The Best Cyprus Community

Skip to content


Provisions of Cyprus Republic(1960) VS Provisions of UN Plan

How can we solve it? (keep it civilized)

Provisions of Cyprus Republic(1960) VS Provisions of UN Plan

Postby michalis5354 » Wed Apr 14, 2004 5:54 pm

If anyone makes the above comparison very carefully, (S)He wont identify many differences among provisions and functionality aspects of the two plans.

Considering that Cyprus Republic required TC Vice President and also TCs participating in the Parliamnet.

Another thing is that according to Cyprus Republic the two official Languages of Cyprus were Greek and Turkish.

What is more under the cyprus republic , an amount of Turksih and Greek Army was present which is the case with the current UN Anan Plan .
And under both plans this amount is not that significant campared to the current number of Greek and Turksih Soldiers.

Now coming to the UN Anan Plan , the overall balance has not changed ,though anyone can identify some minor changes like Bi-zonality. and some other chnages that took in to account the aggreements made towards a federal State.

The UN Anan Plan is even much more improved towards the Independence since it provides an independent new Flag and a separate national anthem which was absent in the republic of Cyprus plan (1960).

Anyway I am not an expert Lawyer so I will not go further and analyse more fully the details of those plans , But taking into account many of the comments made by different International writers and economist I have taken the above conclusion that the balance of the two above plans has not changed significantly. But the Effect Overall is a very positive one

Cyprus has never been a Greek dominating culture but a mix Greek and Turksih Culture for centuries .

Now speaking about the population ratio this is not a satisfactory answer as there are many federal states internationally who even a small percentage of ethnic group possess similar political rights. And this is part of Any Democratic state that all citisens to be equal and freely to cooperate towards the functionality of the whole country.
User avatar
michalis5354
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 1520
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2003 10:48 am

Postby Piratis » Wed Apr 14, 2004 11:52 pm

I don’t know why I bother to answer such obviously wrong statements that you make, but anyways.

The 1960 constitution creates a unitary state. With Annan plan we have confederation. This means that while in 1960 we were all together in one country, now we have almost everything separately. Even separate FIRs! This is much closer to division than a unitary state.
User avatar
Piratis
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 12261
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 11:08 pm

Postby metecyp » Thu Apr 15, 2004 1:01 am

This is much closer to division than a unitary state.

We tried the unitary state, and it didn't work. So it is only natural that we're trying something non-unitary here, what did you expect? You want us to repeat the same mistakes, and expect different results? That's the definition of stupidity.

Ok, Annan plan might be closer to division than a unitary state, but the consequences of TCs saying "Yes" and GCs saying "No" to Annan plan is much much closer to division than Annan plan, did that ever cross your mind?

Well, I guess it did, because you said numerous times that you prefer division, but at least don't deny that Denktas convinced you to accept the division.
User avatar
metecyp
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 1154
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 4:53 pm
Location: Cyprus/USA

Postby Piratis » Thu Apr 15, 2004 2:46 am

I was replying to the initial post, making clear that the RC(unitary) and Annan plan (confederation) are indeed two absolutely different things. I guess you agree with this.

don't deny that Denktas convinced you to accept the division


Denctash convinced you that you deserve a separate state, that you are not a minority and that G/C even today want to destroy you. These are the achievements of Denctash.

Yes, Annan plan is even worst than "standard" division for us.

The question is: Would a federal system that could be approved by G/C be worst than division for you?

We jumped from unitary state directly to confederation while if we stopped in the middle of these (federation) we could find a much more acceptable solution that would be better than division and better than current status for both sides.
User avatar
Piratis
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 12261
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 11:08 pm

Postby metecyp » Thu Apr 15, 2004 3:25 am

I was replying to the initial post, making clear that the RC(unitary) and Annan plan (confederation) are indeed two absolutely different things. I guess you agree with this.

It's obvious that Annan plan type of solution is not unitary, however I'm not completely convinced that Annan plan is confederation. Confederation, as introduced by Denktash, means two completely independent states on the island. So, for example, if today's situation, i.e Greek RC in the south, and TRNC in the north, is accepted as a solution, then that solution would be confederation since RC and TRNC are totally independent, and the two states would only have "good neigboring relations". And that was the plan that Denktash proposed some time ago.

However, Annan plan states that the two states formed on the island are going to assume powers that are not assumed by the federal government. In other words, they are as independent as the federal structure allows them to be. And if you read Annan plan carefully, you'll realize that many major issues are handled at the federal level.

The fact that the constituent states have their own flag and national anthem does not mean too much. In the USA, each state also have their own flag, that doesn't make USA a confederation.
We jumped from unitary state directly to confederation while if we stopped in the middle of these (federation) we could find a much more acceptable solution that would be better than division and better than current status for both sides.

We jumped from unitary state to federation. Again I think you're playing with words. Confederation was introducted to Cyprus by Denktash and what he meant by confederation was completely against what Annan plan is. If Annan plan was a real confederation as you suggested, Denktash would not have been so opposed to it.
User avatar
metecyp
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 1154
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 4:53 pm
Location: Cyprus/USA

Postby Piratis » Thu Apr 15, 2004 4:25 am

The term was not invented by Denctash. If confederation is what you (or Denctash) claims then all countries that share borders and have good relations would be called confederations.

There are no precise descriptions of what a federation and what a confederation is, and that is why I usually say “federation like in the US”.

So in the US maybe the states have flag, but no national anthem , they have "state song". Also there are no state citizenships, people are just residents of each state.
The Annan plan states clearly that there is no hierarchy between the central government and the state governments. This means the central state is not above the component states like is the case with all other federations. All these make it a confederation. US is a single economy, but “United Cyprus” will not be.

Also, the only country that I know that has the word "Federation" in its name is Russia while the only one that has the word "Confederation" in its name is Switzerland. Now is what Annan proposes similar to Russian constitution or to the Swiss one?
User avatar
Piratis
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 12261
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 11:08 pm

Postby Piratis » Thu Apr 15, 2004 4:41 am

I had a look at the Swiss constitution (clearly a confederation) but what they propose to us is an even more loose confederation than what they have there!

For example:

Article 49 in the Swiss constitution:
Art. 49 Supremacy of and Respect for Federal Law
1) Federal law takes precedence over contrary cantonal law.
2) The Confederation shall ensure that the Cantons respect federal law.


While in Article 3 paragraph 3 of Annan plan:

The federal government and the constituent states shall fully respect and not infringe upon the powers and functions of each other. There shall be no hierarchy between federal and constituent state laws. Any act in contravention of the Constitution shall be null and void.
User avatar
Piratis
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 12261
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 11:08 pm

Postby metecyp » Thu Apr 15, 2004 6:08 am

So in the US maybe the states have flag, but no national anthem , they have "state song". Also there are no state citizenships, people are just residents of each state.

You're right that in the US, people are residents of the states, and they get a residence id to indicate that. However, I don't see any difference between this and the constituent state citizenship described in the Annan plan. Nobody can be just the citizen of a constituent state. Therefore someone has to be a citizen of United Cyprus Republic to be a citizen of one of the constituent states. Here's how this is described in the Annan plan.
1. There is a single Cypriot citizenship. Special majority federal law shall regulate eligibility for Cypriot citizenship.
2. All Cypriot citizens shall also enjoy internal constituent state citizenship status. This status shall complement and not replace Cypriot citizenship.

So, in a sense, constituent state citizenship is nothing more than what's called state residence in the US. In today's situation, anybody from Turkey can come and become TRNC citizen, and you, as a GC, have no way of stopping that (actually even I don't have a way of stopping it either). But in the United Cyprus Republic, this cannot happen because someone has to be Cyprus citizen first, before becoming constituent state citizen. So how's this different that state residency in the US? The same argument goes for the national anthems. Americans call it state song, we call it national anthem, what's the big difference? These are not valid reasons to conclude that Annan plan is a confederation..
While in Article 3 paragraph 3 of Annan plan:
The federal government and the constituent states shall fully respect and not infringe upon the powers and functions of each other. There shall be no hierarchy between federal and constituent state laws. Any act in contravention of the Constitution shall be null and void.


But you forgot (or chose to forget) the include the observation that goes along with what you quoted. The observation says:
Observation: This Constitution gives the Supreme Court power to determine the validity of any law.

This means if a constituent state tries to pass a law that goes against the federal government, then the supreme court has the final say in it. In other words, no constituent state can act without considering the whole federal structure. You're purposely picking bits and pieces of Annan plan to hide how balanced of a plan is Annan plan. You have to look at the whole plan. In the same section, it says
The constituent states shall, within the limits of this Constitution, sovereignly exercise within their territorial boundaries all competences and functions not vested by this Constitution in the federal government.

As I said before, this means constituent states can only assume responsibilities that is not already assumed by the federal government. In other words, there might not be an explicit hieararcy indicated in the constitution between the federal government and constituent states, but constituent states cannot act above the federal government, they can only complement it.

So far you haven't provided me any solid examples from Annan plan to prove that it's a confederation. You're trying to directly compare Annan plan with the system in the US, and we know that you can't do that. Names used in the plan might be different, but if you read the whole plan, in essence, the plan is a very finely balanced federation.
User avatar
metecyp
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 1154
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 4:53 pm
Location: Cyprus/USA

Postby Piratis » Thu Apr 15, 2004 6:59 am

Names are very important because they can be used at a later stage to make it easier for any state to brake away from “United Cyprus”. And don’t tell me that the constitution forbids it. The constitution of Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia forbade it also.

Also your quotes do not change the fact that there is no hierarchy between federal and constituent state laws. This was done with an intention; otherwise, they would have just used the same terminology used in the Swiss constitution.

This means if a constituent state tries to pass a law that goes against the federal government, then the supreme court has the final say in it. In other words, no constituent state can act without considering the whole federal structure.


Wrong, look at your own quote better. It just says that laws can not go against the constitution. I was not talking about the constitution, I was talking about the laws of the central government.

I am not trying to convince you. You have a plan that will benefit you greatly. You wouldn’t go our in the streets shouting if the plan was just marginally ok for you, and don’t try to deny that. Therefore is natural for you to support it, and I would expect from you to do say anything else today.

The reasons I bother to write these things are 2:

1) To warn other G/C that this plan was created to serve the interests of some foreigners and not our own.
2) To let T/C know why we reject this specific plan. We are not nationalists. We are not extremists. We do not wish to "do whatever we want" as tcypriot said some days ago. That it is not that we don’t want to live with T/C, and that we are willing to accept at any time they decide a federal system that will give them their own federal state within which they will have the autonomy they desire (described in another threat). That this solution will be much better for them and for us from both current status and division. Also, such solution will be voted by G/C without the need of threats thus creating a much better climate between the two communities.
User avatar
Piratis
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 12261
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 11:08 pm

Postby metecyp » Thu Apr 15, 2004 8:19 am

Names are very important because they can be used at a later stage to make it easier for any state to brake away from “United Cyprus”. And don’t tell me that the constitution forbids it. The constitution of Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia forbade it also.

If you are not going to believe what's written on the paper, then why do we even bother trying to come up with a written solution? If you don't believe on a written plan, then how do you expect TCs to believe in anything you propose, given that what's written on the paper in 1960 constitution hasn't been implemented in the last 40 years?
Also your quotes do not change the fact that there is no hierarchy between federal and constituent state laws. This was done with an intention; otherwise, they would have just used the same terminology used in the Swiss constitution.

This was done to please both sides. Without explicit hierarchy written in the plan, TCs are assured that they're not going to be dominated. And with the fine balanced structure where federal government and federal structures such as the supreme court have the final say in almost every major issue, GCs are assured that this is a federation, not two completely independent states.
Wrong, look at your own quote better. It just says that laws can not go against the constitution. I was not talking about the constitution, I was talking about the laws of the central government.

What about the laws of the central government? So tell me a situation where a constituent state passes a law that is not fundamentally against the constitution, but it's totally unacceptable at the federal level. This cannot happen in the finely balanced plan. You're just trying to come up with excuses.
I am not trying to convince you. You have a plan that will benefit you greatly. You wouldn’t go our in the streets shouting if the plan was just marginally ok for you, and don’t try to deny that. Therefore is natural for you to support it, and I would expect from you to do say anything else today.

You're not trying to convince me simply because you can't. I know Annan plan, I know what it represents. So you can't deceive me or anyone who know Annan plan that it's a confederation or some other nonsense.

I agree that the plan benefits TCs greatly, simply because TCs lost so much in the last 40 years. TCs are not 100% happy about the plan either. But we've reached to the level that we cannot tolerate the status quo anymore, so even though the plan is not perfect, it's something to start from, that's why there's so much support in TC community. If we follow your logic, then any solution where TCs celebrate by "shouting in the streets" is not acceptable to you.

Before you go on and claim imaginary things such as Annan plan being confederation, at least try to think about how you'll deceive people that know the plan. And be honest and tell us the real reason why you don't want the Annan plan. Don't hide behind the confederation bullshit and tell us that you don't like Annan plan because you cannot control the whole island as you wish. Instead of hiding behind "two independent states" in Annan plan, tell us that you're really comfortable enjoying RC just by yourself, and you don't want to share it with anyone.
User avatar
metecyp
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 1154
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 4:53 pm
Location: Cyprus/USA

Next

Return to Cyprus Problem

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest