On the occasion of the pandora papers leak, the European Parliament deafeningly called for an investigation to be carried out against some European leaders, with president Anastasiades’ named second on the list.
In a resolution adopted by 578 votes in favour, 28 against (including DISY MEPs Lefteris Christoforou and Loucas Fourlas) and 79 abstentions, MEPs identified the measures they believe should be taken urgently by the EU in order to eliminate the legal loopholes that currently facilitate widespread tax avoidance, tax evasion and money laundering.
They also asked the European Commission to take legal action against Member States that do not apply the legislation in force correctly. MEPs particularly criticised former and current Prime Ministers and ministers of EU member states, whose activities were revealed by the Pandora Papers. The resolution also calls on the local authorities of each country to launch investigations to establish any illegalities.
So every citizen of this country wonders which authorities in Cyprus will investigate Mr. Anastasiades. Who:
a) He insists that he has no connection with the law firm that bears his name, testifying in some interviews contradictory information. Elsewhere he says that he left his office in 1997 when he became president of DISY, and elsewhere in 2013 when he became President of South Cyprus.
c) It argues that the legal framework currently applied in Cyprus, which has been modernized after countless complaints against our country, is fully in line with the European acquis and international conventions.
Theoretically speaking, President Anastasiades could be controlled by the Parliament, the Legal Service, the Audit Office and the Supreme Court, if some institutions resorted to it with specific and substantiated complaints. These institutions, although constitutionally independent, are not convinced that they can meet the needs of a necessary investigation of what is being reported.
The fragmentation of responsibilities they have, as shown through the relevant reportage written on another page by Katerina Iliadi, does not allow a comprehensive approach. Moreover, as the European Parliament denounces, among other things, the issue is not only a criminal one, but also a political and moral one.
All those who, with the help of politicians, tax evade, evade taxes or launder black money, are doing so at the expense of the state’s coffers. In other words, the state does not collect taxes, it cannot pursue a social policy in favour of the economically weaker classes, while some people are stacked in the banks. As a result, an entire society resorts to obsidia and loses faith in democracy. Perhaps this is why some parties and groups have begun – for the first time perhaps so strongly – to ask President Anastasiades to resign.
The phenomenon
Anastasiades of this country, to be fair, has never been proved by proof and stamps that he put money in his pocket from the public coffers. On the other hand, it is certain that it had benefits from individuals while he was President of the Republic. This is where the Charter of Ethics that he himself distributed to his ministers comes in, under which they are not entitled to a gift of more than 150 euros! In this case, can he himself accept gifts of thousands of euros, such as free trips by private jet to seychelles?
In reality, of course, there has never been a substantial investigation against him, with the opening of bank accounts, in the context of a thorough “Pothen Esses”. The “Pothen Esses” that he himself submits based on the legislation that he and his government promoted, is literally funny: A salary, some deposits, two cars and something hereditary in Pera Pedi, while at the same time he declares in the Financial Times that he is very rich.
Why this mockery? Because he feels that no one can touch him. He believes that he has in his pocket the parties, the attorney general, the auditor general, the Supreme Court, the media. He believes – and perhaps he is right – that none of them wants to bother him. He probably believes that those who criticize him are simply jealous, but above all he understands that they are afraid of him. In any case, however, it reminds them that they owe him. There is also this crucial institutional issue. That all those who are called upon today to check him have been appointed by him. After 8 years in power, all independent officials are people chosen and appointed by Nicos Anastasiades.
Apart from the above existing problems that anchor the State of Cyprus after the revision of the Constitution of 1964 through which each Greek Cypriot President operates as an elected dictator, unless there is a serious investigation, the controversial example of Nicos Anastasiades will live and guide the new politicians of this country. The message is clear: There are laws and codes of conduct in Cyprus, but no one cares to see if they are being observed.
So instead of some people inexpensively asking him to resign, let them move in the direction of appointing a commission of inquiry, truly independent, to look at him. They owe it to a society that sees the country’s leader becoming a pan-European retino.
And the Cyprus issue!
Many comment on the criticism levelled at President Anastasiades for the corruption phenomena in retaliation for his turn to the Cyprus issue. This propaganda is even promoted by the Presidential Itself with clever dilatory communication tactics. We must clarify the following: Most of the critical reports about President Anastasiades come from major foreign media. Based, of course, on the propagandists, the foreign media are at bay. Only that the British “Gardian” that brought to light the Pandora Papers did not only deal with Mr. Anastasiades, but first and foremost had on its list the former British Prime Minister Tony Blair!
The argument could probably be reversed: Every time Mr. Anastasiades is accused of scandalous behavior, some in the Presidential Palace bring back the Cyprus issue with new positions of Anastasiades for new faits accomplis and new moves against our small and hapless homeland. With an eagle’s gaze and flowing patriotic discourse, he grabs the microphone and declares that he did not receive a state to deliver a community. Only now we are confused. Why do we want our state? To milk it some more?
*Opinions expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of CypriumNews.
