Cyprus-Forum.com

[insan]

You must have noticed that Greece does not make decisions for, or try to impose its decisions, on the RoC. Look at what happened with the referendum. The newly elected Karamanlis government wouldn't take a stance as far as the plan went, until T-Pap stated he was against it. Then, Karamanlis came out and said, 'well, whatever the Cypriots want to do is fine with us' (and later, post-referendum, openly spoke for the need for a solution based on the plan), whereas the 7-year socialist government that had just stepped down was hell bent for the plan all the way.

The game must be played according to its rules. They always played this game according to its rules except the killjoy actions of far right led by Grivas, Junta and Grivas. It's not hard to play this game according to its rules and create different impressions that would serve to avhieve their "national cause". TCs fumbled to play this game this according to its rules because noone could manage to silence the voice of TC left wingers. On the other hand, there are so many GC left wingers admited that their voice silenced by despot party leadership for the so-called "national unity".

[Saint Jimmy]

This thread was for discussing compromises and what constitutes a compromise and not, etc. I really want to make clear to our GC friends that accepting as many GC as possible to return to the north is a compromise on TC part and it shouldn't be dismissed as "it was illegal anyway, so you just return to legality, that's not compromise". So I urge people to stick with the topic and start new threads for other discussions.

Yeah, sorry about that, guys!

[Piratis]

Yes, this thread is about compromises.

So Metecyp, in 1963 you accuse us that we stole from you RoC. And another reality is that GCs were the only ones that are running a recognized state for 30 years. Following your logic, giving back to you what belongs to you is a compromise. Maybe then we should also give back to you only part of what belongs to you?

So Metecyp, giving back what does not belong to you might be hard, might be inconvenient, but is definitely not a compromise and this is the case for both sides.

[metecyp]

And another reality is that GCs were the only ones that are running a recognized state for 30 years.

Exactly! Running a state that is not bicommunal that does not represent TCs but telling to the whole world that it is the only government of Cyprus and it represents TCs and hence getting the benefits of owning a recognized state on your own.

Your side has political representation of the island, my side has land that belongs to GCs. Now if you're ready to share the political representation of the island with TCs, then you must be ready for bicommunal bizonal federation. You must also realize that a bicommunal bizonal federation means some restriction of GC refugee rights for the greater good of peace and prosperity for both communities of the island. This is a compromise on your part (even though GCs does not legally own the political representation of the whole island). At this point, I'm ready to discuss as many refugees as possible returning within the limits of a bizonal federation but you have to realize that this is also a compromise on the part of TC side.

[Piratis]

You ask from us to compromise our legal and human rights for the "the greater good of peace and prosperity for both communities". Why don't you do the same? why don't you compromise also some of your legal and human rights? When you do not accept to do so, why should we?

the fact remains that you want us to compromise our legal and human rights, and on the other hand you only want to compromise your legally baseless demands.

[-mikkie2-]

Now if you're ready to share the political representation of the island with TCs, then you must be ready for bicommunal bizonal federation. You must also realize that a bicommunal bizonal federation means some restriction of GC refugee rights for the greater good of peace and prosperity for both communities of the island.

Metecyp

In no way does political equality mean that refugees rights should be restricted. Political equality can be achieved without having to do this.

[Saint Jimmy]

In no way does political equality mean that refugees rights should be restricted. Political equality can be achieved without having to do this.

OK, I see that, but doesn't bi-zonality mean two separate states, where the majority must invariably be ethnically the same as the administration?
Does anyone have a definition for bi-zonality?

[insan]

Now if you're ready to share the political representation of the island with TCs, then you must be ready for bicommunal bizonal federation. You must also realize that a bicommunal bizonal federation means some restriction of GC refugee rights for the greater good of peace and prosperity for both communities of the island.

Metecyp

In no way does political equality mean that refugees rights should be restricted. Political equality can be achieved without having to do this.

Can you tell us how could "political equality" of two communities be preserved without compromosing right to return, right to be the permenant resident of TCCS and ethnic restrictions on political rights of permenant GC residents of TCCS?

Convince us mikkie.

[Piratis]

it depends on how you mean "political equality".
If you mean it in the way the 1960 agreements were, then it can be achieved. If you mean a 50%-50% on everything between the 18% and the 82% this can not be achieved in any way because it is undemocratic and not your legal right to have such thing.

Why should we accept for us to have less than our legal right, and you more than your legal rights? We will not. If you are uncompromising, so we will be also.

[insan]

it depends on how you mean "political equality".
If you mean it in the way the 1960 agreements were, then it can be achieved. If you mean a 50%-50% on everything between the 18% and the 82% this can not be achieved in any way because it is undemocratic and not your legal right to have such thing.

Actually it wasn't essentially any different what TCs have in 60s agreements and what would they have had with the Annan Plan. Only distinction is instead of vesting the veto power to president and vice president; it was wested to Senate and Presidential Council in Annan Plan. It is clear what we TCs think about "political equality" of two communities. Excatly the same rights that GC senators and GC members of presidential council would have had per Annan Plan.

Why should we accept for us to have less than our legal right, and you more than your legal rights? We will not. If you are uncompromising, so we will be also

You'll have right to make decisions on everything but we won't have the right to effectively participate into that decision making. As long as the issue is also related with the interests of my community; why shouldn't TC community have the right to give its consent or reject it.