Cyprus-Forum.com

[denizaksulu]

OK, but may I also direct your attention to the minutes of a meeting of the UK Select Committee on Foreign Affairs dated Tuesday 1 February 2005, in which a draft report on Cyprus was discussed, focusing mainly on the aftermath of the Annan Plan referendum

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... /11310.htm

Paragraph 80 read, as follows:
After careful consideration, we conclude that it was right that all those on the electoral roll in northern Cyprus were able to participate in the referendum held in April 2004, and we recommend that the same arrangements should apply in respect of any future referendum on a solution to the Cyprus problem.

Motion made, and Question proposed, to leave out paragraph 80 and insert the following new paragraphs:

It was wholly wrong for people other than citizens of the Republic of Cyprus to have been permitted to participate in the referendum held in April 2004. No-one was able to produce for the Committee a breakdown of the proportion of those on the northern electoral roll who were citizens of the Republic of Cyprus and who ere citizens of the republic of Turkey, or nationals of other states.
As a consequence of including indiscriminately all those on the 'electoral roll', regardless of citizenship, and allowing them to participate in the referendum, means that the result was, to say the least, seriously flawed. The inclusion and participation of countless thousands of citizens of the Republic of Turkey in the referendum was contrary to western European norms and it reflects badly on the UN and on the governments who for expediency acquiesced in this.—(Andrew Mackinlay.)
Question put and negatived.
Paragraph agreed to.

Note that Andrew Mackinlay's motion was rejected and as far as UK official policy is concerned a precedent appears to have been set in April 2004 by means of the recommendation that "the same arrangements should apply in respect of any future referendum on a solution to the Cyprus problem."

Tim, the above reflects only the views of the UK Select Committee on Foreign Affairs. It does not bind the RoC or the GC community in whichever way, and does not constitute international law. As far as I am concerned, it does not worth the paper it was written on. Who are these people to decide what is right or wrong for my country?

Now, as DT quoted above, the foundation agreement becomes "null and void!" It was part (an ingredient) of the foundation agreement that (together with the rest of the annexes, appendices, side treaties, side laws, federal and constituent state constitutions, etc) it would have to be submitted to separate referenda on the basis of the particular electoral lists in each side. Since the whole thing, including the fact of its submission to referenda on the basis of the particular electoral lists, became "null and void," it has no legal effect.

All I am saying is that this reflects the way that certain influential players are thinking. Nothing more. The conclusions of the above report may not be binding on the RoC, but they offer an insight into the mindset of those who set international policy. I think that, if there is to be another dual referendum, it is very unlikely to be based on any other principle than, as the report says, participation by "all those on the electoral roll in northern Cyprus."

There won't be another dual referendum on any agreement, if such an agreement will not foresee and provide for the removal of the majority of the settlers, and -if their participation in the TC community's referenda will not be entirely excluded, at least there will be an even more explicit closure that in no way they are recognized as legitimate members of the TC community in Cyprus. Such an agreement, without the above safety valves, will not be presented to the GCs in any referendum, simply because I expect Christofias or whoever else in his place not, to agree to such an eventuality.

As for the UK, not only I expect it to be the last country on this planet that will think of recognizing a separate entity in the north, under any circumstances, but it (UK) will also be obliged -both politically and legally, to do its outmost to prohibit it, be it in the UN or elsewhere. I question the country's political moral values, but on the other hand I do not consider them to be so stupid to shoot their own foot. They know that, doing otherwise, there are a number of steps the RoC will take in order to damage their interests, both in relation to their bases here but also in relation to their overall interests in the EU, including Turkey's own accession. They know they no longer will be able to count on Cyprus’s whatever “cooperation” in any matter that interests or concerns them in the EU. Furthermore, such an act on their behalf will be in violation of the RoC Treaty of Establishment and the EU Treaty of Accession, and being a member of the EU themselves will be dragged to the ICJ and the European Community Court.

I am reading these exchanges with interest. But after Callaghan response to the 'intervention' after the coup, I am surprised at your faith in any of Britains decisions. Had they acted then, we would not be in such a mess.

[Tim Drayton]

To quote from the same report:

Paragraph 76 read, as follows:

To many Greek Cypriots, the question of how many settlers voted for the Plan and whether they swung the vote (clearly, they did not) is irrelevant—the point is that as illegal immigrants they should not have been allowed to vote at all. The Greek Cypriot leadership naturally raised this point with Mr Annan during the negotiating process, pointing out various precedents and legal opinions. In his 'good offices' report, the Secretary-General noted that the Greek Cypriot side had proposed that voting in the referendum should be limited to those who had Cypriot citizenship in 1963 and their descendants. The report refers to the "apparent impracticability" of this proposal and that it would have required the Turkish Cypriots to accept the Greek Cypriot interpretation of the history of their island in the early 1960s. In the event, despite "persistent, repeated calls" by the Greek Cypriot side to disenfranchise the settlers, they were allowed to vote in the referendum.

Kifeas, if you think it will be different next time round, I can only admire your confidence in the degree that a small island can exercise full sovereignty in a globalised world.

[Kifeas]

To quote from the same report:

Paragraph 76 read, as follows:

To many Greek Cypriots, the question of how many settlers voted for the Plan and whether they swung the vote (clearly, they did not) is irrelevant—the point is that as illegal immigrants they should not have been allowed to vote at all. The Greek Cypriot leadership naturally raised this point with Mr Annan during the negotiating process, pointing out various precedents and legal opinions. In his 'good offices' report, the Secretary-General noted that the Greek Cypriot side had proposed that voting in the referendum should be limited to those who had Cypriot citizenship in 1963 and their descendants. The report refers to the "apparent impracticability" of this proposal and that it would have required the Turkish Cypriots to accept the Greek Cypriot interpretation of the history of their island in the early 1960s. In the event, despite "persistent, repeated calls" by the Greek Cypriot side to disenfranchise the settlers, they were allowed to vote in the referendum.

Kifeas, if you think it will be different next time round, I can only admire your confidence in the degree that a small island can exercise full sovereignty in a globalised world.

It was our (stupid) choice to give a blank check to Kofi Annan and to agree (unconditionally) to put the result of his arbitration to a referendum. The same will happen the next time. It will be our sole choice to put any proposal to a referendum. Now, if we opt to do so (again) unconditionally, then we are worthy of our own fait. As Martin Luther King once said "no one can seat on your neck, if you do not also bend your knees." What will they do to force us comply with their illegitimate “wishes?” Threaten to bomb us with an Atomic bomb? Declare a war against Cyprus? Authorize an economic blockade?

As for the British, they know full well that recognizing by themselves, or allowing the recognition of a separate entity in the occupied north, without our consent, will rightfully be regarded by us as a very hostile act, tantamount to a declaration of war.

As for my confidence, it is the confidence of someone knowing full well and respecting the 4,000 years of his people's written history and survival in all 4 corners of this country, despite our small size and all the hardships and obstacles. We are a damaged people, and damaged people are dangerous, for, they know they can survive.

[turkkan]

tantamount to a declaration of war.

Im sure the royal navy is shaking at its knees and probably has upped the number of life boats on their warships for fear of what you will unleash on them.

[Tim Drayton]

To quote from the same report:

Paragraph 76 read, as follows:

To many Greek Cypriots, the question of how many settlers voted for the Plan and whether they swung the vote (clearly, they did not) is irrelevant—the point is that as illegal immigrants they should not have been allowed to vote at all. The Greek Cypriot leadership naturally raised this point with Mr Annan during the negotiating process, pointing out various precedents and legal opinions. In his 'good offices' report, the Secretary-General noted that the Greek Cypriot side had proposed that voting in the referendum should be limited to those who had Cypriot citizenship in 1963 and their descendants. The report refers to the "apparent impracticability" of this proposal and that it would have required the Turkish Cypriots to accept the Greek Cypriot interpretation of the history of their island in the early 1960s. In the event, despite "persistent, repeated calls" by the Greek Cypriot side to disenfranchise the settlers, they were allowed to vote in the referendum.

Kifeas, if you think it will be different next time round, I can only admire your confidence in the degree that a small island can exercise full sovereignty in a globalised world.

It was our (stupid) choice to give a blank check to Kofi Annan and to agree (unconditionally) to put the result of his arbitration to a referendum. The same will happen the next time. It will be our sole choice to put any proposal to a referendum. Now, if we opt to do so (again) unconditionally, then we are worthy of our own fait. As Martin Luther King once said "no one can seat on your neck, if you do not also bend your knees." What will they do to force us comply with their illegitimate “wishes?” Threaten to bomb us with an Atomic bomb? Declare a war against Cyprus? Authorize an economic blockade?

As for the British, they know full well that recognizing by themselves, or allowing the recognition of a separate entity in the occupied north, without our consent, will rightfully be regarded by us as a very hostile act, tantamount to a declaration of war.

As for my confidence, it is the confidence of someone knowing full well and respecting the 4,000 years of his people's written history and survival in all 4 corners of this country, despite our small size and all the hardships and obstacles. We are a damaged people, and damaged people are dangerous, for, they know they can survive.

Anyway, we both agree that this is a very crucial issue.

[Kifeas]

tantamount to a declaration of war.

Im sure the royal navy is shaking at its knees and probably has upped the number of life boats on their warships for fear of what you will unleash on them.

Turkkan dear, I assure you the royal navy is not shaking at its knees. However, I am sure the UK does not wish, upon recognizing a separate entity in the north (contrary and in violation to the provisions of the 1960 agreements,) to "oblige" us to denounce those agreements as they will be meaningless to us any longer, question the status of their bases, blockade them, harass their staff and prohibit their exit through the land and between the two of them -Akrotiri and Dekelia, riot against them on a daily basis and cause all sorts of damage to their property, blockage Turkey's EU accession, blockade any decision in the EU that serves British interests, blockade any decision in the EU that provides for the cooperation between EU and Nato, gift the Russians with an Air force and a naval base in the Eastern Mediterranean, and whatever else we may think of to harm British-American interests in the region. Remember, the above may sound illogical and exaggerated, however, they are possible steps we may take should we become faced with the danger of permanently losing half of our country, an event that off course we will never recognize its validity or legality and which in the immediate future will also compel Turkey to maintain, not just 40,000 troops here, but maybe 100,000 or more.

[Bananiot]

... and if the British tourists go to Spain, instead?

[Get Real!]

... and if the British tourists go to Spain, instead?

We're all gonna die...

[Bananiot]

... and the Russians will jump in on the back of the Americans risking a head on clash with the West in ... Cyprus, for Cyprus! Amazing argument!

P.S. Did't Makarios try this after 1963 when Russia was the mighty Soviet Union?

[The Cypriot]

To quote from the same report:

Paragraph 76 read, as follows:

To many Greek Cypriots, the question of how many settlers voted for the Plan and whether they swung the vote (clearly, they did not) is irrelevant—the point is that as illegal immigrants they should not have been allowed to vote at all. The Greek Cypriot leadership naturally raised this point with Mr Annan during the negotiating process, pointing out various precedents and legal opinions. In his 'good offices' report, the Secretary-General noted that the Greek Cypriot side had proposed that voting in the referendum should be limited to those who had Cypriot citizenship in 1963 and their descendants. The report refers to the "apparent impracticability" of this proposal and that it would have required the Turkish Cypriots to accept the Greek Cypriot interpretation of the history of their island in the early 1960s. In the event, despite "persistent, repeated calls" by the Greek Cypriot side to disenfranchise the settlers, they were allowed to vote in the referendum.

Kifeas, if you think it will be different next time round, I can only admire your confidence in the degree that a small island can exercise full sovereignty in a globalised world.

It was our (stupid) choice to give a blank check to Kofi Annan and to agree (unconditionally) to put the result of his arbitration to a referendum. The same will happen the next time. It will be our sole choice to put any proposal to a referendum. Now, if we opt to do so (again) unconditionally, then we are worthy of our own fait. As Martin Luther King once said "no one can seat on your neck, if you do not also bend your knees." What will they do to force us comply with their illegitimate “wishes?” Threaten to bomb us with an Atomic bomb? Declare a war against Cyprus? Authorize an economic blockade?

As for the British, they know full well that recognizing by themselves, or allowing the recognition of a separate entity in the occupied north, without our consent, will rightfully be regarded by us as a very hostile act, tantamount to a declaration of war.

As for my confidence, it is the confidence of someone knowing full well and respecting the 4,000 years of his people's written history and survival in all 4 corners of this country, despite our small size and all the hardships and obstacles. We are a damaged people, and damaged people are dangerous, for, they know they can survive.

Anyway, we both agree that this is a very crucial issue.