Newsroom
A candidate associated with the Direct Democracy movement says he would be prepared to block the government’s budget if he believed a critical issue was at stake, even if that meant state employees temporarily going without pay.
Yiannis Laouris, who is linked to the movement backing Fidias Panayiotou, made the comments during an appearance on journalist Chrysanthos Tsouroullis’ podcast. Laouris argued that refusing to approve the state budget can be a legitimate political tool when lawmakers want to force action on matters they consider essential.
According to Laouris, the vote on the national budget is the moment when elected officials can exert maximum pressure on the government. He suggested that if a dispute reached that level of importance, blocking the budget could be justified even if it had serious consequences for public sector salaries.
“If the issue is of vital importance,” he said, the budget vote “is the moment to block the Government.” Referring to the possibility that public employees might go unpaid during such a standoff, he added: “Why should they have to be paid? I don’t understand.”
Budget vote as leverage
During the discussion, Laouris framed budget approval as the key opportunity to challenge the government when disagreements cannot otherwise be resolved.
“The vote on the budget is the moment to block the Government when something is very serious and it does not pass,” he said. “Just like what happened now in the United States, where the Democrats blocked the Government multiple times. Here, no one dares to do it.”
Host Chrysanthos Tsouroullis pushed back, warning that a budget impasse could bring the state to a halt. Laouris responded by criticizing what he sees as an overly cautious political culture.
“We pretend that we are sensible, that we are good,” he said.
Accepting the risk of consequences
Tsouroullis also raised the possibility that public servants might not receive their salaries if the budget remained blocked for an extended period. Laouris acknowledged that possibility but suggested it could be justified if the issue involved was important enough.
“Okay, usually it doesn’t last two months, but yes, why should they have to be paid? I don’t understand,” he said. “If the issue is of vital importance and society gives me no other weapon, and it is the only weapon I have, why shouldn’t I use it? It’s like the veto we talk about in Europe, where some people ask why we don’t use it sometimes.”
Laouris also said politicians sometimes need to demonstrate their willingness to take political risks.
“You have to show once or twice that you are ready to take risks in order for what you believe is right to happen,” he said.
The remarks come ahead of upcoming elections in which the Direct Democracy movement hopes to enter the House of Representatives and pursue its political agenda.
