Cyprus-Forum.com

[Saint Jimmy]

Yes, turkcyp, I agree with you that no change can be made to the laws of the 1960 constitution unilaterally, should TCs decide to return to the Republic.

And we certainly have no right to alter TCs' political status, or to play around with the provisions of the constitution, as regards TC voting or other rights.

By the way, who said GCs are intellectually superior to TCs? All we are is numerically more, but that's pretty much it... No superiority, man, relax

[turkcyp]

Dear Othellos,

I want to ask one thing, and please be truthful to me.

If the 'occupation' as you call it ends tomorrow,

will you and GC community give our rights back from 1960 constitution? Will you?

Ask this question to yourself, and answer truthfully.

If your answer is 'yes we will let you exercise all your rights under 1960 constitution' then I will say there is no need for Turkish army to be in Cyprus anymore.

If your answer is 'no" then I will say no more, and leave you alone with your hypocritical, self-righteous comments.

Have a good day,

p.s to Saint Jimmy. I am very relaxed man. This is my style.

[Othellos]

If your answer is 'no" then I will say no more, and leave you alone with your hypocritical, self-righteous comments.

Turkcyp,
The only reason I am in this forum is to exchane views with people, to inform myself and hopefully to learn 2 or 3 new things. At the same time I have never asserted to be 100% correct. So why the agressive and bitter tone in your post? You have every right to disagree with what I write but at least try to do it with aruments like others are already doing.

I am afaid I do not understand your question. As I wrote in other posts, in 1963 your leadership made a conscisous decision to walk out of the RoC and set up its own "autonomous administration". To this date and to the best of my knowledge, the Turkish side objects to any idea that would even suggest its return to the RoC, or am I wrong?

O.

[MicAtCyp]

Insan and Erol,

The question I was answering was this:

For what purposes RoC wanted to join EU and for what purposes the other countries wanted to join EU? There are substantial differences between Cyprus and the others...

The way I understood this question was to name the common criterion that leads countries to want to become EU members. And that's what I did. Both of you came back referring to Cyprus specifically, whereas you Erol even came to the point of asking me what kind of car industry we in Cyprus have?!??!

Anyway to set things straight, If you want to know the reasons why specifically RoC wanted to become a member Mikkie already answered you and I couldn’t say it better.

The economic factor was a major reason for Cyprus to join, but of course the main driver for EU membership was to force Turkey to begin negotiating a solution to the Cyprus problem. From that point of view, that is a benefit for BOTH communities. If Cyprus didn't gain entry then the status quo would have prevailed, the border would still be closed etc.

Despite the subject matter of the discussion what I notice later on is unbeleivable:

No, I don't have such feeling against MicAtCyp but lately his temper is very harmful towards everyone other than you and piratis.

I am not the kind of touchy person that would take offense from statements like that, but don't you think that such questions should be addressed to me personally via a private message?For me this does not differ from plain gossip.

In the past it is MicAtCyp who claimed that EU membership of Cyprus will negatively afect the economy of Cyprus. He said that the EU membership of Cyprus would particularly affect the banking sector. He further claimed that most of the Cyprus business sectors would not compete with the EU rivals. Moreover he said that many of the employers was preparing themselves to import cheap labourers from other new EU members. I wonder am I really disigenuous towards Mic or he is to me.

Boy o’ boy!!! The gossip went on and on.... I wonder, is everything I say so striking, that everybody remembers my exact words 2 years after I say them, except me? Yes I said that about the import of cheap EU labourers, i might have even said the rest(I really don't remember) but under what conditions, and under which discussion? Furthermore was it to support the idea that we should not enter the EU or that the main reason we are entering it is for its Political benefits? Was it perhaps in a thread titled "Bloody noses from the EU"?

[insan]

Gia sou galosto re Othellos (I don't know what galosto means but we TCs use it the way I used it. Not just Gia sou but together with galosto...)

Akel never liked Clerides. Their "official" reason for this is that Clerides and his party (DISI) gave political asylum to many EOKA B members. Another reason (imo) was that Clerides and DISI were in power for 10 years already and AKEL had to do something to win these elections so that they could return to power. Papadopoulos (who always had the ambition to become President) was their best option because his party (DIKO) is 17% strong. I do not know how seriously AKEL considered the impact of Tassos Papadopoulos in the Cyprus problem before supportin him.

I've read lot about the DESI vs AKEL but I have no idea about the past relations of AKEL and DIKO. I think DIKO is a kind extension of Patriotic Front, Unified Party. I don't have much knowledge about 60's political parties of GCs but it seems to me that Democratic Rally came from inside of DIKO. Presumably, a part of DIKO genuinely was supporting Makarios and the other part which after the split, in 1976 had gathered under the name DESI was supporting Enosis during the period 1968-74. But oddly enough both parties sheltered some EOKA-B members in elections of 1976 even until present time. Another interesting development is the split of DESI, last year which was something made me think that even in DESI there were two factions with a distinct points of view concerning the Cyprus problem. Presumably the reason of why AKEL supported T-Pap is hidden in this complicated political relations. Another remarkable point in this story is that, I think; a part of Akel is totally against T-Pap and his policies.

The world is becoming a smaller place every day and no one can afford to disregard this fact - that would be an expensive mistake. Who could predict 55 years ago that France, Germany, Italy and Britain would all be members of the same alliance? Who could have imagined 20 years ago that the all mighty USSR would not exist today and that Eastern Europe countries that were under Soviet occupation would be joining the EU and NATO? The world is moving on. Even Turkey has applied for EU membership (=political and economic integration with 25 other countries includng Greece and Cyprus), although I am not sure that they understand what they have applied for.

Yes, I'm well aware of what you said. We are rapidly going through the world government aka new world order. Dream of capitalists. Nightmare of working classes. My opinion? It will be exciting.

I do agree with you that Turkey will have an incredibly difficult time to secure EU membership. This may not be very good for us here because Turkey will try to save the Cyprus card till the last minute. In other words, no membership then no solution.

I do not think that the HRE (=Hellenic ruling elite, to use your term for a change) has any tactic at the moment. Following the referendum there is no clear policy with mid and long-term goals like there was a few years back when Cyprus was applying for EU membership.

Everything depends upon the developments on side of the Christian Democrat Coalition of EU. As I said previously, if they have got in power at least in 2-3 EU countries until early 2006; they will put a full stop to Turkey's EU adventure and in my opinion that's what HRE dreaming of behind the mask of "good boy", except Hellenic Front and T-Pap which at least they honestly expose their grudge against Turkey.

Conservatism is probably one such reason. Do not forget thought that the TCs can be just as conservative when it comes to issues like the return of the GC refugees in their homes, or living among GCs etc.

True. So the question is how can we overcome and get over this conservatism which is a very big obstacle in front of a better solution, Island wide? The civil initiatives, psychologists, sociologists and historians have lot to do but except a few of them others only know how to loot the UN and US funds by trading upon peace, solution, brotherhood, rapproachment etc...

You are correct in saying that the actions of any leader must be judged within the context of the time he was in power. I agree that the 1960's weren't easy, but I still believe that the Cypriot leaders didn't do the best job at that time.

Actually I agree with you. A few months ago, after reading a huge amount of articles, studies about the Cyprus problem; I came hear and opened a new thread with a subject "Destroyers of Cyprus". Guess who were in my list.

No, I don't. Maybe Alexandros could ask this question the next time he carries out a poll.

Yes. Alexandros may help us about this issue. Alexandros do you hear us. Though it's me who wonder GCs point of view regarding "the political equality" of two communities.

This makes sense. A mature society should be capable of electing mature leaders, building capable security forces and maintaining an independent judiciary system. In the 1960s we were not mature. Do you think that in year 2005 we Cypriots are mature enouhgh to do the above?

If only those self-interest groups haven't been among them, they could do that. But what it seems to me; both the seller and the buyer are happy in this corruptness. Much or less most of them are getting their shares. Only a small group of intellectuals on both sides trying to keep them away from this corruptness as away as they can. Don't think that I blame the ordinary people that have a narrow perspective which naturally don't allow them to see the goings-on in a wider perspective. I don't expect masses to get deeply interested into goings on. I just expect the number of those who keep them away from the corruptness to be at least 100 times more than what their numbers are.

So why do you think that he didn't respect the 3rd Vienna agreement? My view is that he didn't feel he had to do so. Remember that at that time the Cyprus problem had been resolved permanently for Turkey.

I think the reasons of why Turkish side failed to respect the 3rd Vienna agreement needs to be examined retrospectively. Although no excuses can be accepted if one put his/her sign under an agreement but as you know this tradgic history of Cypriots are full of retaliations which mostly originated from the ruling elites of both parties. I don't know if I could have explained you what I meant but here's a link which I think may give you a better explanation concerning this issue. There you'll find their official point of view about this issue. I think it was a kind of retaliation and reaction to the previously occured injustices, such as signing the 60s agreements then secretly maintaining Enosis policies, trying to put TCs into a minority status, embargos after the 74 etc.


http://www.trncinfo.com/TANITMADAIRESI/2002/ENGLISH/ARTICALSandCOMMENTS/AC64.htm

…. Noone could stop him implementing what he considers right to do.

Exactly!

But I believe that if the HRE has been wise enough they could stop both Denktash and their backers doing this.

Oi re, I do not know much about shoulder pain……Perhaps you can ask Mrs Insan (if there is one) to give you a nice massage. Alternatively you can hire a secretary to help you with all your posting in the forum

Mrs ,Insan working therfore she is not at home in big part of the day. I think the alternative would be great if I was a wealthy man but I'm a poor man besides jobless.


But don't worry be happy.

Are you married re Othellos? Child(ren)? I have a son of 7 y.o.

[insan]

I am not the kind of touchy person that would take offense from statements like that, but don't you think that such questions should be addressed to me personally via a private message?For me this does not differ from plain gossip.

Boy o’ boy!!! The gossip went on and on.... I wonder, is everything I say so striking, that everybody remembers my exact words 2 years after I say them, except me? Yes I said that about the import of cheap EU labourers, i might have even said the rest(I really don't remember) but under what conditions, and under which discussion? Furthermore was it to support the idea that we should not enter the EU or that the main reason we are entering it is for its Political benefits? Was it perhaps in a thread titled "Bloody noses from the EU"?

Re brother we are a few friends here that even we don't use our real names but feel ourselves as warm as in our houses together with our families. So what are you talking about gossips and this and that. To tell us what you mentioned above in respond to what I put forward just to remind you what were your opinions concerning some issues, is enough to hear from you. I see no reason for you to get angry but I understand you because you consider what I said as gossip. But actually what I heard from mikkie, sounded to me as a gossip from you to mikkie. Did you whisper something about me to the ear of mikkie, such as "insan is disingenuous to me."?

[-mikkie2-]

Turkcyp,

What on earth are you talking about?

The constitution does not need to be changed in order to allow the TC's to vote in the south.

All the RoC is doing is to allow those TC's that wish to the individual right to vote in the PRESIDENTIAL elections. If an individual TC wishes to participate in the RoC and wants to be deemed as being part of the 'GC community' then that does not constitute a problem and in no way does it contradict the constitution. Or does that individual need the permission of Turkey or Denktas before they can vote?

If the TC's want to participate in the RoC as per the constitution then they should perhaps demand their rights under that constitution AND REJOIN THE RoC. It is VERY simple. Now, why do the TC leaders not ask to do this?

BECASUE THEY WANT EVEN MORE THAN WHAT THE 1960 CONSTITUTION GIVES TO THEM.

[-mikkie2-]

Insan,

There was no gossip involved between me and MicAtCyp. I was merely defending him because everyone on here seems to have it in for him for speaking his opinions. As it happens, he agreed with my explanation. Hope thats ok re Michali

I was trying to point out your attitude that assumes that everything the GC's do, such as gaining EU membership, is in order to bury the TC's and to fuel your 'Hellen' conspiracy theories.

One question I have for you is, what about the Turksih Elite? Don't you subscribe to the idea that the Turkish establishment and elite have their own agenda regarding Cyprus as well? As roumour would have it, many people on Talats infamous list of 45000 settlers that would stay, a large number of those seemed to be rather rich and famous Turkish individuals that don't even live in Cyprus! I guess many of them fancied having their holiday home there and to also concorete over most of the north with holiday homes for welthy Europeans.

Speaking of one and excluding the other does not provide for a balanced conclusion, don't you think?

[boulio]

One question I have for you is, what about the Turksih Elite? Don't you subscribe to the idea that the Turkish establishment and elite have their own agenda regarding Cyprus as well? As roumour would have it, many people on Talats infamous list of 45000 settlers that would stay, a large number of those seemed to be rather rich and famous Turkish individuals that don't even live in Cyprus! I guess many of them fancied having their holiday home there and to also concorete over most of the north with holiday homes for welthy Europeans.


excellent point,whats good for the goode is good for the gander.

how rich has dektash gotten off partion?

[Saint Jimmy]

The constitution does not need to be changed in order to allow the TC's to vote in the south.

All the RoC is doing is to allow those TC's that wish to the individual right to vote in the PRESIDENTIAL elections. If an individual TC wishes to participate in the RoC and wants to be deemed as being part of the 'GC community' then that does not constitute a problem and in no way does it contradict the constitution. Or does that individual need the permission of Turkey or Denktas before they can vote?

If the TC's want to participate in the RoC as per the constitution then they should perhaps demand their rights under that constitution AND REJOIN THE RoC. It is VERY simple. Now, why do the TC leaders not ask to do this?

Dude, I hope you don't mind my intruding in the conversation.
I think we need to clarify a few things, just to make sure that we are talking about the same thing. I feel there is a fundamental misunderstanding concerning the 1960 constitution.

One of the reasons that led to GCs wishing to amend the constitution is that they felt it gave TCs excessive rights, over and above their numerical presence in the island.
One of the provisions of the constitution was that GCs voted for a GC president, whereas TCs voted for a TC vice-president, separately. The TC VP had the right to veto decisions made by the President.
The Turkish invasion/intervention of 1974 was based on the fundamental premise that the 1960 constitution was no longer valid, as a) GCs nullified it by means of overthrowing the legal government, b) GCs themselves unilaterally tried to amend it (Makarios's 13 amendments) and c) TCs withdrew from the government, allegedly not by choice (they were claimed to have been 'forced out'). This is what Turkey based its reasoning on, to justify the invasion.

On the other hand, the GC official position is that TCs withdrew from the government by choice, not by force, and that, following restoration of constitutional order (Sampson 'resigned' and Clerides took over as the constitutional replacement of the elected president), the 1960 constitution remains in effect. Therefore, I cannot see how we can contradict our own selves and deny any TCs living in the South their right to vote for a VP, no matter how few they are. It is in the constitution! Still, it is not likely that any TC will come forward and run for VP (that would be recognizing the 1960 constitution, which for reasons a), b) and c) above could never be done), but this is a theoretical discussion.

Personally, I was under the impression that, following 1974, if we were ever given the chance to go back to the 1960 constitution, we'd jump at the opportunity and thank God for our good fortune. But some postings on this forum have made me reconsider. So, theoretically, the issue here is, if TCs were to return to the RoC under the 1960 constitution (and given that they don't want to vote for a GC president, but for a TC VP, as provided by the original agreement, which, by the way, still bears our signature...), would we accept granting them the rights provided in that constitution???