Cyprus-Forum.com

[denizaksulu]

Deniz, if you want an insight into the drafting of the Annan Plans you should read "An International Relations Debacle" by Claire Palley who is/was a constitutional and international rights lawyer. It's quite clear, to me, from reading the book that the plan was a con. Its main aim was to appease Turkey at the expense of the Greek Cypriots. The only fair way to solve the Cyprus Problem in my view is to go back to 1959 with a clean sheet and apply the princples of the UN Charter - wishful thinking, I know.

To DT and Jerry.

I realised that the plan was weighted towards to TCs. Thats why they voted for it. But it must be remembered that not an insignificant number did not.

To Jerry. Wishful thinking ? Yes. Can it be achieved with so much change in the demography. It will be very hard work and needs a lot of WILINGNESS in both corners. The 'seconds' in the TC corner seem to have all the cards at the moment.

[observer]

Only a thought, but ...................

Part of Protocol 10 of the acquis communitaire under whıch RoC joıned the EU says “DESIRING that the accession of Cyprus to the European Union shall benefit all Cypriot citizens and promote civil peace and reconciliation”.

Article 34 of EU regulation 44/2001 ‘on jurisdiction and recognition and enforcement of judgements in civil and commercial matters’, (the regulations under which persons may be sued in another state, or a case judgement executed in another state) says: A judgment shall not be recognised if such recognition is manifestly contrary to public policy in the Member State in which recognition is sought.

It’s difficult to see how a judgement against the Orams (by no means certain) outside a comprehensive Cyprus agreement will promote peace and reconciliation, so could be thought to be manifestly contrary to public policy. So even if the the ECJ’s decision is against the Orams, the judgement may well be set aside until there is a comprehensive agreement on property and other issues.

[Jerry]

Deniz, if you want an insight into the drafting of the Annan Plans you should read "An International Relations Debacle" by Claire Palley who is/was a constitutional and international rights lawyer. It's quite clear, to me, from reading the book that the plan was a con. Its main aim was to appease Turkey at the expense of the Greek Cypriots. The only fair way to solve the Cyprus Problem in my view is to go back to 1959 with a clean sheet and apply the princples of the UN Charter - wishful thinking, I know.

To DT and Jerry.

I realised that the plan was weighted towards to TCs. Thats why they voted for it. But it must be remembered that not an insignificant number did not.

To Jerry. Wishful thinking ? Yes. Can it be achieved with so much change in the demography. It will be very hard work and needs a lot of WILINGNESS in both corners. The 'seconds' in the TC corner seem to have all the cards at the moment.

Yes Deniz, when you take into account the TCs who didn't vote at all those in favour of AP is little more than 50% of electorate.
Changes in demography have always been the main tool of Turkey in influencing the outcome of a solution that's why they are in no hurry. I suppose at least Turkey should be made to compensate all Cypriots some how for the consequences of deliberately dragging its feet but again - wishful thinking.

[YFred]

Deniz, if you want an insight into the drafting of the Annan Plans you should read "An International Relations Debacle" by Claire Palley who is/was a constitutional and international rights lawyer. It's quite clear, to me, from reading the book that the plan was a con. Its main aim was to appease Turkey at the expense of the Greek Cypriots. The only fair way to solve the Cyprus Problem in my view is to go back to 1959 with a clean sheet and apply the princples of the UN Charter - wishful thinking, I know.

To DT and Jerry.

I realised that the plan was weighted towards to TCs. Thats why they voted for it. But it must be remembered that not an insignificant number did not.

To Jerry. Wishful thinking ? Yes. Can it be achieved with so much change in the demography. It will be very hard work and needs a lot of WILINGNESS in both corners. The 'seconds' in the TC corner seem to have all the cards at the moment.

Yes Deniz, when you take into account the TCs who didn't vote at all those in favour of AP is little more than 50% of electorate.
Changes in demography have always been the main tool of Turkey in influencing the outcome of a solution that's why they are in no hurry. I suppose at least Turkey should be made to compensate all Cypriots some how for the consequences of deliberately dragging its feet but again - wishful thinking.

What about Clerides and Denktas. They are the worst ones for dragging it for so long. Clerides admitted that they could have solved it long ago but chose not to in an interview with the BBC.

[Jerry]

Only a thought, but ...................

Part of Protocol 10 of the acquis communitaire under whıch RoC joıned the EU says “DESIRING that the accession of Cyprus to the European Union shall benefit all Cypriot citizens and promote civil peace and reconciliation”.

Article 34 of EU regulation 44/2001 ‘on jurisdiction and recognition and enforcement of judgements in civil and commercial matters’, (the regulations under which persons may be sued in another state, or a case judgement executed in another state) says: A judgment shall not be recognised if such recognition is manifestly contrary to public policy in the Member State in which recognition is sought.

It’s difficult to see how a judgement against the Orams (by no means certain) outside a comprehensive Cyprus agreement will promote peace and reconciliation, so could be thought to be manifestly contrary to public policy. So even if the the ECJ’s decision is against the Orams, the judgement may well be set aside until there is a comprehensive agreement on property and other issues.

Why would the judgement be contrary to public policy in the UK. Orams and others are warned on Foreign Office website about the ownership issue in the north. Surely there have to be legal grounds for setting the judgement aside - not political ones.

[observer]

Only a thought, but ...................

Part of Protocol 10 of the acquis communitaire under whıch RoC joıned the EU says “DESIRING that the accession of Cyprus to the European Union shall benefit all Cypriot citizens and promote civil peace and reconciliation”.

Article 34 of EU regulation 44/2001 ‘on jurisdiction and recognition and enforcement of judgements in civil and commercial matters’, (the regulations under which persons may be sued in another state, or a case judgement executed in another state) says: A judgment shall not be recognised if such recognition is manifestly contrary to public policy in the Member State in which recognition is sought.

It’s difficult to see how a judgement against the Orams (by no means certain) outside a comprehensive Cyprus agreement will promote peace and reconciliation, so could be thought to be manifestly contrary to public policy. So even if the the ECJ’s decision is against the Orams, the judgement may well be set aside until there is a comprehensive agreement on property and other issues.

Why would the judgement be contrary to public policy in the UK. Orams and others are warned on Foreign Office website about the ownership issue in the north. Surely there have to be legal grounds for setting the judgement aside - not political ones.

Public policy, by just about everyone as I understand it, is to re-unite Cyprus in a BBF (whatever that means). By raising the political temperature, which a judgement aginst the Orams is bound to do, it will set back the public policy by ........ choose your own length of time.

[DT.]

Only a thought, but ...................

Part of Protocol 10 of the acquis communitaire under whıch RoC joıned the EU says “DESIRING that the accession of Cyprus to the European Union shall benefit all Cypriot citizens and promote civil peace and reconciliation”.

Article 34 of EU regulation 44/2001 ‘on jurisdiction and recognition and enforcement of judgements in civil and commercial matters’, (the regulations under which persons may be sued in another state, or a case judgement executed in another state) says: A judgment shall not be recognised if such recognition is manifestly contrary to public policy in the Member State in which recognition is sought.

It’s difficult to see how a judgement against the Orams (by no means certain) outside a comprehensive Cyprus agreement will promote peace and reconciliation, so could be thought to be manifestly contrary to public policy. So even if the the ECJ’s decision is against the Orams, the judgement may well be set aside until there is a comprehensive agreement on property and other issues.

Key words here are member state. This judgement does not go against the public policy of the member state (Republic of Cyprus).

[Viewpoint]

When we win against the Orams - can they appeal??

The ECJ is the senior court in matters of EU law so its judgments on the points of EU law on which it has been asked for rulings are final.

....great. When will the action take place? (i.e passing the Hove house onto the GC or knocking down their house in occupied??

If things go in favour of Mr A at the ECJ, he'll have to go back to a GB court with the ECJ ruling and ask for an enforcement order, probably a "legal charge" on any GB property that is still in the O's names and this will probably also be appealable (within the GB court system).

So this affair will probably still be making news for a long time.

At last someone with comments that take into account the realities on the ground, the Brits can tie this procedure in knots for the next few years.

Yes, thanks but ultimately, when the law has run its long course, Mr A will win cos he has right on his side, in my opinion.

Long being the operative word having lived in the UK for a good number of years I know the Brits quite well and any decision they do not want to enforce they will tie up in knots and put off for many years to come.

[Viewpoint]

I'd really like to get you elected President of the ROC someday and let them suffer a little more by having a tc President after them.

Thanks for the thought, DT, but as a President of the RoC, I would like to guide the TC's from a "Corrupted Society" into a True Democracy and not make them suffer. They have been suffering long enough with leaders such a Denktash for way too long. If not aloud, but silently. It will take a lot of the burden off their shoulders to be living in an "Honest Society" once again. That would be my mission for the TC's. As for the GC's, I will have a mission for them also.!

You would lead us to capitulation, surrender to GC dominance and discrimination, you do not know TC well they will never accept living in a GC state as just another minority, they will fight for their rights and would rather become part of Turkey than accept your proposals.

Oh, but that's not true, VP, because I already gave you a Democratic plan that safeguards all the TC's rights with 50% power at the upper house. All you have to do, is to agree to return the GC land that does not belong to you.! But you would rather keep the GC land than have peace and an "honest society" for our people. Did you not say, that each side needs to make a compromise.? Well, where the hell is it from your part, if you turn down my BBF plan.?

http://www.cyprus-forum.com/viewtopic.php?t=21685

Your plan was disguised capitualtion which is the worst form of deception you would have the TCs exposed to GC domination by loss of just one seat in the upper house as the lower house was a lost cause from day 1. Your plan was to reduce our numbers to a size that could give the GCs that 1 seat necessary to disregard us and take control of both states, you shoudl feel ashamed that you do not try to close the door on such risks and put forward a plan that would guarantee TCs effective say in a new structure where they cannot be pushed to one side. You may be willing to live in a GC dominated country without any community rights but there is a majority of TCs would fell so strongly that they would rather unite with Turkey than be exposed to GC administered democracy and human rights.

Nothing is disguised about my plan. It is written in plain English on ONE page and not the 9000+ pages that the AP had, which was the "mother of all disguises".! I have told you what steps needed to be taken to make it work. Your problem is, you don't want to live in a True Democratic country, because you think you have certain "community rights" that can violate others Democratic and Human Rights. Since you insists on having some "community rights", then ask the EU to allow you to limit the number of GC's can live in the 20% TC state in the north, so that you can always have the majority in the TC state, which means keeping all the Upper House seats. You did it with the AP and you said yes to it, so do it again. See, it's simple to fix if the EU goes along with it. I don't see why not, since there won't be anywhere the GC's will reach the limit to be a problem to cause a Human Rights problem. So, VP, go ahead and ask the EU to bend some of it's rules. I'm sure the GC's will be able to accept this arrangement, since according to my calculations, it is not going to effect any GC's at all. You see, nothing is disguised, so, as soon as you hand over 50% of the north, you can have peace in Cyprus.

Although that proposal was backed by both the UN and EU the GCs rejected that idea as it did not serve their purpose.

No, VP, what the GC's rejected was the Annan Plan as a package and not individual proposals in it, just as you accepted the AP as a whole also, which included Racist , Undemocratic and Human Rights violations against the GC's.!

You can not pick and choose you have to take the rough with smooth its called compromise but of course GCs are imune to this.

[Kikapu]

Although that proposal was backed by both the UN and EU the GCs rejected that idea as it did not serve their purpose.

No, VP, what the GC's rejected was the Annan Plan as a package and not individual proposals in it, just as you accepted the AP as a whole also, which included Racist , Undemocratic and Human Rights violations against the GC's.!

You can not pick and choose you have to take the rough with smooth its called compromise but of course GCs are imune to this.

OK, so tell us VP, just exactly what parts of the Annan Plan would you say were the "rough" parts for the TC's. No need to tell us all the "smooth" parts for the TC's, because we all know about them.

While you are at it, also tell us all the "smooth" parts for the GC's in the AP, and once again, don't bother telling us what were the "rough" parts, because those are also well known to us.!