Cyprus-Forum.com

[boulio]

dude go read up on it from a neutral source about the negotiations during burgonstok.

[Pyrpolizer]

by boulio » Fri Jun 13, 2014 5:07 pm

No they would not MrH THAT why they were permanent derogations which would have become primary EU Law when cyprus ascede to the EU.IF you keep saying it ove and over dosent mean its true.What about turkish troops in your above statement or did it say in annan 5 they would leave?

"Primary EU Law", are you sure about that Boulio. Look, I am challenging you on that. There is No way that it would have been EU Primary Law unless the core principals of the EU constitution and treaty were all voted on by all existing EU member states - and that would have been impossible for the likes of Belgium for instance. Look back on the archives of Mr Denktas (who used to be a Barristar-at-law himself from Lincoln Inn London) stating his reasons against voting on the Annan Plan. Please consult with a Constitutional Lawyer Boulio as you will no doubt be pleasantly surprised on how it would literally be impossible to sustain those types of Derogations as mentioned in the Annan Plan in a European Court of Law. Do not just trust my word on this, seek some professional advise and I assure you that you will walk away with a completely different perspective. Look at it this way, if you should sign a loose Confederal based untied Cyprus plan, under EU Law, and as part of the EU, you would be able to pick yourself up and settle in the European Union's abided by "Turkish Cypriot State", become a citizen of that federated state and then democratically vote for the MP that your wish to win in its next general and local elections. And, there is nothing that would stop you as an EU member citizen. Believe me Boulio, I know what I am talking about here. Can you imagine one of the Cantons in Belgium for instances telling you, a Greek Cypriot from another EU member country/or federal state, that you will never have any settlement, or voting rights ever in their particular Canton? It's crazy to believe that a Cyprus Confederal agreement (seeing that's what you wish to call it) would ever be able to apply restrictions to any of the EU member citizens in the long term. Read up of EU primary law as there are people at universities and Inns of Law studying the very Subject whom is/are able to settle any of your fears on the matter. EU Primary Law is statute, non-negotiable under the principals of the very democratic freedoms of all of the EU's citizens - and they are very serious about that.

Despite the fact that most of what you said in this and the previous 3 posts are positive views and within the right spirit unfortunately yes not only the Anan Plan was supposed to become primarily law but also
a)you are absolutely right it would not pass through the parliaments hence
b)New CY would be out of the EU
c)the Generals in Turkey had put that as a precondition, therefore they would not accept the solution and not move their troops out.

etc etc etc etc.

Please if possible make your own search and read the letter the 2 co-presidents were supposed to send to the commission.
I could of search for it myself, but we ve discussed these issues so many times in the past that i feel kind of bored doing it again.

[Pyrpolizer]

Here some relevant old posts of mine

cyprus14877-70.html?hilit=co%20presidents#p237305
cyprus34566-30.html?hilit=co%20presidents#p679113

[bill cobbett]

There does seem to be some confusion as to what the term EU Primary Law means.

The below from the Europa.eu site...

From which we learn that PL are the major treaties that set up or amended the Union, treaties such as Rome, Maastricht and Lisbon, along with some of the accession treaties, including the CY Accession Treaty of 2003.

'... Primary law

Primary law, also known as the primary or original source of law, can be seen as the supreme source of law in the European Union (EU). It is at the apex of the European legal order. It consists mainly of the founding treaties of the European Union.

Primary law (primary or original source of law) is the supreme source of law of the European Union (EU), that is it prevails over all other sources of law. The Court of Justice is responsible for securing that primacy through a variety of forms of action, such as the action for annulment (Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and the preliminary ruling (Article 267 of the TFEU).

Primary law consists mainly of the Treaties of the EU. These Treaties contain formal and substantive provisions, which frame the implementation of the policies of the European institutions. They also determine the formal rules that allocate the division of competences between the European Union and Member States. They also lay down substantive rules that define the scope of the policies and provide a structure for the action taken by the institutions regarding each of them.

Scope of primary law

The primary law is made up of the set of founding Treaties of the EU, amended and adapted by different Treaties and Acts. It concerns:

the founding Treaties establishing the European Union;
the major Treaties amending the EU;
the Protocols annexed to those Treaties;
additional Treaties making changes to specific sections of the founding Treaties;
the Treaties of accession of new Member States to the EU.
The Treaties establishing the different European Communities are:

the Treaty of Paris (18 April 1951);
the Treaties of Rome (Euratom Treaty and the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community) (25 March 1957);
the Maastricht Treaty on European Union (7 February 1992).
The amending Treaties are:

the Single European Act (17 and 28 February 1986);
the Treaty of Amsterdam (2 October 1997);
the Treaty of Nice (26 February 2001);
the Treaty of Lisbon (13 December 2007) entered into force on 1 December 2009.
The additional Treaties making changes to specific sections of the founding treaties are:

the Treaty on the merger of the executive institutions (8 April 1965);
the Treaty amending certain budgetary provisions of the Community treaties (22 April 1970);
the Treaty of Brussels amending certain financial provisions of the Community treaties and establishing a Court of Auditors (22 July 1975);
the "Act" on the election of members of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage (20 September 1976).
The Treaties of Accession:

United Kingdom, Ireland, Denmark and Norway (22 January 1972);
Greece (28 May 1979);
Spain and Portugal (12 June 1985);
Austria, Finland, Norway and Sweden (24 June 1994);
the Czech Republic, Cyprus, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia (16 April 2003);
Romania and Bulgaria (25 April 2005).
The Acts of Accession signed by Norway on 22 January 1972 and 24 June 1994 never came into force. A Treaty signed on 1 February 1985 gives Greenland a special status.. ..."

[Maximus]

Its the same conversation, but with a different @more friendlier@ tone.

Yes, it brings out the worst in some of us when we listen to this boring rubbish MrH. It doesn't matter how you say it, it comes across provocative, especially if you put a smile on your face because your objective is the same.

[Pyrpolizer]

Here are some more links for Mrh
http://www.unficyp.org/nqcontent.cfm?a_id=1637
http://www.hri.org/docs/annan/Annan_Plan_Text.html


I think the paragraph for making the Anan Plan a primary Aquis is this on page 140

Referring to the special powers delegated to the Council under Article 4 of Protocol 10 of that treaty and to the conclusions of the European Council of 12 December 2003, and bearing in mind that the Foundation Agreement is in line with the principles on which the European Union is founded, we wish to request the European Union to endorse the Foundation Agreement and to accommodate its terms by adapting the terms of Accession before 1 May 2004 in a way that results in the adaptation of primary law and ensures the legal certainty and security of the Foundation Agreement within Europe European Union’s legal order system for all concerned.

[Pyrpolizer]

And here's one of the most fascist clauses in the Anan Plan that attempts to deprive individuals of their human rights on their properties.

Moreover, pursuant to Article 37 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, we request the Court to strike out any proceedings currently before it concerning affected property in Cyprus, in order to allow the domestic mechanism established to solve these cases to proceed.

a)Have you studied the property arrangements in the Anan Plan Mr H? it was more or less a steal against the GCs....
b)For the sake of an argument, just assume those arrangements were satisfactory to say 90% of all people. Who would ever give any majority or any Government the right to deprive the remaining 10% of the people the right to claim their rights in the EU court?
c)the argument that those cases concerning property would be striked out (to allow the domestic mechanism to proceed) but later on could of have been filed again doesn't hold, because the domestic mechanism itself would be recognized as legal and complete, hence to go to the EU court again one should prove that the domestic mechanism acted against it's own rules.But the rules were always clear from the Anan Plan, every GC with more than a donum and a house loses his property.

Nothing even near to the Anan Plan has ANY CHANCE to be EVER accepted by the GCS. Sorry.

[bill cobbett]

Pyro ,whether we like it or not, the ECHR does put a money value on contraventions of rights and sees compensation as a suitable redress and it has also approved the effectiveness of local remedies on both sides of the cease-fire line in recent judgments, so applications to the ECHR will be a waste of time.

The EU on the other hand is a difference situation.

This is the link you gave to the letter that would have been sent to the EU in the Anan appendices... cyprus34566-30.html?hilit=co%20presidents#p679113

Depending on what the 2003 CY Accession Treaty says, and this really needs examining, it's unlikely (imho) that anything like this 20 line letter to the Commission would be sufficient.

The 2003 CY Treaty may need a lengthy Renegotiation and even then, some EU elements aren't negotiable.

... which is why it is terribly important that, as Pres A says, an EU Committee be set up at the talks, with a lot of input from the Commission and its expert advice.

[erolz66]

....and it has also approved the effectiveness of local remedies on both sides of the cease-fire line in recent judgments,...

Not true.

[bill cobbett]

....and it has also approved the effectiveness of local remedies on both sides of the cease-fire line in recent judgments,...

Not true.

True.