Cyprus-Forum.com

[YFred]

I take it you think you picked up on someone's bullshit? Don't go too far on that.

It is true that the constitution of the United Kingdom is not a written one in it's literal sense thus "uncodified" . It is also derived from many sources. From my knowledge the only written form of the UK constitutional laws excluding the acts are the works of authority. But I can assure you that it is mistaken to take the UK legislations as not part of a constitution thus proving the very existence of one.

Peace,
The Unifier

Oh, this isn't were I spotted the bullshit. Tne bullshit was when you wrote

The British did. And they did a damn good job at doing it if you ask me. We made a miserable attempt at following it. I truly honestly beleive that the generations from the 60's had no idea about how the country "should" function thus why we were given our constitution. although modified today (thank god and intelligent people - the few that do exist) it still holds strong. It was built in the image of the UK constitution which I have also browsed into.

Anyone who thinks that the constitution that was given to us by the Brits, in order to maintain a divide and rule policy, where one community did not by itself have the power to take a decision such as...oh I don't know....demand the removal of the british bases...is bullshitting.

A constitution which gives 18% of the population complete veto power and will bring an entire country to a standstill at the very first opportunity is not what I'd consider a good opportunity. I suggest you go read up about dual municipalities and tax collection which were to blame for the 1963 inter communal violence and then come and boast about the positives of a constitution that pisses on 82% of the nation.

Oh and once again....any link you can give me on that constitution you read would be appreciated.

Good God, that was the reason for 1963? you mean the excuse for it. What was Akritas Plan all about then?

[DT.]

I take it you think you picked up on someone's bullshit? Don't go too far on that.

It is true that the constitution of the United Kingdom is not a written one in it's literal sense thus "uncodified" . It is also derived from many sources. From my knowledge the only written form of the UK constitutional laws excluding the acts are the works of authority. But I can assure you that it is mistaken to take the UK legislations as not part of a constitution thus proving the very existence of one.

Peace,
The Unifier

Oh, this isn't were I spotted the bullshit. Tne bullshit was when you wrote

The British did. And they did a damn good job at doing it if you ask me. We made a miserable attempt at following it. I truly honestly beleive that the generations from the 60's had no idea about how the country "should" function thus why we were given our constitution. although modified today (thank god and intelligent people - the few that do exist) it still holds strong. It was built in the image of the UK constitution which I have also browsed into.

Anyone who thinks that the constitution that was given to us by the Brits, in order to maintain a divide and rule policy, where one community did not by itself have the power to take a decision such as...oh I don't know....demand the removal of the british bases...is bullshitting.

A constitution which gives 18% of the population complete veto power and will bring an entire country to a standstill at the very first opportunity is not what I'd consider a good opportunity. I suggest you go read up about dual municipalities and tax collection which were to blame for the 1963 inter communal violence and then come and boast about the positives of a constitution that pisses on 82% of the nation.

Oh and once again....any link you can give me on that constitution you read would be appreciated.

Good God, that was the reason for 1963? you mean the excuse for it. What was Akritas Plan all about then?

Akritas plan was a piece of paper you've been using to wave at us. Unlike the GC community that does not require paper but has an entire event (invasion of 74) to prove that you wanted and did annihilate us from half the island.

[theunifier]

It wasn't grand , at least it was democratic. Yes it could have been better , and it also could have been better if we followed it strictly I gather. But let me ask you this..

Why do you think (in essence) why it sucked so much?

And with all the additions and amendments, how does it differ now?

I'm not asking out of sarcasm, I'm asking out of intrigue.

Peace,
TU

[DT.]

It wasn't grand , at least it was democratic. Yes it could have been better , and it also could have been better if we followed it strictly I gather. But let me ask you this..

Why do you think (in essence) why it sucked so much?

And with all the additions and amendments, how does it differ now?

I'm not asking out of sarcasm, I'm asking out of intrigue.

Peace,
TU

Veto power on 18% of the population was catastrophic...as it proved to be.
Requiring 30% of the civil service to be filled by TC's was a disaster, since they were only 18% naturally there were not as many qualified candidates. Same for the police....

I can go on all night if you want.

[YFred]

I take it you think you picked up on someone's bullshit? Don't go too far on that.

It is true that the constitution of the United Kingdom is not a written one in it's literal sense thus "uncodified" . It is also derived from many sources. From my knowledge the only written form of the UK constitutional laws excluding the acts are the works of authority. But I can assure you that it is mistaken to take the UK legislations as not part of a constitution thus proving the very existence of one.

Peace,
The Unifier

Oh, this isn't were I spotted the bullshit. Tne bullshit was when you wrote

The British did. And they did a damn good job at doing it if you ask me. We made a miserable attempt at following it. I truly honestly beleive that the generations from the 60's had no idea about how the country "should" function thus why we were given our constitution. although modified today (thank god and intelligent people - the few that do exist) it still holds strong. It was built in the image of the UK constitution which I have also browsed into.

Anyone who thinks that the constitution that was given to us by the Brits, in order to maintain a divide and rule policy, where one community did not by itself have the power to take a decision such as...oh I don't know....demand the removal of the british bases...is bullshitting.

A constitution which gives 18% of the population complete veto power and will bring an entire country to a standstill at the very first opportunity is not what I'd consider a good opportunity. I suggest you go read up about dual municipalities and tax collection which were to blame for the 1963 inter communal violence and then come and boast about the positives of a constitution that pisses on 82% of the nation.

Oh and once again....any link you can give me on that constitution you read would be appreciated.

Good God, that was the reason for 1963? you mean the excuse for it. What was Akritas Plan all about then?

Akritas plan was a piece of paper you've been using to wave at us. Unlike the GC community that does not require paper but has an entire event (invasion of 74) to prove that you wanted and did annihilate us from half the island.

DT, you couldn't make a 3 year old believe that. Akritas plan was created by a series of meetings between very high ranking roc government officials between 1960 and 63, to entice the Turkish Cypriots to revolt so that they can be expelled once and for all so your ancestors can have Enosis. You can live in denial for so long. It was far from a piece of paper, it was treason to tear down an independent country and gift it to another, all done by the very people who were entrusted to run.

[theunifier]

I need more than that.... And if you really could go on all night I would love to know what really sends you round the bend with the current status of the constitution. Today is more important to me than yesterday...

[DT.]

I need more than that.... And if you really could go on all night I would love to know what really sends you round the bend with the current status of the constitution. Today is more important to me than yesterday...

Well, for starters the TC's do not have a veto today.

[denizaksulu]

I need more than that.... And if you really could go on all night I would love to know what really sends you round the bend with the current status of the constitution. Today is more important to me than yesterday...

Well, for starters the TC's do not have a veto today.

No. They have a bigger stick. Which would you have prefered? A veto or the whole island?

[Kikapu]

I need more than that.... And if you really could go on all night I would love to know what really sends you round the bend with the current status of the constitution. Today is more important to me than yesterday...

Well, for starters the TC's do not have a veto today.

Both in the south or the north.!

[DT.]

I need more than that.... And if you really could go on all night I would love to know what really sends you round the bend with the current status of the constitution. Today is more important to me than yesterday...

Well, for starters the TC's do not have a veto today.

No. They have a bigger stick. Which would you have prefered? A veto or the whole island?

The whole island without a veto. Veto all you like on matters that involve the TC community specifically and list them before hand in the constitution. But to have the arrogance to think that 18% of the population should be able to stop ANY law or action by the govt is ludicrous.

Especially when the ties with Turkey are so strong and it will take decades for the Cypriot Turks to start acting for the benefit of Cyprus and not the benefit of Turkey.