Welcome To Ghost Town Of Varosha.

[L00b]

None of which was the purpose of my post.

Well, you posited the logic with your linked map of the UK. The exact same logic applies to the map on the Wiki I linked, which includes further overseas territories variously owned/administered by the UK, France, the Netherlands, Denmark, Portugal and Spain - in all cases long before the advent of the EEC/EU in 1957; not later, per the Turkish landgrab in 1974.

I was replying to a particular previous post and pointing out that saying that Turkey shouldn't be considered for membership because they are occupying part of another country didn't stand up to any real scrutiny.

Understood that reply perfectly well, but you were, and still are, essentially wrong about that, as a matter of principle: although the statement as such ("Turkey shouldn't be considered for membership because they are occupying part of another country") is incorrect in literal terms, it does stand to "real scrutiny" because it is incontrovertible facts that (i) the EU and Turkey have long (long, long, long) been at direct loggerheads over the Turkish republic of northern Cyprus and (ii) this is one of the (main) many sticking points in the way of Turkey's accession to the EU.

 

More summary info here and here, with extract:

Turkey’s refusal to implement a trade pact between Turkey and the EU that requires the Turkish government to allow Greek Cypriot vessels to use its air and sea ports has prompted the EU to freeze eight chapters in Turkey's accession talks.

 

In November 2009, Turkish Deputy Prime Minister Cemil Çiçek declared that, should Turkey be forced to choose between supporting either EU membership or Turkish Cypriots, "[then] Turkey’s choice will forever be to stand next to the Turkish Cypriots. Everybody should understand this."

As for the difference between recent aggressive occupation and long term aggressive occupation the only difference is time.

Isn't that just a little too convenient an oversimplification of geopolitical matters, mjw?

[mjw47]

Well, you posited the logic with your linked map of the UK. The exact same logic applies to the map on the Wiki I linked, which includes further overseas territories variously owned/administered by the UK, France, the Netherlands, Denmark, Portugal and Spain - in all cases long before the advent of the EEC/EU in 1957; not later, per the Turkish landgrab in 1974.

Understood that reply perfectly well, but you were, and still are, essentially wrong about that, as a matter of principle: although the statement as such ("Turkey shouldn't be considered for membership because they are occupying part of another country") is incorrect in literal terms, it does stand to "real scrutiny" because it is incontrovertible facts that (i) the EU and Turkey have long (long, long, long) been at direct loggerheads over the Turkish republic of northern Cyprus and (ii) this is one of the (main) many sticking points in the way of Turkey's accession to the EU.

 

More summary info here and here, with extract:

 

Isn't that just a little too convenient an oversimplification of geopolitical matters, mjw?

 

My God you do like to over complicate things don't you?

 

Obelix remarked at post 4 that he couldn't understand why Turkey were considered for EU membership as they were occupying a part of another members country.

 

I simply pointed out the incongruity of that remark bearing in mind the UK's position.

 

I even put a after the link to show no serious statement was intended.

 

As for convenient oversimplification, it is sometimes very convenient to over complicate fairly straightforward situations as a way to justify the continuation of unjust policies.

 

For instance if country A invades and occupies country B and imposes it's laws and exploits that countries assets for it's own purposes then country A is wrong and is acting in a criminal manner.

 

Now you can twist and turn and add caveats and excuses but the basic truth remains that country A is in the wrong.

 

Turkey are completely wrong in their continued occupation of northern Cyprus but they are not alone in being wrong for the same reasons.

[Harrystottle]

The Turks didn't only invade Cyprus in 1974. They subsequently imported 50,000 people from mainland Turkey to help occupy Northern Cyprus, and "encouraged" Greek Cypriots in Northern Cyprus to leave.

[truman]

Turkey are completely wrong in their continued occupation of northern Cyprus but they are not alone in being wrong for the same reasons.

 

The Turkish occupation is viewed as illegal under International law..can the same be said for the UK and Northern Ireland?

 

Genuine question..

[mjw47]

The Turkish occupation is viewed as illegal under International law..can the same be said for the UK and Northern Ireland?

 

Genuine question..

 

No, and the reason for that is the time involved.

 

At the time of the Norman invasion of Ireland there was no such thing as international law, the Pope was the arbiter of what was considered permissible.

 

The British based Normans received permission from Pope Adrian IV to invade Ireland.

 

Pope Adrian was born Nicholas Breakspear in Abbots Langley Hertfordshire England.

 

The only English born Pope ever. I'm sure that that was entirely coincidental in his decision.

 

When the Hague and international law came into existence they did not set about trying to rule on ever invasion and occupation which had occurred in recorded history.

 

Can't say that I blame them on that score!

 

---------- Post added 28-04-2015 at 14:14 ----------

 

The Turks didn't only invade Cyprus in 1974. They subsequently imported 50,000 people from mainland Turkey to help occupy Northern Cyprus, and "encouraged" Greek Cypriots in Northern Cyprus to leave.

 

Which is precisely what the English did in Ulster in the 17th century.

 

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCEQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.askaboutireland.ie%2Flearning-zone%2Fprimary-students%2Fsubjects%2Fhistory%2Fhistory-the-full-story%2Fulster-plantation%2F1609-plantation-of-ulster%2F&ei=kIY_Ve_UJJbxaPPTgdgD&usg=AFQjCNEVR9W3aDUPgUi1y4-YwZ06LBrf1w&bvm=bv.91665533,d.d2s

 

History has a habit of repeating itself.

[L00b]

My God you do like to over complicate things don't you?

Do I?

 

My earlier "By that logic, several other EU member states shouldn't be in, to begin with" covered it, but you then came back to state that it had "nothing to do with your point" when it was your very point:

Obelix remarked at post 4 that he couldn't understand why Turkey were considered for EU membership as they were occupying a part of another members country.

 

I simply pointed out the incongruity of that remark bearing in mind the UK's position.

as you have since acknowleged in the above. So, quid of France, the Netherlands, Denmark, Portugal and Spain?

Turkey are completely wrong in their continued occupation of northern Cyprus but they are not alone in being wrong for the same reasons.

So, how far back in history do you propose to pull this one, then?

 

Or was your point meant to be arbitrarily limited to the Oirish?

 

Considering the UK' ages-old and continuous assistance in trying to solve (diplomatically of course) the 'northern Cyprus' issue, it's a bit rich tbh.

Edited April 28, 2015 by L00b

[mjw47]

Do I?

 

My earlier "By that logic, several other EU member states shouldn't be in, to begin with" covered it, but you then came back to state that it had "nothing to do with your point" when it was your very point:

as you have since acknowleged in the above.

So, how far back in history do you propose to pull this one, then?

 

Or was your point meant to be arbitrarily limited to the Oirish?

 

It had nothing to do with that in that it was intended to be a light hearted remark as to the previous poster criticizing Turkey for behaviour that we also engage in, no more than that.

 

You chose to join in and take it seriously, I'm fully aware of all the other inconsistencies involved.

 

The link was to the British isles as the map made the point without further comment.

 

I take it that you're a bit of a xenophobic bigot judging by your cod Oirish remark?

[L00b]

It had nothing to do with that in that it was intended to be a light hearted remark as to the previous poster criticizing Turkey for behaviour that we also engage in, no more than that.

We do? Where? I mean, I know that England did. In Norman times where Ireland is concerned. So, a few centuries ago, like.

I take it that you're a bit of a xenophobic bigot judging by your cod Oirish remark?

Not in the least, just trying to drag your own out in the clear. And it's working, by the look of things

[tzijlstra]

An excellent documentary on Varosha here:

 

I saw it some time ago when this part of Cyprus came back in the news some time ago. I've never visited Cyprus but it is on my wish-list (Been to most European Med countries except for Albania, Cyprus and Turkey).

[mjw47]

We do? Where? I mean, I know that England did. In Norman times where Ireland is concerned. So, a few centuries ago, like.

Not in the least, just trying to drag your own out in the clear. And it's working, by the look of things

 

Didn't realise that the UK no longer occupied part of Ireland. When did we withdraw?

 

Must have missed it, you'd have thought it would have been mentioned in the media.

 

In what way is it working?

 

You appear to be existing in your own little make believe world where you assume others have hidden agenda's.

 

My assumption as to your views was based upon your use of a derogatory smartarsed description, upon what do you base you incorrect view as to my views?