Cyprus-Forum.com

[B25]

There is an arbitration institution already in place.

The International Court of Justice (French: Cour internationale de justice; commonly referred to as the World Court or ICJ) is the primary judicial organ of the United Nations. It is based in the Peace Palace in The Hague, Netherlands. Its main functions are to settle legal disputes submitted to it by states and to give advisory opinions on legal questions submitted to it by duly authorized international organs, agencies, and the UN General Assembly

The court shall appoint an international team of unbiased experts in all fields of nation building & administrating. The team shall not include members from Cyprus, Turkey, Greece or England. Experts in constitution, economy, security, taxation, defence, infrastructure, law & order, commerce etc will examine both current and past facts & figures. The team will present a preliminary draft to the court for review & amendments. The court shall review and rule the terms & conditions of the decision.

The final court decision is not subject to referendum but binding to both parties. No appeals shall be allowed.

If both sides really want a solution, a bold step is required, binding arbitration. It is well understood, the two sides are unable or unwilling to compromise. Therefor, the arbitrator shall step in and resolve the problem with legality and fairness.

George stamata tes malakies!

There is already an arbitrator in place, it is called the UN.

It has already made it decision in the form of UN resolutions. Turkey should just follow them and all will be well.

Are you just trying to complicate things even more? Whats to say Turkey will abide by any other decision by anyone else?

What is needed is a multinational force to go and kick her out, actions not BS words over nd over again.

Thats what we need.

Thanks for your input... and swearing (not necessary).

The UN issued several resolutions but as we all know, the UN is powerless to enforce them. Bear in mind this:

UN resolutions are not binding arbitration.

Hardliners like you and others (me included), from both sides, are the only reason why a solution was not reached. Maintaining the same stance won't get us anywhere. Since GCs - TCs politicians are incapable to finish this business, they should step aside and let the experts do their job.

Like any other dispute, dispute resolution mechanisms do exist. Let's have the guts to utilize them.

This is what's needed. Reality assessment and resolve. Enough with politics.

The final court decision is not subject to referendum

I was wondering when you would get round to that! You want to deprive the people of Cyprus with the only means they have left to protect themselves from imposed solutions. NO SALE.
The term Binding says it all. If we agree to the binding arbitration agreement, , then we bind ourselves to the court decision. If we don't, we don't. It's a choice, or a risk we take.

The UN issued several resolutions but as we all know, the UN is powerless to enforce them.

And the ICJ has the power to enforce them? Are you serious?
The binding agreement shall be signed by all parties(RoC, "TRNC", Turkey, Greece and England). The court shall rule the decision which is to include specific dates for implementation. Severe penalties to apply for non compliance. Penalties to include land, sea & air embargoes, freezing of funds, loss of UN member status and other measures deemed by the court. Furthermore, political leaders of non compliance parties, shall be subpoenaed for contempt of court. Warrants for their arrest shall be issued worldwide. They must appear in front of the judge in due diligence and show cause.

Hardliners like you and others (me included), from both sides, are the only reason why a solution was not reached

How dare you equate the victims with the perpetrators of a great wrongdoing? Or, rather, absolve the perpetrators of any responsibility (after all, according to you, this is just a "dispute") ?
We cannot "Undo" what's done. We are looking for a solution. Hardliners exist on both sides, no need to mention names. These hardliners don't want a solution but rather a continuation of Cyprob, since their demands are impossible to meet. Compromise VS hardlining don't mix, sorry.

[George stamata tes malakies!

My sentiments entirely. George, stamata tes malakies, noone is buying the Turkish propaganda you are trying to purvey.

The arbitrator shall examine the Cyprob facts & figures from a neutral perspective. This is the way I am examining the situation, with a neutral attitude. It is your right to believe neutrality is equal to Turkish propaganda but I can assure you I do not.

P.S. I apologize for the delay in responding to your comments, family obligations come first, I'm afraid.

Georgios100

You still haven't told us how the decision will be enforced if Turkey does not comply. "ontempt of court" eh? I bet the powers that be in Ankara will be trembling in their boots. So WHO will enforce it? If you have no real answer to this question, then the whole idea of arbitration collapses like a deck of cards.

It is also your right to bellieve that promoting the Turkish agenda is "neutrality", but believe me, it is not. Silence, or "neutrality" in the face of a crime is tantamount to tolerance of the crime itself especially if in the name of neutrality you are proposing a process that perpetuates the crime.

It is about time that this "myth" that hardliners on both sides are the only reason we have not had a solution is shown up for what it is: a myth to blame the cypriots for the wrongs that are being done to them, both GCs and TCs. Yes, there is EVERY need to name names, George. Either put up or shut up.

Who told you we cannot "undo" what has been done? Nobody expects you to put the clock back, but a wrong can be righted; justice can be served; human rights can be restored; illegal and inhumane regimes can be disbanded.


If you want to be taken seriously in this forum, you have to stop evading the question. So tell us, (a) do you know for sure that the ICJ has the power to enforce its decision (b) who exactly will enforce the decision, even the "contempt of court" scenario? (c) what guarantee will the weakest party (Cyprus) have that the other party will have no option but to comply with the decision? (d) even if due to "contempt of court" some leader goes to prison (yeah, right!) what good will that do to the Cypriots, both TCs and GCs if their rights are still not restored? (e) why do you keep bringing Greece and "England" (I think you mean the UK) into the equation? The problem is between Cyprus and Turkey, is it not?

Do try and get real answers to these questions, will you? (and I mean real answers, not regurgitating received wisdom).

Bravo reh Hatter.

George he does have a point mate. Its all well and good throwing scenarios into the pot, but are they workable?? The 1960 constitution was such a scenario, look where that got us.

[georgios100]

Using a fresh page, the old one is getting cluttered.

You wrote:
f you want to be taken seriously in this forum, you have to stop evading the question. So tell us, (a) do you know for sure that the ICJ has the power to enforce its decision (b) who exactly will enforce the decision, even the "contempt of court" scenario? (c) what guarantee will the weakest party (Cyprus) have that the other party will have no option but to comply with the decision? (d) even if due to "contempt of court" some leader goes to prison (yeah, right!) what good will that do to the Cypriots, both TCs and GCs if their rights are still not restored? (e) why do you keep bringing Greece and "England" (I think you mean the UK) into the equation? The problem is between Cyprus and Turkey, is it not?

Do try and get real answers to these questions, will you? (and I mean real answers, not regurgitating received wisdom).


Bravo reh Hatter.

George he does have a point mate. Its all well and good throwing scenarios into the pot, but are they workable?? The 1960 constitution was such a scenario, look where that got us.

Firstly, Greece, Turkey and UK are into this binding arbitration process, as guarantor powers but also as responsible for the mess that we are in. All these countries, including the 2 communities in Cyprus are to agree to binding arbitration prior to the actual initiation of the process. By doing that, all parties promise to accept & implement the final verdict of the court. Failure to comply would be unthinkable, unlawful, shameful and embarrassing to say the least.

Really, I don't see any reason why Turkey or Greece or UK want to risk non compliance & face penalties c/w humiliation (contempt of court). You got to be able to read between the lines here.

Let's examine why compliance is preferred:

1. Turkey is ordered to gradually remove it's troops. Good. Turkey had enough of babysitting the TRNC (millions every year). Saving money is a good thing. Saving face, even better. The argument is simple. Turkey removes her troops, not because the GCs-UN-EU etc force her to do so, but merely complying with the court order. An easy and "legal" way out.

2. UK might be ordered to remove or reduce their presence in Cyprus via SBA's. Good. UK it self stated recently, the SBA's budgetarry demands can not be sustained and shall comply to the court. Why would anyone even imagine UK would risk non compliance? Are you guys serious?

3. Greece is found guilty due to the actions of junta in 1974. These generals were punished to the full extent of the law, therefor compliance is at work as we speak.

The above is only a few examples... many more to examine, later.

I don't see non compliance as an obstacle to this process. Therefor, I don't see problems with enforcing the decision either.

The Cyprob must be addressed at it's birth, going back 60-70 years, before independence was achieved in 1960. The arbitrators know that and shall examine all the facts & figures leading us to this day, today. A fair and balanced avenue, to evaluate the complete picture of the problem, not just segments of it.

Any more questions?

Georgios100

[georgios100]

Using a fresh page, the old one is getting cluttered.

You wrote:
f you want to be taken seriously in this forum, you have to stop evading the question. So tell us, (a) do you know for sure that the ICJ has the power to enforce its decision (b) who exactly will enforce the decision, even the "contempt of court" scenario? (c) what guarantee will the weakest party (Cyprus) have that the other party will have no option but to comply with the decision? (d) even if due to "contempt of court" some leader goes to prison (yeah, right!) what good will that do to the Cypriots, both TCs and GCs if their rights are still not restored? (e) why do you keep bringing Greece and "England" (I think you mean the UK) into the equation? The problem is between Cyprus and Turkey, is it not?

Do try and get real answers to these questions, will you? (and I mean real answers, not regurgitating received wisdom).


Bravo reh Hatter.

George he does have a point mate. Its all well and good throwing scenarios into the pot, but are they workable?? The 1960 constitution was such a scenario, look where that got us.

Firstly, Greece, Turkey and UK are into this binding arbitration process, as guarantor powers but also as responsible for the mess that we are in. All these countries, including the 2 communities in Cyprus are to agree to binding arbitration prior to the actual initiation of the process. By doing that, all parties promise to accept & implement the final verdict of the court. Failure to comply would be unthinkable, unlawful, shameful and embarrassing to say the least.

Really, I don't see any reason why Turkey or Greece or UK want to risk non compliance & face penalties c/w humiliation (contempt of court). You got to be able to read between the lines here.

Let's examine why compliance is preferred:

1. Turkey is ordered to gradually remove it's troops. Good. Turkey had enough of babysitting the TRNC (millions every year). Saving money is a good thing. Saving face, even better. The argument is simple. Turkey removes her troops, not because the GCs-UN-EU etc force her to do so, but merely complying with the court order. An easy and "legal" way out.

2. UK might be ordered to remove or reduce their presence in Cyprus via SBA's. Good. UK it self stated recently, the SBA's budgetarry demands can not be sustained and shall comply to the court. Why would anyone even imagine UK would risk non compliance? Are you guys serious?

3. Greece is found guilty due to the actions of junta in 1974. These generals were punished to the full extent of the law, therefor compliance is at work as we speak.

The above is only a few examples... many more to examine, later.

I don't see non compliance as an obstacle to this process. Therefor, I don't see problems with enforcing the decision either.

The Cyprob must be addressed at it's birth, going back 60-70 years, before independence was achieved in 1960. The arbitrators know that and shall examine all the facts & figures leading us to this day, today. A fair and balanced avenue, to evaluate the complete picture of the problem, not just segments of it.

Any more questions?

Georgios100

Any chance , my dear friends (B25-Hatter), for a response?

[Hatter]

Using a fresh page, the old one is getting cluttered.

You wrote:
f you want to be taken seriously in this forum, you have to stop evading the question. So tell us, (a) do you know for sure that the ICJ has the power to enforce its decision (b) who exactly will enforce the decision, even the "contempt of court" scenario? (c) what guarantee will the weakest party (Cyprus) have that the other party will have no option but to comply with the decision? (d) even if due to "contempt of court" some leader goes to prison (yeah, right!) what good will that do to the Cypriots, both TCs and GCs if their rights are still not restored? (e) why do you keep bringing Greece and "England" (I think you mean the UK) into the equation? The problem is between Cyprus and Turkey, is it not?

Do try and get real answers to these questions, will you? (and I mean real answers, not regurgitating received wisdom).


Bravo reh Hatter.

George he does have a point mate. Its all well and good throwing scenarios into the pot, but are they workable?? The 1960 constitution was such a scenario, look where that got us.

Firstly, Greece, Turkey and UK are into this binding arbitration process, as guarantor powers but also as responsible for the mess that we are in. All these countries, including the 2 communities in Cyprus are to agree to binding arbitration prior to the actual initiation of the process. By doing that, all parties promise to accept & implement the final verdict of the court. Failure to comply would be unthinkable, unlawful, shameful and embarrassing to say the least.

Really, I don't see any reason why Turkey or Greece or UK want to risk non compliance & face penalties c/w humiliation (contempt of court). You got to be able to read between the lines here.

Let's examine why compliance is preferred:

1. Turkey is ordered to gradually remove it's troops. Good. Turkey had enough of babysitting the TRNC (millions every year). Saving money is a good thing. Saving face, even better. The argument is simple. Turkey removes her troops, not because the GCs-UN-EU etc force her to do so, but merely complying with the court order. An easy and "legal" way out.

2. UK might be ordered to remove or reduce their presence in Cyprus via SBA's. Good. UK it self stated recently, the SBA's budgetarry demands can not be sustained and shall comply to the court. Why would anyone even imagine UK would risk non compliance? Are you guys serious?

3. Greece is found guilty due to the actions of junta in 1974. These generals were punished to the full extent of the law, therefor compliance is at work as we speak.

The above is only a few examples... many more to examine, later.

I don't see non compliance as an obstacle to this process. Therefor, I don't see problems with enforcing the decision either.

The Cyprob must be addressed at it's birth, going back 60-70 years, before independence was achieved in 1960. The arbitrators know that and shall examine all the facts & figures leading us to this day, today. A fair and balanced avenue, to evaluate the complete picture of the problem, not just segments of it.

Any more questions?

Georgios100

Because I assume that you want to be taken seriously, I will expect you to reply to my questions earlier in this thread, even if in the name of "uncluttering" many of them are not visible in your post. And there are plenty more questions, "George", but you haven't answered these ones yet:-

You still haven't told us how the decision will be enforced if Turkey does not comply. "ontempt of court" eh? I bet the powers that be in Ankara will be trembling in their boots. So WHO will enforce it? If you have no real answer to this question, then the whole idea of arbitration collapses like a deck of cards.

It is also your right to bellieve that promoting the Turkish agenda is "neutrality", but believe me, it is not. Silence, or "neutrality" in the face of a crime is tantamount to tolerance of the crime itself especially if in the name of neutrality you are proposing a process that perpetuates the crime.

It is about time that this "myth" that hardliners on both sides are the only reason we have not had a solution is shown up for what it is: a myth to blame the cypriots for the wrongs that are being done to them, both GCs and TCs. Yes, there is EVERY need to name names, George. Either put up or shut up.

Who told you we cannot "undo" what has been done? Nobody expects you to put the clock back, but a wrong can be righted; justice can be served; human rights can be restored; illegal and inhumane regimes can be disbanded.


If you want to be taken seriously in this forum, you have to stop evading the question. So tell us, (a) do you know for sure that the ICJ has the power to enforce its decision (b) who exactly will enforce the decision, even the "contempt of court" scenario? (c) what guarantee will the weakest party (Cyprus) have that the other party will have no option but to comply with the decision? (d) even if due to "contempt of court" some leader goes to prison (yeah, right!) what good will that do to the Cypriots, both TCs and GCs if their rights are still not restored? (e) why do you keep bringing Greece and "England" (I think you mean the UK) into the equation? The problem is between Cyprus and Turkey, is it not?

Do try and get real answers to these questions, will you? (and I mean real answers, not regurgitating received wisdom).

In case you missed the main point, here it is again:

You still haven't told us how the decision will be enforced if Turkey does not comply ... and what the penalties would be and who will enforce them.
Instead of answering the main point, you are telling us that non-compliance would be "unthinkable" (because you say so?). Oh yes, we mustn't forget "unlawful" and "embarassing" and "not preferred":roll:
UN GA condemnation of Turkey's occupation of northern cyprus and resolutions calling upon Turkey to withdraw her troops from Cyprus are already a matter of record, (not to mention european courts decisions w.r.t. Turkey's human rights violations) did you notice any compliance? What makes you think there will be so much more sensitivity this time round? (oh, my bleeding heart, those poor sensitive hawks!)

As for the laughable claim that a great benefit of arbitration is that it will give Turkey the excuse she needs to withdraw her troops from Cyprus without loosing face, there have been are plenty such face-saving opportunities that fit the purpose. And please don't tell us to read between the lines. Innuendo does not carry any weight here. I took you up on innuendo earlier on in this thread and you conveniently ignored it. At the risk of repeating myself, either put up or shut up.

[georgios100]

Using a fresh page, the old one is getting cluttered.

You wrote:
f you want to be taken seriously in this forum, you have to stop evading the question. So tell us, (a) do you know for sure that the ICJ has the power to enforce its decision (b) who exactly will enforce the decision, even the "contempt of court" scenario? (c) what guarantee will the weakest party (Cyprus) have that the other party will have no option but to comply with the decision? (d) even if due to "contempt of court" some leader goes to prison (yeah, right!) what good will that do to the Cypriots, both TCs and GCs if their rights are still not restored? (e) why do you keep bringing Greece and "England" (I think you mean the UK) into the equation? The problem is between Cyprus and Turkey, is it not?

Do try and get real answers to these questions, will you? (and I mean real answers, not regurgitating received wisdom).


Bravo reh Hatter.

George he does have a point mate. Its all well and good throwing scenarios into the pot, but are they workable?? The 1960 constitution was such a scenario, look where that got us.

Firstly, Greece, Turkey and UK are into this binding arbitration process, as guarantor powers but also as responsible for the mess that we are in. All these countries, including the 2 communities in Cyprus are to agree to binding arbitration prior to the actual initiation of the process. By doing that, all parties promise to accept & implement the final verdict of the court. Failure to comply would be unthinkable, unlawful, shameful and embarrassing to say the least.

Really, I don't see any reason why Turkey or Greece or UK want to risk non compliance & face penalties c/w humiliation (contempt of court). You got to be able to read between the lines here.

Let's examine why compliance is preferred:

1. Turkey is ordered to gradually remove it's troops. Good. Turkey had enough of babysitting the TRNC (millions every year). Saving money is a good thing. Saving face, even better. The argument is simple. Turkey removes her troops, not because the GCs-UN-EU etc force her to do so, but merely complying with the court order. An easy and "legal" way out.

2. UK might be ordered to remove or reduce their presence in Cyprus via SBA's. Good. UK it self stated recently, the SBA's budgetarry demands can not be sustained and shall comply to the court. Why would anyone even imagine UK would risk non compliance? Are you guys serious?

3. Greece is found guilty due to the actions of junta in 1974. These generals were punished to the full extent of the law, therefor compliance is at work as we speak.

The above is only a few examples... many more to examine, later.

I don't see non compliance as an obstacle to this process. Therefor, I don't see problems with enforcing the decision either.

The Cyprob must be addressed at it's birth, going back 60-70 years, before independence was achieved in 1960. The arbitrators know that and shall examine all the facts & figures leading us to this day, today. A fair and balanced avenue, to evaluate the complete picture of the problem, not just segments of it.

Any more questions?

Georgios100

Because I assume that you want to be taken seriously, I will expect you to reply to my questions earlier in this thread, even if in the name of "uncluttering" many of them are not visible in your post. And there are plenty more questions, "George", but you haven't answered these ones yet:-

You still haven't told us how the decision will be enforced if Turkey does not comply. "ontempt of court" eh? I bet the powers that be in Ankara will be trembling in their boots. So WHO will enforce it? If you have no real answer to this question, then the whole idea of arbitration collapses like a deck of cards.

It is also your right to bellieve that promoting the Turkish agenda is "neutrality", but believe me, it is not. Silence, or "neutrality" in the face of a crime is tantamount to tolerance of the crime itself especially if in the name of neutrality you are proposing a process that perpetuates the crime.

It is about time that this "myth" that hardliners on both sides are the only reason we have not had a solution is shown up for what it is: a myth to blame the cypriots for the wrongs that are being done to them, both GCs and TCs. Yes, there is EVERY need to name names, George. Either put up or shut up.

Who told you we cannot "undo" what has been done? Nobody expects you to put the clock back, but a wrong can be righted; justice can be served; human rights can be restored; illegal and inhumane regimes can be disbanded.


If you want to be taken seriously in this forum, you have to stop evading the question. So tell us, (a) do you know for sure that the ICJ has the power to enforce its decision (b) who exactly will enforce the decision, even the "contempt of court" scenario? (c) what guarantee will the weakest party (Cyprus) have that the other party will have no option but to comply with the decision? (d) even if due to "contempt of court" some leader goes to prison (yeah, right!) what good will that do to the Cypriots, both TCs and GCs if their rights are still not restored? (e) why do you keep bringing Greece and "England" (I think you mean the UK) into the equation? The problem is between Cyprus and Turkey, is it not?

Do try and get real answers to these questions, will you? (and I mean real answers, not regurgitating received wisdom).

In case you missed the main point, here it is again:

You still haven't told us how the decision will be enforced if Turkey does not comply ... and what the penalties would be and who will enforce them.
Instead of answering the main point, you are telling us that non-compliance would be "unthinkable" (because you say so?). Oh yes, we mustn't forget "unlawful" and "embarassing" and "not preferred":roll:
UN GA condemnation of Turkey's occupation of northern cyprus and resolutions calling upon Turkey to withdraw her troops from Cyprus are already a matter of record, (not to mention european courts decisions w.r.t. Turkey's human rights violations) did you notice any compliance? What makes you think there will be so much more sensitivity this time round? (oh, my bleeding heart, those poor sensitive hawks!)

As for the laughable claim that a great benefit of arbitration is that it will give Turkey the excuse she needs to withdraw her troops from Cyprus without loosing face, there have been are plenty such face-saving opportunities that fit the purpose. And please don't tell us to read between the lines. Innuendo does not carry any weight here. I took you up on innuendo earlier on in this thread and you conveniently ignored it. At the risk of repeating myself, either put up or shut up.

Thanks for your kind words. We are merely exchanging ideas & opinions here today, not running for public office or talking on the street for attention. We are not trying to prove who is right or wrong but rather trade knowledge and learn from the experience. Discarding all my thoughts for the sake of argument is a fair thing to do. Displaying hatred, hostility attitude and several other vulgar sentiments is not part of the discussion, at least from my part it's not. When asking to read between the lines is not offensive... offensive is all the swearing using unrepeatable slander pasted all over the pages of CF. I am not referring to you personally but to all Cf members that abuse the hospitality of this forum.

Now to your questions.

1. Turkey can choose to comply or not. History tells us, so far Turkey has not complied with any resolutions against her, you are absolutely right.If Turkey does not comply again, RoC has another "weapon" in the toolbox against Turkey and in our favor. What is wrong with that? I believe Turkey will comply this time if she REALLY wants a solution. Any solution that Turkey agrees upon dictates the removal of the troops anyway. Turkey knows that, so do you. This is the fact I base my argument on. From there on, it's anybody's guess what Turkey will do.

2. The Anan plan was not binding arbitration and yet, the other side voted yes. Turkey was ready to honor the provisions of the plan. Turkey did not refuse to comply. I am wondering why would Turkey refuse to comply to binding arbitration? Does this seem odd to you? What makes you so sure of the non compliance of Turkey?

3. The neutrality issue. I am putting my self into the court's shoes. If I want to examine my option of using binding arbitration (BA), I must think I am the judge. I must predict what a judge would do and if his decision would be in my favor. If I convince my self that the ruling will be favorable, I may decide to entertain the BA option. But the judge will examine the case in a neutral way, so I have to think neutrally too. Now, what does neutrality have to do with propaganda? Beats me... no idea what you mean.

4. Hardliner names. Here is a few. Ntenktas, Tassos, Clerides, Eroglu... the list goes on. As a matter of fact, there are very few that don't belong on the list, from both sides. I consider them hardliners, you may not. I am entitled an opinion, so do you.

5. You wrote Who told you we cannot "undo" what has been done? Nobody expects you to put the clock back, but a wrong can be righted; justice can be served; human rights can be restored; illegal and inhumane regimes can be disbanded. You are right on all of the above. Let's hire the court to rule & rectify all: justice is served.

6. You ask "what guarantee will the weakest party (Cyprus) have that the other party will have no option but to comply with the decision?
The answer is NONE. There can be no guarantees to comply, only penalties if they don't, forcing them to comply. Again, if all the parties involved agree to BA before the proceeding begin, they know what non-compliance means. Therefor, if Turkey has no intentions to comply, well, Turkey will not enter into BA in the first place.

7. You noted even if due to "contempt of court" some leader goes to prison (yeah, right!) what good will that do to the Cypriots, both TCs and GCs if their rights are still not restored?
The answer is NONE. It's like the murderer is in prison for life... will this bring the deceased back? NO. Does imprisonment of the murderer brings closure to the family of the victim, yes, but the victim is still dead...

8. Your last question.
why do you keep bringing Greece and "England" (I think you mean the UK) into the equation? The problem is between Cyprus and Turkey, is it not?
Greece and UK are in this as guarantor powers. The court may rule on possible wrongdoing and act accordingly.

[SKI-preo]

Before taken the unpredictable path of arbitration on the main issue. Cyprus should try arbitration of the British "Sovereign" bases". Lets see how far that gets first.

I also find the idea "binding" arbitration with a get out clause to be open to even more abuse than the current abomination we use.

[georgios100]

Before taken the unpredictable path of arbitration on the main issue. Cyprus should try arbitration of the British "Sovereign" bases". Lets see how far that gets first.

I also find the idea "binding" arbitration with a get out clause to be open to even more abuse than the current abomination we use.

I am always in favor of removing the SBAs from Cyprus, thanks.
The SBA issue is directly connected to Cyprob and should be addressed by the court for a ruling. The EOKA freedom fighters did a great job liberating Cyprus from colonial rule but failed to finish it by allowing remnants of British relics to litter the sovereign state of the RoC. These SBAs will clear off, sooner or later. I prefer sooner than later.

Binding arbitration(BA) with a"get out clause" defeats the purpose. BA could provide "leadership" direction, we lack at the moment. The solution to the problem none of us is willing or unable to tackle.

I must agree, the BA option is risky and unpredictable. BA should be our last ditch effort when all other options have be exhausted. On the positive note, RoC should not be afraid to seek an BA ruling. Afterall, we are the victims of Turkish aggression. A favorable court decision is expected since we are fighting a just cause.

[YFred]

Before taken the unpredictable path of arbitration on the main issue. Cyprus should try arbitration of the British "Sovereign" bases". Lets see how far that gets first.

I also find the idea "binding" arbitration with a get out clause to be open to even more abuse than the current abomination we use.

I am always in favor of removing the SBAs from Cyprus, thanks.
The SBA issue is directly connected to Cyprob and should be addressed by the court for a ruling. The EOKA freedom fighters did a great job liberating Cyprus from colonial rule but failed to finish it by allowing remnants of British relics to litter the sovereign state of the RoC. These SBAs will clear off, sooner or later. I prefer sooner than later.

Binding arbitration(BA) with a"get out clause" defeats the purpose. BA could provide "leadership" direction, we lack at the moment. The solution to the problem none of us is willing or unable to tackle.

I must agree, the BA option is risky and unpredictable. BA should be our last ditch effort when all other options have be exhausted. On the positive note, RoC should not be afraid to seek an BA ruling. Afterall, we are the victims of Turkish aggression. A favorable court decision is expected since we are fighting a just cause.

Really is that what they did?
They did not want to liberate nothing from nobody. First learn the meaning of the word Liberation. Destroying a free country to join it with a foreign power is treason in my book. Your eoka heroes tried it and failed miserably, and effectively split Cyprus into two. I wonder if they are happy with their achievement so far?
Regarding the Bases you will probaply have one back when the oil runs out and not before. Dikelya belongs to efkaf. You will get Agrotur and we'll have Dikelya, thanks.

[georgios100]

Before taken the unpredictable path of arbitration on the main issue. Cyprus should try arbitration of the British "Sovereign" bases". Lets see how far that gets first.

I also find the idea "binding" arbitration with a get out clause to be open to even more abuse than the current abomination we use.

I am always in favor of removing the SBAs from Cyprus, thanks.
The SBA issue is directly connected to Cyprob and should be addressed by the court for a ruling. The EOKA freedom fighters did a great job liberating Cyprus from colonial rule but failed to finish it by allowing remnants of British relics to litter the sovereign state of the RoC. These SBAs will clear off, sooner or later. I prefer sooner than later.

Binding arbitration(BA) with a"get out clause" defeats the purpose. BA could provide "leadership" direction, we lack at the moment. The solution to the problem none of us is willing or unable to tackle.

I must agree, the BA option is risky and unpredictable. BA should be our last ditch effort when all other options have be exhausted. On the positive note, RoC should not be afraid to seek an BA ruling. Afterall, we are the victims of Turkish aggression. A favorable court decision is expected since we are fighting a just cause.

Really is that what they did?
They did not want to liberate nothing from nobody. First learn the meaning of the word Liberation. Destroying a free country to join it with a foreign power is treason in my book. Your eoka heroes tried it and failed miserably, and effectively split Cyprus into two. I wonder if they are happy with their achievement so far?
Regarding the Bases you will probaply have one back when the oil runs out and not before. Dikelya belongs to efkaf. You will get Agrotur and we'll have Dikelya, thanks.

If EOKA didn't act, we would still have curfews every night, remember that YFred? Oh, you was not born back then? sorry... you obviously don't know what a curfew is! Just sit back & enjoy a sovereign RoC or keep on plotting how you can achieve your 2 state dream, as your buddies did back in 1955-60 while EOKA was sacrifising it's heroes, Muchacho!!!

[YFred]

Before taken the unpredictable path of arbitration on the main issue. Cyprus should try arbitration of the British "Sovereign" bases". Lets see how far that gets first.

I also find the idea "binding" arbitration with a get out clause to be open to even more abuse than the current abomination we use.

I am always in favor of removing the SBAs from Cyprus, thanks.
The SBA issue is directly connected to Cyprob and should be addressed by the court for a ruling. The EOKA freedom fighters did a great job liberating Cyprus from colonial rule but failed to finish it by allowing remnants of British relics to litter the sovereign state of the RoC. These SBAs will clear off, sooner or later. I prefer sooner than later.

Binding arbitration(BA) with a"get out clause" defeats the purpose. BA could provide "leadership" direction, we lack at the moment. The solution to the problem none of us is willing or unable to tackle.

I must agree, the BA option is risky and unpredictable. BA should be our last ditch effort when all other options have be exhausted. On the positive note, RoC should not be afraid to seek an BA ruling. Afterall, we are the victims of Turkish aggression. A favorable court decision is expected since we are fighting a just cause.

Really is that what they did?
They did not want to liberate nothing from nobody. First learn the meaning of the word Liberation. Destroying a free country to join it with a foreign power is treason in my book. Your eoka heroes tried it and failed miserably, and effectively split Cyprus into two. I wonder if they are happy with their achievement so far?
Regarding the Bases you will probaply have one back when the oil runs out and not before. Dikelya belongs to efkaf. You will get Agrotur and we'll have Dikelya, thanks.

If EOKA didn't act, we would still have curfews every night, remember that YFred? Oh, you was not born back then? sorry... you obviously don't know what a curfew is! Just sit back & enjoy a sovereign RoC or keep on plotting how you can achieve your 2 state dream, as your buddies did back in 1955-60 while EOKA was sacrifising it's heroes, Muchacho!!!

They were fighting for Liberation? Bloody hell, I could swear all I could hear was Enosis but that was just a myth right?
Ise delya muchos esuni.