Attempts to shift blame for crime committed against Cyprus
Statement by Georgos Loucaides, AKEL C.C. Spokesperson
AKEL C.C. Press Office, 5th May 2014, Nicosia
The in hindsight contrivances of the governing DISY party for the sake of the pre-election campaign for the position of President of the European Commission are now also expressed by the candidate of the European People’s Party EPP Jean-Claude Juncker. We expect from Mr. Juncker fewer expediencies and more seriousness, given that his fraternal party in Cyprus leaves him very exposed.
We will not respond to all the untrue statements being made in retrospect. We’ll let AKEL and the previous government’s critics respond to the retrospective criticism with what they themselves were saying during the period in question.
On the criticism about delaying the application to the Stability Mechanism
– Just one month before the Bank of Cyprus also requested state support and Cyprus was forced to appeal to the Stability Mechanism, this is exactly what Mr. Anastasiades stated on 24th May 2012 , in reply to a question whether Cyprus is close to a recourse to the Stability Mechanism: “… the issue is for Cyprus to avoid the Stability Mechanism. It’s not about how close we are, but about how we operate in view of the small amount of the necessary capital needed to avoid this possibility because the consequences will be unpleasant for everyone. “
On the criticism about the non-finalization of the Memorandum, despite the agreement in principle of November 2012
In the words of Juncker himself on 21st January 2012 after the Eurogroup meeting: “… after receiving assurances that the short-term financing needs of Cyprus is covered (…) they felt that the targeting of an agreement on a program after the upcoming elections in Cyprus , would better serve the national property. Therefore we expect that the final agreement on a plan can be achieved in March. “
It is obvious, as with other public statements that have been recorded, that they wanted to see the election of Mr. Anastasiades to the Presidency of the Republic, who they anticipated, correctly as it turned out to be, would be more cooperative than his predecessor D. Christofias was, who was putting up strong and fierce resistance on issues relating to the protection of our country’s national wealth and our people’s social gains, such as the question of the natural gas, the question of the profitable Semi-governmental organizations, the Automatic Cost of Living Allowance and others.
But Mr. Juncker himself on 30th October 2013, after a meeting with the President of the House of Representatives, also stated the following about the decisions of the Eurogroup of March 2013: “If I was head of the Eurogroup (on the issue of Cyprus) I would have made a different handling of the issue”.
So what is the truth then? Is the previous government’s “delay” to blame for making the haircut on bank deposits inevitable or was it a question of the personalities from the EU that were handling the issue?
Developments themselves have proved that none of the two applies. The criminal “treatment” that was imposed in an unprecedented way on Cyprus was a well-prepared and predetermined plan, but a plan however which could only be implemented with a collaborative President of the Republic.
It is obvious that those who understandably feel guilty about the catastrophic “treatment” imposed on Cyprus on 15th March 2013 are attempting to retrospectively and amid extreme contradictions to justify the unprecedented crime committed against the people of Cyprus, but also to shift responsibilities elsewhere; responsibilities that belong to the European People’s Party EPP which controlled the EU, led by German Chancellor Merkel, the Democratic Rally party and Mr. Anastasiades who accepted, regretfully to press the trigger when they put the gun to his head, as he himself has said.
