Cyprus-Forum.com

[boulio]

tc points:

First, they insists on maintaining the guarantees of Turkey and extending them to both the constituent states. Ankara will be responsible for maintaining the constitutional order of the two constituent states, in addition to "provide guarantees for the independence of the country.
(thats hysterical)


Second, with regard to the troops, they support their stay with a gradual withdrawal, but as according to the Annan plan. Mentioned, namely, the withdrawal of those troops will be under the agreement during a transitional period of 14 calendar years. Under the plan, after 14 years the troops who remain on the islands two parts: 950 Greeks and 650 Turks, under the 1960 Treaty of Alliance. These, always, of course, in conjunction with maintaining and strengthening the Treaty of Guarantee. Otherwise, we will have a value set for the troops.

Third, they argue that the role of UN peacekeepers would not be effective after the agreement so there is no need for them.


basically same points as annan 5,i would have hoped that the turkey and the t/c may have formulated a better plan concerning security and guarantees.i THINK THAT Turkey and the T/C dont realize that cyprus under the EU will not except any guarantees for the new republic.

[Viewpoint]

We didnt agree to you entering the EU so we are not bound by it you are plus your constitution provides us with security clauses without our agreement you cannot erase these rights.

[Viewpoint]

We didnt agree to you entering the EU so we are not bound by it you are plus your constitution provides us with security clauses without our agreement you cannot erase these rights.

[Get Real!]

We didnt agree to you entering the EU so we are not bound by it you are plus your constitution provides us with security clauses without our agreement you cannot erase these rights.

Aren't you sick of posting rubbish from morning to dusk?

[Lit]

We didnt agree to you entering the EU so we are not bound by it you are plus your constitution provides us with security clauses without our agreement you cannot erase these rights.

Aren't you sick of posting rubbish from morning to dusk?

And when exactly are you not on this forum?

[Get Real!]

We didnt agree to you entering the EU so we are not bound by it you are plus your constitution provides us with security clauses without our agreement you cannot erase these rights.

Aren't you sick of posting rubbish from morning to dusk?

And when exactly are you not on this forum?

[Lit]

We didnt agree to you entering the EU so we are not bound by it you are plus your constitution provides us with security clauses without our agreement you cannot erase these rights.

Aren't you sick of posting rubbish from morning to dusk?

And when exactly are you not on this forum?

I dont understand what you are saying...try the Cherikidian language, box head.

[Kikapu]

We didnt agree to you entering the EU so we are not bound by it you are plus your constitution provides us with security clauses without our agreement you cannot erase these rights.

Aren't you just contradicting yourself with the above statement.?

1. We didnt agree to you entering the EU

2. your constitution provides us with security clauses without our agreement you cannot erase these rights.

If No 1. was achieved without the TCs input, why can't No 2.???

I'm just asking.!

[Viewpoint]

We didnt agree to you entering the EU so we are not bound by it you are plus your constitution provides us with security clauses without our agreement you cannot erase these rights.

Aren't you just contradicting yourself with the above statement.?

1. We didnt agree to you entering the EU

2. your constitution provides us with security clauses without our agreement you cannot erase these rights.

If No 1. was achieved without the TCs input, why can't No 2.???

I'm just asking.!

One has both our signatures the other doesnt. Without our say so you cannot unilaterally go into the EU so it only binds the party that has falsely entered and that wants to impose EU security whereas we still go by the 1960 agreements where Turkey is the guarantor.

[paliometoxo]

no you dont, where does it say in the 1960 agreements that there should be two states in cyprus or that turkey has the right to split the island in two? it says turkey had the right to restore order not make two states. you cant hand pick the parts of the 1960 agreement you like then ignore the rest, its either all or none