Cyprus-Forum.com

[turkcyp]

The main point is this,

No agreed solution from after Cyprus signed its accession treaty with EU is going to become Primary Law of EU unless it is approved by 25 other states, (either by referendum or at their parliaments, like the approval process of constitution right now) and approved by EU Council.

So it is quite impossible, if not totally impossible.

[-mikkie2-]

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...

Really Insan. I would like to know which member state has derogations that restrict human rights and are primary law. If you can list these then perhaps yuo can have a valid argument, but I suspect that there is no such derogations. Any derogations in the EU are very specific and are not permanent and as such do not constitute primary law.

[Saint Jimmy]

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.

Yes, I understand what you're saying, mikkie. This is what MicAtCyp has been arguing, and I'm not denying its validity as an assumption/estimation. It does make sense.
What I'm saying is that I can hardly imagine our boys not figuring this out, just like you guys did. And, if they did, I can only imagine what reasons they had for not using it as a weapon in the pre-referendum campaign.
So, in imagining, I would probably come close to something like what Insan has said a couple of posts ago. That the EU found some legal-technicality way to secure its own (that is, its member states') interests against any 'dangerous' provision in the Plan. I come to this conclusion after making two assumptions:
a) our negotiators have examined the issue of EU Acquis compatibility before the referendum
b) our negotiators have actually found out EU member states' position on the issue of the Plan's ratification (either by official means, or 'off the record')
It's the only reason I can think of as to why they didn't use such an argument in the NO campaign.

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.

You could be right, I suppose. But it's only a check-mate situation if Turkey's cost-benefit analysis on the EU issue comes our way; if they decide that the prize isn't worth the sacrifice (that is, that the EU is asking too much of them), we're officially screwed, right?
I just think it's a huge gamble to take... Not sure if we can afford to throw it all up in a coin-toss.

[turkcyp]

You could be right, I suppose. But it's only a check-mate situation if Turkey's cost-benefit analysis on the EU issue comes our way; if they decide that the prize isn't worth the sacrifice (that is, that the EU is asking too much of them), we're officially screwed, right?
I just think it's a huge gamble to take... Not sure if we can afford to throw it all up in a coin-toss.

Not just if Turkey decides that prize is not worth it but also Turkey knows that its prize is never certain even with a certain "yes" from GCs. I mean there are a lot of countires that are sceptical about possible Turkish membership. France, germany, Austria to name a few, and the chances that they are going to block its membership will always stop Turkey taking RoC threat seriously. After all it takes only one "No" to keep her out of the union and it does not matter where this "No" comes from.

For all purposes it may be "Oxi', "Non", or "Nein" it really does not matter for Turkey.

That is whay I think it was a gamble not worth playing because Turkey will never take RoC "No" serious. Turkey knows that if the rest of the EU says yes to Turkey, Cyprus can not say "No", and if there is a "No" to Turkey it will probablu will come from other countries first before Cyprus can even say "O" of the "Oxi".

We will see what happens but EU membership is not a very big plus card for Cyprus. They can delay the inevitable (whatever that is decided by the big boys) but they can not stop it.

[MicAtCyp]

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).

I told you the reason. There was no time! Furthermore It was IMPOSSIBLE! No government could give an assurance.We are talking of 25 Countries with hundreds of Political parties invloved. Who would give such assurance without first passing it through his own Parliament??

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).

I don't have a problem admitting such a rationale.The problem seems to be your unwillingness(?) to estimate how much in error or no error this estimate is. I have no such problem. My figure is definite: The error is zero!

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.

You are assuming they did not. However they did use it as they used other undisputable FACTS as for example that a Federal State in which the laws of the Central State do not have any superior hierachy is not a federal state not even a confederation. I remember Christos Clerides and others mentioning these FACTS many times on TV discussions. The fact is however they HAD TO concentrate on more tangible aspects, because their role was to get as many votes as possible.And as you know on TV discussions their time to speak was always limited. So they had to set their priorities right. If however you look at some other levels e.g discussions inside political parties these issues were being discussed all the time. The same at almost all internet based discussion forums.

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.

Well, you are right on this.But lets assume on one issue we might have 1% chance to be wrong, if the whole Plan is lets say 20 issues and we are 5% on the next one, 3% on the other, then the final possibility to be wrong on the whole Plan is 0.01X0.05X0.03......= approximately zero!

[Saint Jimmy]

I told you the reason. There was no time! Furthermore It was IMPOSSIBLE! No government could give an assurance.We are talking of 25 Countries with hundreds of Political parties invloved. Who would give such assurance without first passing it through his own Parliament??

Hmmm...
Officially, perhaps no one, you are right. But if a government, personified in its President or Prime Minister, is asked in any given meeting, to give its 'off the record' opinion on whether they believe the Plan would be ultimately ratified, I still can't believe that they wouldn't give an honest opinion - why not? This, of course, does not include Great Britain and Greece, for obvious reasons. But how about Malta and France, etc.?
About the 'No time' issue, I have a question: You said before that there was no time because it was one of the points that were introduced at the last minute before the Plan was finalised. Do you mean by this the finalisation that took place in Burgenstock, or hours before the referendum?

I don't have a problem admitting such a rationale.The problem seems to be your unwillingness(?) to estimate how much in error or no error this estimate is. I have no such problem. My figure is definite: The error is zero!

Forgive me for being hesitant to ascribe such percentages. I am unwilling to estimate such errors because that can only be done with full, in-depth knowledge of everything that concerns a certain issue. Perhaps the only such estimation can be made 30 years from now, when the classified files are released.

You are assuming they did not. However they did use it as they used other undisputable FACTS as for example that a Federal State in which the laws of the Central State do not have any superior hierachy is not a federal state not even a confederation. I remember Christos Clerides and others mentioning these FACTS many times on TV discussions. The fact is however they HAD TO concentrate on more tangible aspects, because their role was to get as many votes as possible.And as you know on TV discussions their time to speak was always limited. So they had to set their priorities right. If however you look at some other levels e.g discussions inside political parties these issues were being discussed all the time. The same at almost all internet based discussion forums.

I am, indeed, assuming that. As I stated in a previous post, this whole discussion could be an issue of either them not using it as an argument, or me simply not remembering it.
Perhaps the answer lies in what you said about them having (or choosing) to concentrate on more clear-cut, straight-forward arguments. Still seems unlikely to me, though. Because this seems to me like an irrefutable argument, if it corresponds to the absolute reality. In fact, the main reason I am so hesitant in accepting it, despite your convincing argumentation, is that it sounds too 'good' to be true. So I'm thinking 'If only it could be that easy to make up your mind about the Plan'.

Well, you are right on this.But lets assume on one issue we might have 1% chance to be wrong, if the whole Plan is lets say 20 issues and we are 5% on the next one, 3% on the other, then the final possibility to be wrong on the whole Plan is 0.01X0.05X0.03......= approximately zero!

Well, I suppose you may be right, but then again, it all comes back: do we know that we know everything there is to know?

[MicAtCyp]

Well, I suppose you may be right, but then again, it all comes back: do we know that we know everything there is to know?

Can we risk it on the assumption that perhaps there is something we missed? Can we say "the hell why not?"

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

We will see what happens but EU membership is not a very big plus card for Cyprus. They can delay the inevitable (whatever that is decided by the big boys) but they can not stop it.

Everybody knows what exactly will happen with Turkey. Both Turkey knows, the USA knows, the EU, Cyprus, everybody! Turkey will never become a full member. She will have a very-very special final relation almost like a full member.
And by the way Turkcyp, Turkey is not afraid neithrer of No, or Nein, or OXI.Turkey knows very well where she will end. Cyprus and other countries may just delay the process..For your information the EU alsready started itemizing the budgets required for Turkeys road.And they are huge! If Cyprus is clever must play the game of delays very tough otherwise we will lose everything.

[Saint Jimmy]

Can we risk it on the assumption that perhaps there is something we missed? Can we say "the hell why not?"

Certainly not. So I guess it all comes down to who you trust, out of our politicians.