 |
| Author |
Message |
-mikkie2-
Mukhtar/is
Joined: 29 Aug 2005
Posts: 603
|
|
| Quote: |
| According to Mr Markides we accepted the 50-50 notion of the senate to avoid the partial election (that Dektash wanted) of the Turkish Cypriot’s ministers and by this the two stupid communities was forced to commit political alliance’s to elect a functional federal government. |
And this is one of the biggest problems with the Annan Plan Mr Constitutional Expert!
The problem with this is that it is very easy for the two constituent states to simply mange their own affairs and to operate seperately with a non-functioning federal government. In fact, the dangers this poses are that effectively we will have a two state solution from the back door.
The Annan 5 became a confederal solution, not a federal solution. The plan would not force the two communities to co-operate at the federal level as Mr Markides says. In fact it would let them do the opposite if there is no good will, and judging by how stupid and idiotic our political leaders are, that is what we will probably get.
Thus, the view of a functional and viable solution is to bind the two communties more at the federal level, ie to have a stronger federal government than was envisaged with AP5, so that the two communities would have a much bigger incentive to co-operate. A stronger federal governemt is needed in my view for the state to function properly.
And there is also the matter of the handling of the property issue which quite frankly was a joke. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Chapfallen
Warnings : 7
Senior Villager
Joined: 18 Sep 2006
Posts: 464
|
|
| Quote: |
And this is one of the biggest problems with the Annan Plan Mr Constitutional Expert!
The problem with this is that it is very easy for the two constituent states to simply mange their own affairs and to operate seperately with a non-functioning federal government. In fact, the dangers this poses are that effectively we will have a two state solution from the back door. |
in Greek: poutses mple in English: Blue Dicks
What I’ve already shown is pointing to exactly the opposite and if you have another opinion bring me the part of the plan that point to this ridiculous allegation.
| Quote: |
| The Annan 5 became a confederal solution, not a federal solution. |
Simply bullshits the above example of the forced cooperative and coordinate by the two communities central government proves in a 100% what this had nothing to do with confederation. The confederation does not have a central government (and federal ministers for example) in any way. The above statement it’s clearly a big bullshit.
| Quote: |
| The plan would not force the two communities to co-operate at the federal level as Mr Markides says. In fact it would let them do the opposite if there is no good will, and judging by how stupid and idiotic our political leaders are, that is what we will probably get. |
The plan was forcing the two communities and the idiots to cooperate and this is the biggest fault of it (some people can’t imagine such a cooperation and they are after domination of the other side) and if you have a different opinion bring me the part in the plan that point to that idiocy that you claim.
| Quote: |
| Thus, the view of a functional and viable solution is to bind the two communties more at the federal level, ie to have a stronger federal government than was envisaged with AP5, so that the two communities would have a much bigger incentive to co-operate. A stronger federal governemt is needed in my view for the state to function properly. |
The federal government can’t be stronger and bring me your opinion completed based in the Anan plan.
| Quote: |
| And there is also the matter of the handling of the property issue which quite frankly was a joke. |
There was going to be problems in the implementation in any solution and the only thing was securing us in this lost (it will never come back even if we beck) opportunity was Europe and the propitious circumstances of the certain time at variance to all previous attempts.
Of course I’m doing this only for delectation because Mr Tpap asshole and the rest assholes opened a war with the opposite opinion and I’ll continue this enjoinment for the next years of my life just because I hate them, I hate those bustards that have destroyed Cyprus and that they are continuously attacking the other opinion as a treason where in fact the stupid pussy chicken traitors is them.
---------
and if think what you deserve some respect answer me for the proven lie of TPap about the 50-50 notion and if you interested I’ll show you what at least the 70% of what he said in his crying speech was horridly lies that was to make people afraid. If you do not deserve some respect do not answer me because I had enough from all this madness. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Kifeas
Warnings : 6
Ministerial
Joined: 26 Aug 2005
Posts: 2733
Location: Location: Pafos-Cyprus, since 1974 ethnic cleansing. Originally, Lapithos, northern occupied Cyprus.
|
|
| Chapfallen wrote: |
Simply bullshits the above example of the forced cooperative and coordinate by the two communities central government proves in a 100% what this had nothing to do with confederation. The confederation does not have a central government (and federal ministers for example) in any way. The above statement it’s clearly a big bullshit.
|
Reeeeee!!!! Read what Fred Halliday, a British academic specialising in Middle East and international relations, professor of International Relations at the London School of Economics and an anti-Papadopoulos maniac (like you) says about the Annan plan!
Read reeeeeeeeeee!!!!!! Reeeead!!!!
| Quote: |
Moreover, responding with renewed diplomatic enthusiasm to events in Cyprus, the United Nations secretary-general Kofi Annan sought in a series of meetings inside the island and at international venues to broker an agreement between the two communities. This would have restored a confederal Cyprus, reduced the level of Turkish and Greek forces on the island, provided a mechanism for settling property and other issues arising from 1974 and given all the citizens of the island access to the European Union.
http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/globalisation/global_politics/cyprus_stalemate
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Chapfallen
Warnings : 7
Senior Villager
Joined: 18 Sep 2006
Posts: 464
|
|
Okay I have made again a snap conglusion beacouse you are continue calling the Europeans stupids (they accepted the Anan plan as a BBF) and because of what I’ve just read previusly from Markides where again I missaunderstood, and I had to examine again the source of this.
The differnce of a federation and a confedration is:
| Quote: |
| A confederation may also consist of member states which, while temporarily pooling sovereignty in certain areas, are considered entirely sovereign and retain the right of unilateral secession. A confederation is sometimes a loose alliance but in other cases the distinction between a federation and a confederation may be ambiguous. In contrast to a federation, a member state may participate in more than one confederation. |
So all this word’s missunderstanding from the @@ (like the missuunderstanding for the BBF) is bullshits.
The Anan plan was not giving in any case the posiblity to one one side the right of unilateral secession.
The Anan plan was not a loose alliance but rather was forced cooperation that no one can step backwords.
The member states of the Anan plan did not reserve the right to participate partialy in more than the one federation.
And even if the distinction between a federation and a confederation is ambiguous it’s clearly what the forcing nature of the Anan plan does not leave any doubts what this was clearly a federation.
And even if someone made a typing mistake or even if he didn’t put him self in the process of the distinction of the two, it’s clearly what this is a stupid mistake that scream and no the Europeans are not stupid, maybe you have to start thinking what you are.
And if you can’t your self found what a confederation means and you must found the smart divine people who hate Tpap asshole then you should also see the fanatic nationalist’s supporters of TPap and the rejectionists of the BBF what they are saying.
I couldn’t find any foreigner supporters of TPap and I do not think what our illness is a pan European phenomenon so you must get along with Loukis Loukaidis who is a Judge in the ECHR:
http://www.simerini.com.cy/nqcontent.cfm?a_id=308164
| Quote: |
| Η «διζωνική δικοινοτική ομοσπονδία» ήταν η βάση του σχεδίου αυτού και αναπόσπαστο μέρος της φιλοσοφίας του |
The BBF was the base of the plan and it was integral part of its philosophy.
Of course he sagest what I’ve said for the multi circuit federation that is a ridiculous imagination.
| Quote: |
| σε αντίθεση με το πολυπεριφεριακό ομόσπονδο κράτος, όπου καμιά επιμέρους περιοχή δεν μπορεί από μόνη της να μπλοκάρει τη λειτουργία του κράτους. |
Of course I do not agree what in the multi circuit federation a member could not block the functionality of the state and I can’t understand where he is based on, this is another big issue that needs examining, but I do not think what there is any need to examine an imagination that will never be a possible solution.
And what is a confederation according to the Judge?
| Quote: |
Τι είναι ομοσπονδία και τι είναι συνομοσπονδία;
Η συνομοσπονδία είναι μια διεθνής συνθήκη μεταξύ ανεξαρτήτων κρατών για τη μεταξύ τους συνεργασία, σε αντίθεση με την ομοσπονδία και πιο συγκεκριμένα το ομοσπονδιακό κράτος, το οποίο είναι ένα σύνθετο κράτος, με μια διεθνή προσωπικότητα, και απαρτίζεται από αυτόνομες περιοχές που έχουν τις δικές τους καθορισμένες αρμοδιότητες, αλλά υπόκεινται συγχρόνως στην κεντρική κυβέρνηση, η οποία ασκεί τις εξουσίες της σε ολόκληρο το χώρο του ομοσπονδιακού κράτους, σε αντίθεση με το ενιαίο κράτος, όπου δεν υπάρχουν αυτόνομες περιοχές ή περιφέρειες. Εκ των πραγμάτων, οι επιμέρους περιοχές ενός ομόσπονδου κράτους πρέπει να είναι δύο ή περισσότερες. |
The states in a confederation (like I’ve said above) are considered entirely sovereign and retain the right of unilateral secession at variance with the federation witch assumes just one sovereign entity and the federal states are governmentalized and ruled entirely by the central goverment. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Kifeas
Warnings : 6
Ministerial
Joined: 26 Aug 2005
Posts: 2733
Location: Location: Pafos-Cyprus, since 1974 ethnic cleansing. Originally, Lapithos, northern occupied Cyprus.
|
|
Chapfallen, can you explain to me why, while in the 1st and 2nd versions of the Annan plan, the term used to describe the two states was that of “Component States” (being or functioning as a component, i.e. an internal ingredient or of the Republic;) this was later changed in the subsequent 3 versions into “Constituent States” (being or functioning as a constituting, i.e. a forming element of the Republic?)
Why the Turks didn’t like the initial term, and insisted that this was changed from “component” to “constituent?” Do you know why? Do you think it was for no reason that this was demanded?
Let me give you a hint, so that you can understand better why!
The term “component” implies the prior existence and identification of a larger state entity /unit, which is now fragmented and identified by its various internal sub-units, i.e. sub-states! In other words, the term “component” has a passive form!
The term “constituent” implies the prior existence of two smaller state entities, which come together and constitute (form) another state entity! In this case, the term “constituent” has an active form!
Can you now see why the Turks insisted that the second term should be used, instead of the first? |
|
| Back to top |
|
Chapfallen
Warnings : 7
Senior Villager
Joined: 18 Sep 2006
Posts: 464
|
|
Okay lets play the game with the suspicious words.
How you call it by the way?
The hunting of evil words ?
If we do not give a meaning to a word it is just random letters.
so do you some problem from the entity of the ap and how is implementing the BBF or we will be hunting words for a long time?
As about the words in my vocabulary are meaning exactly the same thing – sinistosa politia - and there is nothing that leads to a confederation conclusion (something that is ridiculous to claim, so don’t). |
|
| Back to top |
|
Kifeas
Warnings : 6
Ministerial
Joined: 26 Aug 2005
Posts: 2733
Location: Location: Pafos-Cyprus, since 1974 ethnic cleansing. Originally, Lapithos, northern occupied Cyprus.
|
|
| Chapfallen wrote: |
Okay lets play the game with the suspicious words.
How you call it by the way?
The hunting of evil words ?
If we do not give a meaning to a word it is just random letters.
so do you some problem from the entity of the ap and how is implementing the BBF or we will be hunting words for a long time?
As about the words in my vocabulary are meaning exactly the same thing – sinistosa politia - and there is nothing that leads to a confederation conclusion (something that is ridiculous to claim, so don’t). |
Oh, really???
Well, let me tell you something, words do have a meaning! They are not random letters put together, and there are dictionaries that define this meaning!
Furthermore, the original language of the Annan plan was the English one, and the terms used are based on their definition in English, and not in their Greek translation!
The term "component" in Greek is translated into "systatiki" (systatiko, periechomeno, ingredient; ) and the term "constituent" is translated into "synistosa" (synista, paragei, kataskebazei, k.t.p.!)
If there was no difference in the meaning or in the essence, then tell me why the Turks insisted that it was changed from "component" into "constituent?" Was it for no reason and just for fun? |
|
| Back to top |
|
Chapfallen
Warnings : 7
Senior Villager
Joined: 18 Sep 2006
Posts: 464
|
|
Okay this game is funny.
What I mean about the suspicious-evil words that anguish you is what you must show me some notion of the plan to have some meaning.
Is this understandable or I didn’t understand the rules of the game?
------------------
But because this empty issue exist I will be fair with you.
This is what Toumazos Tsielepis said:
| Quote: |
| Tα Hν. Έθνη, αρχίζοντας από το 1999 εγκαινίασαν τη νέα προσέγγιση στο κυπριακό η οποία μεταξύ άλλων έλεγε ότι έπρεπε να υπάρχει μια εποικοδομητική ασάφεια και μια όπως την ονόμαζαν παρθενογένεση, η ουσία της οποίας ήταν όλα θα ρυθμίζονταν απ’ εδώ και πέρα αλλά δεν θα ήταν καθαρό τι γινόταν με το παρελθόν και εννοώ ότι εμείς ζητούσαμε και επιμένουμε σ’ αυτή τη θέση ότι μιλούμε για μια συνέχεια της Kυπριακής Δημοκρατίας, ότι η Kυπριακή Δημοκρατία θα εξακολουθήσει να υπάρχει ως ανεξάρτητο κυρίαρχο κράτος και ότι απλώς θα άλλαζε η πολιτειακή της δομή. Bεβαίως η Tουρκική πλευρά δεν δεχόταν αυτή τη θέση και τα Hνωμένα Έθνη είπαν ότι αυτό δεν θα είναι καθαρό, ο καθένας θα δίδει τις δικές του ερμηνείες σ’ αυτό το ζήτημα. |
| Quote: |
| Nομίζω ότι έχω απαντήσει αλλά για να μη θεωρηθεί ότι δεν είμαι εντελώς αντικειμενικός πρέπει να πω ότι επειδή ακριβώς υπάρχει αυτή η εποικοδομητική ασάφεια δεν γράφει ρητώς το έγγραφο ότι συνεχίζεται η Kυπριακή Δημοκρατία. Oύτε και γράφει ότι θα έχουμε δύο κράτη[b]. [b]Πρέπει να τα βγάλεις από τις πρόνοιες του Σχεδίου. Kαι βεβαίως υπάρχουν και πρόνοιες στο Σχέδιο δευτερεύουσας και συμβολικής περισσότερο σημασίας οι οποίες επιτρέπουν και στην τουρκική πλευρά να λέει τα δικά της πράγμα που δε μας αρέσει. Kατ' ουσία όμως πρόκειται για συνέχεια του κράτους μας. Tο λέω αυτό γιατί θέλω να είμαι δίκαιος για το τι περιέχει αυτό το Σχέδιο. |
| Quote: |
| Tο Σχέδιο είναι ένα νομικό έγγραφο και με βάση αυτό το νομικό έγγραφο η δική μου πεποίθηση, όσο αυτό και αν δεν φαίνεται πειστικό εκ πρώτης όψεως, είναι ότι εμείς μιλούμε για συνέχεια του κράτους μας, για συνέχεια της Kυπριακής Δημοκρατίας. Aυτή είναι η θέση μας και κανείς δε δικαιούται να μας την αλλάξει. Διότι κατ' ουσία και με βάση το Διεθνές Δίκαιο, γιατί έτσι πρέπει να κρίνεις ένα νομικό έγγραφο, με βάση το διεθνές δίκαιο όσον αφορά τα θέματα αν θα έχουμε συνέχεια ή αν θα έχουμε συνένωση δύο χωριστών κρατών. Θα έχουμε συνέχεια διότι οι Διεθνείς Συνθήκες του κράτους μας θα είναι όλες εκεί, έχουν μπει όλες ανεξαιρέτως σε κατάλογο και θα είναι εκεί και κανείς δεν το αμφισβητεί, είναι ελάχιστα τα προβλήματα που υπάρχουν σ' αυτό τον τομέα για να μην πω και καθόλου, η εκπροσώπηση σε Διεθνείς Oργανισμούς θα είναι εκεί περιλαμβανομένου του OHE της Eυρωπαϊκής Ένωσης. Kανείς δεν μας είπε ξανακάντε αίτηση να μπείτε στον OHE όπως είπαν τότε με τη Γιουγκοσλαβία, κανείς δεν μας είπε ξανακάνετε αίτηση για την Eυρωπαϊκή Ένωση όπως είπαν στην Tσεχία και τη Σλοβακία και σωρεία άλλων πολύ ουσιαστικών ζητημάτων τα οποία μαρτυρούν ότι στην πραγματικότητα θα έχουμε συνέχεια του κράτους μας γι' αυτό και στον OHE απλώς θα γίνει μια δήλωση ότι από τούδε και στο εξής θα ονομαζόμαστε Eνωμένη Kυπριακή Δημοκρατία όχι απλώς Kυπριακή Δημοκρατία, θα έχουμε νέα σημαία κλπ. αλλά όλα αυτά είναι εσωτερικά ζητήματα, εσωτερικά γίνεται μια επανάσταση βεβαίως η οποία όμως δεν έχει σχέση εάν έχεις συνέχεια ή όχι του κράτους σου. Eγώ δε δέχομαι τη θέση ότι διαλύεται η Kυπριακή Δημοκρατία και δε θα τη δεχτώ ποτέ. Kαι εάν πίστευα ότι αυτό το Σχέδιο προνοεί διάλυση της Kυπριακής Δημοκρατίας η προσωπική μου άποψη, όσον αυτή μετρά, θα ήταν όχι στο Σχέδιο. Bεβαίως. Kατά συνέπεια δε νομίζω ότι σε περίπτωση απόσχισης υπάρχουν νομικές ή πολιτικές προϋποθέσεις για να οδηγηθούμε σε αναγνώριση. Άλλωστε μην ξεχνάτε το εξής: Yπάρχει ένας μηχανισμός για να ξεπερνιούνται τα αδιέξοδα που δεν τον είχαμε στη Zυρίχη. Eίναι παράδοξος μηχανισμός. Eίναι μηχανισμός ο οποίος καταπατά και την αρχή της διάκρισης των εξουσιών αλλά από άποψης λειτουργικότητας είναι εκεί. Eάν κύριε έχετε αδιέξοδο δε μπορεί το αδιέξοδο να οδηγήσει σε κατάρρευση γιατί αποφασίζει σαν δικαστήριο. Παράδοξο μεν αλλά έτσι θα λειτουργεί. Δεν υπάρχει το άλλοθι δηλαδή ότι δε λειτουργεί αυτό το πράγμα, η ομοσπονδία έχει κατά κάποιο τρόπο τερματίσει τη λειτουργία της, άρα τι να κάνουμε οδηγούμαστε σε διαζύγιο. Δεν υπάρχει αυτή η προϋπόθεση στο Σχέδιο. |
Tsielepis answered perfectly to your fears.
UN back in 1999 for some reasons decide what there will be some haze with the terms to satisfy both sides.
The Greek Cypriot’s side who wanted to guarantee what the new state will be continuance of Cyprus Republic and the Turkish Cypriot’s wanted for their obvious (but maybe also underground) reasons to speak about a union of two separate states.
The haze with the terms is still exist and the plan in its entity does not specify what opinion will accept but it’s clear what the Turkish Cypriot’s component state does not have any right for unilateral secession and there is not legal or political ground for something like that because of the close forcing nature of the plan.
And of course the new Cyprus republic was going to be the continuance of the old Cyprus republic either if we wanted or not.
And all this haze with terms issue is just stupid where there is nothing in any notion of the plan that can lead to unilateral secession.
And not only the plan does not giving unilateral secession right (that is needed to speak about confederation) but also is forcing component states in a no way out situation.
The issue with the words is simply ridiculous to claim what is leaving a legal or a political backdoor for the Turkish Cypriot’s for unilateral secession because what ever word they will use and what ever past they will claim this thing is impossible through the Anan plan. I believe what this issue exists only in your wealthy imagination and even if the Turkish Cypriot’s wanted the change of word with the passion you have described (I wonder how you can prove that) this was only for ego reasons since there is an empty word that it is in the spirit of the haze of terms for this issue that UN decides back in 1999. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Kifeas
Warnings : 6
Ministerial
Joined: 26 Aug 2005
Posts: 2733
Location: Location: Pafos-Cyprus, since 1974 ethnic cleansing. Originally, Lapithos, northern occupied Cyprus.
|
|
Chapfallen, forget it, Tchelepis makes his own wishful thinking assumptions! He is in no better position to interpret the original texts (English) than I am, therefore I do not need his interpretations.
First of all, “εποικοδομητική ασάφεια” is called in English “contractive ambiguity,” and not haze! You do not even know English enough to read the prototype of the Annan plan, set aside to interpret it!
Going back to the essence, from the moment the plan itself talks about a “virgin birth” (“παρθενογένεση,”) then …bollocks, you have a new state of affairs that is not based on anything that pre-existed, and therefore the Republic of Cyprus as an entity was dissolved and discarded! It would have been history! At least, this would have been the interpretation of the Turks, like they now do for example with the “treaty of guarantee,” which they claim gives Turkey rights over Cyprus, unilateral military intervention, a superior status of Turkey over Cyprus, as a protectorate, etc, etc, etc! No sir, we had enough from constructive (read destructive) ambiguities, just to satisfy the Turkish capricious attitudes! |
|
| Back to top |
|
Chapfallen
Warnings : 7
Senior Villager
Joined: 18 Sep 2006
Posts: 464
|
|
This suspicious-evil word hunting game is very interesting.
| Quote: |
| Chapfallen, forget it, Tchelepis makes his own wishful thinking assumptions! He is in no better position to interpret the original texts (English) than I am, therefore I do not need his interpretations. |
You are @@ and I can answer in you idiocy more than that. Tsielepis did not speak about this redicoulous issue with the evil words because it does not exist anywhere else except you funny imagination.
| Quote: |
| First of all, “εποικοδομητική ασάφεια” is called in English “contractive ambiguity,” and not haze! You do not even know English enough to read the prototype of the Annan plan, set aside to interpret it! |
And where did I claim what i interpret the English version of the plan? You are just @@ that deserves to vote Tpap and get the bill. Not only I didn’t claim that but before of that I had bring parts of the plan in Greek, if this is not meaning something to you, drop dead.
As about the contractive ambiguity see this example:
| Quote: |
| The phrase 'component countries' is also occasionally used.[citation needed] The overlapping, but not identical term Home Nations is also occasionally used by government bodies, but is almost exclusively used in sporting contexts, particularly rugby union; this term more frequently means England, Scotland, Ireland (as a whole), and Wales. Sometimes the four countries are described as 'constituent parts' |
Component and constituent can means exactly the same thing and the distinction of them is by nature ambiguous and if this ridiculous issue was existed why our side never mentions it? Or they did realize it at the referendum?
Last edited by Chapfallen on Wed Sep 05, 2007 2:03 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
Chapfallen
Warnings : 7
Senior Villager
Joined: 18 Sep 2006
Posts: 464
|
|
| And to end this unbelievable bullshit, this word means what the Anan plan is a confederation? |
|
| Back to top |
|
Chapfallen
Warnings : 7
Senior Villager
Joined: 18 Sep 2006
Posts: 464
|
|
| Quote: |
| Constituent countries is a phrase used, often by official institutions, in contexts in which a number of countries make up a larger entity or grouping; thus the OECD has used the phrase in reference to the former Yugoslavia[1], the Soviet Union and European institutions such as the Council of Europe frequently use it in reference to the European Union. It is not a term of art and has no defined legal meaning 'constituent' is simply an adjective, and the phrase has no clear meaning outside a context from which the entity or grouping of which the countries in question are constituents or components can be understood. |
and where do you see any sense on your bullshits about Tselepis?
Do you think what a serious person will fall in to this crap?
I can't even believe what the change of the word was made by Turkish Cypriot’s and even if it was made from some idiot like Dektash it’s simply means NOTHING. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
All times are GMT + 3 Hours
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
|
| Page 6 of 6 |
| |
 
 
Link Partners
3046 Attacks blocked
|
Register 
Log in 
Album 
Home