regarding the United States and Russia are taken in complete freedom.

Hill.TV has reached out to the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine for comment.

Lutsenko also said that he has not received funds amounting to nearly $4 million that the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine was supposed to allocate to his office, saying that “the situation was actually rather strange” and pointing to the fact that the funds were designated, but “never received.”

“At that time we had a case for the embezzlement of the U.S. government technical assistance worth 4 million U.S. dollars, and in that regard, we had this dialogue,” he said. “At that time, [Yovanovitch] thought that our interviews of Ukrainian citizens, of Ukrainian civil servants, who were frequent visitors of the U.S. Embassy put a shadow on that anti-corruption policy.”

“Actually, we got the letter from the U.S. Embassy, from the ambassador, that the money that we are speaking about [was] under full control of the U.S. Embassy, and that the U.S. Embassy did not require our legal assessment of these facts,” he said. “The situation was actually rather strange because the funds we are talking about were designated for the prosecutor general’s office also and we told [them] we have never seen those, and the U.S. Embassy replied there was no problem.”

“The portion of the funds, namely 4.4 million U.S. dollars were designated and were foreseen for the recipient Prosecutor General’s office. But we have never received it,” he said.

Yovanovitch previously served as the U.S. ambassador to Armenia under former presidents Obama and George W. Bush, as well as ambassador to Kyrgyzstan under Bush. She also served as ambassador to Ukraine under Obama.

Former Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas), who was at the time House Rules Committee chairman, voiced concerns about Yovanovitch in a letter to the State Department last year in which he said he had proof the ambassador had spoken of her “disdain” for the Trump administration.

This last sentence may be a way to try to narrow the scope of American interference in Ukraine down to the shenanigans of just a single person with a personal agenda. However, many who have followed the story of Ukraine and its surge in anti-Russian rhetoric, neo-Naziism, ultra-nationalism, and the most recent events surrounding the creation of a pseudo-Orthodox “church” full of Ukrainian nationalists and atheists as a vehicle to import “Western values” into a still extremely traditional and Christian land, know that there are fingerprints of the United States “deep state” embeds all over this situation.

It is somewhat surprising that so much that reveals the problem showed up in just one report. It will be interesting to see if this gets any follow-up in the US press.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Bercow blocks Brexit vote, May turns to EU for lifeline (Video)

The Duran Quick Take: Episode 112.

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss Theresa May’s latest Brexit dilemma, as House of Commons Speaker John Bercow, shocked the world by citing a 1604 precedent that now effectively blocks May’s third go around at trying to pass her treacherous Brexit deal through the parliament.

All power now rests with the Brussels, as to how, if and when the UK will be allowed to leave the European Union.

Remember to Please Subscribe to The Duran’s YouTube Channel.

Follow The Duran Audio Podcast on Soundcloud.

Via Bloomberg


Theresa May claims Brexit is about taking back control. Ten days before the U.K. is due to leave the European Union, it looks like anything but.

House of Commons Speaker John Bercow’s intervention, citing precedent dating back to 1604, to rule out a repeat vote on May’s already defeated departure deal leaves the prime minister exposed ahead of Thursday’s EU summit in Brussels.

Bercow, whose cries of “Orrdurrr! Orrdurrr!’’ to calm rowdy lawmakers have gained him a devoted international following, is now the pivotal figure in the Brexit battle. May’s team privately accuse him of trying to frustrate the U.K.’s exit from the EU, while the speaker’s admirers say he’s standing up for the rights of parliament against the executive.

If just one of the 27 other states declines May’s summit appeal to extend the divorce timetable, then the no-deal cliff edge looms for Britain’s departure on March 29. If they consent, it’s unclear how May can meet Bercow’s test that only a substantially different Brexit agreement merits another vote in parliament, since the EU insists it won’t reopen negotiations.

Caught between Bercow and Brussels, May’s room for maneuver is shrinking. Amid rumblings that their patience with the U.K. is near exhaustion, EU leaders are girding for the worst.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

President Putin signs law blocking fake news, but the West makes more

Western media slams President Putin and his fake news law, accusing him of censorship, but an actual look at the law reveals some wisdom.

Seraphim Hanisch

Published

on

The TASS Russian News Agency reported on March 18th that Russian President Vladimir Putin signed off on a new law intended to block distorted or untrue information being reported as news. Promptly after he did so, Western news organizations began their attempt to “spin” this event as some sort of proof of “state censorship” in the oppressive sense of the old Soviet Union. In other words, a law designed to prevent fake news was used to create more fake news.

One of the lead publications is a news site that is itself ostensibly a “fake news” site. The Moscow Times tries to portray itself as a Russian publication that is conducted from within Russian borders. However, this site and paper is really a Western publication, run by a Dutch foundation located in the Netherlands. As such, the paper and the website associated have a distinctly pro-West slant in their reporting. Even Wikipedia noted this with this comment from their entry about the publication:

In the aftermath of the Ukrainian crisis, The Moscow Times was criticized by a number of journalists including Izvestia columnist Israel Shamir, who in December 2014 called it a “militant anti-Putin paper, a digest of the Western press with extreme bias in covering events in Russia”.[3] In October 2014 The Moscow Times made the decision to suspend online comments after an increase in offensive comments. The paper said it disabled comments for two reasons—it was an inconvenience for its readers as well as being a legal liability, because under Russian law websites are liable for all content, including user-generated content like comments.[14]

This bias is still notably present in what is left of the publication, which is now an online-only news source. This is some of what The Moscow Times had to say about the new fake news legislation:

The bills amending existing information laws overwhelmingly passed both chambers of Russian parliament in less than two months. Observers and some lawmakers have criticized the legislation for its vague language and potential to stifle free speech.

The legislation will establish punishments for spreading information that “exhibits blatant disrespect for the society, government, official government symbols, constitution or governmental bodies of Russia.”

Insulting state symbols and the authorities, including Putin, will carry a fine of up to 300,000 rubles and 15 days in jail for repeat offenses.

As is the case with other Russian laws, the fines are calculated based on whether the offender is a citizen, an official or a legal entity.

More than 100 journalists and public figures, including human rights activist Zoya Svetova and popular writer Lyudmila Ulitskaya, signed a petition opposing the laws, which they labeled “direct censorship.”

This piece does give a bit of explanation from Dmitry Peskov, showing that European countries also have strict laws governing fake news distribution. However, the Times made the point of pointing out the idea of “insulting governmental bodies of Russia… including Putin” to bolster their claim that this law amounts to real censorship of the press. It developed its point of view based on a very short article from Reuters which says even less about the legislation and how it works.

However, TASS goes into rather exhaustive detail about this law, and it also gives rather precise wording on the reason for the law’s passage, as well as how it is to be enforced. We include most of this text here, with emphases added:

Russian President Vladimir Putin has signed a law on blocking untrue and distorting information (fake news). The document was posted on the government’s legal information web portal.

The document supplements the list of information, the access to which may be restricted on the demand by Russia’s Prosecutor General or his deputies. In particular, it imposes a ban on “untrue publicly significant information disseminated in the media and in the Internet under the guise of true reports, which creates a threat to the life and (or) the health of citizens, property, a threat of the mass violation of public order and (or) public security, or the threat of impeding or halting the functioning of vital infrastructural facilities, transport or social infrastructure, credit institutions, energy, industrial or communications facilities.”

Pursuant to the document, in case of finding such materials in Internet resources registered in accordance with the Russian law on the mass media as an online media resource, Russia’s Prosecutor General or his deputies will request the media watchdog Roskomnadzor to restrict access to the corresponding websites.

Based on this request, Roskomnadzor will immediately notify the editorial board of the online media resource, which is in violation of the legislation, about the need to remove untrue information and the media resource will be required to delete such materials immediately. If the editorial board fails to take the necessary measures, Roskomnadzor will send communications operators “a demand to take measures to restrict access to the online resource.”

In case of deleting such untrue information, the website owner will notify Roskomnadzor thereof, following which the media watchdog will “hold a check into the authenticity of this notice” and immediately inform the communications operator about the resumption of the access to the information resource.
The conditions for the law are very specific, as are the penalties for breaking it. TASS continued:

Liability for breaching the law

Simultaneously, the Federation Council approved the associated law with amendments to Russia’s Code of Administrative Offences, which stipulates liability in the form of penalties of up to 1.5 million rubles (around $23,000) for the spread of untrue and distorting information.

The Code’s new article, “The Abuse of the Freedom of Mass Information,” stipulates liability for disseminating “deliberately untrue publicly significant information” in the media or in the Internet. The penalty will range from 30,000 rubles ($450) to 100,000 rubles ($1,520) for citizens, from 60,000 rubles ($915) to 200,000 rubles ($3,040) for officials and from 200,000 rubles to 500,000 rubles ($7,620) for corporate entities with the possible confiscation of the subject of the administrative offence.

Another element of offence imposes tighter liability for the cases when the publication of false publicly significant information has resulted in the deaths of people, has caused damage to the health or property, prompted the mass violation of public order and security or has caused disruption to the functioning of transport or social infrastructure facilities, communications, energy and industrial facilities and banks. In such instances, the fines will range from 300,000 rubles to 400,000 rubles ($6,090) for citizens, from 600,000 rubles to 900,000 rubles ($13,720) for officials, and from 1 million rubles to 1.5 million rubles for corporate entities.

While this legislation can be spun (and is) in the West as anti-free speech, one may also consider the damage that has taken place in the American government through a relentless attack of fake news from most US news outlets against President Trump. One of the most notable effects of this barrage has been to further degrade and destroy the US’ relationship with the Russian Federation, because even the Helsinki Summit was attacked so badly that the two leaders have not been able to get a second summit together.

While it is certainly a valued right of the American press to be unfettered by Congress, and while it is also certainly vital to criticize improper practices by government officials, the American news agencies have gone far past that, to deliberately dishonest attacks, based in innuendo and everything possible that was formerly only the province of gossip tabloid publications. The effort has been to defame the President, not to give proper or due criticism to his policies, nor credit. It can be properly stated that the American press has abused its freedom of late.

This level of abuse drew a very unusual comment from the US president, who wondered on Twitter about the possibility of creating a state-run media center in the US to counter fake news:

Politically correct for US audiences? No. But an astute point?

Definitely.

Freedom in anything also presumes that those with that freedom respect it, and further, that they respect and apply the principle that slandering people and institutions for one’s own personal, business or political gain is wrong. Implied in the US Constitution’s protection of the press is the notion that the press itself, as the rest of the country, is accountable to a much Higher Authority than the State. But when that Authority is rejected, as so much present evidence suggests, then freedom becomes the freedom to misbehave and to agitate. It appears largely within this context that the Russian law exists, based on the text given.

Further, by hitting dishonest media outlets in their pocketbook, rather than prison sentences, the law appears to be very smart in its message: “Do not lie. If you do, you will suffer where it counts most.”

Considering that news media’s purpose is to make money, this may actually be a very smart piece of legislation.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Advertisement

Advertisement

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement
Advertisement

Advertisement

The Duran Newsletter

Trending