Cyprus-Forum.com

[Maximus]

The TC's where the instrument being used by foreign powers to destroy Cyprus. they circumvented democracy and essentially become the continuation of colonialism in Cyprus.

The TC contributed massively to why people emigrated from the island to seek opportunities elsewhere.

Foreign powers?? Don't you you mean our home grown fucking idiots.?

How can you support Ukraines war to join NATO but not Cyprus's war for enosis or independence?

Ukraine's...war ?? Do you mean the Russian invasion of Ukraine ?
Furthermore I never supported Ukraine's ambitions of NATO membership. As a young boy I did support ENOSIS. With
Hindsight I was wrong. Our struggle should have had as it's goal an independent Cyprus. By the way, I wouldn't have returned to Cyprus if it was rolled by Greeks.

It was the fight for enosis that lead to Cyprus's independence though,

It was Ukraine's ambitions to join NATO that triggered the Russian invasion. Is it their fault then and are they wrong just like you were wrong about enosis?

Dont be a Ttoppouzokiprei

[miltiades]

You forgot to mention that after independence it was the goal of some to achieve ENOSIS that gave Turkey the excuse to invade. Russia could have used other means instead of causing the death of thousands and the destruction of some cities. There was not justification for this brutal invasion. By the way, I have been to both Russia and Ukraine, I was impressed by both countries. I also had some respect for Putin but not anymore, he is just another Tzar and a vicious bastard. In 1955 at the start of the struggle I was just under 9 years old. Just as then beloved in the MYTHOLOGIES surrounding religion I also believed that Greece was our motherland. So pleased I have now rejected both of these bullshit, many years ago age around 18 I saw the light.
At almost 76 now I have had lots of time to find the truth.
I hope that more Cypriots discover the truth.

[Londonrake]

It was Ukraine's ambitions to join NATO that triggered the Russian invasion.

I don't believe that to be true.

All 30 NATO countries would have needed to agree to their membership and I'm certain Germany and France would have vetoed - as they did in 2008. It was simply a handy excuse.

All dictators in trouble promote a foreign "threat". Ukraine's NATO membership application provided one. The supposed discovery of secret bio-warfare labs in Ukraine since the invasion the same. Even ridiculous rumours they were trying to acquire nuclear weapons. All primarily for domestic consumption. Out with, your belief in such reflects your gullibility, IMHO.

I think it comes down to something quite simple. Putin's personal survival. His dictatorship (22 years) has recently come under increasing domestic pressure. Suppression of any opposition has become more visible globally, attracting international condemnation. His invasion of Crimea and Georgia cost little and brought him a huge increase in popularity. He thought Ukraine would be similar. A gamble which has backfired.

[Lordo]

Ehem ehem, this is not a thread about Ukraine.

Read the subject ffs.

Going back to my example of the young man from Libya and the judge from Afghanistan, what is their status if they should appear in a boat in Dover?

[Londonrake]

Ehem ehem, this is not a thread about Ukraine.

Neither are many your good self regularly promotes about US past activities. Syria, Iraq, Chile, Libya, Yemen, Japan, etc, etc. Introducing them into the Russian invasion of Ukraine. No?

[Maximus]

It was Ukraine's ambitions to join NATO that triggered the Russian invasion.

I don't believe that to be true.

All 30 NATO countries would have needed to agree to their membership and I'm certain Germany and France would have vetoed - as they did in 2008. It was simply a handy excuse.

How certain, when in 2008, during the NATO summit in Bucharest, it was agreed that Ukraine will become a member.

All dictators in trouble promote a foreign "threat". Ukraine's NATO membership application provided one. The supposed discovery of secret bio-warfare labs in Ukraine since the invasion the same. Even ridiculous rumours they were trying to acquire nuclear weapons. All primarily for domestic consumption. Out with, your belief in such reflects your gullibility, IMHO.

No it cant be this as the former following that you was wrong about the latter.

I think it comes down to something quite simple. Putin's personal survival. His dictatorship (22 years) has recently come under increasing domestic pressure. Suppression of any opposition has become more visible globally, attracting international condemnation. His invasion of Crimea and Georgia cost little and brought him a huge increase in popularity. He thought Ukraine would be similar. A gamble which has backfired.

Yeah keep it simple, Ukraine joining NATO posed an existential threat to Russia. According to Putin and, based on NATO countries track record of destroying many countries over the decades.

[Maximus]

Ehem ehem, this is not a thread about Ukraine.

Read the subject ffs.

Going back to my example of the young man from Libya and the judge from Afghanistan, what is their status if they should appear in a boat in Dover?

Irregular, (Illegal) migrant.

They should seek refugee or asylum status in the first safe country they land in, get processed and then either be hosted there or lodge a request to go to another country. If they can be accommodated by the country they have made a request for, then they go there with a safe passage.

Otherwise they, risk their life, get trafficked by people smugglers, brake UK law and the law of every country they pass through to get to Dover.

Here are the rights of refugees and asylum seekers, from the UN website. The right to remain in the country while their application is being processed exists, except when:

Your application is not examined or not examined fully because the competent authority has established that you are seeking to enter the country, or have entered illegally, from a safe third country.

[Lordo]

Ehem ehem, this is not a thread about Ukraine.

Neither are many your good self regularly promotes about US past activities. Syria, Iraq, Chile, Libya, Yemen, Japan, etc, etc. Introducing them into the Russian invasion of Ukraine. No?

Hang on one moment. Americans are involved in Ukraine and were also involved in all the other countries I mentioned. The reason for mentioning them is to corollate the hypocrisy of siding against Russia whilst Americans are at this point supplying arms to bomb Yemen. Not a word about that anywhere in the media.

In the meantime back to the refugees and asylum seekers.

https://fullfact.org/immigration/refugees-first-safe-country/

So lets knock a myth which gets mentioned quite regularly.

Under the Geneva Convention refugees should seek refuge in the first safe country they come to.


Verdict:

Incorrect. The UN Refugee Convention does not make this requirement of refugees, and UK case law supports this interpretation. Refugees can legitimately make a claim for asylum in the UK after passing through other “safe” countries.

Here is another one.

“[The people trying to cross the Channel from France to the UK] are not refugees…

“Because no one needs refuge from France. Or any of the other numerous safe countries they’ve passed though [sic] en route…

“And who under the Geneva Convention should seek refuge in the first safe country they come to. If they were genuine, that’s what they’d do. They’re not genuine. Just illegal migrants on the take.”

Suzanne Evans, 3 January 2019

Verdict:

We’ve had help writing this article from Dr Violeta Moreno-Lax, Senior Lecturer (Associate Professor) in Law, and Founder of the Immigration Law Programme, at Queen Mary University of London.

The above comments, made by former UKIP politician and Brexit campaigner Suzanne Evans, relate to cases in 2019 of people trying to cross the Channel from France to England in small boats.

Ms Evans cannot know whether the people trying to cross the channel in recent months would be recognised as refugees. This is to be determined by immigration officials in whichever country reviews their asylum applications.

She is also incorrect to say that refugees should seek refuge in the first safe country they come to. Under the UN Refugee Convention, there is no obligation on refugees to do this—an interpretation which is upheld in UK case law. Those trying to cross the Channel can legitimately claim asylum in the UK if they reach it.

That said, there is some UK domestic law which allows the government to refuse to consider an asylum application if it is judged that the person could have claimed asylum elsewhere. Refugees who arrive in the UK after passing through another EU country can, under certain circumstances, also be returned to the first EU country they entered, under an EU law known as the Dublin Regulation.

Now this is very interesting because when we were in the EU we could have returned them to France. But since Brexit France does not have to apply the Dublin regulation.

So this pretty well shows that Ms Ugly Patel is out of her head legally speaking sending refugees/asylum seekers to Rwanda as the UK law does to allow that. But no doubt that will not prevent them from forcing people into planes and sending them there illegally.

[Maximus]

Bordo making bordous

Here are the rights of refugees and asylum seekers, from the UN website. The right to remain in the country while their application is being processed exists, except when:

Your application is not examined or not examined fully because the competent authority has established that you are seeking to enter the country, or have entered illegally, from a safe third country.

All refugees entering the EU may apply for asylum. They must do this in the country where they enter the EU. Asylum seekers who do not require protection must return to their country of origin or to a safe third country.

this is the problem in today's day and age, people are mass migrating with the help of smugglers for any particular reason they want, they illegally cross many countries, claim to be refugees based on bogus reasons and some plonkers think they can do that and will even support them.

[Lordo]

Now here is the front page of the convention. Only to show how UK is being racists by treating the Ukrainians different to the rest of the world and also as they admitted that the Ukrainians have been put in the front of the ques and the rest left till later.

Grounded in Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of human rights 1948, which recognizes the right of persons to seek asylum from persecution in other countries, the United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, adopted in 1951, is the centrepiece of international refugee protection today. The Convention entered into force on 22 April 1954, and it has been subject to only one amendment in the form of a 1967 Protocol, which removed the geographic and temporal limits of the 1951 Convention. The 1951 Convention, as a post-Second World War instrument, was originally limited in scope to persons fleeing events occurring before 1 January 1951 and within Europe. The 1967 Protocol removed these limitations and thus gave the Convention universal coverage. It has since been supplemented by refugee and subsidiary protection regimes in several regions, as well as via the progressive development of international human rights law

While we are at it it is also important to explain the difference between the word should and must. Should is advisory and Must is compulsory for those who are Anglically challenged.
And of course if a refugee should be returned, they should be returned to their original country, which clearly nobody has done thus far. I remember an Arab who was declared not wanted but they were unable to return him to Jordan even though Jordan had no civil war. But that's another matter.