Cyprus-Forum.com

[Sotos]

How would you feel if you had Grivas for your quarantor/

Been there and done that, lived in an 'independent' Cyprus where we had the likes of Grivas and Georjardis and others and 30,000 mainland Greek troops as well as the UN 'protecting' us and none of them prevented the ethnic based murder and persecution of innocent Cypriots.

You have been doing ethnic based murder and persecution of innocent Cypriots for more than 400 years... you only took a break from your favorite pastime for a few decades and then you restarted the same old crimes...

[Viewpoint]

are you guys say ing that in the whole document the word partnership dosent exist?

I am not saying it - it is just a fact that the word 'partnership' is not in the document. So what ? Are YOU saying that because the word is not in there it somehow proves that the agreements that founded an independent Cypriot state were not based on a concept of 'partnership' and a degree of equality of the two communities ? I am sure you are not for doing so would hold about as much water as me arguing that the TC community are not a minority because the word minority does not exist in the document. If you want to play silly arse word games go ahead, I personally have little interest in such. The document says what it says and it is pretty plain and straight forward. It defines the agreed foundation for the final settlement of the problem of Cyprus and its foundation as an independent nation state.

If you call that a "partnership" then you should also accept that the TCs were the "minor partners" or the "minority shareholders" of this "partnership". Those agreements can justify non of the demands you have today. The only demand that you can have based on those agreements is to return to exactly what is written in those agreements.

So you would accept the TCs veto? how do you think it would be before you start to complain about veot rights and guarantees in those written agreements you want us to retun to. You cannot be trusted thats why these measures are necessary.

[Sotos]

are you guys say ing that in the whole document the word partnership dosent exist?

I am not saying it - it is just a fact that the word 'partnership' is not in the document. So what ? Are YOU saying that because the word is not in there it somehow proves that the agreements that founded an independent Cypriot state were not based on a concept of 'partnership' and a degree of equality of the two communities ? I am sure you are not for doing so would hold about as much water as me arguing that the TC community are not a minority because the word minority does not exist in the document. If you want to play silly arse word games go ahead, I personally have little interest in such. The document says what it says and it is pretty plain and straight forward. It defines the agreed foundation for the final settlement of the problem of Cyprus and its foundation as an independent nation state.

If you call that a "partnership" then you should also accept that the TCs were the "minor partners" or the "minority shareholders" of this "partnership". Those agreements can justify non of the demands you have today. The only demand that you can have based on those agreements is to return to exactly what is written in those agreements.

So you would accept the TCs veto? how do you think it would be before you start to complain about veot rights and guarantees in those written agreements you want us to retun to. You cannot be trusted thats why these measures are necessary.

We made the mistake to sign something unfair once and we will not do it again. The BEST you can ever get is those agreements because we already signed them and you legally have the right to demand what is written in them. Otherwise you are just the illegals and you will remain the illegals because the status can't change without our agreement.

[Viewpoint]

Sotos you are contracting yourself, we have rights but not unless you say we do.....please make up your mind as you have not clearly stated that you accept our veto and guarantor rights.

[Sotos]

I answered you already! You have those rights as part of the 1960 agreements... the same agreements that say that the president of the whole Cyprus must always be GC. I don't like those agreements because they are unfair and divisive but I accept them because we signed them and if you were to demand a return to those agreements then you would have legal right to them. But that is the ONLY thing you have a legal right to demand. If you demand anything else we have the right to reject it and anything you do outside of those agreements can never be legalized without our approval.

[Viewpoint]

I answered you already! You have those rights as part of the 1960 agreements... the same agreements that say that the president of the whole Cyprus must always be GC. I don't like those agreements because they are unfair and divisive but I accept them because we signed them and if you were to demand a return to those agreements then you would have legal right to them. But that is the ONLY thing you have a legal right to demand. If you demand anything else we have the right to reject it and anything you do outside of those agreements can never be legalized without our approval.

Sotos the GCs are the ones that tried to have these agreements changed denied us our rights even after a supreme court judgement and even kicked us out of parliament at gun point because they no longer wanted them, arent you really contradicting what the GCs have been fighting for all these years. We to have 37% of this island and a right to reject any new agreements put before us.

[Sotos]

I answered you already! You have those rights as part of the 1960 agreements... the same agreements that say that the president of the whole Cyprus must always be GC. I don't like those agreements because they are unfair and divisive but I accept them because we signed them and if you were to demand a return to those agreements then you would have legal right to them. But that is the ONLY thing you have a legal right to demand. If you demand anything else we have the right to reject it and anything you do outside of those agreements can never be legalized without our approval.

Sotos the GCs are the ones that tried to have these agreements changed denied us our rights even after a supreme court judgement and even kicked us out of parliament at gun point because they no longer wanted them, arent you really contradicting what the GCs have been fighting for all these years. We to have 37% of this island and a right to reject any new agreements put before us.

There was nothing illegal with proposing changes. What is illegal is you occupying 37% of Cyprus. You have the right to reject any new agreements and we have the right to reject any new agreements which means that the 1960 agreements are the only agreements. So basically we either have to return to the 1960 agreements or you will remain forever illegals.

[Viewpoint]

Sotos you are right but you also have to take into account the possibility that other than the 1960 agreements a new solution maybe found allowing for the mistakes of the past or the north may gain recognition in the fact of GC intrangience.

[erolz66]

There was nothing illegal with proposing changes.

No one realises the futility of arguing with you Sotos more than me, but your perversion of historical fact and truth is so massive in this regard I will just prove to be so. The idea that the GC administration merely 'proposed changes' and did not in fact unilaterally impose such changes against all legality and the 1960 agreements is blatantly untrue.

For an accurate summary of what happened in july/aug of 1965 you could look here. http://www.makarios.eu/cgibin/hweb?-A=2 ... V=makarios

On August 15, 1965, the five-year term of the first President, Vice President and House of Representatives of the Republic of Cyprus came to an end. On July 20 (a date which achieved a different significance later), the Council of Ministers approved draft legislation extending the term of the President and House of Representatives for a year. It also approved a revision of the electoral law, abolishing the Turkish Cypriots' right separately to elect the Vice President and the members of the House of Representatives from their community.

The draft legislation violated several fundamental (and, according to the Constitution, therefore immutable) articles of the Constitution.

Revision of the electoral law also required, according to the Constitution, separate majority votes from representatives of both Communities in the house. The draft legislation was referred to the House for enactment into law, and the Turkish Cypriot representatives requested protective escort from the United Nations Forces in Cyprus to attend the session of the House. UNFICYP relayed the request to the then Speaker of the House, Glafcos Clerides, who imposed such conditions on its acceptance as would be tantamount to an acceptance of minority status by the Turkish Cypriots. He stated that "it must be understood that the paragraph of Article 78 which refers to separate majorities has been abolished, and each Member will only have one vote on all decisions". Article 78 had been abolished unilaterally, without due procedure and, of course, without any negotiation with the Turkish Cypriots.

On July 22, 1965, three Turkish Cypriot members of the House met Clerides in his office to discuss their intention to return to the House and take part in the discussion and vote on the electoral law. Clerides repeated his response as he had given it to UNFICYP: the Greek Cypriot community did not recognise the relevant provisions of the Constitution.

The next day, Phileleftheros newspaper published the news under the headline, "Turkish Cypriot 'Members of Parliament' have no right to return to the House of Representatives". The Representatives elected according to the provisions of the Constitution of 1960 were now pseudo-parliamentarians, and the denomination of their office entered quotation marks. The rest of the press treated the issue similarly.

The House passed the law, without Turkish Cypriot participation, on July 23, 1965. The United Kingdom and Turkey, as guarantor powers, made representations to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Cyprus about the revision of the electoral law which violated the Constitution. The government responded that it "could not, under any circumstances, contribute in any way to the restoration of circumstances as they prevailed before December 1963".

On October 11, 1965, the government of the Republic of Cyprus submitted to United Nations Secretary-General U Thant a "Declaration of intentions on the Constitutional Rights of Turkish Cypriots". The document made clear the Greek Cypriot policy of unilateral abolition of the bicommunal nature of the state, and made a commitment to respect of the minority rights of the Turkish Cypriots.

and before you start screaming about how 'unreliable' Makarios Drousiotis is as a source everything he says can be confirmed from the UN documents of the time. Mainly UN S/6569 and UN S/6569/Add.1 that notes the protestations of both the British government and the Turkish governments as guarantors to these illegal and unconstitutional amendments and in various other UN documents I can and will supply if wanted.

The historical FACTS are Sotos that an all GC run RoC government, unilaterally and against all legality and the original 1960 agreements made CHANGES to said agreements, not 'proposed changes' but actual real changes and the TC leadership DID demand their rights to stop such changes and they were refused their rights then and after this point. So whilst it may be easy for you to say today ".. I accept them because we signed them and if you were to demand a return to those agreements then you would have legal right to them." the FACTS are that 'you' (your leadership in 1965) did NOT accept them, did not allow TC to return to them against all legality, as you yourself say (we had a legal right to them). For you to try and deny any of this happened as you do with your claim that there were only 'proposed changes' is massive and gross distortion of historical fact.

And this is before we even mention the Akritas plan.

[Sotos]

The changes were proposed in 1963 not in 1965. In that time you showed no interest in returning to the government and you had concentrated on partition. If you wanted to return and if we had done something illegal then why didn't you take your case to international courts? In any case what you got in 1960 was unfair and you got it by blackmailing us and dirty tactics. In Cyprus you are an ethnic minority and your real rights are those of an ethnic minority. Everything else is just imposed by those foreigners who want to keep their troops on our island and they are using your minority as an excuse to serve their interests.