Cyprus-Forum.com

[Get Real!]

Mikkie, if Turkey’s responsibility of the Cyprus Problem is removed by the EU what exactly would Turkey’s incentive be to work for a “Cyprus solution”?

[-mikkie2-]

GR,

The incentive is not being removed. Until the Ankara Protocol is implemented fully by Turkey, 8 chapters will be permanently blocked and no open chapters can be closed. So Turkey has every incentive to solve the Cyprus problem.

As things stand now, the EU is simply giving a bit more time to Turkey to do what she has to do, and if Cyprus wishes to put further blocks on Turkey, then she will have to do them on her own.

[Expatkiwi]

Shut up slime ass kisser. You are a shame for Cyprus. You are a slave. We will speak our mind because we are free people. They can enslave our land but they can never enslave our minds and souls!

People in TRNC think the same thing vis-a-vis you folk in the south...

[Get Real!]

GR,

The incentive is not being removed. Until the Ankara Protocol is implemented fully by Turkey, 8 chapters will be permanently blocked and no open chapters can be closed. So Turkey has every incentive to solve the Cyprus problem.

As things stand now, the EU is simply giving a bit more time to Turkey to do what she has to do, and if Cyprus wishes to put further blocks on Turkey, then she will have to do them on her own.

Deadlines should not be postponed as it would only serve to encourage Turkey’s intransigence and the EU would be playing a very dangerous game because Cyprus’ patience may well get exhausted.

If the Cypriot leverage is removed by the EU then Cyprus will just swiftly cut Turkey’s accession off with her veto (and who would blame her?) and please do NOT assume that Cyprus cannot or will not exercise it…

“In some particularly sensitive areas such as common foreign and security policy, taxation, asylum and immigration policy, Council decisions have to be unanimous. In other words, each member state has the power of veto in these areas.”

http://europa.eu/institutions/inst/council/index_en.htm

So those MEPs who claim to want Turkey in the EU will have achieved exactly the opposite! Perhaps that’s what they wanted in the first place…

[Tony-4497]

Your way off topic, Tony, but nevertheless I will try to address your concerns. For a start, I am not a politician and my actions (thoughts really) bear insignificant value on the future of this island. You have been using Christofias to show how dirty politics are (especially in Cyprus) in almost all your posts. Let me remind you of some more dirty deals. Papadopoulos commanded a mere 1.5% of the popular vote yet, with the votes of AKEL, he won the presidency hands down. Prior to the 2003 presidential elections, the whole of Cyprus was decked out with huge posters of the late Papadopoulos that said: I promise to work hard for solution, based on the Annan Plan. Would you say that he was trying to steel the votes of AKEL whose supporters were very sore at the prospect of voting for a confirmed anti communist and anti Turk (the words of former GS of AKEL Papaioannou). This is politics in the banana republic Tony, things like that should not surprise you.

Partition of Cyprus is a serious concern for everybody that cares about this island. We are not far from it, I am afraid. Basically we have partition since 1974 and our struggle is to avoid turning de facto partition into de jure partition. To achieve this goal we need solution. Yesterday, if it were possible. Tomorrow will be too late.

Today we have a window of opportunity open, as Turkey strives to enter the exclusive club known as EU. Turkey seems to be winning the domestic struggle to pursue its European path which will transform this country for the better, for the benefit of the Turkish people and the people in the area in general and Cypriots most of all. Our opportunity for solution runs parallel with Turkey's efforts to become a full member of the EU. We desperately need Turkey in the EU (the nationalists dread this, by the way) for in order to achieve this she must make some basic concessions to Cyprus. Our EU partners (those Omirou calls hypocrites) are fully behind us on this. However, we all know, or should know, that we must not push Turkey beyond a certain limit where she will decide "sod the EU" we can live outside the EU. If it came to this, then partition of Cyprus will become a fact, for the eons to come, with a danger of even bigger disasters in the future.

Having understood this, we need to evaluate calmly the situation. Solution must be mutually agreed and the Annan Plan is the only plan that is real. I do understand that certain areas need to be redefined and made more palatable to our side. With proper diplomatic moves we can go for these, with the full backing of the EU and the UN. This is the way to achieve things, not the way our vulgar politicians behave, to the detriment of Cyprus. However, I must say here that I do not believe that Omirou, Perdikis, Lyssarides, Sillouris et al, really care about the only realistic solution of BBF. I believe that they constantly moan and groan because they want the talks which aim at reaching solution based on this model, to fail.

In fact, the danger of partition, hovers above because of these people, who by the way, are disciples of the late Michalis Dountas who proposed that we should stay as we are and wait for the balance of power to change, before we seek solution.

Not sure I'm off topic.. it is all the same issue.. that of the 2 different approaches within GC politics/ society etc..

The first approach, represented by the leadership of DISY & AKEL, says we should not disturb Turkey's EU process, negotiate as best as we can on the basis of the Annan Plan and then accept the outcome even if this is very similar to the AP.

The second approach is that of those whom you refer to as "bash patriots", who are demanding that a different plan is needed, which even though will still be a BBF HAS to be substantially better than AP - and in order to achieve this are suggesting we should block or almost block Turkey's accession path.

My point is that the first approach is DOOMED to fail.. and although you think yourselves as realists for supporting this, you are in fact choosing the most unrealistic and unlikely to succeed option, simply because such a plan CANNOT pass a referendum.

The second option may take longer to give results but according to this:

- if Turkey will eventually join the EU, then there will be a decent and lasting solution in Cyprus (inflow of settlers & stolen property development can be controlled through linking with EU progress in the meantime); and

- if Turkey will ultimately NOT join the EU (because of other countries' objections) then ANY kind of agreement we entered into will collapse..so in such a case we will be much worse if an Annan-like plan had been previously accepted than if not.

[-mikkie2-]

GR,

The incentive is not being removed. Until the Ankara Protocol is implemented fully by Turkey, 8 chapters will be permanently blocked and no open chapters can be closed. So Turkey has every incentive to solve the Cyprus problem.

As things stand now, the EU is simply giving a bit more time to Turkey to do what she has to do, and if Cyprus wishes to put further blocks on Turkey, then she will have to do them on her own.

Deadlines should not be postponed as it would only serve to encourage Turkey’s intransigence and the EU would be playing a very dangerous game because Cyprus’ patience may well get exhausted.

If the Cypriot leverage is removed by the EU then Cyprus will just swiftly cut Turkey’s accession off with her veto (and who would blame her?) and please do NOT assume that Cyprus cannot or will not exercise it…

“In some particularly sensitive areas such as common foreign and security policy, taxation, asylum and immigration policy, Council decisions have to be unanimous. In other words, each member state has the power of veto in these areas.”

http://europa.eu/institutions/inst/council/index_en.htm

So those MEPs who claim to want Turkey in the EU will have achieved exactly the opposite! Perhaps that’s what they wanted in the first place…

But that is exactly what the EU is doing! It is now putting the onus on Cyprus to do what it wants rather than taking a collective stance on the matter. The rest of the EU is effectively saying to not put further block on Turkey just yet as the negotiations are still ongoing but the option is there for Cyrpus to block the process on its own. So I am not disagreeing with what you are saying, just making clear to you the stance of the EU as a whole.

[Tony-4497]

The GC representative's job is bring to the table a plan that is acceptable to GCs, within the BBF context (our major concession), IF possible. If the TC refuse to agree to a BBF that is acceptable by GCs, then his duty is NOT to allow such a plan to be put to referendum with his blessing, because this would be rejected, which per Anastasiades would amount to SUICIDE.

If you are under the illusion that EU will protect your human rigths AFTER we accept their violation in an agreed plan, then wake up.

From the leaked documents, it was clear that they (incl OUR side) are looking into ways of STOPPING people from challenging "aspects" of the plan at European courts (as was the case with the AP). They already KNOW their plan will be violating the EU acquis.

You are plain WRONG.

There is NO way that the acquis can be violated. It is a fundamental aspect of the EU and its foundations. You obviously have no understanding how the EU works.

If you didn't know already, the Charter of Fundamental Rights was passed onto law by the signing of the Lisbon Treaty. This enhances our case.

The Annan plan although it seemed to sign away our rights, was also very questionable and I bet that if the Annan plan was passed, provisions that were against founding EU principles would have been immediately challenged en masse in the EU courts and ECJ.

Britain has opt outs from certain EU legislation such as the Social Chapter, but guess what, many of these 'opt outs' have been bypassed and in some cases challeneged with the effect that legistlation in the UK had to be ammended.

The only thing that a future agreement would allow is to phase in the application of the EU acquis over the whole island - time limited derogations basically.

Go check what Anastasiades and Christofias ACCEPTED in 2004 in connection with PERMANENT DERROGATIONS from the EU Acquis and with the Annan plan BECOMING PART of the EU Acquis, as well as the RoC sending official letters to the ECHR asking to DROP all GC lawsuits against Turkey and then come and tell me I'm plain wrong.

[-mikkie2-]

"Go check what Anastasiades and Christofias ACCEPTED in 2004 in connection with PERMANENT DERROGATIONS from the EU Acquis and with the Annan plan BECOMING PART of the EU Acquis, as well as the RoC sending official letters to the ECHR asking to DROP all GC lawsuits against Turkey and then come and tell me I'm plain wrong."

Yes, the Annan plan would have become part of the EU Acquis because back then Cyprus was not in the EU. The derogations you mentioned were NOT permanent - they were to be lifted after 19 years (I think) or until Turkey became an EU member.

Of course, things are very different now because the Lisbon Treaty has signed into law the Charter of Fundamnetal Rights and of course Cyprus is now in the EU.

The letter you talk about would have had no legal standing. The applicants would simply take their cases back to the ECHR once they showed that they would not get proper restitution under the Annan plan which wouldn't have been very difficult to do.

So I still beg to differ with you.

[Tony-4497]

duplicate

[Tony-4497]

"Go check what Anastasiades and Christofias ACCEPTED in 2004 in connection with PERMANENT DERROGATIONS from the EU Acquis and with the Annan plan BECOMING PART of the EU Acquis, as well as the RoC sending official letters to the ECHR asking to DROP all GC lawsuits against Turkey and then come and tell me I'm plain wrong."

Yes, the Annan plan would have become part of the EU Acquis because back then Cyprus was not in the EU. The derogations you mentioned were NOT permanent - they were to be lifted after 19 years (I think) or until Turkey became an EU member.

Of course, things are very different now because the Lisbon Treaty has signed into law the Charter of Fundamnetal Rights and of course Cyprus is now in the EU.

The letter you talk about would have had no legal standing. The applicants would simply take their cases back to the ECHR once they showed that they would not get proper restitution under the Annan plan which wouldn't have been very difficult to do.

So I still beg to differ with you.

But any solution becoming part of the acquis/ primary law is what all the fuss is about.. it's what Turkey has set as a red line and we appear NOT to have done so (as with everything else!).. otherwise WHY would there be a UN document (which Loukaides publicised) that discusses the need to find mechanisms for protecting the solution from falling apart through legal action in european courts by individuals? (clearly implying that this mechanism is for the plan to become primary EU law!)