Cyprus-Forum.com

[stuballstu]

Alexis wrote

Quote:
If there is a settlement i similiar to that of the UK Scotland, Ireland, Wales having their own administration all be it under the one umbrella would a GC want to live in an area dominated by TC's. Most TC's dont really want to return to the south they would be queing up to do it now if they really did. All be it GC's and TC's should have the right to return i dont think too many will. The longer the Cyprus problem/saga continues the less likely there is for any refugees to get original property back. As families go through generations a great grandchild of a refugee is not really likely to care if they want the families lands back the other side of Cyprus, they are more than likely wanting compensation. I do sincerely feel a great deal of sympathy for all refugees. It has went on so long that the web is increasing getting tangled on this issue.



hi stuballstu

Thanks for the reply. I don't see why right of return the way I have explained it is a stumbling block. As you say not many refugees are likely to return anyway so why have restrictions on residence (as in Annan) imposed. I've always said compensation is the way forward as it solves so many of the impossible situations caused by the Turkish intervention and subsequent colonisation/exploitation of refugee land. Much of this cannot be reversed and we cannot expect those settlers that have been in Cyprus for many years to up and leave. However I believe it must be acknowledged that this is:

a) A compromise on the part of the GC side
b) More importantly this is an issue largely created and aggravated by Turkey's policies in Cyprus and as such Turkey should take responsibility including providing compensation etc...

So, to summarise, what I am proposing is that refugees have the right to return to their native villages but not necessarily the same properties. So where is the stumbling block? Also, I'd like to point out that this is not something that would happen overnight, restrictions can and should be imposed for the first few years to prevent some areas been flooded by refugees, but as you point out this should simply be a safety net which is never used since not many will want return anyway

Alexis

I agree with most of what you have written, it is mainly common sense, unfortunately there is a shortage of that with some

It is a huge problem for most GC's who perhaps believe they will never return but they have an administration which feeds them belief that one day they will. I have been very critical about the current GC government and will be until their policies change. At the moment they have lots of power being the sole recognised administration of Cyprus and by the looks of things do not want to relinquish any of it. To tell a refugee who may apply to the property commission is commiting treason is a down right disgrace. Very soon if a GC wants restitution they will have to apply to the said commission once the ECHR ratify it, which they will. They really dont want to be ruling on thousands of cases and to bare the costs of holding such cases. If they had a case a week at the ECHR, which is not such and unbelievable assumption. it would take almost 27 years to deal with the 1400+ cases from only GC refugees. A commission set up to deal with these cases it at least a step in the right direction but what chance to refugees have when their own government tell them it is treason?

One thing i've learned about Cypriots is where there is money, there is hope

Alexis wrote

Just out of interest, I got the impression from previous posts that you lived and worked in Cyprus? Not that it matters, just interested. To me it's your views that matter and the fact that we can have a sensible conversation despite having very different views. Anyway it sounds like you have a lot of connections with Cyprus and you seem to know a lot about the history so you are right you are probably better informed than most. All I would say is that I know many people who derive some of their views from either having served in the British armed forces in the 1960s in Cyprus or from knowing someone who did. This is all fine but be aware that at the time (particularly the early 1960s) there was very much still a lingering recent legacy of effectively being 'at war' with the Greek Cypriot community amongst the British armed forces. That's not to say that they would make up stories about their experiences but rather that their attitude towards the two communities may not always have been even handed and that many would have still considered the GC forces as the enemy.
Although the British forces may have tried to be even-handed in their approach to Cyprus as a guarantor power it is clear they were not entirely. That's not to excuse anything or detract from some of the accounts from British soldiers though.

Cheers Alexis.

I have various business interests in the UK, Europe and Cyprus (both sides of the Green Line) which for the record (take note Piratis!) are nothing to do with property.


I can understand why you reach that conclusion and their maybe a minority who do feel some hostility to GC's. There is a lot of ex British servicemen who have retired to both sides of the green line. Many of whom have retired in the north have done so because up until the last couple of years it reminded them of Cyprus in the 70's when the pace of life was so much slower. Also the north used to be very pretty before the building booms, a little sad really that its lost some of its charm.

[zan]

Alexis and stuballstu

Thank you for injecting some hope with your sensible approach.

[andri_cy]

Maybe now it is time for me to come and chase that hope away....

[zan]

Maybe now it is time for me to come and chase that hope away....

You do and I will turn your Helim rancid.

[andri_cy]

Shame on you....trying to poison the angel of mercy...

[skipper]

Like I said the TCCC had the authority from 1960 to deal with commerce from the with regards to TC's, its in the 1960 consitution, you know the one that GC's still say is in force.

There is no such thing in the constitution. I believe you confuse the Communal Chamber which that according to constitution deals with matters of relegion and education with the Chamber of Commerce. Nowhere in the world any chamber of commerce has Government Excecutive power. If at a later stage the TC Chamber of commerce was granted authorisation by RoC to do some certificates that’s a totally different story. For your information today each and every town has its own chamber of Commerce. Imagine the chamber of Commerce of Paphos starting issuing certificates and doing exports to Europe!!!

Thats fine, my point is that the TCCC has been deeling with TC trade issues from as a community since the 1960 RoC, what happened to it from the 1963 RoC is the same as any other case.

You are completely wrong with the reason why exports stopped, what happened was upto a certain time (1987 I think but I cant be sure) certificates where stamped by the TCCC with RoC stamps, the authorities here (in their infinite wisdom) decided they wanted TRNC stamps, the GC's noticed this so changed their stamps also.. then in the early 90's a GC company in the UK took the UK government to the high court about TC patatoe imports, the high court ruled that this was an EU matter so it went to the ECJ which finally ruled that the stamps where not recognised and so phytosanitary cerificates did not pass and the products could not benefit from reduced duty.

None of these exports where ever said to have come from Turkey as if they had there would be high duty put on them. I cant comment on the mixing as this would have most likely happened after.

If this is true then what you are telling me is the TCs stopped their exports to Europe by their own initiative, without even the RoC putting any obstacles as to the legal status of Famagusta port. Then you should tell this to the TCs who think the so called embargo is imposed by us and not by themselves.

There were always legal obstacles of famagusta port since 1974, and that certainly was n't the TC's doing. Goods always stopped off at Mersin port in Turkey due to the famagusta being closed. Also TC's did n't decide to stop their exports, their exports were stopped in 1990's (93, not sure) whereas they changed their stamps in '87. Had they not changed their stamps they could have atleast argued that had a better defence in the ECJ, however in all likelyhood the outcome would have been the same but on a different basis and if not it would have been easy for the GC's to change some laws and try again. You have to remember that this was n't the first time that the GC's tried to get TC imports banned via the courts.

Like I said in my previous post, the EU is basically stamping and checking things in the north its not the RoC as per the regulation, sure they voted as the 25 members to allow it but EU officers are not working as proxy for the RoC. In light of this, if goods where deemed to have broken the rules the GC's would not be liable for a fine since they where not the ones that certified the goods.

Well if it suits you to believe that the 24 Countries of Europe decided they would jump in one of the member states (at an area where the Aquis is presumably suspended), start issuing phytosanitary and other health cerificates by themselves, appoint a local chamber of commerce issue certificates of Origin,whereas the 25th member which is the concerned party would have no option but to sign whatever they decided, then so be it. I imply to you that this was not the case. The case was that the EU wanted RoC to find a way so that TC products are exported. In fact there were alternative senarios to the TCCC issuing certificates, but in the end RoC chose that to enpower Ali Erel.

That is not what I said at all, you are twisting what I said. I never said that this regime was forced on the GC's, I even said it was voted by 25 members. My point was the EU people working in the north are not working for the RoC but for the EU, it is these people who are checking the agricultural fields, goods, etc. If there is a mistake than why would the EU fine the RoC for a regime that is set up by the EU and not under the control of the RoC?

No they dont, at the Green line the officer just checks that the documentation is authentic and the the goods match the description, after that the goods have the status as "Community goods".

It depends on the product. For example dairy products don’t go so light checks as you think. Furthermore the procedure assumes to check whether the products are in same good condition as per date they were certified. True they become community goods after they cross the green line. The question is can the travel all over Europe just like that? Lets see --- >

How and what checks are done has been a source of debate, if you read the EU annual report its also mentioned there. Further reply to this is below.

In respect to the certificate of origin documentation, from Article 5:
1. Goods which are allowed to cross the line shall not be subject to export formalities.
However, the necessary equivalent documentation shall be provided, in full respect of Cypriot internal legislation, by the authorities of the Republic of Cyprus upon request.

The T2L is NOT the certificate of Origin. That is issued by the TCCC. The T2L is the cerificate that allows goods to move from the Country of Origin to other EU Countries.This is where RoC actually intervenes. We are not talking for exports but for movements from now on. Even if the products are fully certified by TCCC and the EU officials to be according to regulation, without a T2L certificate the products are condidered non EU and the receipient will pay both VAT and import duties. In case the products stayed in the RoC for some time and then gone to the port for export then the products are checked once again at the port and supplied with new sanitary certificates. The certificates of Origin of the TCCC however are still valid.

You're right the T2L is n't a certifcate of origin per se, the T2L is a "proof of community status" and with regards to this the regulation says:

11. Goods complying with the conditions set out in paragraphs 1 to 10 shall have the
status of Community goods, within the meaning of Article 4(7) of Regulation (EEC) No
2913/92.

As per Article 5. para. 1 that I quoted before, goods that pass through the green line as long as they are what the TCCC says they are have the right to a T2L as they have community status and as such the authorities can not place restrictions on the goods just because they have come from the north. That is the legal situation, if the GC's want to make procedural difficulties in order for TC's to get the required documenation than they a free to do so (as was the case for alot of things 63 onwards) but it would n't be from any legal right from of view of the green line regulation.

To give you a real life example suppose the EU officials and the TCCC issue you all the certificates you need. You send those certificates to your clent in UK, however you send the goods via Turkey. The receipient gets the goods gets all the EU certificates but gets no T2L. He pays VAT and import duty as if the products came from China. Furthermore the products can no longer move anywhere else in Europe unless they pay taxes and VAT for each and every move.

Your real life example is completely wrong. If the goods are comming from Turkey to the UK are manufactured in Turkey they qualify for 0% duty due to the Customs Union (except for agricultural,coal/steel, other misc. types of goods). As for VAT, yes the importing company pays VAT, however when they sell the goods on to another EU company or export those goods to outside the EU they claim that VAT back, so in reality goods comming from Turkey have no difference to goods comming from Cyprus or any other EU company. The VAT situation for goods comming from China would be the same for Turkey, however there would be duty to be paid, however once the duty has been paid they gain community status and hence free to move throught the EU as in the Turkish case.

The Tax case is definitely paying twice, taxed once in the TRNC and again in the RoC but the VAT is n't really paying twice and as such is bad terminology.

There are two cases where there is a VAT problem, the first is if I purchase raw materials from the south the company selling them to me has to to charge me VAT because I dont have a RoC VAT number and it cant be classed as an export. The second case is if I order goods from the EU to be picked up in the south the EU company cant sell them to me without VAT because I dont have a EU VAT number.

I could get my parts via Turkey, normally containers get sent to Mersin port in Turkey where they are loaded onto another ship, for this there is the extra unloading, storage and reloading fees, plus the extra shipping fees. However this is only is useful if you are handling containers as they dont leave the free port. So what do I for a package? I have to get a company in Turkey to buy the goods on my behalf, get it delivered to them, they then have to sell it to me with a profit and fill in the relative customs declaration and pay the courier to send it to the north where once I recieve it I have to pay duty (and VAT but that is reclaimed). There are other issues aswell that in the end it just make sense to outsource it to a Turkish company who can handle the logistcs along with the lower labour costs it ends up costing you less and is more practicle. I still make some money, but I dont employ any TC's and the local economy does n't benefit either, but hey atleast the Turkish company gets a little.

So is this a viable bussiness ONLY if carried out with cheap labour in Turkey? If this is so then you have to abide to this fact.

Thats not what I said, what I said that for the price of just getting your goods to the north before you even done any manufacturing you could get them manufactured in Turkey so from a business point of view it makes no sense and if you ignored the business case you have the logistical case.

The VAT and the zero tax on European products are set by the EU to actually discourage such bussiness. There are thousands of factories all over Europe who would like to manufacture their products in China or India for peanuts and then import them in EU with no VAT and no tax. This can’t be done. Yet the labour in those countries is so cheap that companies still make a hell of profit even if they pay VAT and tax. So in your case it is simply a choice that you have to make.

With all due respect you dont know what you're talking about. VAT is a tax on local consumption it does n't matter where the goods come from, business's dont pay it they just act as collectors for the government. As for duty you'ill find that typically its not very much for most manufactured goods (3-5%), infact its the areas of agricultural goods which most 3rd world countries would benifit the most from low duty that it is highest. Infact you know countries like France and Germany complain that new countries like Cyprus, Latvia, etc have too low tax rates and that companies move there to pay lower taxs whilst still conducting their main business outside.

Now if you think your bussiness is viable to be exceuted with Cypriot labour that’s a different story. You have to register at the VAT office of RoC, and also pay taxes as everyone else. The matter of double taxes is not the problem of the Roc it is a problem of the "trnc administration" and you should apply pressure to them to solve it. For your information however the VAT will cost you nothing in RoC (it is just a + - figure) whereas your profits upto 10,000 pounds are totally tax free. If you make much more profits then the corporate tax is about 20%. And as pitsillos said you need a good accountant that will enable you cheat as much as possible.

I hope my information is helpful.

NB. Do you view the RoC as a foreign country that just puts obstacles on you? Would you never register for VAT in RoC feeling you don’t want to be represented by it?

Id love my business to run with all TC labour, if I could do most of my manufacturing in the north but thats not possible. Its not possible to register our business in the south and run things in the north, I'd have to move everything to the south and then all my employees have to register too, most likely I'd have to move permenantly infact I wonder if the purpose of this regulation is basically to tie as many TC's to the south as possible.

Double taxing is a real problem which I cant wish away. You say thats not the RoC's problem and I should put pressure on the TRNC, why should I when its a political problem which I regard neither the RoC or the TRNC as being in the right, all I'm trying to do is run a business. My only "poltical" target is to increase TC's wealth if I can and like I've said in a previous post, whatever the TRNC is to TC's and non-TC's its all we have.

I dont really want to get into a massive political discussion about this but yes, for me and the majority of TC's the RoC is like a foreign country which does n't represent me, how could it? I've never voted there or paid tax's nor have I ever used any public services or applied for an ID card (which I could do before some users here try to pounce on me) so atleast I cant be called a hypocrite.

When you talk about obstacles, I read your president today say that there is no need for direct trade because the north does n't produce anything and my thought was "of course it does n't with all these obstacles".

[Pyrpolizer]

I beleive it was Gul who said the other day "what are the TCs goinng to benefit by the opening of one port"?
As for Papadopoulos what he actually said today is this:
Initially they said they couldn't export potatos because we wouldn't let their trucks carry potatos at Limassol.
After we said OK, you can have your own trucks carry potatoes to Limassol, Talat called the TC producers and said, no you are forbitten to do it, because you will be harming our case.

[Pyrpolizer]

It came to me as a surprise hearing from you that Turkish products are zero % rated on imports-exports with the EU. The usual procedure for all canditate member states is to get gradual reduction and then get zero rates on accession.
Fact is you are right, Turkey is in fact the FIRST and ONLY country to enter an almost full customs union with EU without being full member.

No wonder how it got so much foreign investment. Clever Turkey, I must say.

[Viewpoint]

I beleive it was Gul who said the other day "what are the TCs goinng to benefit by the opening of one port"?
As for Papadopoulos what he actually said today is this:
Initially they said they couldn't export potatos because we wouldn't let their trucks carry potatos at Limassol.
After we said OK, you can have your own trucks carry potatoes to Limassol, Talat called the TC producers and said, no you are forbitten to do it, because you will be harming our case.

Rubbish, I know from Erdil Nami what happened, an EU expert inspected the potatoes and gave them the all clear, when trying to transports to the south for shipment the GCs caused all sorts of problems and delays for 5 days by which time the potatoes went bad. The case has been reported to the EU and was on television today.

[Pyrpolizer]

Any links to the alledged "troubles" the GCs caused you? Any links to the independent report sent to the EU?

I have potatos in my cellar for 5 weeks and are in excelent condition. The ship needs minimum one week to go to the UK.
So you might as well explain us how your potatoes went bad in just 5 days-if that delay can in fact be attributed to the devilish GCs?