The term “European solution” is not in Papadopoulos vocabulary! He never used such a term! The term is only used by “EuroKo” party! There is no such a thing like a “European solution!” There is only a solution based on international legality, legitimacy, human and peoples rights, and on the historical realities of this country which are not the “historical realities” of the Turks and Talat that only go back 30-40 years! The history of this country is much longer than 30-40 years! There is also a solution based on surrender, capitulation, expediency an on the “might is right!” I choose the first, you choose the second! That is our main difference!
Not it wasn’t! There were two separate citizenships! One so called external and one internal! The internal citizenship of the TCCS was automatically reserved exclusively by the members of the TC community and the mainland Turkish settlers, who were all together elevated into a separate people! Even the GCs that would have returned inside the boundaries of the TCCS, would not have obtained the status of internal citizens of that state, but only the status of residents, just like the British and other EU nationals now have in the south! To have been able to obtain the status of internal citizens of that state, they should have gone through a “naturalisation” process, as if they were immigrants entering into a foreign country, seeking citizenship from it after they would comply with all the requirements, apply and then approved for one by the owners of the state, i.e. the TC people! Is this how it is in all other federations? No it isn’t!
Deamon, how you can come here and play the expert, when you do not even know if the settlers were allowed to vote and that in fact the majority of them voted “yes” on Turkey’s instructions, is beyond me to comprehend! At least do not pretend to be one that knows everything, if you are missing such key knowledge and information!
Oh, you now want me to bring you parts of the TCCS constitution which was an annex to the Annan plan, to which you voted “yes” because you “knew” it was a “good” plan! Before you claimed you have studied and analysed the Annan plan so well, that you know everything and that you are certain Papadopoulos cheated the GCs! Now you do not know what was in the constitutions of the two states, neither you know were to find them!
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE TURKISH CYPRIOT STATE
PREAMBLE
We, the Turkish Cypriot people, bearing in mind that the territorial integrity, security and constitutional order of the Turkish Cypriot State is guaranteed under the Treaty of Guarantee, sovereignly proclaim this Constitution by approval at referendum of 20 April 2004 as the Constitution of the Turkish Cypriot State.
PART I
General Principles
The Form and Characteristics of the Turkish Cypriot State
Article 1
The Turkish Cypriot State, as one of the two Constituent States of the United Cyprus Republic, which is based on the political equality, bi-zonality and equal status of the two Constituent States, representing the distinct identity of Turkish Cypriots and their equal political status in a bizonal partnership. It is a secular state based on the principles of human rights, democracy, representative republican government, social justice and the supremacy of law.
The agreement of Ntektash and Makarios it says what the 2 zones will by on the authority of every community.
The federations in Europe like Belgium and Switzerland have culture- language-religion-community based circuits (zones, cantons) and of course non of them is a result of 2 ethnic cleansing (the 63 and the 74) and they don’t have a community that claims the ownership of the other. I’m saying that because the arguments of the Turkish Cypriot’s have sense for the restriction of the 1/3 that can be permanent resident in the north state. I don know and I do not believe what such restriction exists in other countries but in our case (like every federation) is different. This restriction was not in the Anan plan 3 but if I was a Turkish Cypriot’s and wanted to keep an area cultural based to avoid the possible domination I was never going to accept the notion on the Anan plan 3 and I could justify this through the existing data and through history.
As about the proposed solution by Kifeas I don’t know and I don’t believe what it exist anywhere else in Europe or in the world where we have federations with different culture-language-religion etc. He is suggesting a never existed bicommunal ghost federation with no cultural based borders-zones-circuits-cantons of his own mind where the two states will not have an identity to be possible in the end for both states to have the same Greek identity by domination.
The thing is what that kind of solution was never discussed and I doubt that it will ever be possible to discuss something that have nothing to do with European standards where the functionality of the malti-cultural based federation is based in the community structures of the cultural based zones-circuits-cantons.
In America they don’t have a multi cultural based federation and the states are not based in cultural elements and they have only one national language.
America is like Ancient Greece, where because of the freedom it adopts all cultures under the one and only America(or Ancient Greece) culture and the majority rules.
Let’s see some examples:
Belgium as I said is multi-communal, multi-zone federation that every state is based in cultural elements.
Switzerland as I said is multi-communal, multi-zone federation that every state is based in cultural elements.
Netherlands is not multi-communal federation and their states are not divided for cultural reason and they have only one national language.
Germany is not multi-communal federation and their states are not divided for cultural reason and they have only one national language.
Russia is a multi-communal federation and they have 21 states based on cultural minorities.
Canada is a multi-zone multi-communal (I do not know if it could be called bicommunal because there is only 2 official languages) confederation that their states are based in the English and French language. For example Ontario, have de facto the English language and Quebec have defacto the French language.
Austria is multi-zone multi-communal federation close to Kifeas dream where all the other cultures has dominated by the German one and it is not random the fact that is still the most fascist country in the world that have neonazi orientation. But some states like the Carinthia manage to save their culture from the nazi Germanitation and they kept their Slovenian language and Slovenian, Croatian, Hungarian languages are officially recognised regional languages and Austrian Sign Language is a protected minority language throughout the country, but they all speak German and more than the 90% have the German for official language.
Bicommunality and multicommunality can exist only where in specific regions the cultural based communities will have de facto majority.
Do you see nothing wrong in the above two paragraphs? Is the above a constitution accommodating the GC refugees and any other GC that would have returned and settled back into the northern part of his country, out of which they were illegally expelled 30 years ago? In my eyes, it is a constitution that makes the assumption that the northern 30% of the territory of Cyprus, i.e. the area that would have been under the administration of the TCCS, belongs to the Turkish Cypriot people (notice the use of the term people instead of the term community,) and only them in their ethnic identity can do what they want in that part of Cyprus (sovereignly,) as if they are now the absolute owners of that part of Cyprus! Is this how it is in all other federations? No it isn’t! Where are the civil rights of all the permanent residents of that part of Cyprus, if it says that the state represents only “the distinct identity of Turkish Cypriots?”
I think Daemon is an underaged minor. I see the mind of a child there.
Ο Τάσος Παπαδόπουλος ενοχλήθηκε που το θυμίσαμε κάποιοι, μετά την έκδοση της Έκθεσης Προόδου της Τουρκίας. Μιλώντας στους δημοσιογράφους στη Λεμεσό, διερωτήθηκε «γιατί κάποιοι κολλάνε και θυμούνται το πρώτο ψήφισμα της Ε.Ε., Συμβουλίου Υπουργών βεβαίως - όπως είπε - το οποίο έλεγε, συγχαίρω την Τουρκία για την υποστήριξη που δίνει στις προσπάθειες των Η.Ε., ψηφίζοντας το Σχέδιο Ανάν».
«Σε αυτή τη δήλωση εσείς βρίσκετε αποενοχοποίηση της εισβολής;», ρώτησε τους δημοσιογράφους ο πρόεδρος της Δημοκρατίας, προσθέτοντας πως «σε πέντε επόμενες αποφάσεις των Υπουργών αυτή η φράση έχει φύγει, έχει μεταβληθεί από το 'ελπίζουμε να συνεχίσει η Τουρκία την υποστήριξη' σε 'καλούμε την Τουρκία να συνεχίσει να υποστηρίζει'».
Σκόπιμα έχω παραθέσει τις πλήρης δηλώσεις του κ. Παπαδόπουλου για να μπορέσει να καταλάβει ο αναγνώστης την απελπιστική θέση στην οποία βρισκόμαστε. Ο πρόεδρος της χώρας επιχειρεί να θυμίσει κιόλας ότι την αποενοχοποίηση (την οποία δεν θεωρεί τέτοια) της Τουρκίας, δεν την έκανε το Ε.Σ. αλλά το Συμβούλιο Υπουργών «βεβαίως». Γιατί βεβαίως το Συμβούλιο Υπουργών; Θέλει να πει πως αν ήταν ο ίδιος δεν θα υπέγραφε ποτέ κάτι τέτοιο; Και τι σημασία έχει αν δεν είναι ο ίδιος αλλά ο υπουργός του αυτός που αποενοχοποίησε την Τουρκία; Και σε τι θλιβερή κατάσταση βρισκόμαστε, όταν ο ίδιος ο Τάσος Παπαδόπουλος είναι αυτός που υπέγραψε την αποενοχοποίηση της Τουρκίας, αλλά προσπαθεί να απεκδυθεί της ευθύνης; Ξέχασε, κάνει πως ξέχασε ή δεν έχει επίγνωση των γεγονότων;
Kifeas wrote:Deamon, I honestly feel I have much better things to do in life, rather than arguing with someone that receives all his info and knowledge from the newspapers, set aside from ones such as Alithia, etc!
It is your right to remain an A-plan fanatic -out of some purely masochistic inclinations and even when 76% of the GC society have rejected it (including the 65% of a party that its entire leadership did support it;) however, you have no choice other than to respect and accept the will of the majority that considers the plan to have been unacceptable!
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests