Cyprus-Forum.com

[james_mav]

Under the above title Turkish Cypriot daily HALKIN SESI (22.06.09) reports on statements made by the Turkish Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of State, Responsible for Cyprus, Cemil Cicek, on Cyprus during the 3rd Congress of the Kahramanmaras province of the Turkish Justice and Development Party (AKP).

Cyprus is our national issue. It our most justified cause. Whenever there was a voting in the UN, we could not take more than six votes despite the fact that there were approximately 55 Islamic countries which seemed to be our friends. That means that Turkey could not make itself explained. It did not support itself sufficiently, Mr. Cicek stated and added that Turkey is following closely the Cyprus problem.

These mogoloi really are block-heads aren't they?

[james_mav]

Mehmet Cakici assesses the Orams case

Under the front page title No title deeds should be given for Greek Cypriot properties, Turkish Cypriot Afrika newspaper (22.06.09) reports on statements made by the General Chairman of the Communal Democracy Party (TDP), Mehmet Cakici, on the verdict of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) on the Orams case.

Evaluating the decision of the ECJ on the Orams case, Mr. Cakici said that the policy followed by the regime on the property issue in the northern part of Cyprus after 1974 has gone bankrupt and added that the verdict of the ECJ has brought the Turkish Cypriots into a difficult situation. Underling that this situation is the outcome of political decisions taken without bearing in mind the future, Mr. Cakici said that the responsibility is to be blamed on the governments of the National Unity Party (UBP), the Republican Turkish Party (CTP) and the Democratic Party (DP), which, starting from 1977, have made historic mistakes on the property issue.

Noting that Turkey and the TRNC are bound by the international law and its decisions, Mr. Cakici also added that the international agreements have supremacy over the TRNC Constitution, therefore the ECJ verdicts are above our laws and are accepted.

Mr. Cakici also noted that the verdict of the ECJ on the Orams case, does not only apply to the Orams couple itself, but it affects everyone who has built on Greek Cypriot property in the occupied part of Cyprus.

A less block-headed mogolo

[Oracle]

Mehmet Cakici assesses the Orams case

.. the TRNC are bound by the international law and its decisions, Mr. Cakici also added that the international agreements have supremacy over the TRNC Constitution, therefore the ECJ verdicts are above our laws and are accepted.

A less block-headed mogolo

Watch them (snakes) turn this argument into one of: "Therefore, the supremacy of the TRNC should be recognised because you have ruled against its Constitution, and the TRNC accepts its place, like other countries, in upholding the ECJ verdicts".

Block-heads? ... No, I don't think so.

Skilled Expansionists? .... Yes! Most definitely!

[james_mav]

Watch them (snakes) turn this argument into one of: "Therefore, the supremacy of the TRNC should be recognised because you have ruled against its Constitution, and the TRNC accepts its place, like other countries, in upholding the ECJ verdicts".

That would require some serious modification of the laws of logic...

[Oracle]

Watch them (snakes) turn this argument into one of: "Therefore, the supremacy of the TRNC should be recognised because you have ruled against its Constitution, and the TRNC accepts its place, like other countries, in upholding the ECJ verdicts".

That would require some serious modification of the laws of logic...

Let's hope the 'laws of logic' prevail ....

[james_mav]

Watch them (snakes) turn this argument into one of: "Therefore, the supremacy of the TRNC should be recognised because you have ruled against its Constitution, and the TRNC accepts its place, like other countries, in upholding the ECJ verdicts".

That would require some serious modification of the laws of logic...

Let's hope the 'laws of logic' prevail ....

In any case, his argument is pretty sloppy, I posted it more for the admissions he makes, rather than the substance of his argument. For example, he says: "Noting that Turkey and the TRNC are bound by the international law and its decisions..."
While the former is certainly bound (although obviously routinely ignores) international law, the latter is not recognised as a legal entity internationally, and is hence not bound by international law. The latter is seen in international jurisprudence as an occupation regime - this much is obvious, given that officials of the regime travel on diplomatic passports issued by the occupier!

[Oracle]

Watch them (snakes) turn this argument into one of: "Therefore, the supremacy of the TRNC should be recognised because you have ruled against its Constitution, and the TRNC accepts its place, like other countries, in upholding the ECJ verdicts".

That would require some serious modification of the laws of logic...

Let's hope the 'laws of logic' prevail ....

In any case, his argument is pretty sloppy, I posted it more for the admissions he makes, rather than the substance of his argument. For example, he says: "Noting that Turkey and the TRNC are bound by the international law and its decisions..."
While the former is certainly bound (although obviously routinely ignores) international law, the latter is not recognised as a legal entity internationally, and is hence not bound by international law. The latter is seen in international jurisprudence as an occupation regime - this much is obvious, given that officials of the regime travel on diplomatic passports issued by the occupier!

It was precisely because he strung the two entities together to sneakily create a half truth which usually goes unchallenged and starts to set a precedent that this was a pointer to their intent. I left the reference to Turkey off (clever syntax to put it first ) and the rest of the sentence may as well have referred just to the "TRNC".

[bill cobbett]

Surely the speech is a clear sign of the start of a split?

This signal, if repeated by others, could be very significant?

It's certainly bad news for the Land Stealers, for instance where's the money to back up the now even dodgier "guarantee" coming from?

[james_mav]

Surely the speech is a clear sign of the start of a split?

This signal, if repeated by others, could be very significant?

It's certainly bad news for the Land Stealers, for instance where's the money to back up the now even dodgier "guarantee" coming from?

This guy is from a minor party of the occupation regime, not anyone whose voice carries too much weight, but it will be interesting to see if the message is repeated (or at least hinted at) by higher level decision makers. Given the nobodyness of this guy, this analysis could be a trial balloon. Watch this space.