More Questions Than Answers: The Greeks Journey So Far

This article was originally posted on www.teaandtoast.ie on Monday, June 18, 2012. Information accurate as of midday Irish time on that date.

People might well have forgotten that there was also a parliamentary election in France on Sunday, given the scarcity of column inches devoted to it in newspapers and websites outside of France. Tomorrow’s European papers may mention the electoral success of the Socialist Party, together with the fall of three big names in French politics, the Socialist Party’s Ségolène Royal, three-time presidential candidate François Bayrou and the National Front’s Marine Le Pen, all of whom failed to win seats in the new parliament.

But the main political news over the weekend was the latest election in Greece, coming six weeks after an inconclusive election which failed to see a government formed. The three parties that had formed a government of national unity late last year (PASOK, New Democracy and LAOS) suffered at the hands of a public that was more than angry with five years of recession, very high unemployment and a series of austerity budgets that had done little to improve the economy. After the May election, the centre-left PASOK (Panhellenic Socialist Movement) party haemorrhaged support, plummeting from the 44% it won in 2009 (which allowed it to win an overall majority in parliament) to just 13%, as voters punished the party for imposing strict austerity policies without any improvement in the national economy.

PASOK was not the only party to endure the wrath of angry voters in May. The centre-right New Democracy had also supported continued austerity measures in order to secure further Greek access to the European Stability Mechanism. However, though it lost nearly half of its voting share, New Democracy managed to gain an extra seventeen seats, as the party took advantage of Greek electoral rules of reinforced proportionality that give fifty extra parliamentary seats to the party that wins the most votes. LAOS (The Popular Orthodox Rally), a right-wing populist group, lost all sixteen of its’ seats in parliament as a result of its support for the unity government, even though the party withdrew it in April, in protest at a further package of austerity measures.

The big winners were the parties that rejected the continuing austerity programme and who wanted either a renegotiation, or a complete scrapping, of the country’s bailout programme from the European Central Bank, the European Commission and the International Monetary Fund (the famous ‘Troika’). SYRIZA (Coalition of the Radical Left), a coalition of centre and radical left parties, surged from less than 5% of the vote to securing one-sixth of public support, taking advantage of widespread dissatisfaction with PASOK to quadruple its number of seats in parliament, while the euroskeptic, communist KKE also increased its share of the vote. The Independent Greeks (ANEL), formed after a split in New Democracy, and Democratic Left (DIMAR), formed after a split in PASOK, together won over fifty seats after campaigning on anti-austerity platforms, while the far-right Golden Dawn entered parliament for the first time, as its share of the vote exceeded the mandatory 3% needed to claim seats.

After attempts by the leaders of each of the three largest parties to form a government failed, as well as a final, neutral attempt by the President of Greece, Karalos Papoulias, another election was called for June 17. The pro-bailout New Democracy and PASOK had fallen one seat short of an overall majority, and the anti-bailout SYRIZA refused to join a coalition that would continue with the existing austerity programme.

The second election campaign of 2012 focused on Greece’s relationship with the rest of the European Union and the Troika, and on the country’s continued presence in the euro, as economic reality meant Greece required more bailout money to service its debts and balance the national budget. The leader of New Democracy, Antonis Samaras, portrayed the election as a referendum between staying in the euro or leaving the common currency and returning to the country’s legacy currency, the drachma, an assessment that was supported by the Finance Minister of Germany, Wolfgang Schäuble, who told reporters after a European finance ministers meeting in Brussles that “If Greece -- and this is the will of the great majority - - wants to stay in the euro, then they have to accept the conditions [of the bailout programme between Greece and the Troika]. Otherwise it isn’t possible. No responsible candidate can hide that from the electorate.”

SYRIZA, under the leadership of Alexis Tsipras, rejected this analysis, stating that the election was really about choosing which economic policy would help Greece exit the continued situation of recession and high unemployment. The party would keep its pledge to tear up and renegotiate the bailout programme, which had planned for a total of €240 billion to be given to Greece, in return for severe budget spending cutbacks and increased taxes.

Following the close of polls on Sunday evening, the exit polls released immediately afterward did not give much hope for the formation of a stable government from either side of the austerity divide. The exit polls declared the result to be too close to call, with New Democracy and SYRIZA both expected to poll somewhere between 26% and 29%, with PASOK lagging well behind in third place.

The exit polls were proven largely correct, as is their habit, with New Democracy winning a plurality of support on 29.66%, with SYRIZA a close second on 26.89%. As the leading party in parliament, New Democracy will claim the fifty seat bonus given to the largest party, and Mr. Samaras will have the first opportunity to form a government. But both parties can claim success, as they both enjoyed big gains compared to their results in May, while every other party lost voting share, with the exception of DIMAR, which increased its vote marginally, but still dropped seats.

Between them, New Democracy and PASOK, both supportive of the bailout programme, will have enough seats between them to form a coalition in the new parliament. Unfortunately, two major problems stick out. The first, though minor in the context of the severe economic straits Greece finds itself in, is that New Democracy and PASOK are traditional rivals, from opposite sides of the political spectrum, and were the two big parties in Greek politics for four decades, from the restoration of Greek democracy in 1974 until PASOK’s trouncing at the polls last month. On the other hand, both parties are supportive of the bailout programme and have shown willingness to work together to continue the painful process.

The second, more difficult, problem is that PASOK do not want to enter into a coalition without SYRIZA and DIMAR also taking part. A cynical view of this would claim that this is to help restore PASOK’s fortunes at a future election; if the other left-wing parties also took part in a coalition government, they would lose support at the next poll, with PASOK standing to make most of the gains as traditional supporters return to the party. In any event, this expressed wish is fanciful because SYRIZA have frequently stated that would not join or support any government that wanted to continue with the bailout agreement as it currently stood. On Monday, SYRIZA said that it would become the main opposition party, committed to opposing the bailout programme. In effect, the fundamental conflict between the parties on what was the key issue of the election means that someone has to make a complete concession in order for a grand coalition to be formed. Should attempts to form a government once again fail, Greece faces the prospect of yet another general election, possibly as soon as late July.

This nightmare prospect is still in the middle distance as of now. For the moment, the results have partially soothed international markets and politicians. Ahead of the vote, there had been genuine fears for the stability of the euro, as political uncertainty in Greece threatened to derail attempts to restore faith in struggling European economies, as well as relations between Athens and the rest of the bloc. At a rally in central Athens on Sunday night, in what could be described as a victory speech, Mr. Samaras declared that “The Greek people have voted for a European future for Greece. There will be no doubt about the position of Greece in Europe”. Opponents could well dispute this assertion by pointing to the election results, which showed that three-fifths of voters in fact cast ballots for parties which rejected the bailout programme.

Hopes for some market stability proved very short-lived, as on Monday morning the yield on Spanish ten-year government bonds climbed above the 7% mark which economists view as being unsustainable. Greece had been the main difficulty facing the euro over the weekend, but other issues remain in place.

Politically, New Democracy’s narrow win was welcomed by leaders across the world. German Chancellor Angela Merkel telephoned Mr. Samaras to congratulate him, but reaffirmed her repeated statements that Germany expected Greece to “respect its European undertakings” and continue implementing the austerity programme. Other European leaders have also remained firm on Greece’s future, insisting that continued adherence to the bailout programme was mandatory in order for Greece to remain within the eurozone. But the overall picture of Greek politics still as polarised as it was after the May elections. Even if New Democracy and PASOK were to form a coalition on their own, the government would have a very small majority, certainly less than ten and perhaps little more than five, hardly a strong enough government to last very long should continued austerity and increased public anger make backbench government MPs nervous enough to withdraw their support. The people of Greece may have just spoken for the second time in six weeks, but they may have to repeat themselves later in the year.

Euro 2020 and the Celtic cousins

After a (very) long break, I'll try and get the blog moving again, with a look into a news story that has really intrigued me over the last few days: the declaration of interest in hosting UEFA Euro 2020 by the Football Association of Ireland, the Scottish Football Association and the Football Association of Wales. The three associations were at pains to state that the declaration, passed on to UEFA in advance of a deadline on Tuesday, was a preliminary move rather than a concrete plan to launch a bid for the tournament. Turkey and Georgia also submitted declared an interest in hosting the championships in eight years time, though other nations are still able to submit bids, with more than eighteen months to go before European football's governing body picks a host (or hosts). There had been speculation that Scotland and Wales would try to run a bid on their own, but the expansion of the European Championships to twenty-four teams from 2016, with the number of suitable stadiums demanded by UEFA also increasing, the FAI were brought in to strengthen a possible bid.

Getting to see an outfit like this in your own back yard?

A potential stumbling block to the three associations had been the number of hosts involved in a Celtic nations bid. In UEFA's list of regulations for bidding for Euro 2016, two member associations presenting a joint bid is permitted, but the idea of three members proposing a joint bid is treated rather more tepidly:

"UEFA may consider, under exceptional circumstances, joint bids comprised of three (3) member associations if and only if the relevant group of member associations submits to UEFA together with its confirmation of interest a clear and convincing argument regarding the measures to be taken to ensure the smooth and successful organisation of UEFA EURO 2016 in such a manner."
This particular article is presumably to prevent a logistical nightmare regarding transport of teams, officials and (especially) fans moving from between several countries over the course of the tournament, rather than any official disdain for tournaments being held in more than two countries. The issue of having to deal with different tax systems, currencies, police forces and governments probably makes things more difficult for UEFA too, but they have clearly gotten used to the concept as (including the upcoming finals in Poland and the Ukraine) three of the last four competitions have been hosted in different countries with different currencies. What's more, possible stadiums in Ireland, Scotland and Wales are much closer geographically than the two most distant grounds in 2012: the City Stadium in Poznan and the Donbass Arena in Donetsk are 1,793km apart, or a full day's driving up the E40 motorway to you and me. Meanwhile, SFA chief executive Stewart Regan revealed this week that an undertaking by UEFA to properly consider bids with more than three parties was the reason the SFA, the FAW and the FAI were keen to submit a declaration in the first place.

After all, given that the Euro finals will expand to accommodate twenty-four teams from 2016, having three hosts doesn't make it any more difficult to qualify for an expanded tournament than it was to make it to a sixteen team tournament hosted by two nations. There were few complaints about a lack of qualifying spots available when Belgium and the Netherlands hosted in 2000, or when Austria and Switzerland were picked to host Euro 2008, or in the recent campaign to reach Poland and the Ukraine. Indeed, with fifty-three members in UEFA, the percentage of spots left for qualifiers remains the same with three hosts of a twenty-four tournament as it is when two nations hold a sixteen team competition: 87.5% (21 qualifying from 24 finalists, or 14 out of 16). A nation looking to qualify would still have a greater mathematical chance of qualifying for a twenty-four team competition hosted by three teams than they did qualifying for Euro 2012 (21 spots for 50 teams is a 42% chance, 14 spots between 51 is 27.45%. This increased likelihood of qualifying is precisely why UEFA wanted to expand the number of finalists to twenty-four).

Turkey had been strong favourites to win the rights to host the tournament, especially after narrowly losing to France in the race to host Euro 2016 two years ago, while also having failed to win hosting rights for Euro 2008 and Euro 2012. But the fallout of widespread corruption and match-fixing in Turkish soccer has caused major embarrassment to the Turkish FA, with the scandal leading to the 2010-11 league champions, Fenerbache, being withdrawn from this season's Champions League on the direct order of UEFA. The resulting whispers of serious concern among the top brass at Europe's football governing body has opened the door for an opposing bid. In addition, Istanbul is applying to host the summer Olympics in the same year, the fifth time the city has sought to host the event in twenty years. Since the host of the 2020 summer Olympics will be known by September next year, Turkey's bid to host Euro 2020 could be terminated before UEFA gets a say in the matter: despite some tacit support from UEFA President Michel Platini, the President of the International Olympic Committee, Jacques Rogge, stated that no country was allowed to host the Olympics and another major international tournament in the same year. In short, Turkey could have Euro 2020, or Istanbul could have the 32nd summer Games, but they couldn't have both.

The other country to have declared an interest in hosting Euro 2020, Georgia, is likely to lag well behind should it decide to submit a formal bid. The Georgian FA had hoped to enter a joint bid with its neighbour Azerbaijan, but the latter decided not to proceed, as it's capital city, Baku, is also looking to host the 2020 summer Olympics. The main difficulty for the former Soviet republic is, with a population slightly larger than the Republic of Ireland, it could severely struggle to provide the minimum of nine all-seater stadiums expected by UEFA, of which two must be able to hold at least 50,000 spectators, another three capable of holding 40,000, and at least four more able to accommodate 30,000. This is before thinking of the infrastructure needed to provide adequate hotel space for the hundreds of thousands of potential fans travelling to the tournament, on top of the twenty-four teams and their delegations. A second issue is continued tension between the government of Georgia and Russia over Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Following a full-scale war between the two states in 2008, Georgia considers the Russian military presence in the two regions as "an illegal military occupation", a sentiment that would leave people at UEFA headquarters nervous at the thought of giving their prize pony over to a state with a perpetually strained relationship with a major political and (growing) footballing power.

Of the larger European nations, France are already hosting Euro 2016 and Russia will run the 2018 FIFA World Cup, so neither would be allowed to bid for Euro 2020. The English, German and Spanish FAs all ruled themselves out of the running, while Italy continues to struggle both financially and in footballing terms, with their bid for Euro 2016 failing to win a single vote and their stadiums, fine for the World Cup in 1990, gradually requiring more and more renovation.

So, what of a Celtic collaboration? The existing ban on the sale of alcohol in Scottish grounds would not be a problem, given that UEFA expressly forbids it at its events, for security reasons.  The quality and quantity of venues in Ireland, Scotland and Wales is cause for good cheer: Lansdowne Road impressed the governing body after the successful hosting of last year's Europa League final between Porto and Braga and is barely two years old, while Glasgow's Hampden Park hosted the 2002 Champions League final and the decider of the 2006-07 UEFA Cup. For its part, Cardiff's Millennium Stadium, though it would be over twenty years old by the time Euro 2020 started, would need minimal restructuring work and boasts a capacity of over 74,000, easily exceeding the 66,000 capacity of Kiev's National Stadium, which will host the final of Euro 2012 in June. Glasgow also has Celtic Park and Ibrox, both capable of holding over 50,000, while the GAA could be persuaded to host some matches at Croke Park, in light of the bumper pay days they enjoyed while the Irish rugby and soccer teams played home internationals at the Dublin 3 venue while Lansdowne Road was being rebuilt.

In economic terms, hosting a month-long international football tournament would certainly gets dollar symbols rolling in eyeballs. Dublin City Council estimated that the Europa League final generated something in  the region of €25-30 million for the city; how much could be generated from the hosting of fifty-one matches over a few weeks is anyone's guess at this juncture, but it would certainly pique the interest of people working in the business and political spheres in Cardiff, Dublin and Edinburgh.

There are still a number of concerns to be worked out. Scottish officials are said to be worried about getting enough funding to properly fund both a bid and the tournament itself. While there are three fine grounds in Glasgow, and Edinburgh's Murrayfield would certainly feature on any bid documentation, the SFA would be looking to other cities to bolster its chances. Aberdeen's new stadium has received a green light, but will have a capacity well short of the minimum required for a European Championship match, though increasing the proposed stadium's number of seats would probably not be worthwhile, given the club's average attendance at home matches this season was under 10,000. On the other side of the Irish Sea, that early dismissal of the Euro 2008 bid remains something of an embarrassment, given that then-Taoiseach Bertie Ahern tried to convince UEFA that Ireland could host matches in a Croke Park which the GAA had recently refused to open to "foreign" games and his Abbottstown project which quickly sank when the Progressive Democrats took one look at the price tag for building a new 75,000 seat stadium, while a rapidly ageing Lansdowne Road was presumably going to be either left to rot or demolished to property development.

For the FAI, the use of Croke Park hinges on the support of the GAA, who might be a little concerned about the timing. Although the European Championships wouldn't disrupt the All-Ireland football or hurling championships, with Euro 2020 almost certainly finished by early July and the All-Ireland series not starting until the end of July, Dublin's football team does play Leinster Championship matches in June, making things more than a little awkward since Dublin are well able to fill out the stadium, international soccer tournament or not. Nonetheless, following GAA President Liam O'Neill's refusal to rule out the use of Croke Park in the event of a successful Celtic bid, the FAI can at least approach the possibility of using the ground. A secondary issue is, while Dublin could provide two locations, where else could the FAI find an all-seater stadium with at least 30,000 seats? Limerick's Thomond Park, recently improved and within easy reach of Shannon Airport, would be a great venue, but the ground's capacity is a major issue. 25,600 can fit in, but only 20,000 of this is seating, meaning major work would have to be carried out to bump capacity up to UEFA's minimum standard. Cork's Páirc Uí Chaoimh had been given the green light for much-needed redevelopment by Cork City Council, with Cork GAA looking to turn the ground into a 45,000 all-seater venue, but how much redevelopment would be enough to satisfy UEFA demands is more than what would justify the expense involved, while even the scale of refurbishment for GAA matches alone is being questioned.

For the Welsh, only minor refurbishment of the Millennium Stadium would be needed to ensure some plum ties that would draw huge crowds, while Cardiff City's new home ground, the Cardiff City Stadium has room for just shy of 27,000 spectators, with the ability to easily add a tier to bring the capacity above the magic 30,000 mark. High-flying Swansea City's Liberty Stadium, opened in 2005, can hold 20,500, meaning significant work would have to be carried out in order to host any matches.

The single biggest problem facing a potential Celtic bid is the number of candidate cities with more than one available stadium. Three of Scotland's major stadiums, the SFA's own Hampden Park, Celtic's Celtic Park, and Rangers' Ibrox are all located within Glasgow, a factor which counted against a joint Scottish-Irish bid for Euro 2008, given that the successful Austrian-Swiss bid boasted eight venues in eight different cities. The Western Mail was eager to point out that UEFA likes having venues spread out, rather than in close proximity to each other. The pile-up of large grounds isn't confined to Scotland's second city alone, with Ireland's Croke Park and Lansdowne Road both in Dublin, while the Millennium Stadium and Cardiff City Stadium are less than three kilometres from each other in a city of under 400,000. Such proximity of grounds in all three capitals is a situation bound to raise eyebrows at UEFA when they begin looking at issues like transport and accommodation for teams and fans of different countries attending different matches within a couple of days of each other.

Yes, there would be some major issued that the three football associations would have to look at before even thinking about launching a joint bid. It's also true that such a bid might not even get off the ground, with the FAI, SFA and FAW insisting that Tuesday's exercise was little more than a statement of interest in holding the tournament; Ireland, Scotland and Wales hosting Euro 2020 may prove to be little more than a dream. But for those of us who love their sport, the opportunity to see some of the finest teams on the continent come to our shores for a festival of football, what a dream it would be.