Cyprus-Forum.com

[insan]

De Soto responds to Tassos outburst
By Myria Antoniadou in Brussels

THE UN Secretary general’s former envoy to Cyprus Alvaro de Soto has said Greek Cypriots have to decide if they are “specifically prepared to embrace the political equality of the Turkish Cypriots and share power with them.”

Speaking at a conference on federalism in Brussels organised by the governments, he said the answer to this question “will make it possible to ascertain whether a viable, sustainable reunification is possible.”

In his intervention, De Soto stopped short of blaming the Greek Cypriots for the deadlock in the Cyprus peace effort while at the same time praising Turkish Cypriots for their pro-solution stance.


www.cyprus-mail.com

[Piratis]

while at the same time praising Turkish Cypriots for their pro-solution stance

Pro disguised partition he means? Because that was his plan. Sorry Mr. Soto that we didn't sign the legalization of the results of the invasion because this is what your bosses told you that you had to enforce in Cyprus.

[insan]

De Soto has well got the gist of the issue. I'm too, believing that the main problem for GC leadership is digesting "political equality" of %18 with %82.

[-mikkie2-]

My estimation of the Cyprus Mail has gone down quite considerably.

They labelled Tassos' speech as an outburst!

I think Alex made a good analysis of his speech in another thread.

[Othellos]

De Soto has well got the gist of the issue. I'm too, believing that the main problem for GC leadership is digesting "political equality" of %18 with %82.

I still confused with what the TCs mean when they talk about "political equality". Can anyone please define this for me in simple terms?

O.

[erolz]

I still confused with what the TCs mean when they talk about "political equality". Can anyone please define this for me in simple terms?

O.

For me it means, at the commuity/component state level TC would have autonomy. At the unitary state level any political decision that affects the TC community differently to the GC community would require the seperate consent of the TC coimmunity.

[insan]

De Soto has well got the gist of the issue. I'm too, believing that the main problem for GC leadership is digesting "political equality" of %18 with %82.

I still confused with what the TCs mean when they talk about "political equality". Can anyone please define this for me in simple terms?

O.

Othellos, the essential of "political equality" of two communities(Not only TC community) is how Erolz described and how it was envisaged in Annan Plan. However it is not adequate on constituent state level particularly for the permenant GC residents of TCCS. I believe that, at constituent state level; permenant GC residents of TCCS should also have excatly the same "political equality" that TC community would have at federal level.

[Piratis]

For me it means, at the commuity/component state level TC would have autonomy. At the unitary state level any political decision that affects the TC community differently to the GC community would require the seperate consent of the TC coimmunity.

So TC get a part of the island just for themselves (=partition) which according to the Annan plan was 29% and they get a 50% power share over the island as a whole. This is what they want Othellos. This is not much different from what they were asking for the last 30 years. The only difference is that now they want partition and the benefits of unification (EU, more money etc) at the same time.

[erolz]

For me it means, at the commuity/component state level TC would have autonomy. At the unitary state level any political decision that affects the TC community differently to the GC community would require the seperate consent of the TC coimmunity.

So TC get a part of the island just for themselves (=partition) which according to the Annan plan was 29% and they get a 50% power share over the island as a whole. This is what they want Othellos. This is not much different from what they were asking for the last 30 years. The only difference is that now they want partition and the benefits of unification (EU, more money etc) at the same time.

I want GC to control GC affairs. I want TC to control TC affairs. At the central state level where decisions are made that affect both commuites equally then I am happy for it to be based on a simple majority of the two combined communites and where these decisions affect the two communites differently I want each to have to consent to the changes seperately?

Is that really so unresonable? If you think it is unreasonable could you tell me why and what alternative you think is reasonable and does not require the TC community to be under effective total control of the GC community in Cyprus?

[Piratis]

I want GC to control GC affairs. I want TC to control TC affairs.

It depends what you mean "TC affairs" and "GC affairs". Before you said that TCs should have autonomy, which in essence means that almost everything is either a "TC affair" or "GC affair" and almost nothing a "Cypriot affair". How is that different from partition?

Tell me what are the "TC/GC affairs" and what are the "Cypriot affairs". I mean if the "Cypriot affairs" are nothing more than what "EU affairs" are for EU members, then it is obvious that we are not talking about one country, but about two separate countries that are grouped together. (like EU countries are grouped together).