Cyprus-Forum.com

[metecyp]

It would be a total mess and we would probably be ejected from the EU because of it!

EU supported the Annan plan and many EU people stated that the Annan plan does not contradict with the EU values. So now you're telling me that they supported a plan to eject one of their members? Nonsense.

[cannedmoose]

This I'm afraid is a load of rubbish Cannedmoose. You have obvioulsy not visited the many refugee housing estates where people have not particularly forged rich lives for themselves! Those that did forge rich lives for themselves are the ones that left Cyprus.

I stand by my statement Mikkie. To qualify my statement, I did not say ALL refugees, but many. I have indeed been to refugee housing estates and many of my friends in Cyprus were either displaced in 1974 or are the children of refugees. I do agree that not all have managed to retrieve their previous standard of living, but given that mass migration has occurred (a large number of the emigres being refugees), the vast majority of those who emigrated have found success elsewhere by their efforts. Thus, one can conclude that a large number (i.e. many) have bettered themselves.

If you look at the Cyprus situation dispassionately (hard to do, but follow me on this one), the roots of the success of the Greek Cypriots are in the economic and social chaos that followed 1974. The Cyprus miracle occurred largely because of the spirit resulting from that calamity, with Greek-Cypriots as a whole striving to rebuild their shattered lives and displaying an entrepreneurial spirit virtually unmatched in the rest of Europe.

It is true that not all have managed it, but a quick drive around the island quickly demonstrates that many, many people have developed their lives and now live in relative comfort. Mikkie, I've been to real refugee camps in the Gaza Strip - Deir-al-ballah, Beach Camp in Gaza City and Rafah - so I know what poverty and destitution really looks like and there is one hell of a contrast between their situation and those you cite on the refugee housing estates of Cyprus. I'm not saying that to belittle the plight of Cypriot refugees, but to me they aren't refugees of the classical type, they are displaced people.

As for the right of return, in an ideal world, yes, all would be given the right to go back and reclaim what was taken from them. But re, this isn't an ideal world. The maxims of international diplomacy withstanding, a compromise solution is the only one ahead and that compromise will undoubtedly entail a limited right of return for some refugees... most will not have that right, at least for the foreseeable future. Compromising human rights? Political expediency? Disagreeable, unpleasant and unfair yes, but that's the world we live in my friend.

As for your statement that GC refugees in the UK are prepared to return en masse, I find that interesting. In my experience, the GCs I know and talk to over here are quite happy with their lives in the UK. Their children have an appreciation of where they come from, but largely no desire to return there. As for the older ones, some of those do wish to go back, but in their retirement, to a place in the sun... like most of us wish for. It's not a desire to go back and rebuild lost lives from thirty years ago.

As for your final statement on economics being the biggest single influence, economics is the key to a solution in Cyprus. The most likely lasting solution would be through a gradual integration of the two economies to the extent where they are so interdependent that it would be in no-ones interest to disrupt them. This is the thesis that led to the creation of the European Union through the European Coal and Steel Community after World War II. If you get people working together, building partnerships and friendships, becoming successful together, who is going to fight over nationalism? Exactly.

The ECSC didn't require French and Germans to move permanently across the border, instead it led to a fusing of the two economies, with cooperation between industrialists and moved on to other things with the creation of the EEC in 1957. As for the EU rejecting such a settlement in Cyprus... no way, it would see the parallels between the European solution that forged a new relationship between the old European enemies and a Cypriot solution building new bridges in Cyprus. If you wanted a crystal ball solution, there you go.

So while I respect where you're coming from Mikkie, I do continue to stand by my statement on MicAtCyp's previous post.

[-mikkie2-]

EU supported the Annan plan and many EU people stated that the Annan plan does not contradict with the EU values. So now you're telling me that they supported a plan to eject one of their members? Nonsense.

Metecyp,

You have to understand that the Annan plan was drawn up to be agreed on BEFORE Cyprus became a full EU member. The EU would simply accept the state of afairs as it was BEFORE membership. Why do you think everyone was pushing us to say yes?

Cyprus is now a full EU member and as such certain aspects of the plan would have to be modified to accept this fact. The EU and its laws will now have to be respected. Why is the EU now saying they want to be part of the negotiating process? The EU will inevitably have a greater say in the final form of any solution framework.

[cannedmoose]

You have to understand that the Annan plan was drawn up to be agreed on BEFORE Cyprus became a full EU member. The EU would simply accept the state of afairs as it was BEFORE membership. Why do you think everyone was pushing us to say yes?

Cyprus is now a full EU member and as such certain aspects of the plan would have to be modified to accept this fact. The EU and its laws will now have to be respected. Why is the EU now saying they want to be part of the negotiating process? The EU will inevitably have a greater say in the final form of any solution framework.

Mikkie2, why do you think the EU had technical staff working with the drafters of the Annan Plan, almost from its inception? It was precisely to ensure its compatibility with the acquis. According to David Hannay in his book 'Cyprus: the search for a solution', the Commission were intimately involved with the drafters, assessing where derogations might be required and ensuring that on the whole the Plan would not be in violation of fundamental EU law (p.107-8 if you want a reference for that).

Therefore, whether there was a solution before or after, the Annan Plan remains a legal route through EU eyes. Yes, it would require a number of derogations, but these were considered during the drafting phase. The only difference now is that Cyprus has a voice within the EU and would thus be a party to any redrafting as well as a party to the conflict... so some more imagination on the part of the Commission would be required there.

[metecyp]

The EU and its laws will now have to be respected. Why is the EU now saying they want to be part of the negotiating process? The EU will inevitably have a greater say in the final form of any solution framework.

Ok, I agree that the EU will have a greater say in the next plan but you seem to forget that GCs have to find a solution with TCs, and not the EU. TCs want a bicommuanl bizonal federation which means some restrictions to "EU laws". GCs have to stop looking for a solution outside and try to understand TC concerns and come up with an agreeable solution with TCs. Instead, GCs are hoping that an imaginary European solution will emerge out of the EU and address all GC concerns, and TCs will have no choice but agree with such a solution. This is not going to happen.

[insan]

TCs want a bicommuanl bizonal federation which means some restrictions to "EU laws".

Temporary and permenant derogations peculiar to any of the EU member country is not something extra-ordinary according to the EU constitution, laws and regulations.

[Piratis]

Is federation, bizonality etc your legal rights? No it is not. So it is your problem to tell us how you can have what you demand without violating our 100% legal human rights.

We agreed for federation, and bi-zonality? Yes we did (as a huge compromise). And we can tell you right now of how this can be done without violating much of our human rights (the TC state being no much bigger than 18% is the most important part of it). Now if you don't like this, then we are listening to your suggestions of how what you ask for can be achieved without violating our 100% legal rights.

If your argument is that Federation and our legal human rights can not be accommodated at the same time, then this means that we can not have Federation, and unitary state is the only solution. If you disagree then tell us of how the solution that you want can accommodate our 100% legal and human rights.

[insan]

And we can tell you right now of how this can be done without violating much of our human rights (the TC state being no much bigger than 18% is the most important part of it).

I liked it Piratis. Tell me the remaining part of your suggestion....

[MicAtCyp]

Cannedmoose thank you for your kind words but I think you misunderstood some parts of my message as Mikkie very correctly explained.

Cannedmoose, read MicAtCyp's post properly. He is correct in saying that many refugees may not want to return but he is also saying that they should be given the choice to return or not.

Thanks Mikkie.

Furthermore I did not say that there must be restrictions-in fact I said exactly the oposite. And I implied that either the GC refugee choses to return or not, nobody can take away his property if there are no TC properties left for exchange.And nobody can deprive him the right to do whatever he likes with his property including selling it to anyone he likes including GCs,TCs,settlers, foreigners etc etc.

As you said, there needs to be restrictions for a bizonal federation to work. We either accept this and talk about how to achieve federation, or we don't accept any restrictions, in that case, unitary state is the name of the game. Again, GCs have to tell us what they want, what's acceptable, that's what we've been waiting for since last April.

I think I said many times that bizonal Federeation is not accepted by me (personally) exactly because the restrictions required violate basic human rights of the GCs and need a process to steal their properties and donate them to TCs and settlers. The only thing I can see working is sharing the Political power inside a Unitary state, in which the TCs will obviously be concentrated at the northern part and be governed by their own people of the unitary government.

[Piratis]

I liked it Piratis. Tell me the remaining part of your suggestion....

If the TC state is not much bigger than 18% then even if all refugees return to their homes, the TCs will be the clear majority in their state. This 18% can be made mostly by areas where most villages were traditionally TC villages.