Petitioning the EU

[Nil.IlligitimiCarborundum]

Dear Members

Firstly let me say "Hi" to the members of this forum; some of whom already know/hate me and to those of you who don't already know/hate me yet, give me time!

I have some simple rules, I will argue with anyone who wants to argue and I will fight with anyone who wants to fight. I get abusive if abuse is aimed at me or I remain civil if those posting remain civil. Don't like my rules, tough they are my rules and they are what they are, rules.

Having made my hello's; let's get down to business.

Recently I was asked by another member of this forum (who is also a member of another forum and who shall remain nameless,) asked me to join this forum.

I have a unique perspective to bring to the "Cyprus Problem" because:

A. I have been traveling to, working via and living in Cyprus for 43 of my 50 years on this planet.

B. I am a person who believes/knows that Cypriots can live together any where in the World; except in Cyprus.

C. Because I have been and remain an impartial witness to the extreme; (i) kindnesses, (ii) brutality, (iii) propaganda and (iv) stupidity of the Cypriots.

D. I have, by virtue of my deportation from Cyprus in 2001, seen first hand, both sides of the Cypriot largess and vindictiveness.

Detailed below are:

1. An e-mail sent to every MEP, Turkish Deputy, EU Enlargement Commissioner Olie Rehn, British Prime & Deputy Prime Minsiters Tony Blair and John Prescott, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, The committees of the House of Commons and Lords Foreign Affairs Select Committees, demanding that Turkey be allowed to not recognise the R of Cyprus for the reasons contained in the e-mail.

2. Details of a petition I submitted to the European Parliament asking for the EU to cancel Cyprus's membership of the EU.

3. Details of how you can petition the European Parliament, if you are so minded,editied with posters consent by ez .


Brian Semmens

Point 1:

____________________________________________________________


From: Brian Semmens [mailto:brian@europeansavingsloan.com]
Sent: 18 September 2005 13:34
To: 'cab-rehn-web-feedback@cec.eu.int'
Cc: 'euclords@parliament.uk'; 'Constitution@parliament.uk'; 'escom@parliament.uk'; 'foraffcom@parliament.uk'; 'liaisoncommittee@parliament.uk'; 'conaffcom@parliament.uk'; 'john.prescott@odpm.gsi.gov.uk'
Subject: Turkey's non recognition of the Republic of Cyprus

Dear Commissioner Rehn

Forgive me for presuming to write to you, but your short attendance to the contents of this e-mail will be worth the effort. I am a lawyer, a Citizen of the United Kingdom, the European Union and I welcome Turkey’s entry into the European Union.

Certain Member States of the European Union are calling on Turkey to rescind their “Non recognition of the Government of Cyprus” statement, issued by the Government of Turkey on their signing of the Customs Union Protocol recently and/or they are demanding a strongly worded reply sanctioning Turkey for their stance on Cyprus.

I urge you to prevail upon the British Government, through its Presidency of the EU, to resist any and all calls for Turkey’s accession negotiations talks to be; delayed, suspended, blocked, or otherwise interfered with unless it formally recognises the Greek Cypriot administered Republic of Cyprus as the sole “legal” government of Cyprus.

For the purposes of this e-mail and for expediency; I am assuming that you know something of the history of this troubled island since its independence from Britain in 1960? What is not common knowledge however is the manner in which the only “legal” Republic of Cyprus (legal in terms of the 1960 constitution,) came to an end.

This happened in late 1963; when in a unilateral decision, taken against the constitution of Cyprus, President Makarios; the first Cypriot President asked for and then demanded 13 changes to the constitution. These 13 changes were outlined in a presidential memorandum dated; November 30, 1963, entitled "Suggested Measures for Facilitating the Smooth Functioning of the State and for the Removal of Certain Causes of Inter communal Friction." The proposed amendments would have eliminated most, if not all of the special rights granted to the Turkish Cypriots in the Zurich & London talks and agreements, which talks and agreements were the basis for the 1960 constitution. The changes included (but, this is not the full list:)

1. They would have abolished many of the provisions for separate communal institutions,

2. They would have substituted an integrated state with limited guarantees for the minority community. As opposed to the absolute guarantees granted the minority community by the 1960 constitution

3. The administration of justice would have been unified, with the courts drawn from the Greek Cypriot legal framework only, not that of the Turkish Cypriot legal framework

4. Instead of the separate municipalities that the constitution had originally called for in the five largest towns, municipalities were to be unified, leaving the Greek Cypriots in overall and absolute control.

5. As were the provisions for separate parliamentary majorities in certain areas of legislation.

6. That Turkish Cypriot representation in the civil service was to be proportionate to the size of the community, i.e. 18% rather the 70/30 split called for in the constitution.

7. The veto powers of the president and vice president were to be abolished and this was the key proposal President Makarios wanted (needed) to pass.

In the Zurich and London talks and agreements, which talks and agreements were the basis for the 1960 constitution; both communities were given the right, via the veto granted to the President and Vice President, to veto any law, act, or administrative decision taken by the parliament that would unfairly or adversely affect their communities. This right to veto was granted to both communities, but in reality it was primarily granted to protect the minority community, the Turkish Cypriots, because the parliament had an absolute Greek Cypriot majority. By demanding the abolition of the veto for both himself and the Vice President (a position that could only be held by a Turkish Cypriot,) President Makarios was destroying a) the constitutional safeguards of the minority Turkish Cypriot community and b) the 1960 constitution.

These proposals were intended to effectively emasculate the Turkish Cypriot Deputies. Makarios’s demand that the 13 changes be passed into law, directly lead to the eventual forced withdrawal of the Vice-President and the Turkish deputies from the parliamentary process and caused the effective collapse of the democratic process and with it, the constitutionally elected government. Once the Turkish Cypriot deputies and Vice-President were absent, President Makarios, using the “doctrine of necessity” then governed the Republic without: a) a Vice-President (a position under the constitution that could only be held by a Turkish Cypriot) and b) without the participation of a single Turkish Cypriot Deputy. On the 1st of January 1964 Makarios “terminated” the “Treaty of Guarantee” (copy attached) which underpinned the rights granted to the Turkish Cypriots in the 1960 constitution. In 1965, in the Greek Cypriot controlled, Republic of Cyprus parliament, the Greek Cypriot Deputies passed a law (No. 38/1965) that excluded the Turkish Cypriot Deputies from all sessions of the parliament and “abolished” the Vice President’s right to veto. In another decision in 1965, again taken by the Greek Cypriot controlled, Republic of Cyprus parliament, the Greek Cypriot Deputies passed a law (No. 39/1965) that abolished the electoral process of the 1960 constitution that called for separate electoral lists for Greek and Turkish Cypriots and approved just one electoral list, the Greek Cypriot list, thereby denying any Turkish Cypriot citizen the right to vote in the Republic of Cyprus. This is still the position today, see below the AZIZ case.

Attached is a summary document (in PDF form,) which lists the breaches of the 1960 constitution by the Republic of Cyprus (I apologise in advance, as this is a rather large file)

Now it may appear that President Makarios was being magnanimous by proposing the abolition of the veto rights for both the president and vice president, given that the abolition of this right, also denied him the right to veto, but as I said above, the parliament had an absolute Greek Cypriot majority, so President Makarios was giving up a right that had little or no impact or effect upon what the Greek Cypriot majority wanted to do. The Turkish Cypriots made up only 18% of the population of Cyprus, the remaining 82% were predominantly Greek Cypriot (78%) and who by and large wanted “ENOSIS” (Union with Greece.) In these 13 amendments President Makarios was laying the ground work for the eventual (and his stated aim of) Union with Greece. I say stated aim because just six (6) weeks after the Republic of Cyprus came into being on the 16th August 1960, on the 27th of September 1960 the President of the Cypriot Republic, Makarios, made a statement to the New York Herald Tribune which clearly indicated that he did not believe in the internationally guaranteed bi-national Republic of Cyprus; he said, "the cause of Enosis has not died. I cannot say that Enosis has been forgotten."

Constitutional lawyers (like myself) consider that the effective collapse of the government envisaged and enshrined in the Zurich and London agreements meant that Cyprus was without a legally constituted government and that the Greek Cypriot Leader Makarios’s use of the “doctrine of necessity” was merely a means to an end, namely the continuation of an illegal government, with him as the “elected” President.

Regardless of what has happened in the intervening years; the collapse of the Republic of Cyprus government in 1963, as defined by the 1960 constitution, means that the organisation that took control then, which remains in power today and is recognised to be the “internationally recognised government of Cyprus” is nothing more than the Administration of the Greek Cypriot Community component of the Island of Cyprus.

One other point worth noting about the “termination,” on the 1st of January 1964, of the “Treaty of Guarantee” is that many lawyers, myself included, argued that it was illegal for the EU to permit the entry of the Republic of Cyprus into the EU until a solution had been found for the impasse brought about by the collapse of the “real” government of Cyprus. This is because in article’s One and Two of the Treaty of Guarantee of the Republic of Cyprus (copied below,) Cyprus is prevented from becoming part of any union or economic pact. Unfortunately the EU accepted the entry of the Republic of Cyprus and further holds that the present administration is the sole legitimate government of Cyprus, ignoring the fact that this “government” still operates on the mandate granted to it by the 1960 constitution, a constitution that ceased to have merit when the Turkish Cypriot Deputies and the Vice-President were forced to absent themselves due to the illegal actions of the Greek Cypriot majority in 1963, 1964, 1965 and indeed every year since.

Even the UN, in resolution 649 (1990) (copy attached) called upon both sides in Cyprus to respect the past agreements and not to do anything that would alter the constitutional integrity of Cyprus.

It is no small coincidence that despite the provisions of the Treaty of Guarantee and the calls of the UN to do nothing to effect union with another country, entity or economic union; 1990 is/was the year that Cyprus was granted a start date for the accession talks/negotiations which lead to its eventual membership of the European Union.

The Republic of Cyprus still denies the Turkish Cypriots the right to vote for their own representatives to the Cypriot parliament (although they did grant them the right to vote in the recent European Parliament elections.) In 2004 the ECHR ruled that Cyprus breached article’s 3 (of protocol number 1) and 14 of the Convention on Human Rights, in denying Mr Ibrahim Aziz, a Turkish Cypriot citizen living in the “government controlled areas of Cyprus” the right to vote in Cypriot elections (case number 69949/01 AZIZ V CYPRUS; copy attached.)

Until such time as the government of the Republic of Cyprus is re-constituted, as per the 1960 constitution, Turkey is, in my opinion, perfectly entitled to refuse to recognise the Republic of Cyprus as the sole legal government of Cyprus and that it should maintain its present position; that Cyprus is an island of two communities, which should become the component parts, of an as yet un-unified state.

Yours faithfully




Brian Semmens LLM

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Treaty of Guarantee

The Republic of Cyprus of the one part, and Greece, Turkey and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland of the other part.

Considering that the recognition and maintenance of the independence, territorial integrity and security of the Republic of Cyprus, as established and regulated by the Basic Articles of its Constitution, are in their common interest,

Desiring to co-operate to ensure respect for the state of affairs created by that Constitution.

Have agreed as follows.


ARTICLE I
The Republic of Cyprus undertakes to ensure the maintenance of its independence, territorial integrity and security, as well as respect for its Constitution. It undertakes not to participate, in whole or in part, in any political or economic union with any State whatsoever. It accordingly declares prohibited any activity likely to promote, directly or indirectly, either union with any other State or partition of the Island.


ARTICLE II
Greece, Turkey and the United Kingdom, taking note of the undertakings of the Republic of Cyprus set out in Article I of the present Treaty, recognise and guarantee the independence, territorial integrity and security of the Republic of Cyprus, and also the state of affairs established by the Basic Articles of its Constitution. Greece, Turkey and the United Kingdom likewise undertake to prohibit, so far as concerns them, any activity aimed at promoting, directly or indirectly, either union of Cyprus with any other State or partition of the Island.




************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and may be subject to legal privilege. They are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom/which they are addressed.

If you have received this email in error (or think you may have received it in error,) you may not peruse, use, disseminate, distribute or copy this message and/or any files transmitted with it.

Please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail (enclosing the original e-mail) and delete the original e-mail and any files attached thereon from your system.

Computer viruses can be transmitted by e-mail. Recipients should check this e-mail for the presence of viruses. European Savings & Loan and/or Brian Semmens accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by or on this e-mail.
************************************************************

____________________________________________________________

Point 2:


Some members may be unaware that as EU citizens (those of you who are,) you have the right to petition the European Parliament about any issue you feel strongly about. The petitions process is all on line (link below) and is the EU's attempt to show it is listening to the people, i.e. US!

It does work, I submitted a petition regarding my deportation from Cyprus and I was heard by the Petitions Committee (made up a 20 or so MEP's) in September 2004. Cyprus was sanctioned on two points:

Point 1, as ever the Cypriots failed to even attend the Petitions committee meeting, despite being asked to attend.

Point 2, The committee upon hearing that 3 Britons had been deported from Cyprus in the space of just one month in 2001 asked the Cypriots (via the Commission) to provide the files on every deportation from Cyprus since 1990

The Petitions committee is the single most powerful committee in the EU because it is the citizens right to redress and the EU takes this right seriously, something the Cypriots found out because the chairman of the committee sent a letter of censure to both Nicosia and the Cypriot permanent representative to the EU.

Detailed below is a second petition I have filed asking the EU to cancel Cyprus's membership. It's unlikely to be successful but it has a "nuisance factor," which should upset the R of Cyprus a little bit more.

Regards


Brian Semmens

------------------------------------------------------

Link to submitting a petition:

http://www.europarl.eu.int/parliament/public/petition/submit.do

___________________________________

PETITION DETAILS:


Submitting a petition

Before you begin filling in this form, read carefully the on-line help instructions on the correct procedure for submitting a petition to the European Parliament. This form must completed in one of the official languages of the European Union.
As soon as you have sent your petition by E-mail, you will receive electronic confirmation that it has been received.
In any further correspondence concerning action taken on the petition, the European Parliament will communicate by post.
If you wish to attach any annexes to your petition, please send them to the following address:

European Parliament
Members' Activities Division
L-2929 LUXEMBOURG

Please take the time to answer the questions below. We need a certain amount of information in order to register your petition. This information will enable us to deal with your request more quickly.

Surname : Semmens

First name : Brian

Nationality : British

Occupation : Company Director

Postal address
Street : XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Post code : XX Town : XXX Country : PT

E-mail address
(if applicable) : XXXXXXX@XXXXXXXX

If you are acting on behalf of an organisation, association, pressure group, trade union, etc., please give its name

Name of the association :

If the Committee on Petitions declares your petition admissible, do you agree to its being considered in public?

YES

Subject of your petition (in brief) :


Cancellation of the Republic of Cyprus's membership of the EU

Text of your petition : (SEE FULL TEXT BELOW)


Your petition has been sent.
May we remind you that if you wish to add any annexes to your petition, you should send them to:

European Parliament
Members' Activities Division
L-2929 LUXEMBOURG

_______________________________

TEXT OF PETITION

I petition the European Parliament to revoke the membership of Cyprus to the European Union. I ask for this because the European Union and two (2) member States broke international law in accepting the application for membership by the Republic of Cyprus. In addition the Republic of Cyprus breached its own constitution when it a) entered into negotiations to join with the European Union and b) when it joined the European Union.


The Republic of Cyprus became an independent sovereign state on the 16th August 1960. Its constitution was agreed between the representatives of Cyprus, Greece, Turkey and Great Britain during negotiations in Zurich and London, in 1959. During the talks in Zurich (and London) in 1959, the parties agreed to the formation of a Republic and outlined the basis of their agreement in the "Treaty of Establishment of the Republic of Cyprus." This document laid out the obligations of the new state and the obligations of the Guarantor States, Greece, Turkey and Great Britain.

Article One (1) of the "Treaty of Establishment of the Republic of Cyprus" specifically prevents the Republic of Cyprus from entering into any agreement to join any partnership/union/association/etc with any other state. (See copied and pasted extracts from the "Treaty of Establishment of the Republic of Cyprus" below.)

In addition Article Two (2) of the "Treaty of Establishment of the Republic of Cyprus," specifically obliges Greece, Turkey and Great Britain to prevent The Republic of Cyprus from entering into any agreement to join any partnership/union/association/etc with any other state. (See copied and pasted extracts from the "Treaty of Establishment of the Republic of Cyprus" below.)

Clearly the Government of Cyprus breached its own constitution when it started negotiations, concluded negotiations and then signed membership of the European Union. Likewise the Governments of Greece (an EU member state,) Turkey and Great Britain (another EU member state) breached their obligations under the "Treaty of Establishment of the Republic of Cyprus" when they failed to prevent the Government of Cyprus from starting negotiations, concluding negotiations and finally allowing them to sign membership of the European Union.

In addition the Governments of Greece (an EU member state) and Great Britain (another EU member state) breached their obligations under the "Treaty of Establishment of the Republic of Cyprus" when they signed, as member states of the EU, the accession documents facilitating the entry of Cyprus into the European Union.

I therefore petition the European Parliament, as is my right by virtue of my citizenship of the European Union to revoke the membership of the Republic of Cyprus; because the membership of Cyprus is in breach of: international, national (Cypriot) and Community law.

Brian Semmens

Treaty of Guarantee

The Republic of Cyprus of the one part, and Greece, Turkey and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland of the other part.

Considering that the recognition and maintenance of the independence, territorial integrity and security of the Republic of Cyprus, as established and regulated by the Basic Articles of its Constitution, are in their common interest,

Desiring to co-operate to ensure respect for the state of affairs created by that Constitution.

Have agreed as follows.


ARTICLE I
The Republic of Cyprus undertakes to ensure the maintenance of its independence, territorial integrity and security, as well as respect for its Constitution. It undertakes not to participate, in whole or in part, in any political or economic union with any State whatsoever. It accordingly declares prohibited any activity likely to promote, directly or indirectly, either union with any other State or partition of the Island.


ARTICLE II
Greece, Turkey and the United Kingdom, taking note of the undertakings of the Republic of Cyprus set out in Article I of the present Treaty, recognise and guarantee the independence, territorial integrity and security of the Republic of Cyprus, and also the state of affairs established by the Basic Articles of its Constitution. Greece, Turkey and the United Kingdom likewise undertake to prohibit, so far as concerns them, any activity aimed at promoting, directly or indirectly, either union of Cyprus with any other State or partition of the Island.

____________________________________________________________


Point 3:

Should you want to add your voice/support to my petition, just copy and past the text of my petition, click on the link below and make the Republic of Cyprus's life just a little more difficult.

Remember this petition costs you nothing but your time; if you are an EU citizen and want to be heard in the EU, this is the way to do it. Since the South rejected the Annan Plan the International community is taking a different view than they did in the past, now, today is the time to make them listen to what some of us have been saying all along:

"1974 was not a one sided aggressive act by Turkey, rather it was a proportional response to years of unprovoked and unconstitutional actions by the Greek Speaking Cypriot majority against the Turkish speaking Cypriot minority."

[Nil.IlligitimiCarborundum]

Dear Members

Me (or should that be Moi?) again; another petition submitted


Brian Semmens

___________________________________________________________



PETITION DETAILS:


Submitting a petition

Before you begin filling in this form, read carefully the on-line help instructions on the correct procedure for submitting a petition to the European Parliament. This form must completed in one of the official languages of the European Union.

As soon as you have sent your petition by E-mail, you will receive electronic confirmation that it has been received.

In any further correspondence concerning action taken on the petition, the European Parliament will communicate by post.

If you wish to attach any annexes to your petition, please send them to the following address:

European Parliament
Members' Activities Division
L-2929 LUXEMBOURG

Please take the time to answer the questions below. We need a certain amount of information in order to register your petition. This information will enable us to deal with your request more quickly.

Surname : Semmens

First name : Brian

Nationality : British

Occupation : Company Director

Postal address
Street : XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Post code : XX Town : XXX Country : PT

E-mail address
(if applicable) : XXXXXXX@XXXXXXXX

If you are acting on behalf of an organisation, association, pressure group, trade union, etc., please give its name

Name of the association :

If the Committee on Petitions declares your petition admissible, do you agree to its being considered in public?

YES

Subject of your petition (in brief) :

Cancellation of the Republic of Cyprus's membership of the EU

Text of your petition : (SEE FULL TEXT BELOW)


Your petition has been sent.

May we remind you that if you wish to add any annexes to your petition, you should send them to:

European Parliament
Members' Activities Division
L-2929 LUXEMBOURG

_______________________________

TEXT OF PETITION


I am a lawyer, a Citizen of the United Kingdom, the European Union and I welcome Turkey’s entry into the European Union.

Certain Member States of the European Union are calling on Turkey to rescind their “Non recognition of the Government of Cyprus” statement, issued by the Government of Turkey on their signing of the Customs Union Protocol recently and/or they are demanding a strongly worded reply sanctioning Turkey for their stance on Cyprus.

I urge you to desist from any form of sanction and/or statement against Turkey (or rescind any statement, if such a statement has already been made) and that the Petitions Committee prevail upon the British Government, through its Presidency of the EU, to resist any and all calls for Turkey’s accession negotiations talks to be; delayed, suspended, blocked, or otherwise interfered with unless it formally recognises the Greek Cypriot administered Republic of Cyprus as the sole “legal” government of Cyprus.

For the purposes of this e-mail and for expediency; I am assuming that you know little about the history of this troubled island since its independence from Britain in 1960? The main issue is the manner in which the only “legal” Republic of Cyprus (legal in terms of the 1960 constitution,) came to an end.

This happened in late 1963; when in a unilateral decision, taken against the constitution of Cyprus, President Makarios; the first Cypriot President, asked for and then demanded 13 changes to the 1960 constitution.

These 13 changes were outlined in a presidential memorandum dated; November 30, 1963, entitled "Suggested Measures for Facilitating the Smooth Functioning of the State and for the Removal of Certain Causes of Inter communal Friction." The proposed amendments would have eliminated most, if not all of the special rights granted to the Turkish Cypriots in the Zurich & London talks and agreements, which talks and agreements were the basis for the 1960 constitution.

The changes included (but, this is not the full list:)

1. They would have abolished many of the provisions for separate communal institutions,

2. They would have substituted an integrated state with limited guarantees for the minority community. As opposed to the absolute guarantees granted the minority community by the 1960 constitution

3. The administration of justice would have been unified, with the courts drawn from the Greek Cypriot legal framework only, not that of the Turkish Cypriot legal framework

4. Instead of the separate municipalities that the constitution had originally called for in the five largest towns, municipalities were to be unified, leaving the Greek Cypriots in overall and absolute control.

5. As were the provisions for separate parliamentary majorities in certain areas of legislation.

6. That Turkish Cypriot representation in the civil service was to be proportionate to the size of the community, i.e. 18% rather the 70/30 split called for in the constitution.

7. The veto powers of the president and vice president were to be abolished and this was the key proposal President Makarios wanted (needed) to pass.

In the Zurich and London talks and agreements, which talks and agreements were the basis for the 1960 constitution; both communities were given the right, via the veto granted to the President and Vice President, to veto any law, act, or administrative decision taken by the parliament that would unfairly or adversely affect their communities. This right to veto was granted to both communities, but in reality it was primarily granted to protect the minority community, the Turkish Cypriots, because the parliament had an absolute Greek Cypriot majority. By demanding the abolition of the veto for both himself and the Vice President (a position that could only be held by a Turkish Cypriot,) President Makarios was destroying a) the constitutional safeguards of the minority Turkish Cypriot community and b) the 1960 constitution.

These proposals were intended to effectively emasculate the Turkish Cypriot Deputies. Makarios’s demand that the 13 changes be passed into law, directly lead to the eventual forced withdrawal of the Vice-President and the Turkish deputies from the parliamentary process and caused the effective collapse of the democratic process and with it, the constitutionally elected government.

Once the Turkish Cypriot deputies and Vice-President were absent, President Makarios, using the “doctrine of necessity” then governed the Republic without: a) a Vice-President (a position under the constitution that could only be held by a Turkish Cypriot) and b) without the participation of a single Turkish Cypriot Deputy. On the 1st of January 1964 Makarios “terminated” the “Treaty of Guarantee” (a copy of the full treaty will be sent to the Parliament in support of this petition) which underpinned the rights granted to the Turkish Cypriots in the 1960 constitution.

In 1965, in the Greek Cypriot controlled, Republic of Cyprus parliament, the Greek Cypriot Deputies passed a law (No. 38/1965) that excluded the Turkish Cypriot Deputies from all sessions of the parliament and “abolished” the Vice President’s right to veto. In another decision in 1965, again taken by the Greek Cypriot controlled, Republic of Cyprus parliament, the Greek Cypriot Deputies passed a law (No. 39/1965) that abolished the electoral process of the 1960 constitution that called for separate electoral lists for Greek and Turkish Cypriots and approved just one electoral list, the Greek Cypriot list, thereby denying any Turkish Cypriot citizen the right to vote in the Republic of Cyprus.

This is still the position today, see below the AZIZ case. I will be sending to the Parliament in support of this petition a summary document which lists the breaches of the 1960 constitution by the Republic of Cyprus.

Now it may appear that President Makarios was being magnanimous by proposing the abolition of the veto rights for both the president and vice president, given that the abolition of this right, also denied him the right to veto, but as I said above, the parliament had an absolute Greek Cypriot majority, so President Makarios was giving up a right that had little or no impact or effect upon what the Greek Cypriot majority wanted to do.

The Turkish Cypriots made up only 18% of the population of Cyprus, the remaining 82% were predominantly Greek Cypriot (78%) and who by and large wanted “ENOSIS” (Union with Greece.) In these 13 amendments President Makarios was laying the ground work for the eventual (and his stated aim of) Union with Greece. I say stated aim because just six (6) weeks after the Republic of Cyprus came into being on the 16th August 1960, on the 27th of September 1960, the President of the Cypriot Republic, Makarios, made a statement to the New York Herald Tribune which clearly indicated that he did not believe in the internationally guaranteed bi-national Republic of Cyprus; he said, "the cause of Enosis has not died. I cannot say that Enosis has been forgotten."

Constitutional lawyers (like myself) consider that the effective collapse of the government envisaged and enshrined in the Zurich and London agreements meant that Cyprus was without a legally constituted government and that the Greek Cypriot Leader Makarios’s use of the “doctrine of necessity” was merely a means to an end, namely the continuation of an illegal government, with him as the “elected” President.

Regardless of what has happened in the intervening years; the collapse of the Republic of Cyprus government in 1963, as defined by the 1960 constitution, means that the organisation that took control then, which remains in power today and is recognised to be the “internationally recognised government of Cyprus” is nothing more than the Administration of the Greek Cypriot Community component of the Island of Cyprus.

One other point worth noting about the “termination,” on the 1st of January 1964, of the “Treaty of Guarantee” is that many lawyers, myself included, argued that it was illegal for the EU to permit the entry of the Republic of Cyprus into the EU until a solution had been found for the impasse brought about by the collapse of the “real” government of Cyprus. This is because in article’s One and Two of the Treaty of Guarantee of the Republic of Cyprus (copied below,) Cyprus is prevented from becoming part of any union or economic pact.

Unfortunately the EU accepted the entry of the Republic of Cyprus and further holds that the present administration is the sole legitimate government of Cyprus, ignoring the fact that this “government” still operates on the mandate granted to it by the 1960 constitution, a constitution that ceased to have merit when the Turkish Cypriot Deputies and the Vice-President were forced to absent themselves due to the illegal actions of the Greek Cypriot majority in 1963, 1964, 1965 and indeed every year since.

Even the UN, in resolution 649 (1990) (a copy of the resolution will be forwarded to the Parliament in support of this petition) called upon both sides in Cyprus to respect the past agreements and not to do anything that would alter the constitutional integrity of Cyprus.

It is no small coincidence that despite the provisions of the Treaty of Guarantee and the calls of the UN to do nothing to effect union with another country, entity or economic union; 1990 is/was the year that Cyprus was granted a start date for the accession talks/negotiations which lead to its eventual membership of the European Union.

The Republic of Cyprus still denies the Turkish Cypriots the right to vote for their own representatives to the Cypriot parliament (although they did grant them the right to vote in the recent European Parliament elections.) In 2004 the ECHR ruled that Cyprus breached article’s 3 (of protocol number 1) and 14 of the Convention on Human Rights, in denying Mr Ibrahim Aziz, a Turkish Cypriot citizen living in the “government controlled areas of Cyprus” the right to vote in Cypriot elections (case number 69949/01 AZIZ V CYPRUS; a copy of the case documents will be forwarded to the Parliament.)

Until such time as the government of the Republic of Cyprus is re-constituted, as per the 1960 constitution, Turkey is, in my opinion, perfectly entitled to refuse to recognise the Republic of Cyprus as the sole legal government of Cyprus and that it should maintain its present position; that Cyprus is an island of two communities, which should become the component parts, of an as yet un-unified state.

Yours faithfully


Brian Semmens LLM

------------------------------------------------------------

Treaty of Guarantee

The Republic of Cyprus of the one part, and Greece, Turkey and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland of the other part.

Considering that the recognition and maintenance of the independence, territorial integrity and security of the Republic of Cyprus, as established and regulated by the Basic Articles of its Constitution, are in their common interest, Desiring to co-operate to ensure respect for the state of affairs created by that Constitution.

Have agreed as follows.

ARTICLE I

The Republic of Cyprus undertakes to ensure the maintenance of its independence, territorial integrity and security, as well as respect for its Constitution. It undertakes not to participate, in whole or in part, in any political or economic union with any State whatsoever. It accordingly declares prohibited any activity likely to promote, directly or indirectly, either union with any other State or partition of the Island.

ARTICLE II

Greece, Turkey and the United Kingdom, taking note of the undertakings of the Republic of Cyprus set out in Article I of the present Treaty, recognise and guarantee the independence, territorial integrity and security of the Republic of Cyprus, and also the state of affairs established by the Basic Articles of its Constitution. Greece, Turkey and the United Kingdom likewise undertake to prohibit, so far as concerns them, any activity aimed at promoting, directly or indirectly, either union of Cyprus with any other State or partition of the Island.

[erolz]

Admins note

This thread is for those, if any, that wish to discuss the contents of Brians petitions to the EU.

Discussion about the approriateness of the orginal posts and other issues not about the content of the petitions themselves have been moved here.

http://www.talkcyprus.org/viewtopic.php?t=723

[Kifeas]

Brian Semmens

From what I understand you are up on a campaign to get the EU to (a.) Cancel Republic of Cyprus membership from the EU and (b.) allow Turkey to accede the EU without having to recognise the Republic of Cyprus.

It is your right to do so but I have a few questions.

1. Do you believe that the EU did not obtain a legal advise on the eligibility of the Republic of Cyprus to accede the EU before it agreed to declare it a candidate country for membership? My information is that such a legal advice was obtained from the legal committee of the EU council /commission. Perhaps you should look and find this legal advice first and examine the grounds on which Cyprus eligibility was decided, before you waste your time with such lengthy postings and petitions.

2. Why didn’t Turkey and /or the UK react to Cyprus application and demand that such an application is disregarded on the grounds that you mentioned in your petitions, which I personally do not subscribe to?

3. If Turkey reacted /objected to the Republic of Cyprus’s EU membership application and /or its acceptance by the EU but instead it was ignored, why didn’t Turkey take the EU to any of the international courts, i.e. Hague, or to the European Communities court?

4. How do you understand from a legal and a political perspective such an oxymoron and paradoxical thing to be able to take place, namely one country not recognise another one but yet seat at the same table with this country, negotiate it’s accession process with this country, obtain its signature for each one of the negotiation chapters to open and close and finally, to approve it’s accession into the EU? Doesn’t this sound like the everyday life example of someone going to an interview with the owner of a company in order to get a job from him and in his company, while at the same time he declares that this person is not the owner of the company in which he is negotiating with him to become employed? Can such a thing possibly ever happen in real life? If not, then how do you expect or understand it happenning in the perfect analogy of the EU, Cyprus and Turkey's accession?

[Nil.IlligitimiCarborundum]

Dear Kifeas

Your understanding of my intention is correct, as is your understanding of the legal opinion sought by the EU. However I (and others) believe the opinion sought and rendered to the EU was flawed. Hence my petitions to open an investigation into the way the Commission handled the whole process.

One of the functions a "citizens petition" can provide is an opportunity for the citizen to challenge the "organs" of the Commission and how those "organs" function or functioned. Through my petition I am asking the MEP's to order an investigation into the Enlargement Commission and the role it played in advising the European Parliament about Cyrus's progress towards full membership.

My position is that a mistake was made and that the EU and two member state (the UK and Greece) failed in their internationally recognised duty to prevent Cyprus joining the EU. The EU can not allow either its action or the action of its members to breach international agreements

Both Greece and the UK agreed in the Treaty of Guarantee that they would prevent any change to the status of Cyprus. They agreed to maintain the integrity of the Republic of Cyprus and they are morally bound to that position, by international law. The Treaty of Guarantee is an internationally recognized treaty, otherwise Cyprus could not have gained Independence in 1960.

There are two main issues to deal with:

1. Makarios's uni-lateral decision to "terminate" the treaty of Guarantee

2. The failure of Greece and the UK act upon that decision and to block Cyprus's membership.

Forget for a moment the legal position; let's just look at the practical implications of the EU's decision to admit a divided Cyprus into the EU.

It beggars belief that an organization representing 450 million people could ever think that admitting an island with a divided capital, with one third of it's territory under foreign occupation and without a legally constituted government was a good idea.

If it takes me and my unique way of "encapsulating" problems to help these mandarins work out that this was a bad idea, then that is what will happen.

Because unless someone has been taking far too many "happy pills and/or they have stepped through the looking glass and they are in "wonderland;" no one can convince me that a rational person could ever have thought this was a good idea and/or if they did, I want them to explain to me, in language a 5 year old can understand, how they arrived at this decision.

My way of ensuring that I (and any one else who has pondered the same question) gets an answer, is to demand one via a citizens petition.

Brian Siemens

By the way, I agree with your "strap" line "Cyprus is one, indivisible & belongs to its Cypriot people!"

What a pity your elders made such a mess of its early promise and perhaps the saddest part of all of this is; you are unlikely to see your wish made real.


Brian Semmens

[-mikkie2-]

Brian,

Well thank you for highlighting my poor spelling. I hope with your mastery of the English language you will perhaps do the same to others on this forum.

[Kifeas]

Brian Semmens,

Thanks for agreeing with my signature motto!
It is not a mere slogan! It is a fact, a determination, a destiny and a divine order!

Thanks also for attempting to reply to my above four questions, although in reality you didn’t answer to any one of them apart from partially the first one.

If you need some help to start, then here is a legal opinion by 3 experts /academics, favoring the eligibility /admissibly of Republic of Cyprus accession into the EU.

http://www.mfa.gov.cy/mfa/mfa.nsf/C4E08DDD19052270C2256B6B0032497E/$FILE/The%20eligibility%20of%20the%20Republic%20of%20Cyprus%20%20for%20EU%20membership.DOC

(Note that for some reason the cover (front) page appears at the end of the document)

[petethegreek]

[Kifeas]

[Nil.IlligitimiCarborundum]

Dear Kifeas

I am for both expediency's sake and to minimise the messages on this string, going to answer both your last posts with this one.

Message 1 (the last message:)

You wrote:

Quote:

Makarios unilateral decision to "terminate" the treaty of Guarantee in 1964 did not materialise. It was an intent that Makarios publicised but which was withdrawn upon, if I am not mistaken, British advise /thread not to support it. Legally, the treaty of guarantee remained in existence.

Britain may have threatened him, but it made little or no difference to his actions. Makarios's action from November 1963 to 30th July 1974 were unconstitutional and against articles 181 & 182 of the 1960 constitution and Articles 1 & 2 of the Treaty of Guarantee.

So whether you call it a "termination," a "Breach" or a "Duck's ar*e" the effect is the same; He broke the constitutional laws of the Republic, an act he swore, when he took his oath of office, he would not do.

The unconstitutional Republic of Cyprus's "parliament," passed two laws in 1965, laws 38/1965 & 39/1965. Law 38/1965 removed the right to vote for a Vice President, a position that under the 1960 constitution could only be held by a Turkish Cypriot and the holder of which position could veto any law he/she felt harmed his/her community and law 39/1965 which removed the right to vote for a Turkish Cypriot Deputy to the Parliament, a position that under the 1960 constitution could only be held by a Turkish Cypriot citizen and was a position that could only be voted for by a Turkish Cypriot citizen. With these two laws, Makarios excluded the Turkish Cypriots from the electoral and legislative processes.

You went on to say:

Quote:

although it is Turkey that later has rendered it invalid with the occupation and de facto partition of Cyprus in 1974

If I were being kind, I would say that the above statement is at least disingenuous and if I were not being kind? Let's just say that "talking" and "ar*e" would feature in the same sentence. Some would say, myself included, that the "de-facto partitioning of Cyprus" was achieved on the 24th of April 2004.

Turkey's actions in 1974 were consistent with its obligations under the Treaty of Guarantee and to argue otherwise is to "pee into the wind and expect to not get wet."

The Guarantor powers understood the "de-facto" constitutional reality from late 1963 to 1974.

A UN resolution (Resolution No: 353; 1974) was approved by the Security Council on the 20th of July 1974 at 16.00 hours London time.

Quote:

It:`deplored the outbreak of conflict and continued bloodshed' and `expressed grave concern about the situation which led to a serious threat to international peace and security in the whole Eastern Mediterranean area.

It went even further:

Quote:

`it called upon Greece, Turkey and the U.K to enter into negotiations without delay for the restoration of peace in the area and constitutional government in Cyprus and to keep the Security Council informed.'

In conformity with this resolution and the Treaty of Guarantee, the Foreign Ministers of the three guarantor powers, Greece, Turkey and the UK attended a conference in Geneva on the 25th of July 1974.

They discussed the problem of Cyprus and on the 30th of July 1974, the Foreign Ministers of the three Guarantor powers issued the "Geneva Declaration" and agreed that there should be re-establishment of constitutional government in Cyprus. In the declaration they noted “the existence in practice in the Republic of Cyprus of two autonomous administrations, that of the Greek Cypriot community and that of the Turkish Cypriot community”.


Message 2:

You wrote:

[Nil.IlligitimiCarborundum]

Dear Mikkie2

You wrote:

[cannedmoose]

[-mikkie2-]

[Nil.IlligitimiCarborundum]

Dear Mikkie2

It really does help if you read what I write, then comment on it, rather than taking a word or two from here and there and coming up with a statement that I didn't actually write.

I did not say that Cyprus was a "dogs dinner" of a country.

You wrote:

[Crash Test Dummy]

Brian i can tell you now that teh EU will never 'remove' Cyprus or any other member state (except for extreme reasons) because of the amount of bad publicity. Image the headline ILLEGAL COUNTRY JOINED THE EU. Never going to happen. As for petitioning for Turkey continue but the EU will do it when it feels ready, if they ever feel ready.