Cyprus-Forum.com

[Nickp]

I hear people saying that alot of GC's have voted 'no' on the fear of losing jobs, property and business. I was interested in hearing from other people to what degree this is true.

For example, if Varosha was to open tommorrow, would this rob all the other tourist places of there business? I mean it has the best beaches on the island and the redevelopment money would create hotels and tourist attractions far superior to those currently on the island. I first saw Varosha last January for the first time close up. It was quite scarry as the size and the sophisticatedness which looked bigger than current day limmassol and it was like this 30 years ago!!!! I can only imagine going to the village to this place must have been like stepping into New York.

Furthermore, i'm sure there are hotels and other large built developments in the Larnaca area that GC's have built on to compensate their loss. I'm not sure there going to be willing to give it up, hence the 'no' vote.

So in essence, are GC's voting 'No' but for the wrong reasons?

[cannedmoose]

For example, if Varosha was to open tommorrow, would this rob all the other tourist places of there business? I mean it has the best beaches on the island and the redevelopment money would create hotels and tourist attractions far superior to those currently on the island. I first saw Varosha last January for the first time close up. It was quite scarry as the size and the sophisticatedness which looked bigger than current day limmassol and it was like this 30 years ago!!!! I can only imagine going to the village to this place must have been like stepping into New York.

Nick, I know what you mean about Varosha, it reminded me of Benidorm (not a good thing) in its scale and brashness. However, the prospects of Varosha opening for business any time soon are very slim, even if it was returned as some sort of bargaining chip. The buildings in Varosha have been standing idle and unmaintained for more than 30 years now. Many of them are structurally unsound, some of them weren't even finished in August 1974 so are slightly unstable concrete shells. Some of them were also damaged in the fighting.

In essence, most of the strip will either need tearing down or significant restoration which will cost many millions. My preference, in purely aesthetic terms would be to tear the whole place down and start again. Varosha was the product of the 1970s mass tourism boom, with high-rise towers going up all around the Med to cater for the new mass-market jet-setters. In consequence places like Benidorm, Marbella and Varosha were thrown up without thought for their visual impact or surrounding environment. The chances are that the buildings in Varosha will be full of asbestos and will therefore need to remove all of this to gain a modern hoteliers certificate. I would much prefer low-rise, quality developments to replace the skyscrapers and appeal to a higher-class, higher spending class of tourist than you have seen in recent years flooding into resorts like Agia Napa and Protoras.

[Piratis]

The economic reasons where not the main ones. However they played a role in the "no" vote, but they are not the ones you think.

For example these are some much more important economic reasons:

1) The GCs would have to pay most of the money for rebuilding north Cyprus, including the new homes for the Turkish settlers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

2) GCs would be required to abandon all claims against Turkey for the 30 years that turkey illegally occupied their properties. Recently Titana Loizidou won in ECHR and Turkey had to pay her about 1 million dollars.

3) Most importantly, the dysfunctional system with several governments and several parliaments that the Annan plan would create would be a money sucking machine that wouldn't even work properly.

The risk of the whole economy collapsing was very real. Of course we would be willing to take such risk if the plan was a good one. However there was nothing good about the Annan plan in general. (it will take hours to write all the negative aspects of the Annan plan. Have a look at threads in this forum and you will see that the reasons that the Anan plan was rejected are other, more fundamental ones - e.g. 50% power to the 18% of TCs, non return of all refugees, most settlers would remain, Turkish troops would remain, partition was going to be legalized and named "unification")

[cannedmoose]

Nick, Piratis et. al, if you're interested in seeing what a report commissioned by the Cyprus government said about the economic consequences of the Annan Plan, you can find it in the links below. The report was written by four independent economists and is generally favourable, albeit with some reservations in specific areas. I quote this paragraph from the executive summary:

"This report provides an analysis of the economic aspects of the Annan Plan by a committee of independent experts. The report has been commissioned by the Government of the Republic of Cyprus under the understanding that the experts are free to express their own views. The experts’ concern is that the economic agreements included in the Annan Plan do not adversely affect the UCR and its constituent states, that they provide a sound and sustainable basis for the unification process and that they reduce the risks of adverse economic and financial developments at the federal and state levels. The analysis is intended to serve the common economic interests of both Cypriot communities.

The report generally takes as given the political constraints built into the Annan Plan. This includes the intention of limiting the size and authority of the federal government, a commitment to compensate dispossessed property owners, a commitment to provide loss-of-use compensation, the imposition of limits to migration of G/C citizens to the T/C constituent state, and sensitivity to the use of the Cyprus Pound in the T/C constituent state. This is not to say that these provisions are necessarily desirable; in fact, in many cases we strongly feel that many of these constraints will adversely affect the economic development of the United Cyprus Republic. Nonetheless, we take them as dictated by the political realities."

Therefore to define the Annan Plan's economic provisions as a whole as a recipe for economic catastrophe is not correct. Some areas were potentially difficult, but not beyond remedy.

I suggest you read the report. It will also be interesting to compare this report to Vassiliou's report (which was also positive). Links to the reports are below:

Report by Barry Eichengreen, Riccardo Faini, Jurgen von Hagen and Charles Wyplosz: http://www.wolfson.ox.ac.uk/ncyprus/WCW-CW-PDF.pdf

Vassilou report: http://www.kema.com.cy/Annan%20Plan%20En.pdf

[MicAtCyp]

suggest you read the report. It will also be interesting to compare this report to Vassiliou's report (which was also positive). Links to the reports are below:

What do you mean the Vassiliou report was possitive? Did you really study the report, did you scrutinise on it? For your information one of the major points in Vasilious report was that both constituent states would get bankrupt from the very first year.
I consider Vassilious study very objective and accurate. In fact he predicted the Compensation committee would in the end be self sufficient. The problem however is not whether the Compensation committee would be self sufficient but how would that happen. And I tell you how:Is by compensating the GCs with peanuts, by donating the TCs and the settlers the GC properties, and by selling the very few TC properties in the free areas to the foreigners at high prices....
Furthermore Vassiliou estimated the cost to be around 16 billion pounds (for a State whose current budget is just 2 billion and that is not even enough to pay the saralies of the Government employees).Notice the conference for donors did not even manage to collect more than half a billion pounds (about 1 b dollars)

Anyway despite the really bad economics concerning the solution as per Anan Plan the reasons the GCs rejected it are basically those Piratis said.

[-mikkie2-]

Yep, the Annan plan was an expensive plan that basically absolved the Turks of responsibility in Cyprus, would have put the burden of the cost on the GC's and to top it all the TC's would have been left with the richest part of the island, pretty much got properties for peanuts and then get even richer on the back of the GC's.

There is another myth, that the TC's are poor and destitute hence the calling for direct trade and flights. However, when a solution happens I bet that many TC's and settlers will become instant millionaires overnight! You just wait and see.

[cannedmoose]

suggest you read the report. It will also be interesting to compare this report to Vassiliou's report (which was also positive). Links to the reports are below:

What do you mean the Vassiliou report was possitive? Did you really study the report, did you scrutinise on it? For your information one of the major points in Vasilious report was that both constituent states would get bankrupt from the very first year.
I consider Vassilious study very objective and accurate. In fact he predicted the Compensation committee would in the end be self sufficient. The problem however is not whether the Compensation committee would be self sufficient but how would that happen. And I tell you how:Is by compensating the GCs with peanuts, by donating the TCs and the settlers the GC properties, and by selling the very few TC properties in the free areas to the foreigners at high prices....
Furthermore Vassiliou estimated the cost to be around 16 billion pounds (for a State whose current budget is just 2 billion and that is not even enough to pay the saralies of the Government employees).Notice the conference for donors did not even manage to collect more than half a billion pounds (about 1 b dollars)

Anyway despite the really bad economics concerning the solution as per Anan Plan the reasons the GCs rejected it are basically those Piratis said.

For your information MicAtCyp, yes I have read Vassiliou's report and I stand by what I said in my previous post. I also dispute your figures of £16bn, which you are using simply as a figure to frighten people from looking at the facts. As you well know, the £16bn would not be a one-off cost but would be spread over decades through the issuing of bonds, and not an immediate cost. As you say, ultimately the Compensation board would be self-financing.

You then go on to point out how this would be the case, by providing GCs with a pittance. At any point in my post, did I enter into a discussion of the merits/costs of the Plan? No, I simply said that Vassiliou's report provided a positive opinion on the Plan... I did not say that I shared its enthusiasm...

Tell me this, if Vassiliou's report did not reach positive conclusions, can you explain why he concludes with the following on page 42:

"The preceding study has convincingly demonstrated that the reunification of Cyprus and the implementation of the Annan Plan as it will be agreed after the forthcoming negotiations, can be the beginning of a new era of prosperity and security for the whole island.

In the first years after solution growth rates will considerably accelerate and for the first time T/C will have a clear prospect of modernising their state and achieving parity with the G/C Constituent State.

Resettlement of displaced persons in Varosha and the other areas to be returned to the G/C Constituent State, as well as of the T/C who will have to relocate, will cost several billions. However, significant contributions by international donors can be expected and this whole process will lead to speeding up the growth of the economy, creating a huge demand for construction and other services.

Finally, the operation of the Property Board and compensation for those properties that will be disposed of, will be self-financing and most probably generate substantial profits to be invested for the future development of the Federal Republic. In addition of course to the fact, that at last justice will be done and thousands of dispossessed owners will
recover their properties. The billions of compensation will provide an additional impetus to the development of the island, which at last will become a normal country again."

Forgive me MicAtCyp, but if his report found otherwise, why would he write this as his conclusion? Or perhaps you simply read up to the £16bn point and thought you'd read all there was to read... you make a fine argument in principle, but when it comes to actual analysis, you need to read the report again.

[Bananiot]

Here is Loucas Charalambous's contribution to the discussion:

"A man will fight harder for his interests than for his rights’ – Napoleon Bonaparte

WE HAVE completed a year since the referendum today. In this period I have tried to collect as much information about the motives which led three quarters of the Greek Cypriots to reject the settlement. The data is very revealing indeed and is more than enough for anyone to reach very sound conclusions.

The most interesting conclusion is that those who rejected the settlement were from a variety of groups of the population and did not vote according to their traditional political preferences. Each group had completely different motives for voting negatively. Those who voted ‘no’ could be separated into five main categories: the self-interested, the terrified, the carried away, the patriots and the pseudo-patriots.
There is not enough space for a detailed analysis of all these categories. I will therefore confine myself to looking at the first category, with the promise of dealing with the others in future columns. After all, the ‘self-interested’ category is by far the biggest. I have labelled them thus, because their rejection of the settlement was based on the belief that it would affect their financial/business/professional interests. In reality, apart from a few exceptions, this fear was misplaced. How and by whom this fear was spread is another story.

The self-interested fall into the following categories:

1. The clergy (bishops, monks, priests) and their dependents. They were afraid of a fall in the value of the Church’s huge real estate holdings and of adverse effects on its business enterprises.

2. Rich businessmen – industrialists, importers, hoteliers, travel agents and all those in the tourists industry. The irrational fear which determined their decision was that the opening of northern Cyprus would reduce business and consequently their profits. An example of this was the drinks manufacturer who generously funded the ‘no’ campaign, because he was afraid that with a settlement his products would face strong competition from a Turkish drink.

3. Landowners and developers, especially in areas in which land prices had soared in the last few years – like the Church; they were terrified that the value of their real estate would fall.

4. Refugees and non-refugees who are exploiting Turkish Cypriot properties in the south, as well as refugees who do not want to lose the benefits that their status gives them. There are many such cases and here are two: A refugee from a big village that was to be returned in the first phase of the implementation of the Annan plan, took a leading part in the ‘no’ campaign because he is exploiting a Turkish Cypriot property in Ayios Theodoros, worth £5 million. Another refugee from a village that would have been returned in the first phase, voted against the peace plan, because with a settlement his children would have lost the £40,000 housing benefit they were entitled to as refugees.

5. National Guard personnel and civil servants, who were afraid they would lose their jobs or see their careers adversely affected in the event of a settlement. The existence of a large number of overpaid National Guard staff is the crime of the Vassiliou and Clerides governments, as they created a military establishment in Cyprus. I had predicted a while ago that, one day, they would constitute an obstacle to a settlement.
6. Politicians and political opportunists who were terrified of losing the post they held or the one they hoped to get. Power-sharing with the Turkish Cypriots had to be avoided at all costs as the number of high ranking posts would have been reduced, as would their opportunities for advancement.

It could be said that the most convincing, general explanation for the rejection of the settlement is one that I share – the Greek Cypriots, in their majority, are content with partition. They are not bothered by the occupation or the presence of the Turkish army, the possible, negative consequences of which, as politically immature individuals, they ignore.

They are not interested in Kyrenia, Famagusta or the Karpass. As new Sybarites, they are afraid that they might lose what they have – their luxury homes, their Mercedes and BMWs, their cash and their big meals. Strange as it may seem, 30 years after the invasion, the people who have adapted more to the consequences of the invasion are the Greek Cypriots, not the Turkish Cypriots".

[Viewpoint]

Bananiot very intersting article, thanks for posting it, as I said before GCs are very materialist and are always going on about land land land and wealth never safety or peace, the hidden agenda is more wealth rather that the cliche "ancestral lands" sob sob.....

[Piratis]

"A man will fight harder for his interests than for his rights’ – Napoleon Bonaparte

Yes, we fight for our interests and for our rights. This is what you and Loucas Charalambous do also. The difference is that you sided with the Americans and the Turks and therefore your interests are to destroy this place (the more damage you do the higher the profits for you).

Such traitors are a shame for our country. They try their hardest to achieve partition. First they tried to force on us the Annan partition plan, and now, because they failed, they are trying to pass the wrong message to the foreigners as for the reasons why WE voted "no", in order to make the plans of the Americans and Turks easier.

Bananiots and Charalambous voted "yes". So you can only explain why you voted "yes". You can not explain why we voted no. Of course your job has nothing to do with explaining the reasons of "no" and everything to do with the distraction of this country. So in your case truth is irrelevant.[/quote]