Cyprus-Forum.com

[MicAtCyp]

Also Piratis is afraiding so much from Turkey's intervention right! What's the aim of this?

The same aim like authorising Grivas or Sampson to be your guarantor.

in 1963 and Turkey could intervene after 11 years! This intervention's reason was not NOTHING but ethnic cleaning of Turkish Cypriots and Junta of Greece's cope to RC !

Oh really? 11 years !!??? It seems you know nothing of the history prior to 1974. What did you celebrate yesterday at Erenkoy?What happened in 1964,67 etc?

So why you are afraiding that much? Why? You have something in your mind? Future cleaning plans?

Why? You tell us why my friend.Explain us how the deep state in Turkey is taking revenge on you for your yes at the referendum.Explain us what happened to the shares of the TC Airlines.Explain us what happened to your savings at the Banks. Explain us why would we not fear of the same control spreading upon us the GCs too after a solution.

That's not our subject.I mean that you want to dominate us in central goverment where it is the important part that is over above constituent state.After dominating and taking the control and privileges of central goverment's power and authority it won't be difficult to nullify TCs power!

Are you aware that even in the Anan Plan the power sharing at the central state was 30-70% or what? Do you consider that a dominance of the majority on the minority or a dominance of the minority on the majority or none of the two?

IF NOT accepting YOUR DOMINANCE is wanting PARTITION,YES I WANT PARTITION! Is it OK ?

Now you are talking clearly.Yes what you really want is partition. FACT!

That will to make a united Cyprus work has to be created in peoples hearts, not on paper

I would say has to be created in both, on paper and in peoples hearts.

But if you didn't worry that the GCs would "explode" with the so unfair Annan plan, I don't see why you should worry with what I propose.

Well I am in the minority of TC that voted NO to the Annan plan. I did not believe it was a viable solution that would lead to real peace,unity and harmony in Cyprus.

However you did not vote No because it was unfair against the GCs did you?

[erolz]

However you did not vote No because it was unfair against the GCs did you?

As I said I voted no because I did not believe it was a viable solution that would lead to real peace,unity and harmony in Cyprus.

[Piratis]

However the fact remains that articles of the 1960 consitituion that were deemed 'unalterable' in that constituion without mutual consent of the TC, were altered without that consent.

Are you sure? Can you tell me which parts of the constitution changed?
Here is the current Cyprus constidution:
http://www.cyprus.gov.cy/cyphome/govhom ... nguageNo=1
Here is a quote from it:

Article 49
The executive power exercised by the Vice-President of the Republic consists of the following matters, that is to say:-
(a) designation and termination of appointment of Turkish Ministers;
(b) asking the President of the Republic for the convening of the Council of Ministers as in Article 55 provided and being present and taking part in the discussions at all meetings of the Council of Ministers without any right to vote;
(c) proposing to the President of the Republic subjects for inclusion in the agenda as in Article 56 provided;
(d) right of final veto on decisions of the Council of Ministers concerning foreign affairs, defence or security as in Article 57 provided;
(e) right of return of decisions of the Council of Ministers as in Article 57 provided;
(f) right of final veto on laws or decisions of the House of Representatives concerning foreign affairs, defence or security as in, Article 50 provided;
(g) right of return of laws or decisions of the House of Representatives or of the Budget as in Article 51 provided;
(h) right of recourse to the Supreme Constitutional Court as in Articles 137, 138 and 143 provided;
(i) right of reference to the Supreme Constitutional Court as in Article 141 provided;
(j) publication of the communal laws and decisions of the Turkish Communal Chamber as in Article 104 provided;
(k) right of reference to the Supreme Constitutional Court of any law or decision of the Turkish Communal Chamber as in Article 142 provided;
(l) right of recourse to the Supreme Constitutional Court in connection with any matter relating to any conflict or contest of power or competence arising between the House of Representatives and the Communal Chambers or any of them and between any organs of, or authorities in, the Republic as in Article 139 provided;
(m) the prerogative of mercy in capital cases as in Article 53 provided;
(n) the exercise of any of the powers specified in Article 47 conjointly with the President of the Republic;
(o) addressing messages to the House of Representatives as in Article 79 provided.

[erolz]

Are you sure? Can you tell me which parts of the constitution changed?

Are you seriously going to try and tell me that the original 1960's consituion still exists unchanged as the current consitituion of the RoC?

If you are then I think there is little point in trying to carry on sensible discussions. With respect you _really_ need to do a bit more research on this.

[Piratis]

I am asking you, since you claim that you know, to tell me which parts of the constitution changed. Since you made your research I am sure it will not be that hard.
I know several things changed after 74, temporarily, because of the occupation. But can you point out comparing the 1960 constitution and what we have now what are the changes made in 1963?

I mean the first of Makarios 13 points is:

1. The right of veto of the President and the Vice-President of the Republic to be abolished.

Yet in the current constitution this veto is still there as you can see from the quote in my previews post.

[erolz]

I am asking you, since you claim that you know, to tell me which parts of the constitution changed. Since you made your research I am sure it will not be that hard.

Well if that IS the CURRENT consitution of the RoC then it appears I was wrong in my belief that it changed on paper. I can be wrong and am happy to find out when I am and improve my understanding.

If it is the current constituion of your state then it in no way reprsents a reality. Even ignoring the absense of TC in the RoC (which no doubt you will blame on TC) there are many articles that are plainly in violation. Take article 173 for example. This states there will be a non cypriot high court judge. Where is this judge then?

There most certainly was a defacto change to the consitution after 63. So the consitution needed changing because it was 'unworkable' - yet it remains unchanged and has 'worked' for 40 plus years? Well I for one am confused by all this.