The XXXXX Plan

The Annan XXXX

Nessie (the Loch Ness Monster)

The abominable Snowman…

Darth Vader
…
…
…
Nellie the Elephant?

Readers can have a look at your 7 consecutive snappy responses and make up their own minds as to whether I was justified to say “hopefully you are calmer now..”.. Your latest reply shows that’s probably not yet the case..

My point was crystal clear: the RoC is not breaking any law and if anyone feels otherwise, he/she have proper recourse (this can in no way be compared to Turkish crimes and contempt of law).

If there is a certain process a TC has to go through to reclaim property, then this can also be challenged and it sometimes is. Similarly, GCs have the right to sue the RoC for the preferential treatment it affords to TCs in many ways.

The “rule of necessity” which you say restricts the rights of the “poor Turks” can be lifted TOMORROW if Turkey takes its troops, settlers and criminal gang (“TRNC”) back to Anatolia and hands back the stolen lands to the owners. TCs have every right to demand the return to the 1960 constitution if they want, and all their rights will now be guaranteed by the EU.

About your wish to deprive GC of their properties and rigths to perpetuity and even try to legitimise this through changing the EU acquis.. go ahead and try it.. you are talking about the properties and the rights of the GC people, not your grandfather’s farm – so the people will give you the answer, as they did in 2004.

Your aggressive writing style shows that it is you that has not yet recovered from your failure to blackmail GCs into surrendering the RoC in 2004..

Sad, really, because I have come on this forum with a view to be constructive and discuss with people what is realistically the best way forward in order to achieve a solution and “epanenosi”, yet some people constantly seek confrontation.

The “calm down” phrase is something you can use in your own house Sceptic, not with me.

It is not an issue of complying to the law.

The very decision of the court admits that there are restrictions to the TC rights to properties. That was the issue we were discussing, in relation to possible restrictions of GC rights in case of a BBF solution.

In the same way that the court justifies (via “Rule of Necessity”) the first restrictions and accepts them as legal… the agreement of GC and TC, the constitution of the BBF and … with the blessing of the EU… the latter restrictions will also be legitimized.

When you recover from the fact that your ignorance or deliberate lies have been exposed… come around for some “Kourtounia” tea.

Slow down. The first thing to do is to exploit all local remedies. RoC is very clever in its handling of the situation by actions like lengthy delays of the “local remedies”.

Hopefully you are calmer now.. in all the 7 replies you posted, there is not a single fact showing that the RoC fails to comply with the law. Even if that were the case, whoever has a complaint is able to take it to European courts – the RoC, unlike Turkey adheres to ALL court decisions.

I’ll be Robert Redford, who want to be Daryll Hannah?

Had enough?

“… Σε πρόσφατη απόφασή του, ημερομηνίας 21ης Μαΐου 2007, το Ανώτατο Δικαστήριο της χώρας μας, απορρίπτοντας την προσφυγή αρ. 99/2005 Τουρκοκυπρίων αιτητών, αποφάνθηκε τα ακόλουθα: «Ο Τουρκοκύπριος ιδιοκτήτης δεν αποστερείται της περιουσίας του, της οποίας εξακολουθεί να είναι κύριος. Η διαχείριση όμως της περιουσίας αυτής ανατίθεται, κατά τη διάρκεια της έκρυθμης κατάστασης και για τους σκοπούς που προαναφέρθηκαν, στον Κηδεμόνα. Απλώς, το δικαίωμα κατοχής, διαχείρισης και ελέγχου της περιουσίας υπόκειται σε απόλυτα αναγκαίους περιορισμούς, που συνάδουν με το άρθρο 23.3. του συντάγματος»…”

Το δικαστήριο δεν αποδέχτηκε ότι του στερεί το δικαίωμα της περιουσίας αλλά λέει σαφώς “το δικαίωμα κατοχής, διαχείρισης και ελέγχου της περιουσίας υπόκειται σε απόλυτα αναγκαίους περιορισμούς”.

Τα πρακτικά της βουλής εδώ.

1) Compliance to Law exists even in countries that later deem laws as unjust. It also exists in various countries with significantly contradictory laws.

2) You are deliberately misleading. I did not refer to the Custodian in order to justify Turkey breaking International Laws but in order to explain how an agreed BBF solution would justify some restrictions to some rights.

3) If reference to “they have too many rights” and “the XXXXX XXXX” fails to scare enough people… may I suggest Nessie (the Loch Ness Monster), the abominable Snowman… and if all else fails… Darth Vader.

Opinions are like backsides.. everybody has one. The concepts of “rights”, “compliance with law” etc are, on the other hand, objective and factual.

I am able to say that Turkey (through its army and controlled entity, the “TRNC”) violate fundamental rights because of the numerous court decisions and rulings that confirm this.

If you feel “we” (by that I guess you mean the UN and EU member state of the RoC) “restrict rights” please go to the european courts and then come back to say it again. Until then, this is just slander and libel.

Of course we have reached the end.

When WE restrict rights it’s ok, WE do if for the good of the whole…

Please, do not bother to comment upon TC social benefits, etc. before you explain how restrictions upon property rights are justified in one case but not in the other.

I am all for the common good.. but not for a zero sum game where TC make unfair gains at our expense..

I agree that the smaller side should have a disproportionally large say in decision making at the federal level in the context of a BBF.. but land & property is a very different issue.. Yes, Cyprus has more “say” than its relative size in the EU.. but try to ask another EU state to cut a piece of its territory and hand it over to you and see what happens.. (or citizens of a state at that)..

“The 18% sounds fair but you have to admit that on an island our size it would have severe problems functioning.” I disagree.. there are states much smaller than this that work fine..

“It also points to the T/Cs being grouped together in some sense.” That is exactly what they say they want.. pure TC state with clear majorities.. only difference is that they want to also have an area two and a half times bigger than what they own, and ethnically cleanse the real owners to achieve this.. can’t have it both ways..

I think we have exausted this topic and we have different views.. I think you are suggesting that the “protection” of the TC community can be used as a reason to do all sorts of illegal things.. My view is that by definition, a BBF guarantees that the TC state will always have its own TC zone and it will always be ruled by TCs. Accordingly, no “suffocation” can take place. This, however, does not mean that it has to be two and half times in size than properties TCs collectively own (because someone has to lose their own property for this to happen). It also does not mean that there has to be rotational Turkish presidency with a winning vote at the federal level.

Re custodian: The RoC is being far more generous than it could have been.. effectively every TC is able to re-claim their property, in some cases immediately and in others with minimal hassle. Even if they have a complaint they can take it to ECHR and, unlike Turkey, the RoC always adheres. So, sorry, but I will not feel bad about this..

In fact, some say that TCs are receiving hugely preferential treatment in the RoC.. no tax on salaries, free health care (which I do NOT enjoy), no car fees etc.. not to mention that if the LAW was applied to the letter, as you suggest, then TCs crossing the line would probably need to go to court, face criminal charges for supporting (through taxes, military service etc) an illegal entity that has stolen and still occupies part of the RoC, often illegally using stolen GC properties etc etc then serve any prison term and only after that be able to re-claim their properties. [I do not support this - just an extreme view to respond to the extreme view you have put forward]

Finally, to say that GCs reject a certain type of BBF because they have not been properly informed or do not understand it, is to seriously underestimate the intellect of GCs.. many of whom are far more accomplished than the average politician.. The Annan plan was discussed in an extreme level of detail and people formed their own views on it (that’s why very few were influenced by party decisions).

Ahhh. I am not so sure about that

Today one of my favorite writers/activists has passed away, Howard Zinn. He has backed up these type of, what you call “positive ambitions” with examples from primarily USA history but world history too. When he said:
“Voting is easy and marginally useful, but it is a poor substitute for democracy, which requires direct action by concerned citizens”, he was not just being a utopic thinker.

@Adespotos, look what you did