Cyprus-Forum.com

[turkcyp]

Turkcyp for exapmle seems to think that people that have come from Turkey and been given 'trnc' citizenship are effectively legal. Well they are not, considering the basis on which they are in Cyprus is that they were given land that is owned by someobody else.

I have never said they are legal. I have said they are a fact of life. And Cyprus problem can not be solved only from legal point of view because it is more of a political problem then a legal problem. And therefore as in every political solution it has to accommodate facts of life to certain degree from both sides of the equation (in other words it has to be a compromise) otherwise it is not feasible.

Any solution that does not involve significant amount of settler staying in Cyprus is not politically feasible, and does more harm than good in terms of human rights. Now the amount of settlers that can stay is debatable.

I have never said that they have acquired the land legally, and in fact if you read my posts you can understand that even at the time of settlement, those who are entitled to stay and will stay, should be required to pay the price of the land they are given in order to share burden of this illegality.

Please do not twist my words and pretend that I said something I did not.

[brother]

The lands side of things you know they have to pay for them but i was talking generally.

[turkcyp]

But that restriction would come unstuck in the courts of human rights, you can not be a full member and only benefit say 70%.

At this point you are wrong brother,

First of ECHR had got nothing to do with EU instituions. EU courts are different than ECHR. ECHr has been founded by Council of Europe, to which Turkey is a full member along with another 46 countries. It is not a part of EU, so they do not apply the same rules.

ECHR can not say whether a person has a right to travel to some country in EU, or have a right to settle some country in EU, unless those rights are illegally obstructed by the goverments.

When it comes to EU, individual settlement to in a member country, and travel restrictions are quite common, and always are negotiatied during the accesion talks of a country. And once the accesion talks are over those documents are ratified by the EU and the applicant country and becomes the primary law of the EU so that it is uphold by the EU courts.

For example, there are same kind of restrictions on Polish citizens right. But the difference is that so far EU has never considered permanent restrictions on countries, and all these derogations from the main EU law are done on temporary basis. I think, Polish is seven years with an option to extend it another 7 years.

The difference is that in Turkey's case Europe is so afraid that they are going to flushed by Turkish cheap labor, they are hoping to get permanent restrictions for Turkey. Only the negotiations during the accesion phase determines these derogations.

The fact is by the time Turkey becomes full member the economical standards in Turkey would be improved enough that Turkey, may be, can get by with only temporary restrictions of Polish kind.

In Europes fears against Turkey economy has never been a major fear anyway. The major obstacle the be dealt with is that religion differences, and historical hostility between Europe and Ottomans (however Republic of Turkey tries to distance itself from Ottoman Empire, it will keep on coming back understandably) have create a very bad attitude towards Turks in Europe.

This whole thingbrings us back to another very very important subject.

Whatever agreemnt we reach in Cyprus has to be ratified by EU and each individual country in EU so that it becomes the primary law of EU. Otherwise now that RoC is in EU, they can go back to EU courts after the solution and for example say that, "The restrictions of GCs settleing in north is against the primary law of EU", in which case EU court will probably turn down those portions of the solution.

This is a very real danger to any solution proposed by UN, but is not addresed properly. I can understand why GCs will try to hide these facts, but I can not understand why TCs fail to see this fact.

Have a great day,

[brother]

I stand corrected and wiser to the procedure, thanks.

[Alasya]

I know for a fact that there are not a million Mainland Turks in NOrthern Cyprus. I think I would notice such a an enormous amount of people. You wouldn`t be able to fit all of them onto the island.

[MicAtCyp]

Whatever agreemnt we reach in Cyprus has to be ratified
by EU and each individual country in EU so that it
becomes the primary law of EU. Otherwise now that RoC is
in EU, they can go back to EU courts after the solution
and for example say that, "The restrictions of GCs
settleing in north is against the primary law of EU", in
which case EU court will probably turn down those
portions of the solution..

Well said

This is a very real danger to any solution proposed by
UN, but is not addresed properly. I can understand why
GCs will try to hide these facts, but I can not
understand why TCs fail to see this fact.

Despite your very good post here unfortunately you are wrong.Not only we do not try to hide these facts, I myself, have put them forward 100 times in this forum whenever I hear about restrictions on this, restrictions on that etc. It surprises me still hearing people in this forum talking about derrogations or accepting the Anan Plan with some minor modifications, without realising that after May 1, there can be no derrogations.... . The Anan plan by itself was a huge derrogation. There is not even a single issue regarding the solution proposed by the Anan plan that was not against the EU Aquis. You name it.

May I add to what you said, that when the Anan Plan was on referendum, the accession talks were already over. In case it had secured a twin yes vote, it would NOT automatically become a primary EU law. It would have to be approved by the parliaments of the other 24 member states. That would never happen, and the New United Cyprus would practically be kicked out of the EU as a different and uncomplying entity compared to the previously accepted RoC.

Poor Cypriots thought the Anan Plan was designed to bring a solution to Cyprus.How easily everybody forgot thousands of Turkish and US statements in the international press at the beggining of 2004 that their ONLY target was to de-train Cyprus’ EU road...

[insan]

The Anan plan by itself was a huge derrogation. There is not even a single issue regarding the solution proposed by the Anan plan that was not against the EU Aquis. You name it.

I didn't know that there are some who are too blind and deaf not to see and hear that all restrictions of Annan Plan were temporary because of the special circumstances of Cyprus.

[boulio]

15 years or when turkey gets into the eu is not temproary it can be a lifetime i also thinks he means that only 18% could go to there homes in the north as a example.

[insan]

15 years or when turkey gets into the eu is not temproary it can be a lifetime i also thinks he means that only 18% could go to there homes in the north as a example.

What do ya meanz re bullos, I couldn't quitez underzdand?

[boulio]

well than thats your problem