Cyprus-Forum.com

[garbitsch]

bulio, the fact that there is an administration in the north, which does not accept the rule of RoC. The recognition game is one thing, but rejecting the rule of RoC is another. If this wasn't the case, and the TCs accepted, say the rule of RoC, then what's the point of having an agreement on the basis of a federation? I am not saying that the G.Cs should accept and recognise TRNC, but at least acknowledge that RoC has no control over the lives of people living in the Northern Cyprus. So when you are saying "no such thing as ministry of education in the trnc,so the ROC runs the school", simply ignores the reality that RoC runs none of the schools in North!!

[boulio]

garb the roc is aware that they dont run things in the north and even the EU does as well.

[erolz]

erolz the t/c teachers that were not accepted from the original kibris article were they teachers with t/c credentials or not,if the roc does not recognize them thats one thing however if the teachers had turkey educational papers from a turkish university and are accredited and are recognized by the ROC and were not excepted that the ROC is at fault.the point is that everytime we try to compromise on something the t/c officials try to play the recognition game.im i wrong?and at the end of the day the nothing gets settled.

Look the issue I have with your statment is simple. You seemed to be saying that there was no issue with the RoC reneging on an agreement made with TC because the TRNC does not exists. I take exception to this view. If I have misinterpreted what you are saying then you only have to explain why. If the RoC had concerns about letting a Turkish school in the South be run by TC in the North then they should not have agreed to it. The issue is they DID agree to it and then turned around and said - actually we have changed our minds. You appear to be trying to justify this beahaviour on the part of the RoC on the basis the TRNC does not exist. It seems to me an argument based not on common sense or logic but on 'weak excuses' for the behavious of the RoC in this matter.

[boulio]

i wouldN'T classify the non recogntion OF THE trnc and eventual justification of the turkish invasion and atrocities as week excuses by the ROC.Its the core issue of many of the problems on the island.

[erolz]

i wouldN'T classify the non recogntion OF THE trnc and eventual justification of the turkish invasion and atrocities as week excuses by the ROC.Its the core issue of many of the problems on the island.

So basically you are saying the RoC has evry right and justification to make agreements with TC community / TRNC and then renege on these agreements on the basis they were made with 'non existant' people. What a great approach to a solution and how reminisant of the behaviour of the GC adminstration in 60 onwards (accept and agreement that you know you will ignore later to secure an objective). Really with such an approach why would any sane TC agree anything with the RoC?

[boulio]

yes they should renage if they see there interest harmed,dektash and turkey never renaged on agreements erolz,yes or no?

[Viewpoint]

erolz

What a great approach to a solution and how reminisant of the behaviour of the GC adminstration in 60 onwards (accept and agreement that you know you will ignore later to secure an objective). Really with such an approach why would any sane TC agree anything with the RoC?

Very well said, you hit the nail right on the head. The mentality has not changed and this threat will always exist, do you want to live with this sort of constant threat in a united Cyprus?????

[brother]

Bulio if you make a deal/agreement you stick to it not later on make weak excuses to not honour it but we should have known better after that liar tassos fooled the E.U that he could not be trusted, he is a bad image for all GC and he will probably be the reason in years to come for the international community not trusting you or taking everything you say with a pinch of salt.

[erolz]

yes they should renage if they see there interest harmed,dektash and turkey never renaged on agreements erolz,yes or no?

back to the old 'two wrongs make a right' argument I see. Always the last defnce of the undefensible.

Just look at what you are saying here. You are saying it is RIGHT to make an agreement and then ignore that agreement if you later consider it against your interests (or always consider it against your interests but agree it to 'gain' something you want).

So can I agree to buy a car off you, take possesion of the car and then decide it is against my interests to actually pay you for it? Would you defend my right to not honour the agreement?

Really Boulio I would be laughing at your 'approach' if this issue was no one that has caused so much suffering to Cypriots and cotinues to do so.

[brother]

Today i went backwards after reading all this we can go back on an agreement stuff, this has knocked my confidence big time when it comes to trusting an agreement made by a GC politician.