Cyprus-Forum.com

[antonis]

Is seems that the leadership in both sides is trying to pass the message 'If this doesn't get accepted, the people will vote NO.' to the CG and de Soto.

The funny thing is that both sides eventually have to say yes at the referendum. It's a ridiculous situation, the strategy is dangerous, if they are going according to plan: pass on the message "If this is not changed, then we will vote NO" until the 29th March and when the CG makes all the changes, say "It is dangerous to reject this plan, you have to vote YES"

[Greek Cypriot]

The funny thing is that both sides eventually have to say yes at the referendum

When people vote their is no "have to". People will say no, because as it seems Denctash is not willing to accept any changes, and theirfore we are unable to accept 1)something disfunctional 2)Something way too unfairl 3)Something that will reduce our well-being.

Can you tell me what exactly is propaganda?

For economics for example I hear a ton of economists saying how damaging for our economy a solution based on Annan plan will be. These are not politicians playing games. They are scientists that can analyze the plan and see the direct consequences.

No propaganda is needed to show us that the Annan plan is unfail. Show me another example of a small minority getting so much anywhere else in the world.

Can you argue against "dysfunctional"? Super complicated, foreign judges, vetos....

So yes, if all those things do not change GC will vote no. We are hoping for a better life, not a worst one.

[Guest]

Is seems that the leadership in both sides has engaged in big time propaganda. They're trying to pass the message 'If this doesn't get accepted, the people will vote NO.' to the CG and de Soto....[/quote]

But Why the leadership have to do this ? Are the people uneducated or something ? Why to spead propaganda what for? Why Do not tell the people the Objective benefits of the plan ? Who are these corrupt minds that are going to tell people what to Vote ? Dont we have a democracy?

[metecyp]

1)something disfunctiona

How can you be sure that Annan plan will create a disfunctional situation? Remember, Republic of Cyprus was also declared disfunctional in 1963 and G/Cs wanted to change its constitution. And that's why we don't have a bicommunal Republic of Cyprus. But now, after 40 years, can you still call Republic of Cyprus disfunctional? I guess not, that's why you defend it so much.

You cannot certainly declare someting as disfunctional without first trying it. Secondly, nothing is disfunctinoal if there is good will. And I do believe that there's good will on both sides, because we don't have luxury of not having good will after 40 years.

2)Something way too unfair

The term "unfair" is relative. For me, Annan plan might be considered unfair in the sense that it gives extra priviliges to minority. However, considering the history of Cyprus, and considering the rights given to T/Cs in Republic of Cyprus, I don't think that it's unfair. You cannot isolate Cyprus problem from history and international politics.
[/quote]

3)Something that will reduce our well-being.

What about the well-being of the whole island? What about in the long run? Who cares the well being of the other side if they don't respect "your democracy and human rights", right? Same old, same old...

No propaganda is needed to show us that the Annan plan is unfail. Show me another example of a small minority getting so much anywhere else in the world.

I can't believe that you're still stuck at this point. Let's abolish Republic of Cyprus then, RC gives lots of rights to T/Cs as well.

Can you argue against "dysfunctional"? Super complicated, foreign judges, vetos

See above. The plan is super complicated because it tries to balance the wishes of two sides and no two sides get all they want. You shouldn't expect a simple plan to a complicated problem like Cyprus.

You keep bringing up the veto issue. For your information, between 1960-1963, the only T/C Vice President of RC (Kucuk) used his veto power only 1, suprised?

[antonis]

When people vote their is no "have to". People will say no, because as it seems Denctash is not willing to accept any changes, and theirfore we are unable to accept 1)something disfunctional 2)Something way too unfairl 3)Something that will reduce our well-being.

At the end these same politicians that told you that the plan is dysfunctional, unfair and that it will reduce your well-being may ask you to vote YES.

So yes, if all those things do not change GC will vote no. We are hoping for a better life, not a worst one.

Vote NO aspiring what? A "better solution" to come in N years? Can you point out either the number N or what a "better solution" means to you? That is also going to be functional and won't collapse?

[frankieboya1]

Leave this country as it is. No-one, rpt. should put their
steps onto the beautiful castles and the un-touched Karpaz
peninsula. Leave a refuge. By any wrong steps there will
be no European Turkey. They cheat heavily.

Do not hurry.

Frank

[Greek Cypriot]

Republic of Cyprus was dysfanctional also, thats why it didn't work the way it should. Annans plan will create something even worst.

It is nice to say that everything will get better etc, but I have serious doubts. See my post "cooperation" for details on the why.
Also, since you mention 1960, probably the ones that sign it were thinking something like "lets sign now, and later we will make it better". And they tried to change it in 1963. Lesson learned! What you sign is what you should be ready to live with, without hopes that it will get better.

At the end these same politicians that told you that the plan is dysfunctional, unfair and that it will reduce your well-being are going to be asking from you to vote YES. Wait and see.

I don't need politicians to tell me what the plan is. Also I am not one of those that follows directions for what I should vote. In this forum I said several times the points I believe that should change. If those points change then I will vote yes, otherwise I will vote no. What the politicians will say is irrelevant.

Vote NO aspiring what? A "better solution" to come in N years? Can you point out either the number N or what a "better solution" means to you? That is also going to be functional and won't collapse?

Vote "No" because I don't want another bad solution. We had a bad solution in 1960. This is worst. I don't want to risk to pass what the other generations passed because of bad solutions.

In a few words: No solution is better from a bad solution. This is true now, and it will be true in 10 or 20 or 30 years. If older generations acted like this and they didn't just accepted the first solution they gave them, then maybe we would be under the british for some years more but today we would probably have something better.

[antonis]

In a few words: No solution is better from a bad solution.

No solution is the worst than can happen. It's the worst solution of all. No solution is NOT a solution.

If older generations acted like this and they didn't just accepted the first solution they gave them, then maybe we would be under the british for some years more but today we would probably have something better.

If blah then bluh, if this then that and probably this too, if we say NO now, then a better solution afterwards. When? Can you guarantee me that:
1. A new (different from Annan) solution will be proposed in the near future? Can you tell me when?
2. It is going to be functional? Because "better solution" does not mean functional, does it?

[Greek Cypriot]

No solution is the worst than can happen. It's the worst solution of all

This means that you would accept any solution just because any solution is better than no solution for you. I disagree with such approach vertically.

If you want I will but it differently: A bad solution is not a solution.

A solution will be the one that solves more problems than it creates. Annans "solution" creates more problems than it solves and therefore is nothing but a solution.

It might solve more problems for you and for some others, but here we have democracy and the majority of the people will not sucrifice their well being just to serve the interests of few.

[michalis]

I dont think that Denktash reprsents the majority of the Turkishcypriots. Denktash represents only the interest of the deep state in Turkey ONLY. And this has been refected mainly on the last elections taken place at the North .

The majority of Turksih Cypriots wants a solution and membership to EU .