Cyprus-Forum.com

[Pyrpolizer]

Words do have meaning so let leave the technicality side of things to the experts we are dicussing in general what we want see included in a solution getting bogged down in the technicalities will only deter from reaching any sort of agreement. We are all aware that the agreed laws cover the majority of "checks and balances" but my referal is for those checks and balances such as for example quotas on the number of GCs allowed to move north staggnated over a sepeficied number of years or the balances and checks to bring the economy in line with south (not to sure if we want this now).
You accepting such checks and balances is imo in itself a move forward, but would other GCs think the same way?

These are not checks and balances. These are laws of the worst kind that will derail the system from being democratic. I never agreed to such a thing. Every refugee should be allowed to return -setting discrimination laws is NOT the answer. If you are afraid too many GCs would return, you should spend some money to pay a Company of Experts to make a private research/study for you and then use the data to ease your fears. My estimate is that within the first 10 years not even 10% will return. I am sure my estimates don't count for you, so your side should really assign the task of getting reliable figures from scientific research from a company of experts.
The same applies to your other suggestion of introducing laws that will balance the economy of the two states. You cannot do such things. All you can do is just have good relations with the Kypreoi, so that they are convinced to allow the Federal Government to share the budgets for development projects more favourably in the currently occupied areas, and be patient until you catch up. That's all.

Guarantees:If you mean Turkish Guarantees that's a red line for the security of GCs. We have seen how they were interpreted in the past. How would you like Grivas or Sampson to be set as our Guarantor for example. Therefore you have to choose some alternative Guarantees if you really need them.

You can have who ever you want because I am confident that I will not do anythign that will make it necessary for you guarantor to step in, why arent you showing the same confidence or do you have other hidden agendas?

You are still thinking in terms of 2 separate states. There will not be two guarantors for each state separately. That would easily lead to secession of your side, the old dreamt partition thing. If there will be a guarantor then that will be for the whole of the Federation. Given the fact that the GCs don't want that to be Turkey, (like you would never like Sampson to be the Guarantor of the new state) you name me which guarantor you want.That's insulting and humiliating for an EU country to have guarantors, but we will accept it just to please you.

You haven't answered my question what are the additions you want to ensure commitment, force each side to meet its obligations and clearly define the consequences.
I also have another question: What do you think should be the consequences in case Turkey doesn't oblige to the agreement, does not withdraw troops, settlers refuse to leave and your Fed State does nothing about it... I could fill up at least 100 questions. So what do you think should be the consequences for your side???

There has to be a binding agreements showing commitiment to the solution from both sides (eg like the AP), if the agreed measures are reneged on then for example and these are just examples dont fly off in a rage 1.the UN can send in troops, 2. Turkeys EU applicaiton can be scrapped 3.There can be embargoes on Turkey 4.The GCs lose any chance of a unitary state in the future, off the top of my head many more can be found by experts in this field of international agreements.
What do you think the consequences should be for your side if they do not conform to an agreement?

I don't disagree with these.
However they are a utopia. No such things existed even in the Anan Plan. The peoples voting is the only commitment. From there on there is a risk for BOTH sides,actually the biggest risk is for the Kypreoi who will lose the RoC, while for you it will just mean return to today's situation with no loses.
There will surely be consequences for the one who will boom the whole thing, but what these will be, who will apply them etc is not anything the Kibrislis+kyprepoi will decide in advance in their own agreement.
Soon after turkeys "intervention" was proved to actually be an Invasion and ethnic cleansing was brought to the UN the US has implied an embargo on Turkey. It lasted only for 2(?) years!
So while I don't disagree with you, imo they are utopian.

[/quote]

[Pyrpolizer]

Pyro, it is not what? But Whom. To date, there has been no one to stand up to Turkey, not UN, EU, USA, Def not UK, so you see they fear nothing, because there are no serious consequences.
Everything else is just academic.

I already replied to VP that these things are utopian or academic as you said.
UNFORTUNATELY ANY SOLUTION HAS A RISK BOTH SIDES
So what should we do? Scrap a solution that seems good and balanced because we are afraid?
Or just sign it and take the risk?

Do you know the poem about the stupid Kyprea woman "an kamo yio tzai fkalo ton Vasili?"
In short that woman wouldn't want to get pregnant, because if the child (who she would call Vasili) would ever die in an accident that would make her very sad.

[repulsewarrior]

Now we are makng progress after your word games, "checks and balances" are constructed according to the overall solution, additions can be made to ensure commitment, force each side to meet its obligations and clearly define the consequences.

Guarantees appear to be a very bold red line for the TCs, No guarantees consequence would be no solution.

You have to counter propose to win the TCs around to dumping their guarantees because for us the guarantees refers to our security in times of crisis, our life line, how do you expect us to just throw this away without an effective alternative?

Words have meaning. So far we were hearing you talking about checks and balances for which you actually had no clue whatsoever that they are actually included in the system. Additions to ensure commitment, force each side to meet its obligations and clearly define the consequences are not checks and balances are just terms of the agreement. I have no problem to see such terms, although in reality i doubt there will be any clauses describing the consequences.

Guarantees:If you mean Turkish Guarantees that's a red line for the security of GCs. We have seen how they were interpreted in the past. How would you like Grivas or Sampson to be set as our Guarantor for example. Therefore you have to choose some alternative Guarantees if you really need them.

You haven't answered my question what are the additions you want to ensure commitment, force each side to meet its obligations and clearly define the consequences.
I also have another question: What do you think should be the consequences in case Turkey doesn't oblige to the agreement, does not withdraw troops, settlers refuse to leave and your Fed State does nothing about it... I could fill up at least 100 questions. So what do you think should be the consequences for your side???

Pyro, it is not what? But Whom. To date, there has been no one to stand up to Turkey, not UN, EU, USA, Def not UK, so you see they fear nothing, because there are no serious consequences.
Everything else is just academic.

many problems can be resolved in five years, if Freedom and Liberty, like Nation and State, or Person and Individual, can be better defined toward the betterment of a Family of Man, in Cyprus. these are the Problem, beyond Greek and Turk, that need to be the preoccupation of the vanguard who are resolved to solve it.

if we have the courage, as Human Beings, to stand up as Cypriots for Freedom, as Individuals, for Universal Principals, what stops us from a Liberty where within Territorial Jurisdictions, Cypriots can sustain as well, National Assemblies, as Persons of Good Will, (not just "Greeks", and not "Greeks"/ "Turks", and not "Turks"), we may even provide to Turkey a template that suits a modern Turkey's needs for a BBF herself.

...if it must be an "us" against "them", in this belligerance, clearly Cypriots need to free themselves from being seen as nothing less than a Cypriot State. given the present condition, and given that Cypriots have resolved to define Bicommunal, (and now) Bizonal, as a Unitaray State in Federation, i suggest that what is missing is a Greek Constituency, since there is a Republic (Turkey being its equal), and no equal to it (the Turkish Constituency); your comments, please.

[Viewpoint]

Words do have meaning so let leave the technicality side of things to the experts we are dicussing in general what we want see included in a solution getting bogged down in the technicalities will only deter from reaching any sort of agreement. We are all aware that the agreed laws cover the majority of "checks and balances" but my referal is for those checks and balances such as for example quotas on the number of GCs allowed to move north staggnated over a sepeficied number of years or the balances and checks to bring the economy in line with south (not to sure if we want this now).
You accepting such checks and balances is imo in itself a move forward, but would other GCs think the same way?

These are not checks and balances. These are laws of the worst kind that will derail the system from being democratic. I never agreed to such a thing. Every refugee should be allowed to return -setting discrimination laws is NOT the answer. If you are afraid too many GCs would return, you should spend some money to pay a Company of Experts to make a private research/study for you and then use the data to ease your fears. My estimate is that within the first 10 years not even 10% will return. I am sure my estimates don't count for you, so your side should really assign the task of getting reliable figures from scientific research from a company of experts.
The same applies to your other suggestion of introducing laws that will balance the economy of the two states. You cannot do such things. All you can do is just have good relations with the Kypreoi, so that they are convinced to allow the Federal Government to share the budgets for development projects more favourably in the currently occupied areas, and be patient until you catch up. That's all.

Guarantees:If you mean Turkish Guarantees that's a red line for the security of GCs. We have seen how they were interpreted in the past. How would you like Grivas or Sampson to be set as our Guarantor for example. Therefore you have to choose some alternative Guarantees if you really need them.

You can have who ever you want because I am confident that I will not do anythign that will make it necessary for you guarantor to step in, why arent you showing the same confidence or do you have other hidden agendas?

You are still thinking in terms of 2 separate states. There will not be two guarantors for each state separately. That would easily lead to secession of your side, the old dreamt partition thing. If there will be a guarantor then that will be for the whole of the Federation. Given the fact that the GCs don't want that to be Turkey, (like you would never like Sampson to be the Guarantor of the new state) you name me which guarantor you want.That's insulting and humiliating for an EU country to have guarantors, but we will accept it just to please you.

You haven't answered my question what are the additions you want to ensure commitment, force each side to meet its obligations and clearly define the consequences.
I also have another question: What do you think should be the consequences in case Turkey doesn't oblige to the agreement, does not withdraw troops, settlers refuse to leave and your Fed State does nothing about it... I could fill up at least 100 questions. So what do you think should be the consequences for your side???

There has to be a binding agreements showing commitiment to the solution from both sides (eg like the AP), if the agreed measures are reneged on then for example and these are just examples dont fly off in a rage 1.the UN can send in troops, 2. Turkeys EU applicaiton can be scrapped 3.There can be embargoes on Turkey 4.The GCs lose any chance of a unitary state in the future, off the top of my head many more can be found by experts in this field of international agreements.
What do you think the consequences should be for your side if they do not conform to an agreement?

I don't disagree with these.
However they are a utopia. No such things existed even in the Anan Plan. The peoples voting is the only commitment. From there on there is a risk for BOTH sides,actually the biggest risk is for the Kypreoi who will lose the RoC, while for you it will just mean return to today's situation with no loses.
There will surely be consequences for the one who will boom the whole thing, but what these will be, who will apply them etc is not anything the Kibrislis+kyprepoi will decide in advance in their own agreement.
Soon after turkeys "intervention" was proved to actually be an Invasion and ethnic cleansing was brought to the UN the US has implied an embargo on Turkey. It lasted only for 2(?) years!
So while I don't disagree with you, imo they are utopian.

[/quote]

So to try and sum things up you are not willing to accept what i call "checks and balances" even for transition periods as was the case in the AP, you want to remove our guarantees and you think that embargoes and EU rejection proposals are Utopian and will not work yet you have no proposals of your own, you put nothing forward. This clearly shows why we will never find a solution in our life times, that chasm is just to wide.

[Pyrpolizer]

So to try and sum things up you are not willing to accept what i call "checks and balances" even for transition periods as was the case in the AP, you want to remove our guarantees and you think that embargoes and EU rejection proposals are Utopian and will not work yet you have no proposals of your own, you put nothing forward. This clearly shows why we will never find a solution in our life times, that chasm is just to wide.

You are not summarizing well. What you call checks and balances are actually undemocratic laws of the worst kind, that are not acceptable, not for a transition period not even for a minute.
Despite the fact that any guarantees are a disgrace and humiliation to any EU country, I gave you the option to chose any guarantee you like as long as my life is not in danger. Your Turkish GUARANTEES are not acceptable, because they put my life in danger.
I said I have no objection writting any punishment terms you like, although in my opinion is they will be a utopia. I am allowed to have my own opinion while you can do as you please, amn't I?

[Kikapu]

We can start with a few laws at federal level;

Federal Laws
The documents below were finalised by a technical committee on laws formed by the two sides and chaired by the United Nations. The UN, with the assistance of the Parties, is conducting quality assurance checks on all laws. The corrected version authenticated by the United Nations will be the final authoritative text, and will be posted on the website shortly.


ANNEX III: FEDERAL LAWS

The attachments to this Annex shall be federal legislation upon entry into force of the Foundation Agreement, able to be amended in accordance with the Constitution.

ATTACHMENT 1:
FEDERAL LAW ON THE ANTHEM, FLAG, INSIGNIA AND HONOURS OF THE UNITED CYPRUS REPUBLIC

ATTACHMENT 2:
FEDERAL LAW ON CONDUCT OF EXTERNAL RELATIONS

ATTACHMENT 3:
FEDERAL LAW ON CONDUCT OF EUROPEAN UNION RELATIONS

Law 1: Federal Law on Conduct of European Union Relations
Law 2: Federal Law on the Application of Certain Federal Laws Transposing the European Union Acqui

I'm afraid all the Federal laws you had listed above and all the rest I did not copy paste from your post just so to save space is meaningless, because the AP did not give Cyprus a strong central Federal government but rather a very loose one. All these laws would have been ignored for the reasons I told our good friend Bananiot couple of years ago. Just to prove my point further, why would the north state ask for their own FIR air space when the Federal Laws already provided one for the whole island and secondly, the north state wanted to to able to sign Bi-lateral agreements with foreign countries when that would have been the Federal Governments job? The reasons are given below.

I'm sorry Bananiot, but once again your interpretation of the AP dot not fit with reality. The AP was not going to give Cyprus a "Federal country" but a Confederation, and a very loose one at that. Each constituent state would have been a "sovereign state" separate from the "Federal Common State" which would have had equal power and not more than the constituent states. There would have been NO HIRERARCY between the constituent states and the "Federal Common State".

"There shall be no hierarchy between the laws of the {common state} and those of the {component states}."

In other words, each state could do what ever they wanted no matter what the "Founding Agreements" said in the AP. That was part of the disguised partition attempt to make people believe that the "Foundation Agreements" actually meant something. They did not, just as the provisions in the 1959 Zurich agreements were not adhered to, neither would have been the provisions that were in the AP. If you don't believe me, lets ask if Greece, Turkey, Britain, Makarios and Küçük/Denktash lived by those provisions or not. That was a rhetorical question by the way.!

cyprus31158-250.html

[repulsewarrior]

...and to get back to the topic, what about a Greek Constituency, won't it provide an equal with the Turkish Constituency in identifying Cypriots as Persons? won't it place Turkey, squarely as an equal with the Republic?

[Viewpoint]

So to try and sum things up you are not willing to accept what i call "checks and balances" even for transition periods as was the case in the AP, you want to remove our guarantees and you think that embargoes and EU rejection proposals are Utopian and will not work yet you have no proposals of your own, you put nothing forward. This clearly shows why we will never find a solution in our life times, that chasm is just to wide.

You are not summarizing well. What you call checks and balances are actually undemocratic laws of the worst kind, that are not acceptable, not for a transition period not even for a minute.
Despite the fact that any guarantees are a disgrace and humiliation to any EU country, I gave you the option to chose any guarantee you like as long as my life is not in danger. Your Turkish GUARANTEES are not acceptable, because they put my life in danger.
I said I have no objection writting any punishment terms you like, although in my opinion is they will be a utopia. I am allowed to have my own opinion while you can do as you please, amn't I?

So we really dont have anything else to debate and are prime examples of why we will never find a equilibrium that will work, you call my demand for "checks and balances" undemocratic and unacceptable but fail to understand that without them we cannot overcome our concerns and fears you ask us to leave things to chance which we will never do, therefore we hit a dead end.

Guarantees are there for security of both sides as we do not trust each and is our main factor in forcing conformity to an agreed solution, without it we again hit a dead end.

You are allowed your opinion but when its so negative and unproductive its better you keep it to yourself, if you have any thing constructive to propose then go ahead but for now it appears we cannot agree on the very basics necessary to move forward.

[repulsewarrior]

...and to get back to the topic, what about a Greek Constituency, won't it provide an equal with the Turkish Constituency in identifying Cypriots as Persons? won't it place Turkey, squarely as an equal with the Republic?

...guys?

[Pyrpolizer]

So to try and sum things up you are not willing to accept what i call "checks and balances" even for transition periods as was the case in the AP, you want to remove our guarantees and you think that embargoes and EU rejection proposals are Utopian and will not work yet you have no proposals of your own, you put nothing forward. This clearly shows why we will never find a solution in our life times, that chasm is just to wide.

You are not summarizing well. What you call checks and balances are actually undemocratic laws of the worst kind, that are not acceptable, not for a transition period not even for a minute.
Despite the fact that any guarantees are a disgrace and humiliation to any EU country, I gave you the option to chose any guarantee you like as long as my life is not in danger. Your Turkish GUARANTEES are not acceptable, because they put my life in danger.
I said I have no objection writting any punishment terms you like, although in my opinion is they will be a utopia. I am allowed to have my own opinion while you can do as you please, amn't I?

So we really dont have anything else to debate and are prime examples of why we will never find a equilibrium that will work, you call my demand for "checks and balances" undemocratic and unacceptable but fail to understand that without them we cannot overcome our concerns and fears you ask us to leave things to chance which we will never do, therefore we hit a dead end.

Guarantees are there for security of both sides as we do not trust each and is our main factor in forcing conformity to an agreed solution, without it we again hit a dead end.

You are allowed your opinion but when its so negative and unproductive its better you keep it to yourself, if you have any thing constructive to propose then go ahead but for now it appears we cannot agree on the very basics necessary to move forward.

Stop calling them checks and balances You are blurring the issue ON PURPOSE.
The ones who run the biggest risk in case of a solution are the GCs. You run no absolutely risk,the worst that would happen to you is just return to todays situation. So don't try to sell me that bullsh about wanting Turkish guarantees on top of it.

Other than that now that I realized what you are upto I am totally disappointed. Actually I don't want to discuss anything else with you anymore, at least on any serious basis. BITTI.