Cyprus-Forum.com

[Get Real!]

So as ever we desend into the ridiculous.

You’d have to prove “isolation” first...

Why don't you prove to us that there is an embargo and shut the fuck up.

EU policy agreed by all member states including the RoC is

The Council is determined to put an end to the isolation of the Turkish Cypriot community and to facilitate the reunification of Cyprus by encouraging the economic development of theTurkish Cypriot community.

The EU recognises isolation of the TC community, the RoC by agreeing this policy recognises such. The UN also recognises such.

But that was THEN (2004)… what has the RoC done since? Didn’t you wonder yourself why the issue faded into obscurity?

[Malapapa]

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.

I understand why you need to believe that the reason direct trade proposals by the EU comission are down to them being illegal and not down to the politics of the RoC putting national interest before EU common interest and your determination to do so is quite impressive in

The idea that the EU comission , a body who's very role within the EU is to be responsible for initating EU legislation, does not have competent legal experts that assist it when drafting proposals like the direct trade one is quite a feat of self delusion.

If you believe the EU commission, having consulted competent legal experts, still endorsed direct trade with the entity calling itself the "TRNC" then it is you who is deluding himself. A clear legal as well as political argument against can be made, was made and, ultimately, won the day.

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

Well clearly the EU comission, a body of qualified people including legal experts, whose role it is as body includes creating legislation does not agree with you as a private indivdual with unkown expertiese that direct trade bypasses international law.

Myabe they are wrong and you are right about EU and international law, but somehow I doubt that.

Unless the legal advice/opinion that was given is published, we'll never know who is wrong and who is right. If it comforts you to believe that direct trade with the "TRNC", against the express wishes of the recognised legitimate authority on the island, could be achieved legally, then who am I to burst your bubble? Please allow me, in turn, however, to be comforted in the knowledge that international law is on the side of the legitimate government of the Republic of Cyprus. Let's just leave it there.

[Viewpoint]

We can argue this issue back forward until the cows come home the real issue we face is what action each side will take when the current talks collapse producing no result.

[Malapapa]

We can argue this issue back forward until the cows come home the real issue we face is what action each side will take when the current talks collapse producing no result.

You're right, VP. Individuals with the law on their side are already taking action and will continue doing so, regardless of what happens in the talks.

[erolz3]

If you believe the EU commission, having consulted competent legal experts, still endorsed direct trade with the entity calling itself the "TRNC" then it is you who is deluding himself. A clear legal as well as political argument against can be made, was made and, ultimately, one the day.

What the EU comission proposed (endorsed) is there in black and white and I have already given the link to it. It did not propose direct trade with the TRNC but with a body within the north already recognised and defined within the RoC constitution.

If as you say a clear legal block was presented and the EU accepted this, why has it not said so ? Why is it still claiming that the direct trade proposals presented by the comission are under consideration ?

If it comforts you to believe that direct trade with the "TRNC", against the express wishes of the recognised legitimate authority on the island, could be achieved legally, then who am I to burst your bubble?

Given that you so clearly misunderstand the proposals made by the EU comission re direct trade it is then not surprising you come to false assumptions about its legality. It is not a proposal for direct trade with the TRNC at all. Try actually reading the proposal. It is no more a propsal for trade with the TRNC than the aid agreements that HAVE been implemented are aid to the TRNC.

Where you are correct to a large degree is that it would require the 'will' of the RoC to implement such a policy. In theory it could be forced on the RoC via qualifed majority voting but in practice the EU is extermely unlikley to go down that route. Thus you clearly identify that the real issue is one of 'will' - ie its essentialy a political and NOT legal issue.

Please allow me, in turn, however, to be comforted in the knowledge that international law is on the side of the legitimate government of the Republic of Cyprus. Let's just leave it there.

If you want to be comforted by the idea that it is not possible legaly to implement the EU comissions proposals on direct trade and this is why it remains unimplemented to date and that therefore the RoC has not and does not have to spend any political capital to block the proposals because they are 'illegal', that is indeed you choice. All reasonable analysis of actual evidence available suggest otherwise imo.

[Viewpoint]

We can argue this issue back forward until the cows come home the real issue we face is what action each side will take when the current talks collapse producing no result.

You're right, VP. Individuals with the law on their side are already taking action and will continue doing so, regardless of what happens in the talks.

Do they really obtain the result they want? if they do then theres no problem let everyone go to court.

[Malapapa]

What the EU comission proposed (endorsed) is there in black and white and I have already given the link to it. It did not propose direct trade with the TRNC but with a body within the north already recognised and defined within the RoC constitution.

If such a body could guarantee that only Cypriot citizens would benefit from such trade and no direct international trade would take place involving goods and services exploiting land/assets belonging to displaced Cypriot citizens then, like the EU commission, I would endorse.

If as you say a clear legal block was presented and the EU accepted this, why has it not said so ? Why is it still claiming that the direct trade proposals presented by the comission are under consideration ?

It is reasonable for direct trade overseen by a recognised body, endorsed by the authorities in the Republic which guarantees the provisos described above to be considered. The RoC would have a tough time arguing against this.

Given that you so clearly misunderstand the proposals made by the EU comission re direct trade it is then not surprising you come to false assumptions about its legality. It is not a proposal for direct trade with the TRNC at all. Try actually reading the proposal. It is no more a propsal for trade with the TRNC than the aid agreements that HAVE been implemented are aid to the TRNC.

Where you are correct to a large degree is that it would require the 'will' of the RoC to implement such a policy. In theory it could be forced on the RoC via qualifed majority voting but in practice the EU is extermely unlikley to go down that route. Thus you clearly identify that the real issue is one of 'will' - ie its essentialy a political and NOT legal issue.

I think if the TC chamber of commerce (TCCC) could provide the necessary guarantees (as described above) it would be difficult, politically, for the RoC not to show the necessary will. I recommend that the TCCC tries to do this.

If you want to be comforted by the idea that it is not possible legaly to implement the EU comissions proposals on direct trade and this is why it remains unimplemented to date and that therefore the RoC has not and does not have to spend any political capital to block the proposals because they are 'illegal', that is indeed you choice. All reasonable analysis of actual evidence available suggest otherwise imo.

If the TCCC provided the guarantees described above it would be very difficult, politically, for the RoC to object. But I don't think the TCCC can. This being so, no political capital is spent by the RoC, blocking the proposals, imo.

[Malapapa]

We can argue this issue back forward until the cows come home the real issue we face is what action each side will take when the current talks collapse producing no result.

You're right, VP. Individuals with the law on their side are already taking action and will continue doing so, regardless of what happens in the talks.

Do they really obtain the result they want?

Will they obtain the results they want any other way?

if they do then theres no problem let everyone go to court.

You can't stop individuals securing their rights in court. Good luck to all of them. Politicians, negotiatiors, soldiers, the UN, guarantor powers have singularly failed Cypriots citizens for over a generation. Lawyers, courts and judges have had a lot more success.

[Viewpoint]

Your not really answering my questions if the object is to get their property rights back then they are unsucessful.

[Malapapa]

Your not really answering my questions if the object is to get their property rights back then they are unsucessful.

They never lost their property rights. But have you any better ideas for how individuals can get their properties back?