Cyprus-Forum.com

[Piratis]

Say that in a month from now in a referendum the solution proposed is partition with TCs keeping 18% of the ground and GCs the 82%.

Would you seriously consider it?

(I am not asking what you would vote, because this might depend on other parameters as well. e.g. which land will be returned, the guarantees etc)

[magikthrill]

would the refugess be compensated from each state?

[Piratis]

would the refuges be compensated from each state?

Because the land will divided proportionately, everybody will be able to immediately get an equivalent part of land, even if it was not the one he lost in 74. So there is no issue of compensation.

Also, lets say that a family from Kerinia will not return to their own home, they will be given property that belonged to a TC, lets say in Limassol. Then if they want they can sell this property in Limassol and go buy a home in Kerinia ... in some case they might even be able to buy back their own home. Of course in this case they will live there as foreigners (they will not vote etc), but I am sure the TC state will want to have as good relations with the EU as possible and they will not be able to discriminate against any EU citizen.

[Alexandros Lordos]

From my surveys, it seems to me that agreed partition is the least popular of possible solutions, and this applies both for GCs and TCs ...

For GCs, a bicommunal Unitary State would be the most popular solution and a Federation the second most popular, for TCs a Federation would be the most popular and a bicommunal Unitary State the second most popular solution, while for both an agreed partition would come third in the list of preferences.

So I don't see why we should both settle on our third-best option ...

[brother]

Partition is just so unacceptable.

[Piratis]

For GCs, a bicommunal Unitary State would be the most popular solution and a Federation the second most popular

Sure, for me this is the case also. But apparently we can not get neither our first, nor our second best option.

I believe that the Annan kind of "solution" which is not federation but basically an association between two majorly independent states would not be preferred over an agreed partition of 18%-82%.

By the way, when you say that partition is the 3rd option, which partition are you referring to? I am talking specifically for an 18%-82% partition, not just any kind of partition.

If you believe that a true federation is possible then I agree. But for that kind of solution we will have to wait at least 15 years, and even then it might not be possible.

The problem is that the kind of Federation we want, and the type of federation (if we can call it that way) that the TCs want are very different and I doubt that we can find a federal system that will be acceptable from both communities. For a solution to be able to survive for long time it will need the support of great majorities from both sides (and not just 55%). Otherwise conflicts will arise sooner than later.

I believe that while federation is prefered over partition, that the worst kind of "federation" (e.g. Annan plan) would not be prefered over a more or less fair partition.

The same would be the case with TCs. If you present them with a federation, but not the kind of federation they want, they will too prefer partition over such federation.

[Alexandros Lordos]

I believe that while federation is prefered over partition, that the worst kind of "federation" (e.g. Annan plan) would not be prefered over a more or less fair partition.

Yes, I agree with you on this one, a bad Federation is the absolutely worst type of solution.

For a solution to be able to survive for long time it will need the support of great majorities from both sides (and not just 55%). Otherwise conflicts will arise sooner than later.

Well, it is true that even the most balanced compromise will not get more than 55% - 60% from each side, but I don't think that this is necessarily a problem. In Politics, the "winner" tends to sway public opinion, and once we have a solution people will begin to work for it, even if they voted No at the referendum. Nobody will want to see a repeat of the 60s and 70s, so in a post-solution environment working for the solution will be a more rational option than working against the solution, even for those who were not in favour to begin with.

The problem is that the kind of Federation we want, and the type of federation (if we can call it that way) that the TCs want are very different and I doubt that we can find a federal system that will be acceptable from both communities.

I think we should make a distinction between the kind of "Federation" that Denktash "wanted" - which was a strong influence on the creation of the Annan Plan - and the kind of Federation that the more progressive TCs will negotiate for, once they "capture" the position of negotiator. I think that with the progressive TCs, we will be able to see eye-to-eye, and reach agreement on a real federation.

[Piratis]

I think we should make a distinction between the kind of "Federation" that Denktash "wanted" - which was a strong influence on the creation of the Annan Plan - and the kind of Federation that the more progressive TCs will negotiate for, once they "capture" the position of negotiator. I think that with the progressive TCs, we will be able to see eye-to-eye, and reach agreement on a real federation.

Well, this seems a bit too optimistic for me. Personally I don't believe that Turkey will ever allow the TCs to "capture" the position of negotiator. But even if they allow them, I doubt the progressive TCs that want a real federation will be enough to get the power since apparently the not so progressive ones are more, and the settlers with voting power are plenty.

Well, it is true that even the most balanced compromise will not get more than 55% - 60% from each side, but I don't think that this is necessarily a problem. In Politics, the "winner" tends to sway public opinion

You can see how some of the "yes" supporters act now to get an idea of how people are willing to accept things. And lets not forget that the "no" vote got 76%. Imagine what would have happened if the "no" (or "yes") vote was 55%. I wouldn't be very optimistic on this matter either.

[Alexandros Lordos]

I doubt the progressive TCs that want a real federation will be enough to get the power since apparently the not so progressive ones are more, and the settlers with voting power are plenty.

I think the split is, about 45% progressive, 55% non-progressive. So it's close. Talat is putting on his hardliner face nowadays, to attract some of the non-progressives and get past the 50% mark. And he might just about make it, in my opinion.

You can see how some of the "yes" supporters act now to get an idea of how people are willing to accept things. And lets not forget that the "no" vote got 76%. Imagine what would have happened if the "no" (or "yes") vote was 55%. I wouldn't be very optimistic on this matter either.

I see your point, but there is an important difference here: After a solution, things are going to get so different in so many ways, that people will just be swept away - and carried away - by the changes ... it is not like the post-referendum situation now, when people are frustrated precisely because nothing has changed.

[turkcyp]

Would you seriously consider it?

(I am not asking what you would vote, because this might depend on other parameters as well. e.g. which land will be returned, the guarantees etc)

Because of this specification I have voted "Yes"

I would seriously consider it.

p.s. My views on how the partition should be done is very well documented in this forum. I am not going to renew them.