Cyprus-Forum.com

[Pax]

By 'inherited' I didn't mean it was a long-standing one, simply that it was the constitution, good or bad, that Cypriots had to deal with.

But much of the "suggested" became the actual. I'm not saying that TC leadership etc were innocent of attempting to play the constitution as well, but I am saying that the method of constitutional change was a recipe for disaster (as well as being unconstitutional).

To be honest I think it quite pointless to think that, coming on half a century after the events, only by first identifying who was to blame and or who was most to blame for constitutional collapse can we make progress. This is a blind alley. Trying to neatly sort out yesterday's battle lines will never sort out today's problems, let alone tomorrow's solutions.

[DT.]

By 'inherited' I didn't mean it was a long-standing one, simply that it was the constitution, good or bad, that Cypriots had to deal with.

But much of the "suggested" became the actual. I'm not saying that TC leadership etc were innocent of attempting to play the constitution as well, but I am saying that the method of constitutional change was a recipe for disaster (as well as being unconstitutional).

To be honest I think it quite pointless to think that, coming on half a century after the events, only by first identifying who was to blame and or who was most to blame for constitutional collapse can we make progress. This is a blind alley. Trying to neatly sort out yesterday's battle lines will never sort out today's problems, let alone tomorrow's solutions.

How could a proposal be unconstitutional?

By the time the constitution was amended unilaterally Turkey had breached the entire Treaty of Guarantee.

[Piratis]

Can u please tell me what was absent in TC proposals and GC/Greek side didn't accept?

A more fair and workable constitution could have been worked out in late 60s early 70s. I don't know all the details but I should admit that the GC side seems to have a lot of the blame for not finalizing a solution at that time.

Junta was ruling Greece at that time and it is obvious that they didn't want a settlement and they managed to affect Makarios.

It is similar to the situation that TCs are today (but much worst). While the TCs today can agree on a solution that will be very beneficial for them, Turkey has convinced them to make totally unacceptable demands to ensure that a solution will not be found. As a result the TCs will be the bigger losers, just like when we made the mistake not to cut all ties with the fascist junta regime of Athens.

[Piratis]

By 'inherited' I didn't mean it was a long-standing one, simply that it was the constitution, good or bad, that Cypriots had to deal with.

But much of the "suggested" became the actual. I'm not saying that TC leadership etc were innocent of attempting to play the constitution as well, but I am saying that the method of constitutional change was a recipe for disaster (as well as being unconstitutional).

To be honest I think it quite pointless to think that, coming on half a century after the events, only by first identifying who was to blame and or who was most to blame for constitutional collapse can we make progress. This is a blind alley. Trying to neatly sort out yesterday's battle lines will never sort out today's problems, let alone tomorrow's solutions.

The root of the problem today is the same as it was back then. Britain and Turkey wanting a military presence and control over Cyprus, and using the TC minority on the island as means to achieve their goals.

The solution also is the same as it was back then: Allow freedom and democracy to Cyprus, with human rights and equality of all citizens without racist discrimination, just like is the case in all other successful democratic countries (many of which are multi-ethnic). Actually today is easier to implement the solution since Cyprus is part of the EU and Cyprus has to follow the EU acquis.

[Pax]

By 'inherited' I didn't mean it was a long-standing one, simply that it was the constitution, good or bad, that Cypriots had to deal with.

But much of the "suggested" became the actual. I'm not saying that TC leadership etc were innocent of attempting to play the constitution as well, but I am saying that the method of constitutional change was a recipe for disaster (as well as being unconstitutional).

To be honest I think it quite pointless to think that, coming on half a century after the events, only by first identifying who was to blame and or who was most to blame for constitutional collapse can we make progress. This is a blind alley. Trying to neatly sort out yesterday's battle lines will never sort out today's problems, let alone tomorrow's solutions.

How could a proposal be unconstitutional?

By the time the constitution was amended unilaterally Turkey had breached the entire Treaty of Guarantee.

A proposal can become unconstitutional when it is implemented in whole or part. A proposal can be unconstitutional if the way the proposal itself is proposed is ... unconstitutional. (This might seem a daft problem but is actually quite frequent around the world : remember, quis custodiet custodiens)

You acknowledge that the constitution was amended unilaterally. And it may be that Turkey had breached the T of G but that is surely not an argument as to why Cypriots, Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots and others, should continue to have their constitution usurped from within.

[Piratis]

Pax, the problem is that the constitution of Cyprus is not a Cypriot constitution. This constitution was not made to be functional, workable and to serve the Cypriot people. It was made to serve the interests of those who wrote it, and those who wrote it were not Cypriots. Are you really surprised that such a constitution was problematic?

The least Makarios could do was to try to fix it.

[insan]

Pax, the problem is that the constitution of Cyprus is not a Cypriot constitution. This constitution was not made to be functional, workable and to serve the Cypriot people. It was made to serve the interests of those who wrote it, and those who wrote it were not Cypriots. Are you really surprised that such a constitution was problematic?

The least Makarios could do was to try to fix it.

If it was left for Cypriots to write the constitution, it would serve the interests of GCs and Greeks. Actually it would serve the interests of GC and Greek right wingers. Besides the interest conflicts between 2 communities, there were interest conflicts between the right wingers and left wingers. GC left wingers were 1/3 of total population of GC community but they were struggling to politically annex Cyprus to USSR...

[Nikitas]

Let us cut the bullshit. The constitutional changes were proposed after Makarios was led to believe that Britain favored the changes. The British later went as far as to allege that their High Commissioner to Cyprus was mentally ill, a clever way to weasel out of it.

But today, when a new constitution is being discussed, the leadership of the TC community is undermining the independence of the new partnership. They have invited and "naturalised" tens of thousands of non Cypriot people, they want the continued presence of foreign troops forever, they want foreign countries to guarantee the independence of an ..... independent state. They reject basics of democracy, like proportional representation, and fundamental individual human rights by invoking communal special status.

This is all bullshit. I am sick of this invocation of special status while undermining the state they claim they want to build. Maybe it is time to realise that the TCs never wanted and never intended to support an independent Cyprus. Just like the GC right wingers they had adopted foreign agendas.

The real test has been the attitude diaplayed during the last 35 years and the about face of the leadership that was supposed to be opposed to old policies. Talat is no different from Denktash and both have let Cyprus down big time.

[Piratis]

Pax, the problem is that the constitution of Cyprus is not a Cypriot constitution. This constitution was not made to be functional, workable and to serve the Cypriot people. It was made to serve the interests of those who wrote it, and those who wrote it were not Cypriots. Are you really surprised that such a constitution was problematic?

The least Makarios could do was to try to fix it.

If it was left for Cypriots to write the constitution, it would serve the interests of GCs and Greeks. Actually it would serve the interests of GC and Greek right wingers. Besides the interest conflicts between 2 communities, there were interest conflicts between the right wingers and left wingers. GC left wingers were 1/3 of total population of GC community but they were struggling to politically annex Cyprus to USSR...

I don't know how you came to the absurd conclusion that 2/3rds of Greek Cypriots are "right wingers". If that was the case then Christofias, who is possibly the most far left leader in an EU country today, would have never been elected as president. And you position about annexing Cyprus to USSR is totally baseless.

A constitution made by Cypriots would serve at the very least the interests of the majority of Cypriots. Isn't this the case in all countries? Such a constitution would still be modeled after the existing democratic systems of other European countries, and that would include at the very least human rights for all Cypriot citizens. Unlike you, we never asked that the human rights of anybody should be sacrificed in order to serve our interests better.

So maybe the constitution of Cyprus would not be what you dreamed of (something resembling the privileges you had during Ottoman rule) but you would have your human and democratic rights.

So a constitution that protects the human rights of all citizens and serves the interests of at least the majority of the population, is far better than a constitution which violates the rights of the majority of Cypriots, and only serves the interests of foreigners and a small minority.

[insan]

Pax, the problem is that the constitution of Cyprus is not a Cypriot constitution. This constitution was not made to be functional, workable and to serve the Cypriot people. It was made to serve the interests of those who wrote it, and those who wrote it were not Cypriots. Are you really surprised that such a constitution was problematic?

The least Makarios could do was to try to fix it.

If it was left for Cypriots to write the constitution, it would serve the interests of GCs and Greeks. Actually it would serve the interests of GC and Greek right wingers. Besides the interest conflicts between 2 communities, there were interest conflicts between the right wingers and left wingers. GC left wingers were 1/3 of total population of GC community but they were struggling to politically annex Cyprus to USSR...

I don't know how you came to the absurd conclusion that 2/3rds of Greek Cypriots are "right wingers". If that was the case then Christofias, who is possibly the most far left leader in an EU country today, would have never been elected as president. And you position about annexing Cyprus to USSR is totally baseless.

A constitution made by Cypriots would serve at the very least the interests of the majority of Cypriots. Isn't this the case in all countries? Such a constitution would still be modeled after the existing democratic systems of other European countries, and that would include at the very least human rights for all Cypriot citizens. Unlike you, we never asked that the human rights of anybody should be sacrificed in order to serve our interests better.

So maybe the constitution of Cyprus would not be what you dreamed of (something resembling the privileges you had during Ottoman rule) but you would have your human and democratic rights.

So a constitution that protects the human rights of all citizens and serves the interests of at least the majority of the population, is far better than a constitution which violates the rights of the majority of Cypriots, and only serves the interests of foreigners and a small minority.

It is a well known fact that Akel is the biggest left wing, political party of GCs. The average of the votes Akel recieved has always been around 30%-35%. According to this statistics data we can comfortably conclude that, abt 1/3 of GC community is left winger.

http://www.kypros.org/Elections/news.html

As the biggest Greek Cypriot political party, AKEL controls one-third of the vote, but for the first time in its 82-year history fielded its own candidate for president. The Communists have previously preferred to form a strategic alliance with a contender from the centre or left and play a back seat role in government.

http://www.isj.org.uk/index.php4?id=417

Another well known fact is that Akel was/is? a communist party struggling for communist ideals. Akel was financially and politically backed by Moscow. They were in collaboration for the common interests of communism.


http://books.google.com.tr/books?id=WHS ... el&f=false
[/quote]