Cyprus-Forum.com

[DT.]

DT, why don't you start a new thread and give us an analysis of the Qatar deal which is more up your alley instead of putting us to sleep with pedantic vote-ology!

At least I have an alley. Seems like all you do lately is request anyone not buying your BS crap about chirokitia off this island.

P.S Lets see if we can write more than one line next time. These oneliners of yours are all that seem to come out lately unless you're writing some ridiculous classification list game for all your expat buddies on the general pages.

You're letting the side down and I suggest you take a breather from the Cyprob pages.

You probably missed the news about the Cyprus-Qatar deal… what a shame.

shut the hell up and be nasty back you coward.

I can’t be bothered any more… I look at my compatriots and pity their folly.

Old economics teacher of mine said. "If you're sitting in a meeting and you're not sure who the fool is, its probably you."

[Kifeas]

We have our own sensitivities too, as you know, one being the guarantees of Turkey. Come next May, when the give and take part comes, we shall see what can be agreed.

Look how more unsophisticated you sound! Of course we cannot and will not have the (unilateral intervention) "guarantees" of Turkey, simply because such a scheme is illegal under international law! Read the UN Charter, which is the pinnacle of international law. Read it, to open up your eyes! The 1960 treaty of guarantee is invalid, because it is in conflict with international law and the UN Charter, and it is not possible to re-sign one similar with it in the future. The president of the RoC, a UN and EU member nation-state, is not allowed to sign agreements that encourage the violation of international law, for the sake of any political agreement or cause!

Read the UN Charter:

Article 2
The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.

1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.

2. All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.

3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

5. All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.

6. The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.

7. Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.

And then read further, in the UN Charter:

Article 103
In the event of a conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail.

Read them to learn where you Turkey's so-called rights are standing! They are standing on a big pile of shit, which you want to make us eat it!

[Nikitas]

Kifeas said:

"Look how stupid you sound! I am talking about one of the two deputizing presidents of the federal government, and you mix him up with the leader of the TC community. Why the two have to be identical? They can have any leader for their community they wish, and they will also have any president for the state in which they will be the majority. Why all these 3 offices must be taken by one person? Man, you are so basic and unsophisticated, I wonder why you are here arguing!"

Now we are getting somewhere, tackling a federal system as it should be. But some insist on mixing up the 1960 system with the Annan plan and some other bits and pieces of mish mash to concoct what they call a "compromise".

The idea here is to have a workable system, where no one feels cheated and which will not contain artifices (like the 70-30 nonsense) that led us to 1963.