Slavic Daily News

Slavic Daily News Contact information, map and directions, contact form, opening hours, services, ratings, photos, videos and announcements from Slavic Daily News, Media/News Company, Sarajevo.

GLOBAL SLAVIC NEWS - NEWS, SPORT, HISTORY AND CULTURE
POLAND, SLOVAKIA, CZECH REPUBLIC, RUSSIA, UKRAINE, BELARUS, SLOVENIA, CROATIA, SERBIA, MONTENEGRO, MACEDONIA, BULGARIA

Bulgaria benefits from weakness of Greek economyA €10bn aid package for Greece has been agreed – the first was €110bn – ...
20/03/2014

Bulgaria benefits from weakness of Greek economy
A €10bn aid package for Greece has been agreed – the first was €110bn – but why would businesses stay in the country?

The shuttered shops, myriad "for rent" signs, derelict factories and empty streets fill him with gloom. "Anger and sadness overwhelm me," said the entrepreneur. "I grab the steering wheel a little tighter and feel my pulse rise.

"I can't believe that this is the country where I grew up. For my generation it was never meant to be this way."

In 2012, at the height of Greece's debt crisis, Agorastos moved his business – an American-style gym that only a year before had been thriving in Serres – over the frontier to Bulgaria. Relocating was not easy: he had to hire three lorries "at enormous expense" to ferry sports equipment to the southern Bulgarian town of Blagoevgrad, 100 miles north of the border.

And then, he added, there was the risk of moving to a country that was itself the poorest member of the EU and where few wanted to stay at all.

"But after doing my sums I understood it was the only way to survive," said the 32-year-old, whose enterprise is now ensconced in a basement a fifth of the size of his outlet back in Serres – and a tenth of the price to run.

"Like everyone, I was being really squeezed by taxes and my rent for the gym alone was €12,000 [£10,000] a month. After the first memorandum," he said, referring to Greece's initial €110bn EU-IMF sponsored bailout, "people began being so affected by cuts the first thing they dropped was their membership to the gym. It got to the point where I couldn't afford to pay the rent, or the electricity bills, or the taxes."

A former Soviet bloc state such as Bulgaria offering stability and solace to entrepreneurs such as Agorastos would have been inconceivable not that long ago when Greece, the Balkans' only EU member, was attempting to cast itself as the regional economic leader.

Agorastos is far from alone. What started as a trickle of Greek firms branching out to the new market economies of neighbouring Balkan states before the crisis had even begun has turned into a steady flow as businesses seek to escape crippling duties and an economy that for six straight years has been entrenched in austerity-driven recession.

In sharp contrast to Greece, where corporate tax rates range between 20% and 25% and businesses are subjected to an ever-changing tax administration, Bulgaria has a flat tax rate of 10%, the EU's lowest.

The pledge of Antonis Samaras, the Greek prime minister, that 2014 would be the year of economic recovery when Greece left its international rescue programme and returned to growth was met with disbelief, if not disdain, by the country's business community, where there remains a huge disconnect between fiscal progress and the mood on the ground.

This week's conclusion of months of talks to release €10bn of aid, and a promised return to international bond markets before May, have done nothing to silence critics who say a third bailout will be needed to address the country's monumental debt problems.

Although Athens has regained some of its competitiveness – with labour costs falling dramatically since its indebted economy became the ward of international lenders – Albania, Bulgaria, Romania and Macedonia are still cheaper, with a minimum monthly wage of about €350.

Analysts note record levels of unemployment and poverty, and say Greece's productive economy has all but collapsed in the four years since revelations over the true size of its deficit led to Europe's worst crisis in decades.

Last month's official figures showed industrial output in December rising for the first time in six months but that came after it fell 3.6% over the year and it has dropped about 30% from its peak. Unemployment remains at 27.5% on the latest figures and protests continue as public-sector workers face 11,400 job cuts this year, as demanded by bailout lenders.

"In no way can we talk of a turnaround big enough to stop the trend," said Chryssa Manoulidou, president of the Orestiada-based union of a manufacturers in the northern Evros border region. "There is still a huge amount of uncertainty. We're talking about a recession the likes of which has never been seen in peacetime and a situation that is still far from stable."

The number of Greek firms registered in Bulgaria rose 75% between 2010 and 2012, from about 2,200 to nearly 3,800, according to figures released by the national revenue agency in Sofia. Last year, Greek media estimates put the figure at 6,000 and reported that companies with Greek/Bulgarian ownership surpassed 15,000.

"In Greece it's impossible to operate a business now," said Christos, a northern Greek hotelier who, because he was "scouting" for business in Bulgaria, declined to give his full name.

"Nothing is moving in the market. And with over 30% of bank loans non-performing, no one will give you credit. You go to a bank and they refuse, point blank, to even talk about it."

Greece is the third biggest investor in Bulgaria, after the Netherlands and Austria, with Greek construction firms leading the market in large-scale infrastructure projects in the former communist state.

The road up to Blagoevgrad from the Greek border is testimony to the emigration of the entrepreneurs. Lined with Greek-language hoardings, it is now home to companies exporting goods – anything from plastics to pharmaceuticals, olive oil and food – and textile factories and construction firms that have also relocated. Among them is Fourlis Holdings, which owns the Ikea franchise for the region, the building firm Ellaktor and Jumbo, Greece's biggest toy retailer. Film production companies have also jumped on the bandwagon.

A commercial officer at the Greek embassy in the Bulgarian capital, Sofia, said that over the past 18 months he had been deluged by "expressions of interest" from business people who saw Bulgaria as a safe haven and wanted to export goods to the country.

So, too, has Bianka Giorgieva, an accountant who has opened offices in Sandanski, the nearest commercial town to the frontier. "Every day we receive calls from at least two or three Greek companies wanting to set up shop here," she said. "The demand got so great that I decided to set up a second office here."

Small and medium-sized businesses are not the only enterprises fleeing the eurozone's weakest member state. The past 18 months has seen the exit of Greek multinationals including Coca-Cola Hellenic Bottling, previously the country's biggest company but now headquartered in Switzerland and listed in London, and Viohalco, its largest metals processing group.

"Everyone is abandoning the Greek economy," said the political commentator Giorgos Kyrtsos.

"The big fish are relocating to countries like Luxembourg, Switzerland and Belgium, and small and medium-sized companies that don't have the means are moving to less developed Balkan states," he said, adding that the climate provided fertile ground for major international investors to impose their own rules.

"Out of a fleet of 30,000 lorries, 8,000 have already moved to Bulgaria. If the government wants to keep companies here it has to resolve the issue of liquidity in the private sector and reduce the tax burden, otherwise who the hell is going to survive in this country?

Source:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/19/bulgaria-benefits-weakness-greek-economy-aid?

A €10bn aid package for Greece has been agreed – its second – but why would businesses stay in the country?

17/03/2014

WHATS YOUR OPINION ON THE SITUATION IN UKRAINE ?
WHO IS RIGHT AND WHO IS WRONG ?

28/08/2013

SOON NEW UPDATE AFTER LONG TIME !

RussiaTatarstan Sovereignty, Twenty Years LaterBy Sabirjan Badretdinov21 March 2012Sabirjan Badretdinov.In a referendum ...
15/04/2013

Russia

Tatarstan Sovereignty, Twenty Years Later
By Sabirjan Badretdinov21 March 2012

Sabirjan Badretdinov.
In a referendum on the status of Tatarstan on 21 March 1992, 61.4 per cent voted for the republic’s sovereignty in defiance of President of Russia Boris Yeltsin, the Russian parliament, and the Russian Constitutional Court’s ruling that the referendum was unconstitutional. Mintimer Shaimiev, Tatarstan’s president at that time, refused to sign the Russian federal treaty and insisted that Tatarstan’s relations with Russia be based on a treaty between equals. The referendum alarmed Moscow. The Russian leadership feared that Tatarstan’s actions could lead to the disintegration of the Russian Federation.

The road to the referendum had started two years earlier. On 30 August 1990, Tatarstan adopted a Declaration of State Sovereignty. Huge crowds of Tatar nationalists outside the local parliament building demanded total and complete independence of Tatarstan from Russia. President Yeltsin and Russian legislators in the Duma repeatedly condemned Tatarstan’s Declaration. The Russian media unleashed an unprecedented propaganda campaign against Tatarstan and its leadership. There was talk of impending “bloodshed” should Tatarstan secede from Russia.

President Shaimiev was trying to manoeuvre between pressure from Tatar nationalists on the one hand and Moscow on the other. There is no indication that he wanted to lead Tatarstan to full independence, but his every move was interpreted in Moscow as an attempt to do just that. State-owned Russian media and some legislators in the Duma started to demand that Tatarstan hold a referendum on independence, hoping the majority of the republic’s residents (about half who were non-Tatars) would reject sovereignty. Earlier, some public opinion polls in Tatarstan seemed to indicate that only about 10 to 15 per cent of the voters would favour complete independence, fearing separation from their families, friends and compatriots outside Tatarstan.

Shaimiev’s advisor and astute political scientist Rafael Khakimov suggested to the president that he yield to Moscow’s demands and go ahead with the referendum. Knowing very well that the outcome of any referendum depends on the wording of the question put to the voters, Khakimov suggested a way to frame the question in a more attractive manner.

The question put to voters was: “Do you agree that the Republic of Tatarstan is a sovereign state, a subject of international law, building its relations with the Russian Federation and other republics and states on the basis of treaties between equal partners?” The referendum went ahead despite a ruling by the Russian Constitutional Court that the wording of the question was unconstitutional. When it issued its ruling on 13 March 1992, the Constitutional Court pronounced unconstitutional not only a part of the referendum question, but also the sections of Tatarstan’s Declaration of Sovereignty that limited the application of Russian laws in the republic, as well as an amendment to the Tatarstan Constitution passed in April 1991 that also implied that Tatarstan was not part of the Russian Federation.

On 19 March, an appeal by President Yeltsin to the Tatarstan parliament was broadcast. In the appeal, Yeltsin said the planned referendum could tear the Russian Federation apart and, regardless of the outcome, could be used by “nationalist forces” to kindle ethnic conflict. On the eve of 20 March, when there was no longer any doubt that the referendum would go ahead as planned, Yeltsin made an appeal (broadcast on federal TV channels) to the people of Tatarstan calling on them to vote “no.”

I remember watching Yeltsin’s speech on TV at Radio Liberty, where I was then working as a journalist for the Tatar-Bashkir Service. Russian TV broadcasts could be received through a satellite in our office in Munich where RL was located at that time. The speech lasted about 8 minutes. President Yeltsin spoke grimly, frequently using such words as “conflict,” “bloodshed,” “discord,” “collision,” “disintegration,” “chaos,” and “threat.” All of us watching felt a tremendous sense of pride in our homeland: No matter how the referendum came out, we knew that Tatarstan was recognized by both Tatars and Russians as a significant political and economic force in its own right. Yeltsin himself found it necessary to impress upon all Russia that the fate of the nation depended on the vote in Tatarstan. As a Tatar emigree, I felt proud too. My hope of seeing Tatarstan free and independent seemed to be close to being realized.

The referendum itself passed peacefully, and the numerous observers from other parts of the former USSR as well as other countries noted only minor irregularities. The turnout was 82 per cent. Of those who voted, 61.4 per cent were in favour, 37.2 against. As was to be expected, the “yes” vote was higher in the predominantly Tatar rural areas – 75.3 per cent compared with 55.7 per cent in the cities — while in the capital, Kazan, 51.2 voted against.

Most likely, no one in Moscow or Kazan had a clear idea of what the results of the referendum would mean for Russia and Tatarstan and what subsequent steps would have to be taken by both sides. The key words “state sovereignty” were understood differently by everyone involved. For Tatar nationalists, the words meant full independence from Russia; for Tatarstan’s president, they probably meant a greater degree of autonomy from Moscow; and for Moscow itself, they presumably represented a legal and constitutional error to be corrected as soon as possible.

Nevertheless, the outcome of the referendum played an important role for the future relations between Moscow and Kazan, paving the way for an important bilateral treaty agreed upon in 1994 which gave Tatarstan an unprecedented degree of control over its economy. This treaty was more or less honored during the presidency of Yeltsin, despite the resentment of Russian nationalists and a certain degree of envy on the part of other Russian regions. But with the ascension of Vladimir Putin to the presidency, Moscow drastically changed its policy towards Tatarstan. Most of the privileges bestowed upon Tatarstan by the 1994 treaty have been gradually taken away under Putin, either through legislative or court rulings, and sometimes simply by direct executive orders.

Now, 20 years later, it is obvious that almost all the major achievements of Tatarstan in its attempts to enhance its legal and political status have been lost. Despite all the formal symbolic attributes of a sovereign state — a national hymn, the title “President of Tatarstan,” or the designation of the region as a “Republic” — Tatarstan’s real status is not much different from that of any other Russian region. We cannot be surprised, therefore, if the 20th anniversary of the referendum on state sovereignty is not commemorated in Tatarstan, let alone celebrated on a grand scale.

The author, originally from Kazan, currently lives in New York City.

© The Kazan Herald. All Rights Reserved.

Source: http://kazanherald.com/2012/03/21/tatarstan-sovereignty-twenty-years-later/

In a referendum on the status of Tatarstan on 21 March 1992, 61.4 per cent voted for the republic’s sovereignty in defiance of President of Russia Boris Yeltsin, the Russian parliament, and the Russian Constitutional Court’s ruling that the referendum was unconstitutional. Mintimer Shaimiev, Tatarst...

Bosnia - Sarajevo
10/04/2013

Bosnia - Sarajevo

Montenegro - Kotor
07/04/2013

Montenegro - Kotor

Macedonia - Skopje
06/04/2013

Macedonia - Skopje

Slovenia - Ljubljana
05/04/2013

Slovenia - Ljubljana

Slovakia - Kosice
04/04/2013

Slovakia - Kosice

Address

Sarajevo

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Slavic Daily News posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Share