Cyprus-Forum.com

[MicAtCyp]

OK Jimmy let me analyse it a bit more:
Turkey originally assumed it was completely impossible for Cyprus to join the EU while the Cyprus problem is unsolved. That changed with the Helsinki (?) agreement when Greece agreed to remove her objections against Turkey joining the EU on exchange of Cyprus becoming a member irrespective of a solution. The Turks erroneously let the time pass. Suddenly in 2002 they realised Cyprus was going straight ahead into becoming an EU member with the Cyprus issue unresolved. So they inititated a new policy with primary target the de-railing of Cyprus’s EU road. This was headlines in newspapers for a long time back in 2002(?) and every serious Political analyser has recorded it with capital letters. Turkey finally failed up until the coming of the Anan .

Like I said in my previous post the first undisputable FACT is that none of the EU member state parliaments would accept the Anan Plan to become a Primary EU law.That however was an essensial part of the Anan Plan. So we come to the next undisputable FACT that the Generals of Turkey had every right to reject the agreement.

So lets come to your question whether they would necessarily proceed this way or not. What would be the options? The following 2:

a)Cyprus itself withdraws from the EU so the matter of Primary law gets nil and void.
b)Cyprus does not withdraw from EU, the Anan Plan does not become a primary EU law and the Plan itself be overthrown by individual sueings at ECHR.
Do we agree so far yes or no? I continue on the assumption we do.

In the first case the 2002(?) target of Turkey to de-ral Cyprus EU road is achieved.You may say OK we are out of the EU however the Cyprus problem is at least getting solved. Nopes! There are other undisputable FACTS that follow.

It is more than obvious to any reasonable person that the second case would result to rejection of the agreement by Turkey.However they would not do it immediately.They would do it slowly as to get the time and prepare the ground to be absolutely sure the GCs would not return to the previous RoC status and the occupied areas get an equal status of recognition or non recognition as RoC.

Now lets see how both cases A(withdrawal of CY from EU) and B (non withdrawal) would possibly be handled by Turkey.

a)The security aspect WAS NOT agreed between Grecce and Turkey during the negotiations.They did talk a bit in Lucerne but they agreed ON NOTHING! So even the security aspect of the Anan Plan was the result of arbitration, with absolutely no guarantee that Greece, Turkey, and UK would finally abide. So Turkey would most propably start asking for new terms regarding her military presense.Guess where that would end.

b)Turkey has a record of their Politicians making agreements and then using internal tricks to overthrow those agreements. For example didn’t they initially agree to let the US planes and tanks pass through Turkey at the Iraq war? They did! When the time came however they said, oh no, we have to pass it through our parliament.They pass it and they said no. In general Turkey has 3 levels which she uses to violate the agreements of its Politicians.The first is their parliament, the second their Generals through their National Security Council.The 3 rd level is a coup and a change of the Government which seems to have been idle lately.

So to answer your question whether Turkey would necessarily/or not apply the Anan Plan I tell you that the Plan itself did not leave any option for Turkey other than to refuse to abide to it and to have the all the legal excuses/rights to hide behind. It was designed to be so.Turkey would end her guild for the CY problem once and for all, and even start complaining that she agreed to a solution where everybody cheated on her!

PS. To your question whether Turkey would have any problems by not applying the Anan Plan, please read the previous paragraph.Turkey would come out of it "kouppa apanni" and she would even "tha zitouse kai ta resta"

**********************************

Are you english?

No I am Beebish. And I am going to bee pin you.

[turkcyp]

One of those undisputable FACTS is that unless the Anan Plan became a primary EU law the Generals of Turkey were NOT oblidged abide to the agreement, and thus move no single soldier out, return not a inch of land, allow not a single refugee to return, etc etc.This is the first FACT for a start.

PS. Do you understand now why their US+UN clients did not include our demand that the Plan is first approved by the Turkish National assembly before been put at a referendum?

Classical GC response of how they never thought that Turkey will ever approve the Annan Plan so that is one reason they have rejected it.

1) Annan Plan is not a legal document unless it is both approved by the two communities. If it is not approved by both communities it is NULL and VOID. So before this approval happens, it is not a document.

2) No legal institution can approve anything which does not have an existence. No EU, no UN, no Turkish Parliament, no RoC parliament, something has to exist before it is approved.

3) By rejecting Annan Plan you prevented it becoming a legal document so that Turkey does not even have the opportunity to reject it.

4) Before the referendums the only thing Turkey could have done was to declare that if Annan Plan becomes law, they will endorse it in Turkish Parliament. And they already had declared that.

5) It was the TC side who insisted so much that the Annan plan becomes the primary law of EU, because they were afraid that if it does not all the derogations in the plan would be turned form EU courts. There is a reason why TCs keep on insisting that any future plan should be made primary law in EU.

6) Although it was too late, (because after the accession treaty was signed with RoC between EU no other document which was not already law in the RoC could become primary law) TC side had kept on hoping that may be if Annan Plan is approved before GC side becomes actual member (even though accession treaty is signed year before) in May 1st, then TC side keep on deciving themselves that the Annan Plan would be law. There is a reason why everybody was so insistent on doing the Annan Plan before May 1st. Although in actuality it would not change anything.

7) It was the RoC that keep on insisting that Annan Plan would not become part of primary EU law, because that would eliminate the fact that it can be changed later on by EU courts, and this would be a huge blow to RoC aspirations of solving Cyprus problem in German unification style.

8 ) It was also RoC that had used Russia to prevent UN Security Council to even endorse Annan Plan, so that it will not overriding the previous UN Security Council Resolutions, even though nothing short of another resolution can override previous resolutions.

[MicAtCyp]

Turkcyp,

My replies follow in blue colour.

1) Annan Plan is not a legal document unless it is both approved by the two communities. If it is not approved by both communities it is NULL and VOID. So before this approval happens, it is not a document.

1.A legal document between 2 parties does not oblidge a 3rd party to abide.

No legal institution can approve anything which does not have an existence. No EU, no UN, no Turkish Parliament, no RoC parliament, something has to exist before it is approved.

The very existence of the Anan Plan was there. It's wording that it becomes null and void if not approved by the 2 communities does not nullify its existence. Thereafter it needed the agreement of the other 3 parties invloved to be implemented. And thats what I was saying before.That even if both communities said yes, the Anan Plan would be far away from been implemented.


3) By rejecting Annan Plan you prevented it becoming a legal document so that Turkey does not even have the opportunity to reject it.

See above.

4) Before the referendums the only thing Turkey could have done was to declare that if Annan Plan becomes law, they will endorse it in Turkish Parliament. And they already had declared that.

Didn’t they also declare they would let the Americans pass? By the way I did not mention the 4th option of Turkish Policies.The government falls, new elections are declared and the new leader is not oblidged by what his precedentant agreed..What happened to the heart disease of Denktash by the way?

5) It was the TC side who insisted so much that the Annan plan becomes the primary law of EU, because they were afraid that if it does not all the derogations in the plan would be turned form EU courts. There is a reason why TCs keep on insisting that any future plan should be made primary law in EU.

We know the reasons. All you ever wanted was a solution against our most basic human rights. But if it was your side that insisted on that or Turkey herself, that does not change one iota for us.


6) Although it was too late, (because after the accession treaty was signed with RoC between EU no other document which was not already law in the RoC could become primary law) TC side had kept on hoping that may be if Annan Plan is approved before GC side becomes actual member (even though accession treaty is signed year before) in May 1st, then TC side keep on deciving themselves that the Annan Plan would be law. There is a reason why everybody was so insistent on doing the Annan Plan before May 1st. Although in actuality it would not change anything.

He,he,he. My whole point was that the Turkish side had something legal in her hand.It is nothing more than YOUR personal opinion that it would let it go just like that, as an "original deception"

7) It was the RoC that keep on insisting that Annan Plan would not become part of primary EU law, because that would eliminate the fact that it can be changed later on by EU courts, and this would be a huge blow to RoC aspirations of solving Cyprus problem in German unification style.

Of course! Because that was a chauvinistic, unfair, undemocratic, racist, and what_have_you plan.What else could we do at a procedure where everybody was laughing at us by the very minute we accepted their arbitration?

8 ) It was also RoC that had used Russia to prevent UN Security Council to even endorse Annan Plan, so that it will not overriding the previous UN Security Council Resolutions, even though nothing short of another resolution can override previous resolutions.

Again of course! That plan was a very well designed trap.That's what I was saying in my previous post. Why shouldn’t we use every way possible to get out of it? As a side note I am sot sure whether the Russian veto was to serve us.Makarios Drousiotis says they vetoed it after they promised the Turkish Government to do so. Turkey was actually thinking our NO was the easiest and less complicated way for them.

[Saint Jimmy]

OK Jimmy let me analyse it a bit more:
Turkey originally assumed it was completely impossible for Cyprus to join the EU while the Cyprus problem is unsolved. That changed with the Helsinki (?) agreement when Greece agreed to remove her objections against Turkey joining the EU on exchange of Cyprus becoming a member irrespective of a solution. The Turks erroneously let the time pass. Suddenly in 2002 they realised Cyprus was going straight ahead into becoming an EU member with the Cyprus issue unresolved. So they inititated a new policy with primary target the de-railing of Cyprus’s EU road. This was headlines in newspapers for a long time back in 2002(?) and every serious Political analyser has recorded it with capital letters. Turkey finally failed up until the coming of the Anan.

This looks about right to me.
All I have to say regarding this part is that I am not a Political analyst; let alone a serious one!

Like I said in my previous post the first undisputable FACT is that none of the EU member state parliaments would accept the Anan Plan to become a Primary EU law.That however was an essensial part of the Anan Plan. So we come to the next undisputable FACT that the Generals of Turkey had every right to reject the agreement.

So, you're saying that none of the EU states would endorse the A-Plan, because that would mean that its unacceptable provisions would become part of the EU primary law, right? So, why did the EU encourage us to accept a plan that its member states eventually wouldn't, thus possibly creating a legal mess in the EU itself after some time? Surely, the EU legal staff did have a look at the whole EU Acquis compatibility issue, about which we were making so much noise back then...? Are you saying that the EU was in on the 'trap', along with the UN, the US and God knows who else?

So lets come to your question whether they would necessarily proceed this way or not. What would be the options? The following 2:

a)Cyprus itself withdraws from the EU so the matter of Primary law gets nil and void.
b)Cyprus does not withdraw from EU, the Anan Plan does not become a primary EU law and the Plan itself be overthrown by individual sueings at ECHR.
Do we agree so far yes or no? I continue on the assumption we do.

I don't think we can agree, because your option b) does not make much sense to me (see questions above).

[MicAtCyp]

So, why did the EU encourage us to accept a plan that its member states eventually wouldn't, thus possibly creating a legal mess in the EU itself after some time?

This issue was discussed in this forum just recently but is seems you did not attend it. Those who encouraged us are single indivuduals of the EU like Verhoigen, having absolutely no responsibility on whether that Plan would indeed finally become a primary EU law or not.

It seems to me, you intentionally try to deny undisputable FACTS, to avoid proceeding further.

[Saint Jimmy]

This issue was discussed in this forum just recently but is seems you did not attend it. Those who encouraged us are single indivuduals of the EU like Verhoigen, having absolutely no responsibility on whether that Plan would indeed finally become a primary EU law or not.

It seems to me, you intentionally try to deny undisputable FACTS, to avoid proceeding further.

You could have been kind enough to have given me a link to the thread, or the title, or something...

On topic:
I find it hard to believe that our guys did not consult with the EU, or its individual states, as to whether it would become Primary EU Law or not, so I'm assuming they did. Did they get what you're saying? Do you not think that it would've been a major part of the NO campaign if they had any evidence regarding this?

Your previous post on this issue had me really thinking. You must have noticed it took me about three days to respond to it. This is because it originally seemed like a logical, fair analysis of what happened. So I got thinking on it for a while, and I discovered a couple of holes in the arguments, based on my own logic (and, of course, my limited knowledge), which were worded in the questions I asked you. I didn't dismiss your post on the basis of the source, if that's what your 'intentionally trying to deny FACTS' bit meant.
But please understand that, until it makes sense to me, I reserve the right to consider it with some skepticism. 'It' being a general reference, not just this specific issue.

[MicAtCyp]

You could have been kind enough to have given me a link to the thread, or the title, or something...

Of course I could if that was easy. Unlike others, I don't store links regarding the discussions, and all I could do is just use the search button of this forum to find the relevant posts.You can do the same by using keywords like Verhoigen,Commission, primary etc.

I find it hard to believe that our guys did not consult with the EU, or its individual states, as to whether it would become Primary EU Law or not, so I'm assuming they did.

Obviously you assume wrong! The matter of primary law was introduced just hours before the final release of Anan 5.It was one of the 11 demanfds of Turkey that they were arbitrarily introduced the last minute! It got us by surprise!

Do you not think that it would've been a major part of the NO campaign if they had any evidence regarding this?

As you can see from the recent post of NickTheGreek titled "Heroic Papadopoulos and why he voted OXI!" the no camp prepared a huge propaganda that leveled all reasons down to the same degree of significance. Their target was to hit all issues and affect as many people as possible. For your information I was NOT in the no camp. I was in the "wait and see camp" until the last minute. I formed my own opinion by studying very hard within the period of 31/3/04-07/4/04 that is almost one week before Papadopoulos spoke. And If you ask me, from all his blah,blah I only took one valid point -the one referring to what we get is in depth of time, whereas the other side gets everything immediately.
To make a long story short, the No camp either concentrated on a huge reasoning or on simplistic issues to convince the people. The matter of EU aquis is not so simple to pass to ordinary folks in one or 2 shots. You personally are not ordinary folk, and you already saw how difficult it was for you to digest it.

You must have noticed it took me about three days to respond to it.

Yes I noticed. On the other hand you gave me no sign to know that you are actually thinking of it. I could translate your delay to other obligations, or simply assume you would never reply as happens with many posts in this forum.
Anyway, you may take all the time you need, my purpose is not really to convince you about being right or wrong, because the voting over it is already history. My purpose is just to advice you to be very-very careful regarding future plans, to study yourself and form your own opinion based on undisputable FACTS. Forget about me or anyone else, just make sure you use the opinions of others as a starting point to make your own deep search, and whatever opinion you form to be able to stand behind it and support it with undisputable evidence. That's all.

[Saint Jimmy]

Of course I could if that was easy. Unlike others, I don't store links regarding the discussions, and all I could do is just use the search button of this forum to find the relevant posts.You can do the same by using keywords like Verhoigen,Commission, primary etc.

Yeah, you're right, I could've. I'll actually try.

Obviously you assume wrong! The matter of primary law was introduced just hours before the final release of Anan 5.It was one of the 11 demanfds of Turkey that they were arbitrarily introduced the last minute! It got us by surprise!

I see.
But, not quite there yet... I wasn't talking about the period before Annan 5 was drafted, but mostly for that following it, up to the referendum itself.
Let me explain myself: while I'd heard many of those belonging to the YES campaign (during this time period) claiming that the fact that the Plan was going to be part of the EU primary law is actually a good provision, because this would guarantee and safeguard all the provisions they saw as good, I hadn't heard (or I can't recall hearing) any of those belonging to the NO campaign claiming that one of the reasons we should vote NO was that (at least) one EU member state would not endorse the Plan, and so we'd be left hung out to dry, in the end (although I did hear the 'Turkey won't endorse it' senario').
So what I'm saying is, if you can be so sure that no EU state would endorse the Plan after it was implemented, then the RoC government should be all the more sure of it, as they have (and presumably, did have, back then) meetings and discussions, official or unofficial, with EU diplomats and legal officers and staff. So, if they did, in fact, get such reassurances or even indications (or even 'off the record' information) that the EU would in the end not endorse the plan, what stopped them from coming out yelling 'For Christ's sake, vote NO! The EU has no intention of endorsing it, and that's going to mean recognized partition in the long-run!' (which, I believe, sums up what you argue).
What my argument comes down to, in the end, is that what you are saying (that the EU, or its member states, if you prefer, would not endorse the plan after its implementation, because of the provisions that they would not want to become EU primary law) is a political estimation, based on, or derived from, sound political observation, or undisputable FACTS, but yet still an estimation - your interpretation of what you've seen and heard. It is therefore subject to estimation error (no offence intended, but I don't think you'd have a problem to admit to this rationale... It's just the logical sequence of things).

As you can see from the recent post of NickTheGreek titled "Heroic Papadopoulos and why he voted OXI!" the no camp prepared a huge propaganda that leveled all reasons down to the same degree of significance. [...]The matter of EU aquis is not so simple to pass to ordinary folks in one or 2 shots. You personally are not ordinary folk, and you already saw how difficult it was for you to digest it.

I haven't read this post (I will), but what I can say about the last part is 'see above'.
I acknowledge the issue of explaining legal technicalities to ordinary folk (of which I am a part, when it comes to legal issues), but... ordinary folk were not the only ones voting! If they had such valuable and credible info, they'd probably use it, at least to convince the non-ordinary (according to your definition of 'ordinary') segments that would be voting.

My purpose is just to advice you to be very-very careful regarding future plans, to study yourself and form your own opinion based on undisputable FACTS.

Point taken and appreciated.
Of course, you are right in what you're saying, but the thing is, if making such decisions was (or could be) all about weighing FACTS, one batch against another, it would be a hell of a lot more straight-forward than what it actually is. I have tried to argue above why any decision regarding decision-making requires an inevitable element of estimation, using our discussion on this Primary law issue.

[-mikkie2-]

Jimmy,

The fundamental point obout the plan becoming Primary Law means that provisions of this plan could legally be applied in other areas of the EU. You could for instance have the federal states in Germany applying some of the provisions of the plan, such as limiting freedom of movement. They could argue that a memebr state has such provisions and so why can't they also apply the same provisions. That is the problem, and I bet you that when it comes to ratifying the Annan plan as primary law, then most countries would refuse to endorse it in order to protect their own interests.

That is why the Annan plan or any other plan needs to adhere to the EU Aqcuis. There is no other way. This is probably the main reason why TP asked for a resounding no, knowing full well that once we are in the EU there is no way of making such provisions primary law. I think it is a check mate situation. Turkey lost the game on this one in 2002 when they refused to negotiate the plan before Cyprus signed the Accession Treaty. It is only now that it has finally dawned on the Turks the grave error they made.

[insan]

The fundamental point obout the plan becoming Primary Law means that provisions of this plan could legally be applied in other areas of the EU. You could for instance have the federal states in Germany applying some of the provisions of the plan, such as limiting freedom of movement. They could argue that a memebr state has such provisions and so why can't they also apply the same provisions. That is the problem, and I bet you that when it comes to ratifying the Annan plan as primary law, then most countries would refuse to endorse it in order to protect their own interests.

Every member state has its own derogations in boundaries of its circumstances; based on logical rationales. It's not that easy how you described it, mikkie...