Another article 50 country?

[wanderer]

In the unlikely event that the talks fail and the North says no and we are not ever joining the RoC we are an independent country
Will they be allowed to stay in the EU or will they join the UK on article 50
Spain won’t like TRNC breaking away as it gives an excuse to the Basques and Catalans for the breakup of Spain

[Keithcaley]

Wanderer,

The TRNC is already considered to be an 'Independent Country' by itself, and by Turkey.

The ROC disagrees and claims jurisdiction, a claim backed up by the rest of the World.

TRNC cannot by itself invoke Article 50 - it is not recognised as being a competent authority, or a legal entity.

If the answer to a referendum is 'No' - by either side, why should the situation change?

Will ROC have any reason to renounce their claim? - Is there any reason, from their point of view, why they should not keep beating the same drum, and chanting the same mantra for the next 50 years? What would they gain by 'giving up'?

I do not think that any politician in ROC would ever tell his constituents that what he and his colleagues have been saying for these last few decades - i.e. "We will return you to your homes in Kyrenia" - was a load of hogwash, and it's never going to happen. It would be instant political suicide, and one thing that politicians like to do is to hang onto their jobs...

As for Turkey announcing that TRNC is now a province or otherwise a part of Turkey, the ROC will take no more notice of that than they did of the establishment of the TRNC - and as Turkey is viewed by the whole world (apart from us) as being an 'Illegal Occupying Power', it is extremely unlikely that the rest of the World would consider lifting the embargoes, allowing free trade and movement, as to do so would be seen to reward an 'Aggressor', according to the ROC's 'script'.

I think that we have to hope for a successful conclusion to the current talks, because otherwise, the people of TRNC face an indeterminate, protracted period of continued isolation.

'Just my opinion' of course!

[waddo]

Is it not so that the body who imposed the embargoes and therefore the only body who can actually lift them is the UN? If that remains true then it matters not what the RoC say in any event. should the UN finally have had enough of the intransigence and stupidity of the RoC then they could simply lift the embargoes and the game is over!

[Keithcaley]

Is it not so that the body who imposed the embargoes and therefore the only body who can actually lift them is the UN? If that remains true then it matters not what the RoC say in any event. should the UN finally have had enough of the intransigence and stupidity of the RoC then they could simply lift the embargoes and the game is over!

I don't know!

Does the 'Constitution' (or whatever it's called) of the UN allow one member state to veto a motion? - If it does, then the ROC would undoubtedly use that power to stop any lifting of embargoes...

Remember that the UN resolutions condemning Turkey's actions were passed unanimously by UN member states (I think) , so it is not just a matter of 'The UN' getting tired, but possibly of 'every single UN member State' getting tired.

I think that one of the issues is that all Countries guard their own Sovereign status very closely, and the mere hint - in this Modern World - that an 'Invading Country' (from their point of view) would eventually be allowed to keep the land which they had invaded, is viewed with horror... "If we allow them to get away with this, what would happen if someone invades us?" would seem to be the thinking.

I really can't see that there would be a way forward, should the talks fail, that would hold out any prospect of International recognition.

I realise that this is not what anyone wants to hear, and that there will always be those who say, "What if they do this, or they do that" but I feel that such remarks ignore the limiting factors imposed by International Treaties, and the mechanics of Diplomacy.

I hope that someone will demonstrate that I am wrong!

[jofra]

As the UN has been mentioned - I posted the following some days ago (only got one response), so, emphasising paragraph 2 -
"If the TRNC is not recognised by any other country (except Turkey) because it has been classed by the UN as "occupied by a foreign country and its armed forces"....
IF the TRNC created its own (Turkish Cypriot ONLY) militia/National Guard/call it what you will to a similar level of that in the south, AND the TURKISH army withdrew from the island - I wonder whether that would ever result in recognition?
I'm sure few if any TC's would be happy if the army left, even if replaced by their "own" security force, but it's an interesting (if unlikely) scenario...."
- what's the thoughts on recognition by the UN?

[kibsolar1999]

as far as i know, the UN did not introduce an "official embargoe" to the TRNC.
it is the RoC and greece who introduced that.
eg, Ryanair, fly (direct) to Ercan and you can not land in Athens, Crete and Larnaca. or
have 2 pages of TRNC holiday homes in your catalogue and we withdraw all 20 pages of greek holiday homes.
the UN do not welcome Mr. Akinci as a president, they welcome him as the "leader of the turkish community"..

since 2004, all of cyprus is within the borders of the EU, incl the TRNC territory, but EU laws "can not be introduced".
still, it is EU and EU territory.
to my opinion it would be diplomatic critical for Turkey to take over the TRNC as a province ( see Keith post about sovereignity) or even accept the TRNC as a province (because TRNC wants to be and ask Turkey to become a province... ), as parts of Turkey would be EU territory. or different way round: EU territory becomes part of Turkey.

[kerry 6138]

http://www.un.org/en/sc/documents/resol ... 1974.shtml

this may help