was it right for the EU to allow the south to join?

canyavuz


Joined: 22/02/2009
Posts: 363

Message Posted:
18/03/2009 19:40

Do you think that the EU was right to allow the greek cypriot administration to join the EU?

Many say that it was wrong, because the island is divided, and because of the so called "cyprus problem"



Some believe that their accession was right, because the ROC and the TRNC are, practically, two completely different nations, so have their own affairs and so on......





please stick to the topic......

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
18/03/2009 19:45

Allowing full entry of the RoC before any settlement was imo a big mistake, for EU in general and cypriots who support a settlement in particular. Just my personal view.

wynyardman



Joined: 15/12/2007
Posts: 4580

Message Posted:
18/03/2009 20:14

Canyavus,



In a word no! Of course it was not right. Did the Turkish and TC community get a chance to tell their tale. No! Of course not!



What are you left with 35 years on? Emnity!



There seems to be a FINAL opportunity for the record to be put straight, and misdeeds rectified.



It will take a very misguided and arrogant GC South, to overlook this last opportunity, to put the record straight, and to put right any wrongs.



My friends, I think that you are drinking in the last drink saloon.



Its your call, but were it I, I would think long and hard! Give peace a chance!



As usual, just my view, that is all.



Wyn

rowlo



Joined: 12/10/2008
Posts: 4796

Message Posted:
18/03/2009 20:25

no , its a stitch up imo /

fire starter


Joined: 19/06/2008
Posts: 3401

Message Posted:
18/03/2009 21:34

for many year i believed that it was un fair but now i think i have a little more understanding.

the roc gov is the only internationally recognised gov in cyprus.

they did have a referendum on the annan plan and vote no.

the e. u respected the legal goverment and let them in.

all very simple, not right i beleive but i do understand why.

canyavuz


Joined: 22/02/2009
Posts: 363

Message Posted:
18/03/2009 21:37

one reason (just an idea) for why the roc was allowed into the EU could be because they knew very well that the roc will always block Turkey's eu accession bid........which is what germany and france want.....to block turkey from entering the union.

So they have allowed the roc to enter the e.u purely because they know that they will always veto Turkey's e.u membership.

Dirty tricks ehh!



I am a tc, and believe in no reunification of the island. However, the e. u allowing, what they call a problemed island, to enter the union, even though it were the gc's that declined the annan plan, is very strange.



i sense a little corruption with the e.u

AlsancakJack



Joined: 14/08/2008
Posts: 5762

Message Posted:
18/03/2009 21:42

'i sense a little corruption with the e.u'



A bit of an understatement I think. It is well recorded that the ROC lied about its fiscal status to gain membership and also that the EU turned a blind eye to the state of the ROC 'books'. The ROC should have been thrown out on that basis alone.

AJ

juliet


Joined: 11/01/2009
Posts: 612

Message Posted:
18/03/2009 21:45

msg 3, The original tcs are also in the the EU why do you think they get funding fom the EU to restore buildings on the whole island etc, things can`t progress on the north as Turkey is the stumbling block, the tcs who come to the south for new id cards are given Cypriot EU id cards just like the gcs,as firestarter states the roc is the only recognised goverment in Cyprus. The tcs are being held back by Turkey to get the full benefit.

fire starter


Joined: 19/06/2008
Posts: 3401

Message Posted:
18/03/2009 21:50

juliet

i also use to believe that the tc's are held back by turkey.

after living here i believe they are masters of their own destiny, with only them selves to blame.

they like isolation other wise they would do something about it.

rowlo



Joined: 12/10/2008
Posts: 4796

Message Posted:
18/03/2009 21:52

thats your opinion juliet ,

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
18/03/2009 21:54

Juliet msg 8



"The original tcs are also in the the EU"



Yes but they did not get a say in if they wanted to be or not.



"roc is the only recognised goverment in Cyprus."



A 'mistake' by the international community of which the EU entry decsion was just a recent extension. Morally and legaly if one reads the 1960 consitution of Cyprus there is no way that one could consider the post 64, GC only, version of the RoC government as 'legitimate'. However it was politiclay expedient to the world powers at that time to ignore this reality in favour of their own self interests and CYpriots have lived with the consequences ever since.

juliet


Joined: 11/01/2009
Posts: 612

Message Posted:
18/03/2009 21:54

firestarter, or maybe they are scared to do any thing in case they get there hands slapped!! if you know what i mean....

rowlo



Joined: 12/10/2008
Posts: 4796

Message Posted:
18/03/2009 22:00

maybe they dont want it all commercialised like the south , the south relies on money from tourists to get by ,plus its handouts from the eu , there will be few tourists visiting the roc this summer , theyre in trouble deep lol

fire starter


Joined: 19/06/2008
Posts: 3401

Message Posted:
18/03/2009 22:04

just offer me a free kebab and you have my vote,lol.



new merc anyone?

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
18/03/2009 22:28

re msg 11, ErolZ



"Morally and legaly if one reads the 1960 consitution of Cyprus there is no way that one could consider the post 64, GC only, version of the RoC government as 'legitimate'. However it was politiclay expedient to the world powers at that time to ignore this reality in favour of their own self interests and CYpriots have lived with the consequences ever since."



Sorry, ErolZ .. That is nonsense .. I believe you'll find TR tried in the Courts of Eng and Wales to get a ruling to stop the RoCs accession - if it was "illegal" how did it happen ?!.. it didn't get too far..



I will revert re another "mistake" of yours the re UN, Resolutions, etc on another thread, soon.. REAL busy ..



YES - it was a "mistake" .. but the socialist admin in Greece at the time, threatened to veto the whole enlargement planned for 2004 . The new admin is more close to TR .

rowlo



Joined: 12/10/2008
Posts: 4796

Message Posted:
18/03/2009 22:36

another useless piece of crap from x6m , cant you write in a straight line ?

alanka


Joined: 15/09/2007
Posts: 154

Message Posted:
18/03/2009 22:36

I'm not politically wise in any way, but I think the EU allowed one half of Cyprus to join because, come war or whatever, this is an important little island for various reasons.



I hope the TRNC never ever joins the EU, because I think the EU full of an extra layer of politicians creaming off high salaries - you only have to look at the stupid ideas they have had like bananas having to be a certain size and curve etc. Arguments about eccles cakes - eh Gods!!



They paid the farmers here (UK) to stop producing good food so France etc - who were not so efficient - could catch up - now we have fields filled with gorse and weeds - that'll take years to clear if we need to produce good again.



They gave the farmers grants to turn their farms into golf courses - how many golf courses do we need?

fire starter


Joined: 19/06/2008
Posts: 3401

Message Posted:
18/03/2009 22:41

alanka

the trnc would be well at home,lol.

you can only collect blood relatives from the airport, rule.

(so you can't collect your hubby/wife as they are not blood relatives)

i wonder why they changed their minds?

did someone point it out!

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
18/03/2009 22:45

MM read what I have written pls.



What was morally and legaly wrong was the international community recognising a GC only run RoC as a legitimate government of all of cyprus when compared to the 60 consitution. This should never have happened. In a world community were international law was real and it was a reflection of right and wrong not the self iontertest of states and there was a means of persuing it and enforcing it, it would never have happened. However back in the real world, the reality of international law was and largely still is, that it is not a reflection of justice or right and wrong but of the self interests of indivdual states. It was in the interests of powerful states in 1964 to 'recognise' the all GC run RoC goverment DESPITE its clear illegality in terms of the orginal 60's consitution. Thus it WAS recongised, despite legality and morality and it is from this that the EU recognition of it comes.

alanka


Joined: 15/09/2007
Posts: 154

Message Posted:
18/03/2009 22:52

firestarter - take your point!



Best thing that happened to us in the TRNC was OH's wallet was stolen (containing quite a lot of money). His pocket wasn't picked - he went shopping, left wallet on counter, went to car, when back when he realised what he'd done ( yes I did hit him over the head with rolling pin) - no wallet. He reported it to the police - went to station, they called a translator as OH has no Turkish to speak of.



Shop camera was as not working (surprise surprise) but OH was honest and said he had been stupid and that it was his fault really.



At that point senior policeman could suddenly speak perfect English. He said to OH he was fed up of tourists etc coming in to report thefts or similar and just shouting and saying basically"You are all thieves here!".



End result is we have become v friendly with this policeman and his family, and other members of his team - and got to know a lot of local people through them - expensive maybe - but a good result.

fire starter


Joined: 19/06/2008
Posts: 3401

Message Posted:
18/03/2009 23:06

alanka

i also have some very good tc friends, who would do anything for us.

they feel ashamed at the way some off their own people behave here.



its just sometimes the gov here come up with the most stupid comments.

like a dolphinarium, so 70's , who wants this crap.

try cleaning up the rubbish would be a start.

where the tourists are concerned they haven't got a clue.

canyavuz


Joined: 22/02/2009
Posts: 363

Message Posted:
18/03/2009 23:11

even though this will never be possible, in my opinion, it would be much wiser for the North to join the european economical area, rather than the E.U itself, purely because one of the only major problems we have are the economical ones, which the EEA will help boost.

Macha


Joined: 18/01/2009
Posts: 650

Message Posted:
18/03/2009 23:27

But the EEA would never allow this because it would point out the TRNC is illegal and unrecognised and would only talk to the government in the south.

alanka


Joined: 15/09/2007
Posts: 154

Message Posted:
18/03/2009 23:31

firestarter, you are so right! The gov there are so out of tune!



Build lots of hotels - hotel holidays are really so out of fashion now - unless they are part of, say for example, Thompson, all inclusive etc. Bit late now as they gave away so much money to the 'developers' who have not actually finished one hotel yet (just my experience....I have been known to be wrong sometimes - just don't tell OH)



They need to 'get out a bit more' as the saying is.



Loads of people have bought in the TRNC, why does the government there not have a system where we could register our places as being available for rent as and when they are - and then the government tourist office (now, pick yourself up off the floor laughing) responsible for letting, collecting taxes for the lets at 'point of let' and, if anything left, let us have it....

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
19/03/2009 00:07

Dear ErolZ



re msg 19



"MM read what I have written pls.



What was morally and legaly wrong was the international community recognising a GC only run RoC as a legitimate government of all of cyprus when compared to the 60 consitution."



I say AGAIN.. if it was "illegal" it wouldn't have happened... and an yrate, it is a bit "rich" quoting morals / legalities re the majority occupants of a Sovereign state that was militarily partitioned - involving death and ethnic cleansing on a far bigger scale than that that it was supposed to "stop"...



Pls read what *I* said !.. I concentrated on the LEGAL part of your post...

you "appear" to have "glossed" over it.. !



International Self-Interest - as we both agree, ensured that Cypriots would be "divided" ..

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
19/03/2009 00:37

MM msg 25



"if it was "illegal" it wouldn't have happened"



Sheer nonsense. Do you want me to point out the glaring and obvious examples of where something plainly illegal under international law has happened?



The all GC run RoC 'legitimacy' all stems from the 1964 UN resolution. This resolution tacitly, not explicitly, accepted the all GC run version of the RoC as 'legitimate'. It did this NOT based on any legal or moral principles at all. It did it because it was convient to world powers to do this. All they cared about at that point in time was to ensure that NATO allies Greece and Turkey did not end up at war. Their chosen way of doing this was to place UN troops in Cyprus. The most expedient means of doing this was to tacitly accept the legtimiacy of the all GC run RoC DESPITE the glaring legal descrepancy with the RoC consitution. It was EXPEDIENCY that led to this recognition NOT LEGALITY.



[cont]

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
19/03/2009 00:46

Turkey agreed to this resoloution, despite the tacit recognition of what was clearly not a leagl government of the RoC under the terms of the RoC consitution because both UK and US privatley assured Turkey that it would not amount to formal recognition of this government (which turned out to be total lies) and because there were TC being killed on the ground in Cyprus every day the UN 'discussed' this issue and finally because it at least did reafirm Turkeys rights and roles in Cyprus as per the treat of Guarantee.



"International Self-Interest - as we both agree, ensured that Cypriots would be "divided" .."



I do not agree with this at all. This idea that wordl pwers WANTED and WANT Cyprus divided is not one I subcribe to. What they wanted in 64 was UN troops in CYprus to head off NATO allies going to war. The expedient way of getting them there , to these interests, was to simply accept as legitimate a RoC government that clearly was not.

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
19/03/2009 00:47

[cont]



Cypriots have lived with the consequences of this placing of powerful states expedient self intertest above legality and morality ever since.

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
19/03/2009 09:27

Dear ErolZ, re msg 26-28



It is surprising that some one as well read as you "appears" seemingly to ignore some historical events that show your reasoning to truly be the "nonsense"..



I said : "International Self-Interest - as we both agree, ensured that Cypriots would be "divided" .."



You said: This idea that wordl pwers WANTED and WANT Cyprus divided is not one I subcribe to. What they wanted in 64 was UN troops in CYprus to head off NATO allies going to war. The expedient way of getting them there , to these interests, was to simply accept as legitimate a RoC government that clearly was not."



1/There is LOTS of historical data that would allow folk to conclude the the UK DELIBERATELY put Cyprus on a course of division .. divide and rule.. to keep the bases..



2/ You say the TC part of the RoC govt was "forced" out .. I maintain that this was the PLAN - as Denktash had a Taksimist agenda.



(Cont)

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
19/03/2009 09:39

3/ The UN recognised the legitimacy of the RoC govt and STILL did in 74 - I know you've read the resolutions re - respecting Sovereignty... AND in 1983 with the resolution re "TRNC"s declaration.



I again ask you - what has happened when TR has tried to "challenge" the legality of RoC?.. Surely they have tried legal means?



Why did TR sign the "Ankara Accord" - including a customs agreement with RoC THEN claim "promises" were made re TCs?



Are we to assume that TR must be naive when it comes to legal agreements or politically naive?

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
19/03/2009 17:47

Macha msg 29



"1/There is LOTS of historical data that would allow folk to conclude the the UK DELIBERATELY put Cyprus on a course of division .. divide and rule.. to keep the bases.."



Lots of people make this accusation. I do not believe it was the intent of the British to force the two communites into conflict. It was a consequence of some of their actions pre 60 but not their intent imo. It also makes NO logical sense to me that division and conflict between the communites makes the UK sovreign bases more secure.



"2/ You say the TC part of the RoC govt was "forced" out .. I maintain that this was the PLAN - as Denktash had a Taksimist agenda. "



I have not said here that they were forced out. However it is not relevant to the legitimacy of an all GC RoC govermenent as to why there were no TC members in it. The consitution lays out what makes a legitimate goverment in the RoC. Without TC participation such a government is simply not legitimate



[cont]

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
19/03/2009 17:54

as per the consitution. THe consitution REQUIRES GC and TC participation in specified measures. Without such a government is in breach of it's own consitution and thus clearly not legitimate.



The fact is whatever the alledged objective of TC withdrawing from government in 64, such an act is an entirely legal and non violent means of protesting. Not only was such a withdrawing legal, in 1965 under UN protection the TC attempted to return fully to the RoC government. They were told they could not do so unless they accepted massive removals of their rights under the 1960 consitution and that if they tried to return without accepting such their 'saftey could nto be guaranteed'. This was all documented by the UN in CYprus and I can give you links to copies of the reports on this. These conditions on their return from an all GC government were totaly illegal.



[cont]

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
19/03/2009 17:59

"3/ The UN recognised the legitimacy of the RoC govt and STILL did in 74 "



Once more the UN in the 1964 resolution did tacitly accept the legitimacvy of an all GC run RoC. This was NOT a legal decision it was done because it was expedient to world powers to do so. Their interests required the placing of UN troops in Cyprus. To do this there had to be a 'legitimate' government that could ask for and accept such. Thus they chose to tacitly recognise an all GC RoC government , that was clearly not legitimate in terms of the RoC consitution, because it was expedient to their self interests to do so.



"I again ask you - what has happened when TR has tried to "challenge" the legality of RoC?.. Surely they have tried legal means?"



There was in 1964 no international court with the jusrisdication necessary where Turkey could have challenged the legality of an all GC run RoC. There is still no such world court today.



[cont]

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
19/03/2009 18:05

The point is not that the all GC run RoC is not recognised as the sole legtimate government of Cyprus. It is. THe point is that this recognition was CLEARLY a result of it being expedient to world powers to recognise it DESPITE the CLEAR discrepancy with the RoC consitution and NOTHING to do with a legal judgment on the rights and wrongs of it's legitimacy.



The GC leadership effectively stole the TC communites legal consitutional rights and the world community let them do it because it was expdient to them to do so. Had the world community NOT done this in 64 and onwards then there is a very real chance that the events that subsequently transpired in Cyprus would not have come to pass. If the world community had made it clear to all Cypriots back in 64 that unless the two communites worked togeather to form a government then NEITHER community ALONE would be reconginised internationaly, then things would not have transpired as they did.

ckbabe123


Joined: 19/03/2009
Posts: 6

Message Posted:
19/03/2009 18:31

There is an adage that says if two big elephant are fighting its the grass that will suffer the pain. we cant call what happen between the two island a fight but just merely disagreement. The two island and their people are ready to come together and setlle the misunderstanding but the ring leader between them i.e Greek and Turkey are the ones influencing their political decision. There is another chance for them now to reconcile and come together as a family to better the life of the next generation coming. Let Turkey leave the north alone and the Greek leave the south alone for reconciliation so that peace will reign. The EU has pledge their full support for both party but the decision lies between them to decide.............

sylvie


Joined: 12/03/2008
Posts: 1081

Message Posted:
19/03/2009 22:42

it is a shame - it shouldn't have been allowed - i am french but didn't agree with the decision

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
20/03/2009 09:12

Dear ErolZ, re msg 31-34 ( in reply to *MY* - not "Machas" - msg 29!)



Thanks for your response.. I am "worried" that you think I'm "Macha" -for the second time - (!) and don't answer my question re TR's apparent naivety by sign legally binding treaties then trying to "renegotiate them ! ..



If you don't believe it was a UK agenda to divide and rule, I truly wonder if you have read subject matter on Cyprus in the fifties. It was the UK that got Turkey involved in Cyprus.. it had been ambivalent.... Don't believe me - I'm sure Izzie will put you straight !



The tactic of dividing the Cypriots and giving the GCs something to worry about - other than the bases remaining on the island - is easy for most folk to see - back in the late fifties the Brits were the occupiers - "the enemy"...



How the power-sharing of the 1960 Constitution broke down IS relevant and without doubt the GCs used it to their "advantage".



Cont

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
20/03/2009 09:19

To claim that there were / aren't any internatioanl bodies ( courts as you say) isn't true.. There are many bodies to which TR could have and DID take their case that the RoC -was only represented by GCs and shouldn't be recognised..



I ask again WHAT is the UN? Surely you'd agree that it is the highest "mortal" international body?





The FACT is that you made an incorrect statement re the LEGAL rights inferred by the Treaty of Guarantee - implying they gave TR / GR some right to meddle militarily in Cyprus.... The UN resolutions kep asking them to get out, and respect the Sovereignty of the RoC..



So, again, I ask why is TR continuing to sign documents in the 21 st Century ( Anakara Acccord) that "recognise" the RoC, then shooting itself in the foot - when not complying with said treaty?

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
20/03/2009 16:24

MM msg 37 & 38



"If you don't believe it was a UK agenda to divide and rule, I truly wonder if you have read subject matter on Cyprus in the fifties."



I have read plenty about this period thank you. The assumption that if I do not agree with you then I must be ignorant is not a valid one.



"It was the UK that got Turkey involved in Cyprus.. it had been ambivalent...."



Turkey's change from 'ambivalence' (a bad word in itself) to 'concern' directly mapped the increasing reality that British rule in Cyprus would end. While British rule was secure Turkey had few concerns over Cyprus. As this continued rule came under increasing threat and the chance of Cyprus becomming a Greek owned island increased so did Turkeys conern over the future of Cyprus increase. The idea that Turkey only 'pretended' to have concerns over the future of Cyprus becuase Britain asked her to do so is not credible imo.



[cont]

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
20/03/2009 16:48

"To claim that there were / aren't any internatioanl bodies ( courts as you say) isn't true.. There are many bodies to which TR could have and DID take their case that the RoC -was only represented by GCs and shouldn't be recognised.. "



What are these many bodies ? There was and is no international legal body that can rule on the legitimacy of the all GC run RoC government. Such things are not determined by international courts. They are determined by indivdual states recognising or not a given government. Turkey has argued in courts that the the RoC government is not legitimate in cases relating to Cyprus like at the ECHR. However these courts and cases have not been about determining the legitimacy of the RoC government. The ECHR simply accepts the legitimacy bestowed on the RoC by states and by precdents set by the 1964 UN decleration. They do not have a mandate to challenge such precedents set by UN resolutions.



[cont]

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
20/03/2009 16:55

"I ask again WHAT is the UN? Surely you'd agree that it is the highest "mortal" international body?"



The UN is NOT A COURT OF LAW. It has no judge, no jury, no prosecution and no defense. The people that sit in the UN are NOT 'legal' people they ARE POLITICAL people. The objective of the represntatives at the UN in NOT to make legal rulings. It IS to push the agendas of the states they represent. This is exactly my point. UN resolutions do become precedents within courts of law, but they are not themselves a court of law. Nor is there any international court where one can 'challenge' a UN resolution or precedents that are set by them.



The decision by the UN to tacitly accept the legitimacy of an all GC run RoC was NOT a LEGAL determination on the merits of that legitimacy. It WAS a POLITICAL decision based on the self interests of indivdual states. That is my point.



[cont]

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
20/03/2009 17:04

You can continue to insist that the RoC's legitimacy post 64 has been determined by a LEGAL determination based on the MERITS of the case that it is legitmate. However I know the fact is that the decision to recognise it's legitimacy was a POLITICAL one based on the self interest of states. Yes in subsequent courts cases courts have reafirmed the POLITICAL decision to bestow recognition on an all GC run RoC government, but this is not the same as a court of law determing the merits of it's legitimacy. No such court exists. Whenever a 'new' entity emerges in the world , it's legitimacy and if other states recognise it is NEVER determined by some mythical internactional court. It is determined by indivdual states deciding to either recognise it or not as their own self interest dictates.



As to your questions re the Ankara accord they are a distraction to the point I am making. I do not have time to deal with that distraction right now.



[cont]

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
20/03/2009 17:09

Let me finsih by making my point once more.



The legitimacy bestowed on the all GC RoC government by the world community today stems entirely from the POLITICAL decision by powerful states in 1964 to tacitly recognise that government as legitimate. These powerful states did this NOT because it was moraly or even legal correct to do so, but because it was expedient to their self interest to do so. That legal bodies subsequently themselves recognise this POLITICAL decision does not change the fact of how the legitimacy was orginaly established.

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
20/03/2009 18:18

dt msg 45



The idea that TC simply 'walked out' of RoC government positions for no other reason than to divide Cyprus is just not true. The FACT is that the TC community requested to to return to their full positions within the RoC government in 1965. They were told by the GC 'government' that they could only return if they accepted without argument the illegal abbrogation of their communal rights. They were further told that if they tried to return to their LEGAL positions without acceptinging the illegal abbrogation of their consituional rights as a community then 'their saftey could not be guaranteed'.



It is in short just propaganda to say that the TC community lost thier rights within RoC government because they chose to leave that government and not return. The reality is VERY different.

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
20/03/2009 18:29

dt msg 45



"Sorry Erolz but how many sovereign countries do you know that disappear of the map because a group of people/community do not wish to be in govt anymore?"



If the TC community had decided that they 'did not wish to be in government' then your argument would have some merit. However this is simply not the case. What we had was a GC leadership that signed agreements in 1960 and then refused to implement key parts of those agreements. When the TC community took this issue of non implementation of AGREED provisions within the 60's agreements to the Consitutional Court, even before it had ruled on the matter, Makarious declared that he would simply ignore the rulings of this court, which is exactly what he did despite all legality. This in turn led to the indpendent judge of the Consitutional Court resigning and the effective destruction of the consituional court as a valid means of settling such disputes.



[cont]

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
20/03/2009 18:36

When the TC members of goverment then used their LEGAL right to refuse to ratify the annual budget as the next means to 'protest' the non implmentation of parts of the 60's agreement Makarios once again simply decided that the rights of the TC community to ratify budgets did not allow them to refuse to do so as a means of protesting a seperate issue. This was NOT determined in a court, as Makarios had already simply ignored the consitutional court and in doing so effectively destroyed it. He just made the decision himself. Still the TC leadership remained in a government that had failed to implment things it had already agreed to, ignored and destroyed its own consitutional court and their rulings and simply decided that TC could not use ratifying budgets to protest these earlier illegalites. What finally led to TC withdrawing from such a government in 64 was the outbreak of violence in dec 63.



[cont]

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
20/03/2009 18:42

After UN troops arrived in Cyprus and precipitated by the then purley GC government being about to make unilateral changes to the 1960 agreements, the TC leadership made formal request via the UN to return to their legal positions in government. This request and the results of it were detailed by the UN itself. This report by the UN on this attempted return to government by the TC community can be seen here



http://www.talkcyprus.org/forum/cms_view_article.php?aid=13



So to claim that TC ' [did] not wish to be in govt anymore' is simply a gross distortion of the reality in my view.

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
20/03/2009 19:38

dt Msg 51



" The option was there for them Erolz."



They tried to return in 65. This attempt was documented by the UN itself.



From that UN report



"Mr.Clerides stated that unless the Turkish Cypriot members

accepted the conditions laid down by him, he found it pointless

to supply to them copies of the pending bills."



"He made it plain that, unless agreement was reached on these matters, he

would not permit the Turkish Cypriot members to attend the House.

Mr.Clerides also stated that the constitutional provisions concerning promulgation of the laws by the President and the Vice-President were no longer applicable."



Read that again - HE (Clerides) WOULD NOT PERMIT THE TC MEMBERS TO ATTEND THE HOUSE !



This is the reality of your 'TC did not wish to be in government'.

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
20/03/2009 19:44

I want a setlement in CYprus that leads to a unifed island.



However the reality is that as long as the GC position is 'everything we gained as a community upto 74 through the use of illegality violence intimidation and the acquiesense of powerful states following thier own self interest and everything you lost in that period is non negoitable but everything we lost as a community post 74 must be fully resotred , then a settlement will never be possible.



GC took/stole TC communities legal consitutional rights prior to 74. TC took/stole GC land and property post 74. A settlement HAS to address BOTH these issues. If your position is 'we took / stole' nothing from you prior to 74 then there can be no hope of a settlement.



It is that simnple.

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
20/03/2009 21:48

dt msg 54



"My position is one of recognition of faults in both cases and not a black and white case in each event."



The assertion that TC left the RoC government because they did 'not wish to be in government', seems pretty black and white to me - and also very very far from the truth. The assertion that the TC leadership could have simply returned to government if they wished seemd pretty black and white to me and also is just not true.



What does seem pretty black and white to me is Clerides' illegal pre conditions given to the TC leadership before he would ALLOW them to return to government as documented by the UN.

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
20/03/2009 23:03

Dear ErolZ re msg 40+



1/ You STILL haven't "apologised" for calling me "Macha" !



2/This makes me feel you are "losing it" again.. as you seem to persist in your "folly" re suggesting most folk agreed the actions of TR in Cyprus were "legal"



3/ Now you are "re-writing" history re the role of Britain and Turkey in the fifties.. ?!! ..



It is Friday night, and I must be sure that Negative Nick's concerns re neglecting the wife are addressed... can this wait until tomorrow... ;) ?

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
20/03/2009 23:58

MM msg 57



If it makes you happy appologies for mistakenly refering to one of your posts as being from Macha. Ok ?



"as you seem to persist in your "folly" re suggesting most folk agreed the actions of TR in Cyprus were "legal" "



This is not what I said and that was in a different thread.



"Now you are "re-writing" history re the role of Britain and Turkey in the fifties.. "



You are the one that claimed that Turkey was ambivalent to what was occuring in Cyprus and only got invovled at the request of Britain. If that is not re writting history then I do not know what is.

canyavuz


Joined: 22/02/2009
Posts: 363

Message Posted:
21/03/2009 01:49

mmmmmm,

this isnt some history quiz that can be won......



its a topic with different people's views.....that is all.

But you however, seem to turn every "cyprus problem" based discussion topic into an anti-turkish game.



The only thing you can use against the Turkish intervention was Turkey not gaining permission from the U.N security council......

Please realize that the U.N is not that authoritive......it is more curropt than anything.



Remember the Gaza war in December 08 to January 09?? Where was the U.N then??

What is the point in having armed forces if you have to gain permission from another authority before the forces can be deployed? That basically means that the authority has the power (U.N), and not the country!

What power have you got if you have to gain permission from somebody else?



Be realistic here...........polotics isn't your true potential

LondonCypriot


Joined: 15/12/2008
Posts: 426

Message Posted:
21/03/2009 03:46

I guess, The EU is look what consitutues an overall population. If the overall population of greek Cypriots was 80% and the Turkish Cypriots are just 17% percent then they are going to listen to the majority I guess.

z4z4z4


Joined: 27/03/2009
Posts: 4

Message Posted:
27/03/2009 21:25

Correction I think. They are not two different nations. Cyprus is one. The so called 'TRNC' is an occupied part of Cyprus and is not a nation. Cyprus freely joined the EU because IT is a nation and you are in Cyprus (in the occupied part).

rowlo



Joined: 12/10/2008
Posts: 4796

Message Posted:
27/03/2009 21:41

its only occupied , because greek junta was murdering turkish CYPRIOTS ? youre another southern idiot , or pikey reborn ,

z4z4z4


Joined: 27/03/2009
Posts: 4

Message Posted:
27/03/2009 21:44

Cyprus is Cyprus. The occupied part is not Turkey is it? If you own property in the occupied area then you are the idiot my friend, not me!

juliet


Joined: 11/01/2009
Posts: 612

Message Posted:
27/03/2009 23:15

z4



don`t tell him that he has just got his keys......

z4z4z4


Joined: 27/03/2009
Posts: 4

Message Posted:
27/03/2009 23:31

He won't have them for long

juliet


Joined: 11/01/2009
Posts: 612

Message Posted:
27/03/2009 23:38

keep it quiet z4 or you will spoil his celebrations.....

canyavuz


Joined: 22/02/2009
Posts: 363

Message Posted:
27/03/2009 23:41

z4z4z4

you're the idiot here! I think you have mistaken this forum for a greek cypriot forum!

You have no right calling property owners (and Rowlo) an "idiot".........im afraid to say that your fragile government that caused all of this!



"he won't have them for long", what's that supposed to mean?...........i suppose your going to gather an army of drunken greek yobs and cross the border and kill the turkish forces? and take back land?

Like to see you try.......the worlds 3rd largest fleet of f16's will be flying over your head before you can say mercy!



Cyprus is NOT ONE. De facto divided, and that's all that matters.

It has been 35 years for crying out loud! Get over yourself

juliet


Joined: 11/01/2009
Posts: 612

Message Posted:
28/03/2009 00:03

good grief msg69 anyone would think you were involved in the history of cyprus past... but you were not even born....

Turtle


Joined: 28/05/2007
Posts: 2669

Message Posted:
28/03/2009 00:08

Yes Juliet and you were not even married to your GC !

juliet


Joined: 11/01/2009
Posts: 612

Message Posted:
28/03/2009 00:15

maybe not turtle but at least i`m cypriot & can remember the events of 74...

juliet


Joined: 11/01/2009
Posts: 612

Message Posted:
28/03/2009 00:16

bet you had never even heard of cyprus when you were in your teens...hey turtle..

Turtle


Joined: 28/05/2007
Posts: 2669

Message Posted:
28/03/2009 00:25

You aparantly were 13 in 1974 and NO you cant remember "74" so stop dreaming silly girl.





I was 16 when I first visited Limmosol in 1976 stopped at the old Apollo hotel with its outside cinema so where were you 1976............playing with your barbie doll i would guess.

juliet


Joined: 11/01/2009
Posts: 612

Message Posted:
28/03/2009 00:30

being flown home from a family holiday in larnaca in 74... quite a stressful time all things considering...and back again in 76 staying at the amathus in limmasol for a few days before going to the mountains to stay with my ya ya (grandma). never did like barbie... how was ken?

Tootie


Joined: 28/08/2008
Posts: 2037

Message Posted:
28/03/2009 00:36

juliet.







"taking over our part of cyprus" since when has the north of cyprus become yours..











Who is ours???







Your a part of the EU now so surely if the trnc is not a reconised country by the rest of the world then everyone is welcome.







Unless your a Greek cypriot.





(((((MSG ALSO FROM ORAMS RULING DATE SET. MSG 85))))





tootie

spider


Joined: 03/01/2009
Posts: 5527

Message Posted:
28/03/2009 00:43

you are all so funny..i just read,and read and just laugh away..and shake my head,and just wonder Why oh,why,,tiss all so Funny...















Spider.x

Turtle


Joined: 28/05/2007
Posts: 2669

Message Posted:
28/03/2009 00:50

OK Julisuzz , I will concede....you were 11 years old and have a vivid memory of your short stay in Cyprus in 74, I sure as hell can,t remember what I was doing when I was 11 but perhaps I never thought I would have been on "44" when I got older, should have paid more attention I suppose.



One thing though if you were "holidaying" in 74 then you were possibly not Cypriot then ?

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
28/03/2009 09:58

Canyavuz re 59



"But you however, seem to turn every "cyprus problem" based discussion topic into an anti-turkish game. "



Yet AGAIN, you don't do too much research before posting...



"Turkey not gaining permission from the U.N security council...... "



No, Turkey and Greece flouted promises to let the UN be peacekeepers..and where asked to LEAVE.. Quite different



"Remember the Gaza war in December 08 to January 09?? Where was the U.N then?? " ...helpless - just like in Cyprus - and your point ?



"What is the point in having armed forces if you have to gain permission from another authority before the forces can be deployed? "



Are you for REAL? .. Cyprus is not part of TR..





"Be realistic here...........polotics isn't your true potential "



In the light of what you posted above - that's priceless - and you even call another poster an "idiot" ))))

juliet


Joined: 11/01/2009
Posts: 612

Message Posted:
28/03/2009 10:09

turtle



how does being on holiday as a child visiting my cypriot family not make me cypriot then? and yes i have an excellent memory thanks! one tends to remember bad things from there childhood.

andre 514


Joined: 31/03/2008
Posts: 1163

Message Posted:
28/03/2009 11:23

rules are there to be bent:

cyprus was admitted to the eu even though it is geographically asian

but morroco was told in the 1980's it couldn't join because it is african



there is a story that when god had finished creating the earth and everything

he decided to award each of its people a characteristic



to the english he gave foolishness, to the french tretcherousness

to the jews he gave calculation

the bulgarians were handed a capacity for the hardest of labour and little else



when the greeks realised they had been missed out they filed a complaint

god apologised and explained he now only had one characteristic left:

so to the greeks he gave intrigue

andre 514


Joined: 31/03/2008
Posts: 1163

Message Posted:
28/03/2009 18:36

palio,



aren't you clutching at straws?



andre

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
28/03/2009 18:53

We haven't even heard the verdict, yet Andre_514.. aren't YOU being a little premature ;) ?!

andre 514


Joined: 31/03/2008
Posts: 1163

Message Posted:
28/03/2009 23:04

pallio,



in message 81 you said: "turkey needs pushing for a solution"

and then in message 84 you say you were "just stating the truth"



I doubt that turkey can be pushed into giving up on cyprus

and certainly not in order to "join europe" as you put it,

actually I don't believe turkey will be offered membership of the eu

under any circumstances but certainly not for a very long time



I'd agree though the verdict on turkey joining the eu is not yet final



however all of the above is only your opinion, and only my opinion:

and our opinions, right or wrong are not the same thing as truth are they?

spider


Joined: 03/01/2009
Posts: 5527

Message Posted:
29/03/2009 01:05

CYLAD..oh yes i do have a clue on what they are discussing...LAND..LAND,and who it belongs too,utter Tosh..Juliet ..tc.and gc..yet again..















Spider,x

Turtle


Joined: 28/05/2007
Posts: 2669

Message Posted:
29/03/2009 01:16

Spider,......Pikey finds it easy to attack people who are not on the same "wavelength" as himself.

His intellect , wisdom, and knowledge is obviously far superior than the rest of us so I suppose we should bow to him and let him educate us.



It really is a shame he finds it very difficult to communicate with ALL people and has to resort to abuse directed at people who disagree with him.



Spider, this is his failing and his problem........not yours!

Denise


Joined: 14/03/2009
Posts: 590

Message Posted:
29/03/2009 16:36

i think you'll find that Turkey came not to 'invade' but to save the TC's from the Gc's when no one else wanted to know. there are faults on both sides i agree but why are the GC's still showing propaganda and teaching it in schools? if one wants a solution and to move forward surely GC's should not teach negativity, they talk about what they lost and they want back but didn't the TC's lose also? or does that not count? they lost a house in the north and were given one in the south but still say the north's is their's and want it back, that then means they will have 2! is that right? what are the TC's to get? shut the borders and keep the island divided i say and we can sleep peacefully in our beds!

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
30/03/2009 10:51

Dear Denise, re msg 87



"i think you'll find that Turkey came not to 'invade' but to save the TC's from the Gc's when no one else wanted to know."



..and I'll think you'll find that the whole thing.. the Greek Junta coup attempt, the subsequent TR invasion - were all orchestrated by the CIA .. The UN asked both sides ( GR / TR ) to leave..

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
30/03/2009 10:56

Dear Denise, re msg 87



"shut the borders and keep the island divided i say and we can sleep peacefully in our beds!"



1/ the UN crossing points were always open, but not to TCs - save for the SBA ( British bases)



2/ It was TURKEY that opened them - as a TC took TURKEY to the ECHR - TR would have had to pay out a fortune..



3/ As long as TR is in the Council of Europe - it can never "close the gates"..



4/ This is 2009 and TCs sleep peacefully in their beds in the "rump" RoC and GCs come and spend a fortune at Casinos.. then sleep their night off - QUITE peacefully.



Sounds like you might have another motive - cause the one you quote is plain daft...

jay76


Joined: 17/07/2008
Posts: 532

Message Posted:
30/03/2009 11:25

mmmmmm,



What did the CIA get out of all this then.

juliet


Joined: 11/01/2009
Posts: 612

Message Posted:
30/03/2009 11:27

jay76



if you knew your history you wouldn have to ask... usa bases come to mind....

spider


Joined: 03/01/2009
Posts: 5527

Message Posted:
30/03/2009 12:35

The Thead...Was it Right.....Not a lot can be done NOW...its is.!!!

so thats it.THATS THE WAY IT IS.....no going BACK..tiss in the EU..

but then most people like to Talk about it...Shame because tiss nothing you say about thing will ever ChANGE THE fACTS...











Spider,x

jay76


Joined: 17/07/2008
Posts: 532

Message Posted:
30/03/2009 12:46

juliet,



Thank you very much juliet i knew you would jump in to the trap. You still on this forum.

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
30/03/2009 13:09

Dear Jay76, re msg 93



Guess I "fell" into this ingenious "trap", too.. I'm too "thick" to work out I've been "caught"... ;)