Cyprus-Forum.com

[humanist]

of course the RoC will block any attempts of recognition of any part of its occupied territory by Turkey and renegate TC's who violate the rights of its 200,000 refugees.

[Viewpoint]

of course the RoC will block any attempts of recognition of any part of its occupied territory by Turkey and renegate TC's who violate the rights of its 200,000 refugees.

recognition could be coupled with return of refugee rights to return or compensation.

[Malapapa]

So was it adopted by the Council by qualified majority, Erol?

No and as far as I know it did not even reach the stage of being put to the council for adoption. The politics of what actualy happened to this EU comission proposal is long complicated and disputed.

Could it have something to do with legal advice?

What is a fact is that the EU comission made this proposal for direct trade with the north as part of its proposals for ending the isolation of the TC community and this aspect of their proposals was blocked one way or another. THis is part and parcel of the politics within the EU.

But nothing to do with EU principles and international law?

The council made its policy comittment to the TC community, and anyone can see this in back and white.

The comission made its proposals to meet this policy and they included proposlas for direct trade and these can be seen by anyone. This aspect of these proposals made by the EU comission were blocked.

It would be good to get to the bottom of this, as clearly, with majority voting, the block wasn't all down to an RoC veto.

For TC it is easy to see this as comitments and promises were made by the EU and they have failed to deliver on them, because of the RoC blocking such. How true that actualy is is debatable but it does not take much imagination to understand why many TC feel this is the case none the less.

It would be worth clearing this up as I for one get infuriated when I here the likes of Erdogan, a supposed advocate of EU membership for Turkey, moan about "EU promises broken", playing to a Turkish/TC gallery, a gallery which pays scant attention to the intricacies of EU protocol; a gallery which is more docile if the debacle of 2004 is blamed on those rotten free Cypriots, rather than on fundamental strategic errors by Turkey.

I mean, it's almost as though Turkey didn't want a solution.

[erolz3]

Could it have something to do with legal advice?

The EU comission is neither stupid, unware of EU law and nor does it not have access to legal advice in regards to EU law. It believed that it's proposal was compatible with EU law or it would not have presented them.

But nothing to do with EU principles and international law?

See above.

It would be good to get to the bottom of this, as clearly, with majority voting, the block wasn't all down to an RoC veto.

My understanding is that it was blocked BEFORE being put to qualifed majority voting of the Council. The EU is a mass of political horsetrading, threats bluffs and cross issue coalitions.

I think it is reasonable to consider that the blocking of the comission proposal was more political than legal.

It would be worth clearing this up as I for one get infuriated when I here the likes of Erdogan, a supposed advocate of EU membership for Turkey, moan about "EU promises broken", playing to a Turkish/TC gallery, a gallery which pays scant attention to the intricacies of EU protocol; a gallery which is more docile if the debacle of 2004 is blamed on those rotten free Cypriots, rather than on fundamental strategic errors by Turkey.

I mean, it's almost as though Turkey didn't want a solution.

Well one could also look at those GC posters that are still, 6 years after the Council set its policy and the commision its proposals and despite the fact that all this clear evidence of what was said by whom and when has been presnted here many times are suggesting things like

You’re thinking of Gunter Verheugen’s foolish and unauthorized promises he was making to gain popularity,

and question if they want a solution.

The bottom line is the EU made a comittment to end the isolation of the TC community - 6 years ago. Neither the EU or the comission have said they consider that this policy objective has been met. Certainly for most TC they do not feel that this policy objective has been met, nor do they trust that EU can or will meet it given the ability of the RoC to block any such moves. Many TC feel that comitments were given by the EU and that they have failed to meet live up to these. You may feel this is just 'moaning' but that is not how many TC feel. They have lost and continue to loose faith in the EU.

We as TC do not think the EU has let us down and failed to live up to the commitments it made to us formaly and informaly before and after the Annan Plan vote simply because the likes of 'Erdogan tells this is the case'. We believe it because of what the EU said, formally and informaly and because of what it has actually done and failed to do.

[Malapapa]

The EU comission is neither stupid, unware of EU law and nor does it not have access to legal advice in regards to EU law. It believed that it's proposal was compatible with EU law or it would not have presented them.

Sorry, I'm not at all convinced the legal implications were properly thought through when the proposals were made, initially. If you feel let down it's because the EU commission cocked up.

My understanding is that it was blocked BEFORE being put to qualifed majority voting of the Council. The EU is a mass of political horsetrading, threats bluffs and cross issue coalitions.

I think it is reasonable to consider that the blocking of the comission proposal was more political than legal.

I'm not convinced. Perhaps it was both. Certainly legal implications played an important part.

The bottom line is the EU made a comittment to end the isolation of the TC community - 6 years ago. Neither the EU or the comission have said they consider that this policy objective has been met. Certainly for most TC they do not feel that this policy objective has been met, nor do they trust that EU can or will meet it given the ability of the RoC to block any such moves. Many TC feel that comitments were given by the EU and that they have failed to meet live up to these. You may feel this is just 'moaning' but that is not how many TC feel. They have lost and continue to loose faith in the EU.

The EU is, without doubt, as far as direct trade with the "TRNC" is concerned, hamstrung by international law, which the RoC is, without doubt, constantly banging on about.

The TCs may feel hard done by, they may have lost faith in and feel let down by the EU, but sorry, the law's the law.

[erolz3]

Sorry, I'm not at all convinced the legal implications were properly thought through when the proposals were made, initially.

That is possible but not very likely in reality the commission is (wikipedia)

The European Commission acts as the EU's executive arm and is responsible for initiating legislation and the day-to-day running of the EU. It is intended to act solely in the interest of the EU as a whole, as opposed to the Council which consists of leaders of member states who reflect national interests.

Its their job to create EU legislation. I think they understand the legal implications of their proposals.

If you feel let down it's because the EU commission cocked up.

Or is it the case that the Commision act solely in the interest of the EU as a whole, as opposed to the Council which consists of leaders of member states who reflect national interests.

So the comission considered its direct trade proposals as legal and in the best interestes of the EU as a whole, but elements in the council blocked these proposals as a reflection of national interest ?

If this is the case then can we not feel let down at the EU in general for so far allowing national interests to block what is in our interest and that of the EU as a whole ?

I'm not convinced. Perhaps it was both. Certainly legal implications played an important part.

All sorts of arguments and threats have been and are being used in the battle between the Comission representing EU interests as a whole and national interests of EU members. legal arguments are part of this battle, including the legality of if such a proposal can be implemented un qualifed mahjority voting or if it requires seperate consent of all indivdual EU members.

The TCs may feel hard done by, they may have lost faith in and feel let down by the EU, but sorry, the law's the law.

For me this is in many ways a 'litmus test' as to if the EU can be part of the solution of it it just represents a new aspect of the existing problem. That is can the EU actually implement wider EU objectives as a whole in Cyprus or will it always be hamstrung and limited by national interest of individual members.

If the EU can in the end convince the RoC to do something that it does not want to do in terms of its pure narrow national interest for the wider objectives of the EU as a whole, then I think this shows that the EU can be part of the soloution. If on the other hand the EU can not bring any influence on the RoC over such issues, becasue national interest always looses out to wider EU interest in such cases then it indicates that the EU is just a new aspect to the same old problem.

Thats a TC perspective.

[Get Real!]

So was it adopted by the Council by qualified majority, Erol?

No and as far as I know it did not even reach the stage of being put to the council for adoption. The politics of what actualy happened to this EU comission proposal is long complicated and disputed.

Then you haven’t got a case.

Apart from the Green Line Regulation, the EU did NOT commit itself with its signature towards any other form of trading for the “TRNC” because all other proposals/suggestions were blocked/dismissed/frowned upon, by the RoC and I’m sure you already knew this!

[Get Real!]

The bottom line is the EU made a comittment to end the isolation of the TC community - 6 years ago. Neither the EU or the comission have said they consider that this policy objective has been met.

The Green Line Regulation is the response to that EU commitment even though it’s not necessarily the response the Turkish Cypriots would’ve liked but that of course is a secondary issue.

[Viewpoint]

Time will prove us right, thats why Turkey will not open her ports unless the EU make good on their promise.

[Malapapa]

The European Commission acts as the EU's executive arm and is responsible for initiating legislation and the day-to-day running of the EU. It is intended to act solely in the interest of the EU as a whole, as opposed to the Council which consists of leaders of member states who reflect national interests.

Its their job to create EU legislation. I think they understand the legal implications of their proposals.

EU Commissioners are politicians not lawyers and certainly not specialists in international law. Even Tony Blair, who was a lawyer had to take advice re: the Iraq war from the UK's attorney general.

Or is it the case that the Commision act solely in the interest of the EU as a whole, as opposed to the Council which consists of leaders of member states who reflect national interests.

So the comission considered its direct trade proposals as legal and in the best interestes of the EU as a whole, but elements in the council blocked these proposals as a reflection of national interest ?

The commission may have considered the direct trade proposals as legal in the same way Tony Blair considered the Iraq war was legal. Others took a different view.

The TCs may feel hard done by, they may have lost faith in and feel let down by the EU, but sorry, the law's the law.

For me this is in many ways a 'litmus test' as to if the EU can be part of the solution of it it just represents a new aspect of the existing problem. That is can the EU actually implement wider EU objectives as a whole in Cyprus or will it always be hamstrung and limited by national interest of individual members.

If the EU can in the end convince the RoC to do something that it does not want to do in terms of its pure narrow national interest for the wider objectives of the EU as a whole, then I think this shows that the EU can be part of the soloution. If on the other hand the EU can not bring any influence on the RoC over such issues, becasue national interest always looses out to wider EU interest in such cases then it indicates that the EU is just a new aspect to the same old problem.

Thats a TC perspective.

I don't agree with bypassing international law for perceived political expediency. It causes all kinds of problems.