Get Real! wrote:DTA wrote:...is the ROC the same in its legal entity as the one founded in 1960 if so should you not still abide by the constitution of 1960?
We always abide by it but are you up to date with the last 35 year’s of changes?
Im not an expert on this changes can you enlighten me please and tell me if these 'changes' are legal according to the 1960 constitution (because I thought the Turkish cypriot VP had a vito)If not shouldn’t a new constitution and a new state be formed, a state that would need to gain international recognition?
The RoC has always had international recognition so I'm not sure what you're on about...
Im saying that if the ROC does not abide by its founding constitution, does it not mean that it is not the same entity that it was in its foundation? For those of you claim that enosis was your legal right as the majority of the Island, what happened to the Turks of Crete when enosis was achieved?
I for one don't support Enosis and neither do I think it was anyone’s “legal right” but at the same time I hardly think it’s an excuse for the TC enosis with Turkey!
Im glad that you dont think Enosis was a legal rightExcept Nico Samson said that if he achieved enosis he would have wiped the Turks from the Island…. And what stopped Nico Samson?….. Yep that’s right Turkey’s intervention.
I hardly think "what Nico said" would ever stand in a court of law as evidence for anything. And not to mention that GCs could also start with “What Denktash said!”
If you dont include what samson said then you can not count on anything that anyone has said. It is valid because a) he said it b) if turkey didnt come in he would have been in a possition to implement
Could you please give me a primary link to the Denktash quote I have heard about but I have never ever seen a primary link... Im not saying he didnt say it I would just like to the primary link please (I assume you are talking about the Car bomb starting the so called intercommunal violenceAn intervention that even an Athens court deemed as legal… now argue against it.
Incorrect. This is just a TC myth.
If this is the case, I am sorry I didnt realise, was there never a court case? could you provide me with a primary link pleaseAs I also understand it isn’t there a clause in the 1960 Constitution that says that Cyprus can never be joined to another country (enosis), divided (takism) or join a union that both Cyprus and Turkey are not part of?
The UN used international legal experts to assess the situation and all four gave the thumbs up in their report. I've got that document somewhere.
How did they get around that part of what I assume is the entact 1960 constitution?
What does that mean guys? Well it means that your claims of enosis as your legal right… is in fact illegal… and guess what your entry to the EU is also illegal… unless I have misunderstood something?
I agree with your first notion but not the second.
OH but wait… wait the 1960 constitution was unfair…. Well you should not have signed it should you. If I agree a contract with a business partner, then later on down the line decide this contract is unfair I either have to challenge it through courts of law…
The 59 agreements were abandoned by your leaders, declared null & void, and further violated with the creation of the "TRNC" so I hardly think you're in a position to regard yourselves "partners" of it!
(but you threw out the judge) or try to renegotiate the contract, what I cant do is go around intimidating and trying to kill my partner because…. That would be ….. ILLIGAL
That's exactly what Makarios did with his 13 point proposal but the TCs spat the dummy.
You miss the point completely Makarios didnt negociate or try to do it in a legal way he made these changes illigally and when he knew the CYPRIOT court of law would overturn these changes, he said that he would ignore the ruling.... that sounds quite illigal to me
This is something that I posted on another thread but my questions remains unanswered.
Not anymore.