piratis, the goodwill must come from the one who is the legal entity, hence to win the people over, but your statements clearly indicate an underlying hate for the tc.
You look at things from one side 'yours' try looking at it from the other side.
THE E.U ASSESMENT OF THE CYPRUS PROBLEM PART 2
43 posts
• Page 2 of 5 • 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
by Piratis » Thu Oct 21, 2004 1:29 pm
Brother, there is no hate for TCs, and in this thread I am referring to Turkey and only to Turkey.
As you said there is a legal entity in Cyprus. I am not looking things from one side or another side. I am looking at them from the legal side, and for all major matters like the occupation, the existence of one and only state in Cyprus, the settlers etc, the legal side is crystal clear.
Turkey is now trying to legalize these things with the help of UK/US. Even if Turkey is the regional power, and the US the one and only superpower today, the laws are so crystal clear that not even them could change them so far! Believe me, if we were wrong even by 1% those powers would have used that small window to do what they want (legalize what is illegal). All they need is an excuse (like in 74, or with Iraq now), but fortunately we didn't give them such an excuse. (they tried to create an excuse artificially (Annan plan) but still thats not a real excuse that will gain for them everything that they need)
If "your side" had demands within the legal framework and with respect to human rights (like it is the case with "our side") then both sides would be taken into consideration equally.
Unfortunately "your side" demands illegal things that do not respect human rights.
As you said there is a legal entity in Cyprus. I am not looking things from one side or another side. I am looking at them from the legal side, and for all major matters like the occupation, the existence of one and only state in Cyprus, the settlers etc, the legal side is crystal clear.
Turkey is now trying to legalize these things with the help of UK/US. Even if Turkey is the regional power, and the US the one and only superpower today, the laws are so crystal clear that not even them could change them so far! Believe me, if we were wrong even by 1% those powers would have used that small window to do what they want (legalize what is illegal). All they need is an excuse (like in 74, or with Iraq now), but fortunately we didn't give them such an excuse. (they tried to create an excuse artificially (Annan plan) but still thats not a real excuse that will gain for them everything that they need)
If "your side" had demands within the legal framework and with respect to human rights (like it is the case with "our side") then both sides would be taken into consideration equally.
Unfortunately "your side" demands illegal things that do not respect human rights.
-
Piratis - Moderator
- Posts: 12261
- Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 11:08 pm
by brother » Thu Oct 21, 2004 1:44 pm
if we are going to talk about legality then answer me this question.
Under current E.U law no country can be admitted into the union if it has currently any border or internal disputes.
Then how come this crystal clear law was ignored and the ROC was admitted into the E.U?
Under current E.U law no country can be admitted into the union if it has currently any border or internal disputes.
Then how come this crystal clear law was ignored and the ROC was admitted into the E.U?
-
brother - Main Contributor
- Posts: 4711
- Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2004 5:30 pm
- Location: Cyprus/U.K
by brother » Thu Oct 21, 2004 5:41 pm
hi mikkie,
the law is clear that it is not who started it that counts but the fact that a situation is ongoing, the reason this rule exists was so the E.U would not be required to be drawn into the situation where its borders are in dispute as they are in cyprus.
It is widely known that many countries questioned this and never got a straight answer why this happened despite its laws being crystal clear on this subject.
the law is clear that it is not who started it that counts but the fact that a situation is ongoing, the reason this rule exists was so the E.U would not be required to be drawn into the situation where its borders are in dispute as they are in cyprus.
It is widely known that many countries questioned this and never got a straight answer why this happened despite its laws being crystal clear on this subject.
-
brother - Main Contributor
- Posts: 4711
- Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2004 5:30 pm
- Location: Cyprus/U.K
by BigDutch » Sat Oct 23, 2004 8:13 pm
brother wrote:It is widely known that many countries questioned this and never got a straight answer why this happened despite its laws being crystal clear on this subject.
Knowing that Turkey wanted "in", perhaps this was a round about way of the EU ensuring a withdrawal of Turkish army and the "intervention" rights.
- BigDutch
- Contributor
- Posts: 308
- Joined: Tue Sep 21, 2004 11:35 pm
- Location: Paphos
by -mikkie2- » Mon Oct 25, 2004 1:19 pm
Laws in the EU only change if ALL member states agree to the changes.
The EU can 'bend' the rules, but that leaves the EU open to be taken to the European Court of Justice.
It ain't that simple!
The EU can 'bend' the rules, but that leaves the EU open to be taken to the European Court of Justice.
It ain't that simple!
- -mikkie2-
- Regular Contributor
- Posts: 1298
- Joined: Tue Sep 21, 2004 12:11 am
by brother » Mon Oct 25, 2004 3:13 pm
So when did the members agree that a divided country could be a member in complete contrast to its own laws, maybe i blinked and missed it.
You know what i am saying why dance around the truth and just accept that it bent its own laws.
You know what i am saying why dance around the truth and just accept that it bent its own laws.
-
brother - Main Contributor
- Posts: 4711
- Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2004 5:30 pm
- Location: Cyprus/U.K
43 posts
• Page 2 of 5 • 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest
© 2002 - 2015 Cyprus-Forum.com
