Cyprus-Forum.com

[boomerang]

We always have the internationally accepted 1960 agreements to fall back on.

Really.?

I thought those agreement are no longer valid due to the new agreement to have a BBF. One of the blunders by Denktash I may add, but then again, he thought the Cyprus Problem was solved in 1974. In any case, the RoC will just ignore it and continue as they are doing today without the TCs involved in the government. The world doesn't seem to mind with the present arrangement at all, are they.??..

But if you were to use the 1960 agreements, then be prepared for the TCs to be sent to jail or exile (their choice) for colluding with the enemy in trying to destroy the Republic of Cyprus and secede from it. Most countries that is punishable by firing squad. Lucky for us TCs, the RoC is in the EU and such punishment is not allowed.

Think of it as an insurance policy, i believe they still have ourr seats reserved in parliament and have to accept us if we decide to claim our rights under the 1960 agreements which includes veto rights and vice president post.

Only if the GCs agree to change the BBF agreements made by Denktash and Makarios back to the 1960 agreements. I don't think they will and you can't force them. The day Denktash agreed of the terms of BBF, is when the TCs lost what they had in the 1960 agreements. To go to something else different from the agreed BBF, it will not look anything like the 1960 agreements. The problem with the TCs is, they have not been paying their insurance premiums for the last 48 years, therefore, their 1960 agreement insurance has already run out. The seats may be empty and waiting, but it does not mean that the TCs will get what they left behind. It will need to be re-negotiated to include Democracy, Human Rights, International Law and the EU Principles and in a Unitary state, since BBF will no longer apply.

So in effect the GCs cannot back out of a BBF with out the agreement of the TCs? can you supply independent evidence of this claim?

don't you understand a return to 1960 meaning abolition of the KFC, reversing the invasion, settlers repatriated back to turkey. while people going back to their homes?

tcs moving moving to the south will have to embrace a unitary state, one man one vote...no special priveledges...

[Piratis]

TCs can return to RoC whenever they decide to as long as the occupation of Cyprus by Turkish troops ends and RoC is allowed to exercise its sovereignty rights over the whole island.

But in that case almost all Settlers will have to return to Turkey, because they are not Cypriot citizens.

Since more and more Settlers are allowed to vote in the occupied areas, at some point soon the choices of the TC side will not be determined by TCs anymore, but by the Settlers. So even if we assume that TCs would dare to go against the wishes of Turkey, this is something that will not even be an option to them, since the Settlers will obviously not vote for something that will require from them to leave from Cyprus.

[humanist]

DTA

Humanist with point 2, what about the gcs living in tc homes should they not get jobs?

This point does not deserve a response. When you grow up you may ask me for a reason.

[DTA]

DTA

Humanist with point 2, what about the gcs living in tc homes should they not get jobs?

This point does not deserve a response. When you grow up you may ask me for a reason.

How very Patronising of you. You, in your distopian image of what will happen to the tcs who go north looking for work discriminate on them because of their ethnicity and then you have cheek to tell me to grow up? I am DONE with YOU. Your charade as A humanist is over you are nothing more than a fascist dressed as priest, a would be preditor that has decided to try to use cunning because force is no longer available. And I'm done with you.

[humanist]

DTA

How very Patronising of you. You, in your distopian image of what will happen to the tcs who go north looking for work discriminate on them because of their ethnicity and then you have cheek to tell me to grow up? I am DONE with YOU. Your charade as A humanist is over you are nothing more than a fascist dressed as priest, a would be preditor that has decided to try to use cunning because force is no longer available. And I'm done with you.

Firstly your are projecting all of your feelings on to me. That's your shit and you need to deal with it.

Secondly, I don't think that those TC's who occupy GC refugee homes should be rewarded. They are denying someone else their human rights to their lawful properties.

Thirdly, I have in the past five years on the forum advocated that if a TC wants to return to their property to live in the RoC and live in their home any GC refugee needs to be relocated by the RoC. I think it is the right thing to do , even though that GC has made a home of it for the past 35 years.

I am not sure why you even feel that the RoC in the current situation should even offer financial support to any TC. May I remind you that you hate us with vengence. We want unification because we want our lands back and free to live wherever , choose too in our Country.

I have my own beliefs on the Cyprob, That is I d not agree that a minority group invite a huge nation to invade kill pillage and violate and for this I support the sanctions.

I believe that there needs to be a solution that is fair equal and democratic. I believe that the RoC honouring pensions, provides free health and employment to TC's is a good fair and democratic example of true Cyriotship.

Therefore your response is a mere reflection of who you are.

[CBBB]

We always have the internationally accepted 1960 agreements to fall back on.

Really.?

I thought those agreement are no longer valid due to the new agreement to have a BBF. One of the blunders by Denktash I may add, but then again, he thought the Cyprus Problem was solved in 1974. In any case, the RoC will just ignore it and continue as they are doing today without the TCs involved in the government. The world doesn't seem to mind with the present arrangement at all, are they.??..

But if you were to use the 1960 agreements, then be prepared for the TCs to be sent to jail or exile (their choice) for colluding with the enemy in trying to destroy the Republic of Cyprus and secede from it. Most countries that is punishable by firing squad. Lucky for us TCs, the RoC is in the EU and such punishment is not allowed.

Think of it as an insurance policy, i believe they still have ourr seats reserved in parliament and have to accept us if we decide to claim our rights under the 1960 agreements which includes veto rights and vice president post.

Only if the GCs agree to change the BBF agreements made by Denktash and Makarios back to the 1960 agreements. I don't think they will and you can't force them. The day Denktash agreed of the terms of BBF, is when the TCs lost what they had in the 1960 agreements. To go to something else different from the agreed BBF, it will not look anything like the 1960 agreements. The problem with the TCs is, they have not been paying their insurance premiums for the last 48 years, therefore, their 1960 agreement insurance has already run out. The seats may be empty and waiting, but it does not mean that the TCs will get what they left behind. It will need to be re-negotiated to include Democracy, Human Rights, International Law and the EU Principles and in a Unitary state, since BBF will no longer apply.

So in effect the GCs cannot back out of a BBF with out the agreement of the TCs? can you supply independent evidence of this claim?

don't you understand a return to 1960 meaning abolition of the KFC, reversing the invasion, settlers repatriated back to turkey. while people going back to their homes?

tcs moving moving to the south will have to embrace a unitary state, one man one vote...no special priveledges...

What has fried chicken got to do with it?

[Jerry]

TCs can return to RoC whenever they decide to as long as the occupation of Cyprus by Turkish troops ends and RoC is allowed to exercise its sovereignty rights over the whole island.
quote]

Surely there is nothing to stop TCs moving south apart from their individual financial position. Thousands already commute to the ROC on a daily basis; TCs on, say, UK pensions could afford to live there as could as could successful entrepreneurs. Within the EU there is nothing the ROC could (or should) do to stop the move, if a Palestinian refugee can live in the south why not a TC?

Of course Turkish troops should leave the island but even if they go they will have left a Turkish footprint that will difficult, according to ECHR ruling, to remove. If we are to invoke international law then yes, the TA should leave but most settlers and carpetbaggers would be entitled to stay even though their arrival in the north was illegal. Should the ROC insist that, as a condition of an agreement, settlers should leave I'm sure Turkey would point to the ECHR ruling. So, we are left with two scenarios - the status quo (Turkey's preferred option) or a Cyprus with a huge number of legal mainlanders who one day could outnumber GCs.

[B25]

TCs can return to RoC whenever they decide to as long as the occupation of Cyprus by Turkish troops ends and RoC is allowed to exercise its sovereignty rights over the whole island.
quote]

Surely there is nothing to stop TCs moving south apart from their individual financial position. Thousands already commute to the ROC on a daily basis; TCs on, say, UK pensions could afford to live there as could as could successful entrepreneurs. Within the EU there is nothing the ROC could (or should) do to stop the move, if a Palestinian refugee can live in the south why not a TC?

Of course Turkish troops should leave the island but even if they go they will have left a Turkish footprint that will difficult, according to ECHR ruling, to remove. If we are to invoke international law then yes, the TA should leave but most settlers and carpetbaggers would be entitled to stay even though their arrival in the north was illegal. Should the ROC insist that, as a condition of an agreement, settlers should leave I'm sure Turkey would point to the ECHR ruling. So, we are left with two scenarios - the status quo (Turkey's preferred option) or a Cyprus with a huge number of legal mainlanders who one day could outnumber GCs.

Jerry, I disagree with you. You cannot legalise a war crime, just appease someone like Turkey.

people get deported all the time in the west, however many years they have been there, so these people can here illegally and they HAVE TO GO. The carpetbaggers will lose their properties due to it being reclaimed by it's rightful owners.

ECHR cuts both ways, so no we will not accept large numbers of illegal settlers just to please anyone. We have to look at the consequesnce of our actions. Any signatures have to be given with caution and not to create bigger problems for us later (ie 1960 agreements), so which do you think is better, status quo where we know whats what and an option on the north sometime later, or sign away and suffer later??? I know which I would choose, and the TCs can all get stuffed and go live in Turkey if they want to.

[Jerry]

TCs can return to RoC whenever they decide to as long as the occupation of Cyprus by Turkish troops ends and RoC is allowed to exercise its sovereignty rights over the whole island.
quote]

Surely there is nothing to stop TCs moving south apart from their individual financial position. Thousands already commute to the ROC on a daily basis; TCs on, say, UK pensions could afford to live there as could as could successful entrepreneurs. Within the EU there is nothing the ROC could (or should) do to stop the move, if a Palestinian refugee can live in the south why not a TC?

Of course Turkish troops should leave the island but even if they go they will have left a Turkish footprint that will difficult, according to ECHR ruling, to remove. If we are to invoke international law then yes, the TA should leave but most settlers and carpetbaggers would be entitled to stay even though their arrival in the north was illegal. Should the ROC insist that, as a condition of an agreement, settlers should leave I'm sure Turkey would point to the ECHR ruling. So, we are left with two scenarios - the status quo (Turkey's preferred option) or a Cyprus with a huge number of legal mainlanders who one day could outnumber GCs.

Jerry, I disagree with you. You cannot legalise a war crime, just appease someone like Turkey.

people get deported all the time in the west, however many years they have been there, so these people can here illegally and they HAVE TO GO. The carpetbaggers will lose their properties due to it being reclaimed by it's rightful owners.

ECHR cuts both ways, so no we will not accept large numbers of illegal settlers just to please anyone. We have to look at the consequesnce of our actions. Any signatures have to be given with caution and not to create bigger problems for us later (ie 1960 agreements), so which do you think is better, status quo where we know whats what and an option on the north sometime later, or sign away and suffer later??? I know which I would choose, and the TCs can all get stuffed and go live in Turkey if they want to.

Unfortunately B25, the ECHR does in fact legalise a war crime. Once a settler and his family have established a home in the north they have, according to the ECHR, established certain rights. We can protest about the unfairness of such a situation all we like but if they don't want to leave then, ironically, probably only the TA could force them out.

Many of the illegal immigrants in the UK are not in fact made to leave, a lot are granted residency on compassionate grounds.

The longer the Cyprus problem continues the less likely it will be resolved in our favour.

[Piratis]

The settlers don't have any such rights in Cyprus.
Turkey and not Cyprus is responsible for the Turkish citizens.

Cyprus has every right to deport them, like they can do with any other foreigner.

The how the settlers will move out is also Turkey's problem (assuming that the Cyprus Problem is solved peacefully). The same way they will be responsible to move their troops out they will also be responsible to move their settlers. Obviously we will not accept any solution that does not include this.