Cyprus-Forum.com

[Get Real!]

the agreement will not be via the courts, it will be a political decision. it will override the courts. politics always do.

Stop begging all day…because it’s not gonna happen.

I asked you all a long time ago if there was an incentive for the RoC and you all remained silent!

Wasn’t that telling enough? It spoke volumes so how can you expect the RoC to take you seriously?

[erolz66]

Erol,

The EU politicians can say what they like re the Annan plan. The fact is it introduced several grades of discrimination between citizens and it could be challenged in the Eu court, and that is what legal experts said and the media reported back then. No legal framework is secure till tested in courts. The same goes for the one being worked out now especially if it cedes Cypriot property to non Cypriots.

The fact remains YOU claim that the Annan plan "deviated from international norms and the EU legal regime" yet that is not a view that was shared by the EU, the UN or the international community at large. Forgive me if I do not place YOUR opinion ahead of the rest of the worlds.

You isolated Belgium from all the federations in the world, and out of that setup you isolated the language rules to contradict the satement that civilised federations do not apply racial standards nor ethnic qualifications for residence. Even Quebec with its history of agitation has no limitations on non French Canadians residing there.

There you go again with your distortions, talking about limitations on where one can reside, ignoring that I specifically separated bi-communal from bi-zonal. You made a claim about BOTH bi-communality and bi-zonality - that such "diverge from the standards of civilised nations and the EU". Well the FACT is bi-communality based on 'language' does NOT "diverge from the standards of civilised nations and the EU" unless your argument is the Belgium constitution "diverges from the standards of civilised nations and the EU". Why do you have to distort everything ? The simple fact is that bi-communality without a 'racial' element (which can be based on language and bee entirely compatible with both EU law and EU ideals) is pointless. If in 10 or 30years both federal elements are numerically dominated by GC, then there is no point in even discussing bi-communality. Again you insist that the Annan Plan and any future plan would enshrine limits on how many GC could reside in the TC component state area in perpetuity, yet this is just not what the Annan plan said. WHy do you do this Nikitas ? Shall I quote (again) the relevant sections of the Annan plan that clearly delineate the exact % of restrictions that would be allowed and when they would end ?

It was not I but Ecevit who carefully analysed in a BBC interview the reasons Turkey cannot accept a "Greek" entity in Cyprus and went on to explain that this also excluded double union because that would make Greece a Middle Eastern power. Turkey has had a long standing strategic misconception about its southern soft underbelly, with many published opinions by Turkish general staff members.

Any link or reference to this interview or am I supposed to take you interpretation of it as fact ? Given how you interpret the temporary restrictions in the Annan plan re GC ability to reside in the TC component state areas for permanent ones, and repeatedly assert this as 'fact' you will perhaps forgive me for wanting more than just you word on your interpretation of something said , what 20 years ago ?

Turkey not wanting a foreign military presence on Cyprus is a fact, Deriding that by references to Russia already being a neighbor etc is nonsense. Turkey has common land and sea borders with Greece and it still objects to Greece being militarily present in Cyprus. The same criteria hold true for Russia. A permanent Russian fleet presence in Cyprus bypasses the strategic advantage of closing the Dardanelles. Turkey raised a stink over the joint RoC-French military exercises a few years ago, and the reason is obvious, they do not want another major player in the area.

I said nothing about Russia being a neighbour. What I said is that if you could convince TC to want Turkey to leave Cyprus, then there is no way Turkey could maintain its presence there, regardless of what it wants, or more accurately what you THINK it wants.

The new gas reserves in the east Med make a military presence attractive for several nations, among them France and Italy who have direct interests in the area- ENI is an Italian energy company and Total French and both are involved in gas operations. The Russians maintain a huge anchorage off Kythira in Greece just beyond the 6 mile limit. An anchorage in Cyprus would be a better alternative.

Energy companies like ENI have interests across the globe. They do not require a 'military presence' within kms of those interests.

Where was there a mention of going back to pre 1974 conditions etc. What I said is very simply that Turkey has adopted a dead end policy in Cyprus. It is defined by what Turkey does not want, while we never heard what it really wants. I will add that Turkey either does not understand, or maybe it pretends not to understand, the other side and their concerns and obsessions.

You are entitled to your views and opinions but if you can understand not how such come across as 'arrogance' when you claim to have better insight and understanding of not just Turkey as a nation, but also the UN and the politcal leadership of the EU and in fact the entire world, then there is not much more I can say.

One of these is that the GCs will not willingly ditch the RoC. Statehood for GCs is what they perceive as their only means of survival against double union, or unilateral take over. You cannot tout the security concerns of the minority community but refuse to understand the concerns of the majority.

Yes and your leadership claimed in the 50's and 60's they would not willingly ditch enosis for that was the only means of survival against the 'terrible turks'. Yet ditch it you did and the RoC still exist and the GC community still exists and an independent Cypriot state still exists. I understand your concerns - what I do not accept is such concerns mean there can be no settlement based on federation that has some component or 'racial distinction'. When you choose to characterise any federal solution that has any element of 'race' in it as 'uncivilised' and 'divergent of EU standards' - then you are NOT taking the concerns of my community seriously at all. You want an end to external guarantees - ok we can talk about that. You want no foreign troops in Cyprus - ok we can talk about that. But when you say there can be no federal based solution with any element based on our differences as GC and TC whilst also claiming that you 'respect our concerns' then I say BS.

Personally I have no preference between BBF and outright partition. I see pluses and minuses in both. I have asked how they differ, here and in Greek and Cypriot fora, and received no answer. For some the difference maybe obvious or self explanatory ,for me it is not. I really want to know. So far the only solid guideline i have is that BBF means TCs are masters in the northa and partners in the south, while outright partition means permanent, but partial, loss for both communities since they would renounce claims to the "other" state and go their separate ways.

The only important difference for me is a federal based solution creates a CHANCE of that leading to a Cyprus where it TRULY does not matter what kind of Cypriot you are compared to just BEING Cypriot. Agreed partition ends that chance entirely for 100's if not 1000's of years. That you can not see THIS difference (and there are countless others in reality) to me speaks for itself.

I cannot say that I am well enough informed to make a choice, and the information I get from the media and the politicians has never been a full open disclosure. So I keep asking.

Indeed one of my biggest problems with what you claim is your assertions as to what a plan we have not even seen yet 'means'. Add to that how you seemingly willingly and persistently distort what the plan where we have seen the full details (annan) actually says, well then I question what your real objective here actually is.

[Oceanside50]

Erolz

YOU claim that any such solutions were deviations from international norms and EU legality. The problem is the EU said exactly the opposite, as did the international community - as far as the Annan plan went. Still YOU must be the correct one I guess.

When did the EU say exactly the opposite? Was it when it endorsed a plan that segregates and legalizes racial profiling and discrimination...?... Does the EU endorse apartheid or mechanisms that create apartheid being made legal? Was it when the EU's own courts declared that land taken through ethnic cleansing was illegal in the Louizidou case and that her property still belongs to her? When did the EU or the international community say and endorse the Annan Plan?

the agreement will not be via the courts, it will be a political decision. it will override the courts. politics always do.

what are you talking about?...courts especially in a Federation follow public opinion...you have it backwards....you people segregated yourselves back in the 50's...you resegrated yourselves again in 74...your whole mentality is separation...a 50's idea that lingers in your psyche...to this day...Elvis Presley would still be singing top hit songs if it was up to the TC..

[Nikitas]

"The criteria will be announced"

are you certain they will be? Experience shows that the talks are secret, they employ the well known technique of exploratory leaks to test public reaction while retaining the right of deniability. In the end the public get to see the plan which they must red and digest, thousands of pages, in a short while. During this time public discourse and debate is managed by well rewarded shills and dubious NGOs.

The point I am making is that property rights cannot be limited to illegal settlers while Cypriots (and I epxressly include all communities here) who are non property owners are ignored because they happen to fall into none of the categories. This is the kind of injustice that the EU court is there to deal with.

As for your dig about half Greek etc. Is that not the situation with all the TCs born in Cyprus of one setler parent and a TC? Do you doubt their Cypriotness too? Or is your racism selectively applied to people of GC origin?

At least my mother came to the island legally, through proper passport control, when both she and my father were British citizens and the island was a British colony.

[Oceanside50]

Erolz said

There you go again with your distortions, talking about limitations on where one can reside, ignoring that I specifically separated bi-communal from bi-zonal. You made a claim about BOTH bi-communality and bi-zonality - that such "diverge from the standards of civilised nations and the EU". Well the FACT is bi-communality based on 'language' does NOT "diverge from the standards of civilised nations and the EU" unless your argument is the Belgium constitution "diverges from the standards of civilised nations and the EU". Why do you have to distort everything ? The simple fact is that bi-communality without a 'racial' element (which can be based on language and bee entirely compatible with both EU law and EU ideals) is pointless. If in 10 or 30years both federal elements are numerically dominated by GC, then there is no point in even discussing bi-communality. Again you insist that the Annan Plan and any future plan would enshrine limits on how many GC could reside in the TC component state area in perpetuity, yet this is just not what the Annan plan said. WHy do you do this Nikitas ? Shall I quote (again) the relevant sections of the Annan plan that clearly delineate the exact % of restrictions that would be allowed and when they would end ?

There you go again with your distortions, talking about limitations on where one can reside, ignoring that I specifically separated bi-communal from bi-zonal. You made a claim about BOTH bi-communality and bi-zonality - that such "diverge from the standards of civilised nations and the EU"

The Annan plan did specify that the Tc constituent state would have a majority of Tc and it gave the TC a mechanism to insure that, it was called the no right to appeal clause...Any law made against the GC could not be appealed higher then the TC state Supreme Court...this is apartheid and segregation..and its not distorted.

Shall I quote (again) the relevant sections of the Annan plan that clearly delineate the exact % of restrictions that would be allowed and when they would end ?

go ahead and quote this....

Why would the Tc want an apartheid segregated state?...There is a segregated state now. what rights do GC have in the occupied areas?....no right to property no right of speech, religion or that they are guaranteed due process...Nothing of the sort exists and the problem is that you want to keep it that way..even after a solution...and its evident to what you agreed to and the GC voted against..

[erolz66]

When did the EU say exactly the opposite?

It is just a historical fact that the EU endorsed the Annan plan. I will not waste my time arguing with you about this.

Was it when it endorsed a plan that segregates and legalizes racial profiling and discrimination...?... Does the EU endorse apartheid or mechanisms that create apartheid being made legal?

This is how YOU choose to characterise the Annan plan. It is NOT how Kofi Annan characterised it, you know that man that was Secretary General of the UN, you know that body whose resolutions you laud and respect when they suit your narrative, the same organaisation you claim first brokered and then endorsed a plan that would have created 'apartheid' in Cyprus had it been accepted.

Was it when the EU's own courts declared that land taken through ethnic cleansing was illegal in the Louizidou case and that her property still belongs to her?

The ECHR is not an organ of the EU. It is an organ of the Council of Europe. That you can not even get basic facts right does not bode well. That ECHR ruling made no reference to 'ethnic cleansing' or declared what happened in 74 as 'illegal' - mainly because it had and has no jurisdiction to make such judgements. What it ruled was that depriving Louizidou of access to and use of her property in the North, without any mechanism by which she could seek redress, was a violation of her human rights by Turkey. I suggest you actually READ what the ECHR ruling said rather than just make up what you would have liked it to have said. While you are at it you might also read what it has said in subsequent rulings re the mechanism Turkey needed to put in place to stop similar violations of human rights .

When did the EU or the international community say and endorse the Annan Plan?

That you can even ask this question just shows how divorced from reality you actually are. Let's start with the easy one shall we. Do you claim the UN did NOT endorse the Annan plan ?

[kurupetos]

Erolz

YOU claim that any such solutions were deviations from international norms and EU legality. The problem is the EU said exactly the opposite, as did the international community - as far as the Annan plan went. Still YOU must be the correct one I guess.

When did the EU say exactly the opposite? Was it when it endorsed a plan that segregates and legalizes racial profiling and discrimination...?... Does the EU endorse apartheid or mechanisms that create apartheid being made legal? Was it when the EU's own courts declared that land taken through ethnic cleansing was illegal in the Louizidou case and that her property still belongs to her? When did the EU or the international community say and endorse the Annan Plan?

the agreement will not be via the courts, it will be a political decision. it will override the courts. politics always do.

what are you talking about?...courts especially in a Federation follow public opinion...you have it backwards....you people segregated yourselves back in the 50's...you resegrated yourselves again in 74...your whole mentality is separation...a 50's idea that lingers in your psyche...to this day...Elvis Presley would still be singing top hit songs if it was up to the TC..

[erolz66]

The Annan plan did specify that the Tc constituent state would have a majority of Tc and it gave the TC a mechanism to insure that, it was called the no right to appeal clause...Any law made against the GC could not be appealed higher then the TC state Supreme Court...this is apartheid and segregation..and its not distorted.

Just tell me the exact section and article that claims this. Untill you do and having looked for it myself I claim 'bullshit.

go ahead and quote this....

http://www.hri.org/docs/annan/Annan_Plan_Text.html

Foundation Agreement Annex II, Attachment 3

6. (1) A constituent state may apply to the Supreme Court of Cyprus for an injunction barring a person who does not hold its internal constituent state citizenship status from entering or residing in that constituent state.

(2) The Supreme Court shall grant the injunction if the relevant person has been, or is actively engaged, in acts of violence or incitement to violence and the presence of that person in that constituent state would be a danger to public safety or public order.

That is the constituent state may apply to the FEDERAL Supreme Court to bar someone from entering or residing in that constituent state and only if the FEDERAL supreme court deems that person has been, or is actively engaged, in acts of violence or incitement to violence and the presence of that person in that constituent state would be a danger to public safety or public order.

8. (1) A constituent state may, until Turkey accedes to the European Union, limit, on a non-discriminatory basis, the establishment of residence by Cypriot citizens who do not hold the relevant internal constituent state citizenship status.

(2) Permissible limitations include a moratorium on such residence during the first six years after the relevant date. Thereafter, there may be limitations if the number of such residents has reached 6% of the population of a village or municipality between the 6th and 9th years after the relevant date and 12% between the 10th and 14th years after the relevant date, and 18% until the 19th year or Turkey’s accession to the European Union, whichever is sooner

That is permissible restrictions by a constituent state on residency by members who previously were not of that constituent state were TEMPORARY until the 19th year.

8.(6) No later than 20 years after the relevant date the federal government and the constituent states shall review the provisions of this section in light of experience.

That is that these rules would be reviewed at the 20th year at both the constituent state level AND the federal level.

8. (7) Any restrictions on residence shall not prevent the freedom of movement throughout the island of Cyprus, including the right of any Cypriot citizen to temporarily stay or have a holiday in their own properties or any other accommodation anywhere on the island of Cyprus.

That is there would be NO restriction at all on 'freedom of movement' of Cypriots within Cyprus, from day one and forever.

9. (2) Notwithstanding the above, with a view to protecting its identity, either constituent state may take safeguard measures to ensure that no less than two-thirds of it Cypriot permanent residents speak its official language as their mother tongues.

This is the 'woolly' clause I could not find earlier. It does NOT restrict how many GC can move to and reside in the TC component state (and thus vote in that component state at the component state level) - it just limits how many of such could do so without being able to speak Turkish, just as it allowed the same limit in the GC constituent state. Learn how to speak Turkish and after the 19th year enough GC to outnumber TC 3:1 in the TC component state could reside there under the what the Annan plan ACTUALLY says.

This is what the Annan plan (the final version) ACTUALLY said. Now are you going to show me the claimed 'no right to appeal clause' as you describe it ? Somehow I suspect not.

[erolz66]

Why would the Tc want an apartheid segregated state?...There is a segregated state now. what rights do GC have in the occupied areas?....no right to property no right of speech, religion or that they are guaranteed due process...Nothing of the sort exists and the problem is that you want to keep it that way..even after a solution...and its evident to what you agreed to and the GC voted against..

GC have no rights in the TRNC now because the TRNC does not make any claim to represent those people. To claim that they would therefore have none of those rights in an agreed federal solution like say the Annan plan is about the grossest distortion of actual fact possible. Under the Annan Plan ANY Cypriots right to property, free speech, religious freedom and movement in EITHER component state were protected from day one in perpetuity. The ONLY right that was restricted was that of RESIDENCE for that is what determines in which component state one voted at the component state level. As far as those restrictions applied to the component state citizenship a person held at the time the Annan plan came into force, they were explicitly defined as TEMPORARY. As far as such restrictions applied on a non temporary basis they applied only to those, beyond a 1/3 number, who could not speak the language of that component state.

There in this regard Oceanside50, the absolute truth of what the Annan plan actually said, as linked to on the UN website and then there is what you CLAIM it says. Can you spot the differences because I sure as hell can.

[erolz66]

you people segregated yourselves back in the 50's...you resegrated yourselves again in 74...your whole mentality is separation...a 50's idea that lingers in your psyche...to this day...Elvis Presley would still be singing top hit songs if it was up to the TC..

Yet my uncle who REFUSED to segregate himself in 1964, was taken by illegal GC militia in broad day light and murdered and dumped in a well, for no other reason than he was TC and had NOT segregated himself. Yet you pretend that the TC desire to 'segregate' themselves was nothing to do with realities like this and ONLY to do with a desire for segregation in and off itself. You are sick.