Cyprus-Forum.com

by **Maximus** » Thu Mar 14, 2013 11:39 am

its a fictitious story to justify an illegal occupation which is worthy of condemnation and pity VP.

sad, sad, sad.............

by **Viewpoint** » Thu Mar 14, 2013 12:05 pm

Maximus wrote:its a fictitious story to justify an illegal occupation which is worthy of condemnation and pity VP.

sad, sad, sad.............

Which part of reality is ficticious? can you be more specific because the only thing looking sad is you.

by **Demonax** » Thu Mar 14, 2013 2:14 pm

Viewpoint wrote:
Ercan should be included in the equation, if no Ercan no Maraş.

The proposal is to open Chapters 23 and 24 in exchange for the return of Famagusta to its rightful owners and the opening of Famagusta port under EU supervision.

No return of Famagusta, no opening of Chapters 23 and 24. It couldn't be easier to understand.

by **Viewpoint** » Thu Mar 14, 2013 2:27 pm

Demonax wrote:
Viewpoint wrote:
Ercan should be included in the equation, if no Ercan no Maraş.

You misunderstand the deal on the table. The proposal is to open Chapters 23 and 24 in exchange for the return of Famagusta to its rightful owners and the opening of Famagusta port under EU supervision.

No return of Famagusta, no opening of Chapters 23 and 24. It's easy to understand.

The opening of Ercan under EU supervision should also be included in the deal otherwise its a non starter, 2 chapters and a supervised port is hardly a great deal.

by **bill cobbett** » Thu Mar 14, 2013 2:38 pm

Demonax wrote:
Viewpoint wrote:
Ercan should be included in the equation, if no Ercan no Maraş.

The proposal is to open Chapters 23 and 24 in exchange for the return of Famagusta to its rightful owners and the opening of Famagusta port under EU supervision.

No return of Famagusta, no opening of Chapters 23 and 24. It couldn't be easier to understand.

Simples.

by **Maximus** » Thu Mar 14, 2013 4:38 pm

bill cobbett wrote:
Demonax wrote:
Viewpoint wrote:
Ercan should be included in the equation, if no Ercan no Maraş.

The proposal is to open Chapters 23 and 24 in exchange for the return of Famagusta to its rightful owners and the opening of Famagusta port under EU supervision.

No return of Famagusta, no opening of Chapters 23 and 24. It couldn't be easier to understand.

Simples.

I am sick and tired of hearing about Turkey's-EU accession saga. Real tired of listening to Turkish officials go on and on and ariston, trying to fit big square pegs into small round holes.

I am equally sick and tired of listening to these EU officials trying to slide small round holes over big square pegs, when Turkey does not even recognise what her obligations are for membership but is problematic and antagonistic as a candidate instead.

There is no compatibility between the EU and Turkey, none. When will both sides officially recognise this?

by **Viewpoint** » Thu Mar 14, 2013 4:50 pm

Maximus wrote:
bill cobbett wrote:
Demonax wrote:
Viewpoint wrote:
Ercan should be included in the equation, if no Ercan no Maraş.

The proposal is to open Chapters 23 and 24 in exchange for the return of Famagusta to its rightful owners and the opening of Famagusta port under EU supervision.

No return of Famagusta, no opening of Chapters 23 and 24. It couldn't be easier to understand.

Simples.

I am sick and tired of hearing about Turkey's-EU accession saga. Real tired of listening to Turkish officials go on and on and ariston, trying to fit big square pegs into small round holes.

I am equally sick and tired of listening to these EU officials trying to slide small round holes over big square pegs, when Turkey does not even recognise what her obligations are for membership but is problematic and antagonistic as a candidate instead.

There is no compatibility between the EU and Turkey, none. When will both sides officially recognise this?

Totally agree, vizzzzz there goes GC leverage.

by **Maximus** » Thu Mar 14, 2013 4:59 pm

VP, GC leverage has nothing to do with it because Turkey applied for EU membership, Turkey applied to go through the accession process. it was not the other way around.

why doesnt Turkey adhere to the law and fullfill her EU-accession obligations, as per what she signed up for?

by **Demonax** » Thu Mar 14, 2013 5:02 pm

Viewpoint wrote:Totally agree, vizzzzz there goes GC leverage.

As long as Turkey claims it wants to open further EU chapters then it has to abide by certain conditions. As far as I know, Turkey is still asking...

So either Turkey stops asking. Or it looks at what proposals are on offer to help it to proceed. Seeing as Turkey is incapable of doing things it agreed to.

In other words, Turkey either puts up. Or shuts up.

by **Viewpoint** » Thu Mar 14, 2013 5:04 pm

Maximus wrote:VP, leverage has nothing to do with it because Turkey applied for EU membership, Turkey applied to go through the accession process. it was not the other way around.

why doesnt Turkey adhere to the law and fullfill her EU-accession obligations, as per what she signed up for?

She didnt sign up to recognize the south, in fact she made herself quite clear when she signed the documents, if the EU had any backbone they would have ripped up the document and backed you 100%, but they didnt guess why?

As for leverage arent you the ones who keep claiming that we will make Turkey do what we want because she wants so desparately to get into the EU? how many more years do you need to understand how wrong you are?