Cyprus-Forum.com

[askimwos]

DT

You also forget that the TRNC was formed in 1983 so we could ignore all previous agreements as they do not bind the TRNC but the TC community within the "RoC" framework and if you havent noticed we do not take part in that framework

ahem VP would this mean that we can forget the treaty of gaurantee? The Zurich agreement?

What does talat mean when he says that according to the 1960 constitution the natural resources of the island belong to all the people of the island...thought all agreements prior to 83 are void??

I agree with you totally, we have to decide if we are the TRNC or not if we are we have no claims over anything the "RoC" do and Turkey and the TRNC are in the wrong. The guarantees have served their purpose and any unficaiton has to be based on new foundations eg Annan plan.

If we decide we want our rights under the "RoC" agreements then we have to dissolve the TRNC and stake claim.

The great majority of GCs ACCEPT for BBF, equality and powersharing....but Cyprus for the Cypriots not for Turkey not for Greece, not for the UK...ditch the guarantor powers and all froeign troops and we have a deal...

[Viewpoint]

DT

You also forget that the TRNC was formed in 1983 so we could ignore all previous agreements as they do not bind the TRNC but the TC community within the "RoC" framework and if you havent noticed we do not take part in that framework

ahem VP would this mean that we can forget the treaty of gaurantee? The Zurich agreement?

What does talat mean when he says that according to the 1960 constitution the natural resources of the island belong to all the people of the island...thought all agreements prior to 83 are void??

I agree with you totally, we have to decide if we are the TRNC or not if we are we have no claims over anything the "RoC" do and Turkey and the TRNC are in the wrong. The guarantees have served their purpose and any unficaiton has to be based on new foundations eg Annan plan.

If we decide we want our rights under the "RoC" agreements then we have to dissolve the TRNC and stake claim.

you've made your position clear on this. I think if anything it proves that your partitionist views cannot be bought and that they are genuine. Unlike a lot of your compatriots who remember the 1960 govt when it suits them and forget it just as easily.

good on you for being true to your beliefs (even though i don't agree with them)

Thank you at last someone who can see that there are two sides to a coin and that people can have differeing opinions.

[Viewpoint]

DT

You also forget that the TRNC was formed in 1983 so we could ignore all previous agreements as they do not bind the TRNC but the TC community within the "RoC" framework and if you havent noticed we do not take part in that framework

ahem VP would this mean that we can forget the treaty of gaurantee? The Zurich agreement?

What does talat mean when he says that according to the 1960 constitution the natural resources of the island belong to all the people of the island...thought all agreements prior to 83 are void??

I agree with you totally, we have to decide if we are the TRNC or not if we are we have no claims over anything the "RoC" do and Turkey and the TRNC are in the wrong. The guarantees have served their purpose and any unficaiton has to be based on new foundations eg Annan plan.

If we decide we want our rights under the "RoC" agreements then we have to dissolve the TRNC and stake claim.

The great majority of GCs ACCEPT for BBF, equality and powersharing....but Cyprus for the Cypriots not for Turkey not for Greece, not for the UK...ditch the guarantor powers and all froeign troops and we have a deal...

All foreign troops leaving the island TCs will not have a problem with as they agreed to reduce to a symbolic number of 650 but the guarantee issue is very tricky, getting rid of the army and asking for no security guarantees is going to be very difficult to achieve, maybe a compromise of Turkey just guaranteeing the north state could be an option or only until they also join the EU, what do you think?

You say power sharing but how do you see the structure and how will it deal with decision which effect one community more negatively than the other?

[humanist]

Well I believe that education ought to be universal and both languages taught as compolsory, I beleive that if Greek/ Turkish Speaking Cyp's speak both language integration of culture would be made easy and acceptance of each other therefore easier as people will begin to feel as one.

[askimwos]

Wtf VP ita seems that you don't even know that a federation is for god's sake!! Go open a book man!!

In a federation a bill is drafted by the government and then is passed to the parliament for ratifications and voting. The parliament is envisaged to have a representation of 75% GC and 25% TC. Then the bill is passed to the congress where the representation is 50% for each community to either approve or send back to the parliament for more ratifications. Ofcourse there can be federations with slight differences but this is the main point of it. So I can't really see how a bill that is seen as being against a community can be passed.

The two states will also have their own local administration which will be responsible for education, health, policing, local issues while the central goverment will be responsible for the economy, natural resources, foreign policy and federal justice which is above the local courts etc.

Which part of the above you do not agree with? I would appreciate if you took the time to explain.
Please bear in mind that a solution need to be workable and that we cannot have a veto right in all public services...the anna plan descibed a system where in all government departments there was a GC as Director and TC as Vice-Director with the right of veto. The RoC proposed to change this and instead of having two bosses, to slit the Government Departments in two groups - one whe a TC will be the Director and one where a GC will be Director on the condition that the director has the final say and the vice-director is just an adviser. Ofcourse his excelency mr Talat refused to accept this in the name of "equality" even when they proposed to him to choose the departments that would be headed by TCs.

Btw, regarding the guarantee issue, how about having an EU or UN with the right mandate as peaceforce rather than Turkey? Why should we have Turkey or Greece patronising us and behaving like old collonianists?

[DT.]

DT

You also forget that the TRNC was formed in 1983 so we could ignore all previous agreements as they do not bind the TRNC but the TC community within the "RoC" framework and if you havent noticed we do not take part in that framework

ahem VP would this mean that we can forget the treaty of gaurantee? The Zurich agreement?

What does talat mean when he says that according to the 1960 constitution the natural resources of the island belong to all the people of the island...thought all agreements prior to 83 are void??

I agree with you totally, we have to decide if we are the TRNC or not if we are we have no claims over anything the "RoC" do and Turkey and the TRNC are in the wrong. The guarantees have served their purpose and any unficaiton has to be based on new foundations eg Annan plan.

If we decide we want our rights under the "RoC" agreements then we have to dissolve the TRNC and stake claim.

The great majority of GCs ACCEPT for BBF, equality and powersharing....but Cyprus for the Cypriots not for Turkey not for Greece, not for the UK...ditch the guarantor powers and all froeign troops and we have a deal...

All foreign troops leaving the island TCs will not have a problem with as they agreed to reduce to a symbolic number of 650 but the guarantee issue is very tricky, getting rid of the army and asking for no security guarantees is going to be very difficult to achieve, maybe a compromise of Turkey just guaranteeing the north state could be an option or only until they also join the EU, what do you think?

You say power sharing but how do you see the structure and how will it deal with decision which effect one community more negatively than the other?

don't think that would be accepted vp as it doesn't calm our fears of a possible legal partition in the future. There can't be any loopholes for a 3rd party country to carry out a millitary operation again. The consituition needs to be gauranteed and safeguarded by the EU. If turkey joins as well at some point then it will all be meaningless anyway.

[pitsilos]

kifeas gave him a better plan and he accepted it. he is playing games with you. kikapu would justify to that.

good ol vp is continuing with his utopian partition dreams.

ain't that right vp?

[pitsilos]

kifeas gave him a better plan and he accepted it. he is playing games with you. kikapu would justify to that.

good ol vp is continuing with his utopian partition dreams. aetou o havrilis, he doesn't listen

ain't that right vp?

[DT.]

kifeas gave him a better plan and he accepted it. he is playing games with you. kikapu would justify to that.

good ol vp is continuing with his utopian partition dreams.

ain't that right vp?

anychance we can see it please pitsilos?

[pitsilos]

i will try and seacrh for it.

in the same thread you will mr propagandist wiggling to the left and wiggling to the right and when he agreed, he came back with more lame excuses. sad but in a way laughable.