Cyprus-Forum.com

[Andros]

Filitsa,

Thanks for joinning the discussion on this topic.

Yes! I support your view below:

The federal constitution must be the supreme law of the land to which the constitutions of the constituent states must yield.

But, let's face it, a federal agreement will never be accepted by the Turks if that is the case! Remember the discussions the Turks went through regarding the "Derogation's"?

According to some of the views I've read above, and of what I have been saying all along, a "Federal" style deal of this type for the island of Cyprus will only lead to a distressed and confused population, frustrated with all of the inter-laws and restrictions imposed by the two constituent states, thus eventually leading to a clean partition. However, this time the partition with be more to the favour of the Turkish Cypriots than us, or should I say the island as a whole - as by that time the Turkish Cypriots would have a bigger/ more legally-binding stand in front of the EU than what it has today!

Whether we think it's right or not, President Christofias and TC leader Talat are both idealists - good Socialist buddies! They both hate Turkey, and the Greek Orthodox Church, love the European Union, and both strongly believe that we are all Cypriots and have nothing in common with any ethnic kinship to either Greek or Turkish. If they had their way, the common and only Cyprus language would be Broken Cypriot-English!!

Behind closed doors, I'm sure they only talk about how they're going to dodge those brain-washed Cypriots who regard themselves as Greek and Turk-Cypriots on the island. If it were left to them - perhaps we would have a PURE Cypriot society! hehehehehe...

But,

I am certain that the overall result due to strong nationalistic Greek and Turkish input will ultimately be similar to the Annan Plan No.5. Why? Because the alternative, which they both know, will obviously be Partition of the Status-Quo - and not an agreed version!

Take your pick!

[Oracle]

So much for the cautious optimism of the news media regarding the Cyprus problem, if what I have been reading on this forum as of late is any indication. It looks like whatever Christofas and Talat agree upon, the populace of the island at large is going to resume being at logger-heads. For Cyprus to survive as an independent state, there is going to have to be a change of attitudes, and from what I have been seeing coming from Oracle for example, is it any wonder why I think partition is the only answer?
Don't get me wrong: I support TRNC independence because I think it is the best way to stop the intercommunal violence restarting (and FYI I do NOT support annexation of the TRNC to the Turkish Republic). If however, a solution to the impass comes about and a unified state that has a chance of succeeding results, I will be the first to cheer. However, being the cynic that I am, I really can't see it happening...

What you have seen coming from Oracle, is a desire to terminate the Turkish and TC childish nonsense and their feigned worries, which are just excuses to impose their will of continuing to either occupy our land or rule it from Ankara! Frankly thinking like yours supports making such possibilities real options.

Well none of what you propose are options for me, but that does not mean that in that case partition is the only alternative. That is your blackmail to us ...... "Give us rule (by subterfuge) or we continue partition!"

My wishful alternative, is for the only fair solution for Cyprus, and that is why it is taking so long to materialise because it serves the purpose of rightful Independence and self-governance by the Cypriots and, hey! ... the RoC ... because that's not a dirty phrase in my vocabulary ... and this fair solution is in conflict with the aims of the expansionist dictatorial Turks..

[roseandchan]

i believe that both leaders will only do what is best for them. goverments in all countries are the same. did blair ask his people about the iraq war?no. all he wanted was to go down in history and get all the glory.

[Nikitas]

Being a cynic and old enough to remember how we got into the impasse I see this BBF thing as the penultimate step before full partition. Hopefully I am wrong, but in case I am right then the primary consideration should be a deal which will leave no room for a future conflict if and when the final break comes. Territory is the primary consideration. The fate of the British bases in case Britain pulls out is part of the territory question and must be settled and agreed NOW, so are secure and defensible borders between the two component states. Clean lines drawn along defined and easily recognised landmarks (for example the old Famagusta Nicosia road etc) are better than weird zig zags on the map. A fair apportionment of the coast line is part of the deal since the coast in a tourism dominated economy is the primary asset.

The rest, like the details of the constitution etc seem secondary to me because sooner or later someone will sabotage the system no matter how fair and well drafted it is. Sorry but cynicism kind of grows on me.

[Andros]

Nikitas,

Well said.

I motion your way of thinking. The mess in the federal style Cyprus is presently being pushed into will, I believe, ultimately lead to some kind of partition. A Bi-Communal, Bi-Zonal, two Constituent State, Loose Government, etc, etc, appears just too messy for something not to go wrong.

As for the British bases, you all know my views on that, where I believe it's actually Britain's entire position regarding its bases that has caused this BiCom, BiZON type of process. The British say that their two area are sovereign, so why not the Turks - this game will always be played by the Turks so long as the British keep to their areas of interest on the island. It's a shame, as, even in a Pure unification deal, we'll always have the British so-called sovereign areas to battle with.

Therefore, is it not logical that the island will ultimately be partition into 3-sovereign areas/states?

I'd rather be part of the ROC as being a Greek Cypriot entity, and stomach an area in the north as a TC republic as opposed to an island with:

1. GC - Constituent (flakey) State
1. GC - Constituent (flakey) State
3. And two BRITISH SOVEREIGN areas!!!

Does the above proposed FEDERAL plan seem fair to you?
That's the reality of the dealt be sought. Unless we all stop it, right now!

[Oracle]

In our case, cessation is an option that we do not want to consider. However, being spoilt brats, at the back of our mind we probably want this option for ourselves only.

For whose benefit are you constantly criticising Cypriots?

In what way are Cypriots spoilt brats? ....... Because not a single generation of Cypriots has had the benefit of living in their own country without some invader or other killing and enslaving them, for some several hundred years now.

Yeah maybe it's because we are so popular, we can act like spoilt brats.

Anyway ... what on earth do you mean by "cessation" in that context?

[Filitsa]

Filitsa,

Thanks for joinning the discussion on this topic.

Yes! I support your view below:

The federal constitution must be the supreme law of the land to which the constitutions of the constituent states must yield.

But, let's face it, a federal agreement will never be accepted by the Turks if that is the case! Remember the discussions the Turks went through regarding the "Derogation's"?

According to some of the views I've read above, and of what I have been saying all along, a "Federal" style deal of this type for the island of Cyprus will only lead to a distressed and confused population, frustrated with all of the inter-laws and restrictions imposed by the two constituent states, thus eventually leading to a clean partition. However, this time the partition with be more to the favour of the Turkish Cypriots than us, or should I say the island as a whole - as by that time the Turkish Cypriots would have a bigger/ more legally-binding stand in front of the EU than what it has today!

Whether we think it's right or not, President Christofias and TC leader Talat are both idealists - good Socialist buddies! They both hate Turkey, and the Greek Orthodox Church, love the European Union, and both strongly believe that we are all Cypriots and have nothing in common with any ethnic kinship to either Greek or Turkish. If they had their way, the common and only Cyprus language would be Broken Cypriot-English!!

Behind closed doors, I'm sure they only talk about how they're going to dodge those brain-washed Cypriots who regard themselves as Greek and Turk-Cypriots on the island. If it were left to them - perhaps we would have a PURE Cypriot society! hehehehehe...

But,

I am certain that the overall result due to strong nationalistic Greek and Turkish input will ultimately be similar to the Annan Plan No.5. Why? Because the alternative, which they both know, will obviously be Partition of the Status-Quo - and not an agreed version!

Take your pick!

Andros, how is this (see bold above) any different than the status quo? The RoC and the bogus TRNC, in effect, have been functioning as separate states for the past 30+ years. I agree, there is no denying the ethnic identities of Cypriots. To do so is naive, and to believe that a constitution will change this is not only naive but quite troublesome. Again, I say, move on. The key is a strong federal government, not a "loose federation."

[Kikapu]

Nikitas,

Well said.

I motion your way of thinking. The mess in the federal style Cyprus is presently being pushed into will, I believe, ultimately lead to some kind of partition. A Bi-Communal, Bi-Zonal, two Constituent State, Loose Government, etc, etc, appears just too messy for something not to go wrong.

As for the British bases, you all know my views on that, where I believe it's actually Britain's entire position regarding its bases that has caused this BiCom, BiZON type of process. The British say that their two area are sovereign, so why not the Turks - this game will always be played by the Turks so long as the British keep to their areas of interest on the island. It's a shame, as, even in a Pure unification deal, we'll always have the British so-called sovereign areas to battle with.

Therefore, is it not logical that the island will ultimately be partition into 3-sovereign areas/states?

I'd rather be part of the ROC as being a Greek Cypriot entity, and stomach an area in the north as a TC republic as opposed to an island with:

1. GC - Constituent (flakey) State
1. GC - Constituent (flakey) State
3. And two BRITISH SOVEREIGN areas!!!

Does the above proposed FEDERAL plan seem fair to you?
That's the reality of the dealt be sought. Unless we all stop it, right now!

Andros,

Since you are proposing some kind of a disguised Confederation with your "Flaky Federation" solution for the GC's and the TC's, why don't you go the whole way and just propose a 82%-18% basis land distribution instead, so that if later pushed came to shove and the two sides are not able to make your disguised Confederation work, then it will be much easier for the GC's to accept a agreed partition and divide at that time, rather than trying to sell them a disguised Partition Plan under the name of "Federation" with today's "borders", which they will not accept.

Once you start having "flaky states", you are going to end up with a "flaky solution" and then end up with "flaky problems".!!

[Nikitas]

There was a very interesting report by Kostas Gennaris on RIKSAT last night titled "the entrapment of Turkish Cypriots" in which leading TC politicians were interviewed about Talat's policy, the Cyprus problem, solution proposals and the role of Turkey.

It is obvious that separation is the major theme of all sides in the north. There is something else which is more worrying, the total free for all in politics. There is no coordinating process like in the RoC where the national council coordinates a unified position. This free for all, in combination with the current mess in Turkey leaves only one constant on the Turkish side- the deep state and the Generals. And they are doing their damndest to alter the game yet again by blackmailing the TCs.

What was said in the report, and I have not cross checked yet, is that two years ago the Turkish ministry of finance demanded that the TRNC register 50 000 settlers as TRNC nationals inorder to cover TRNC budget deficits.

If the major player in this situation, Turkey, is playing such games with people it regards as its own, one can imagine what they will do to the whole of Cyprus if they have a role after a solution. And the question is whether ouutright partition might not be better than being under the thumb of some feudal minded lords of Ankara.

The programme reinforced what I have been thinking since 1974. The disaster of 74 has forced GCs to mature politically and become realists. Also the heavy price paid has been offset by gaining freedom from the mainland. The north has a long way to go to get to the same level of political maturity.

[Kikapu]

The two points that were answered were (1) whether the federal laws stand above the laws of the states and (2) whether some states can actually defect, leave, the federation.

Bananiot,

(1) whether the federal laws stand above the laws of the states

Federal Constitutions will always override any state laws that are not in compliance Federal Laws, which on many occasions, states do pass laws that are in violation of Federal Laws, but ultimately they are either struck down by Federal courts or by the Supreme Court of the land. Each individual states have a great deal of autonomy from the Federal Government to run their states the way they want, which are voted by all citizens from those states and through the state legislators, as long as they are in compliance with the Federal Laws.

One citizenship, One Sovereignty.!!

(2) whether some states can actually defect, leave, the federation

I have below given you a ruling by the Supreme Court regarding a state wanting to secede from the United states. I have only given you a small piece of it, but if you want to read the whole thing, you have the link below. You will find it is not possible, even though, there are mechanisms in place that can permit such a move, but you will have a better chance winning the lottery each week all by yourself for the next 100 years. If it was the case, California, the world 7th largest economy would have said "goodbye" to the Union long time ago.

It also touches on what it means to be a "Confederation", which is what the Annan Plan was all about, which you fail to accept this fact every time and this is the reason as to why the TC's want a Confederation and not a True Federation.

U.S. Supreme Court
STATE OF TEXAS v. WHITE, 74 U.S. 700 (1868)
74 U.S. 700 (Wall.)

TEXAS
v.
WHITE ET AL.

December Term, 1868

Did Texas, in consecuence of these acts, cease to be a State? Or, if not, did the State cease to be a member of the Union?

It is needless to discuss, at length, the question whether the right of a State to withdraw from the Union for any cause, regarded by herself as sufficient, is consistent with the Constitution of the United States.

The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and [74 U.S. 700, 725] arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form, and character, and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these the Union was solemnly declared to 'be perpetual.' And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained 'to form a more perfect Union.' It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?

But the perpetuity and indissolubility of the Union, by no means implies the loss of distinct and individual existence, or of the right of self-government by the States. Under the Articles of Confederation each State retained its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right not expressly delegated to the United States. Under the Constitution, though the powers of the States were much restricted, still, all powers not delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. And we have already had occasion to remark at this term, that cthe people of each State compose a State, having its own government, and endowed with all the functions essential to separate and independent existence,' and that 'without the States in union, there could be no such political body as the United States.' 12 Not only, therefore, can there be no loss of separate and independent autonomy to the States, through their union under the Constitution, but it may be not unreasonably said that the preservation of the States, and the maintenance of their governments, are as much within the design and care of the Constitution as the preservation of the Union and the maintenance of the National government. The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States. [74 U.S. 700, 726] When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration, or revocation, except through revolution, or through consent of the States.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g ... 4/700.html