The Best Cyprus Community

Skip to content


negotiations on the Cyprus Problem could start after April

How can we solve it? (keep it civilized)

Postby Viewpoint » Fri Feb 29, 2008 2:43 pm

DT. wrote:
Viewpoint wrote:
DT. wrote:
The majority of the World including the UN backed the AP, even Greece refrained from comment which in a way put the ball in your court as they wanted to remain neutral and protect their own interests, you guys rejected it why are you so blind.


where in your previous post did you mention any of that? I responded to your continous remarks regarding the rejection of the AP. You however carry on with blind rhetoric with the hope that someone who doens't know will read what you say and consider the Greeks blind for not acceptingthe AP.

DOes it say reference point in your above post?


Try to keep up DT, we are not arguing why you rejected the AP but why you do not accept is as a basis/reference point when restarting talks?


I know VP :roll: Yet 5 posts ago you felt it time to explain to the world why the GC's turned down the AP.


DT you have your reasons for rejecting the AP whether you are right or wrong or whether your reasons are valid have been discussed to death. The point now is whether our 2 leaders use the AP as a reference point?
User avatar
Viewpoint
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 25214
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2005 2:48 pm
Location: Nicosia/Lefkosa

Postby DT. » Fri Feb 29, 2008 2:58 pm

Viewpoint wrote:
DT. wrote:
Viewpoint wrote:
DT. wrote:
The majority of the World including the UN backed the AP, even Greece refrained from comment which in a way put the ball in your court as they wanted to remain neutral and protect their own interests, you guys rejected it why are you so blind.


where in your previous post did you mention any of that? I responded to your continous remarks regarding the rejection of the AP. You however carry on with blind rhetoric with the hope that someone who doens't know will read what you say and consider the Greeks blind for not acceptingthe AP.

DOes it say reference point in your above post?


Try to keep up DT, we are not arguing why you rejected the AP but why you do not accept is as a basis/reference point when restarting talks?


I know VP :roll: Yet 5 posts ago you felt it time to explain to the world why the GC's turned down the AP.


DT you have your reasons for rejecting the AP whether you are right or wrong or whether your reasons are valid have been discussed to death. The point now is whether our 2 leaders use the AP as a reference point?


parts of any plan will undoubtedly include the AP. As a basis for to start negotiations however would not work since it is a red flag to the GC side. It is tantamount to saying to 750,000GC's that their democratic right does not count for sh**
User avatar
DT.
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 12684
Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2006 8:34 pm
Location: Lefkosia

Postby GeorgeV97qaue » Fri Feb 29, 2008 3:01 pm

Viewpoint the GC's rejected the plan because it was one sided. The TC's and Turkey got the better deal. Do you think the GC's are stupid or something. Please see my points where I believe it favoured the TC's. Firstly not all the refugees could return to their homes. Yes they were to be compensated but guess who was going to pay for that. The Cypriot people through Taxes. Turkey should be made to pay any type of compensation not the Cypriot people.

Hope this clarifys why we the GC's rejected the plan. My family lost property in Varosha and I was against the plan because it just wasnt fair. Although I didnt like Paps he made the right call when he asked us to reject the plan.
GeorgeV97qaue
Contributor
Contributor
 
Posts: 370
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:57 pm

Postby pg » Fri Feb 29, 2008 11:10 pm

zan wrote:VIRGIN BIRTH!!!!!!FAIR DEAL!!!!!!!SOLUTION BEFORE THE END OF THE YEAR!!!!! :wink:


This talk about virgin birth is just some bull for the public.

Virgin birth means the new state would not be member of the EU, and clearly it would have no guarantor states either... is that what Mr. Talat and zan wants?

...or would you just like to pick and choose the parts you will bring from the RoC to your virgin birth?

Don't swallow too much.
pg
Member
Member
 
Posts: 57
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 7:53 pm

Postby Nikitas » Fri Feb 29, 2008 11:20 pm

So from the above I gather that there is no alternative to Virgin Birth. What is wrong with amending the constitution of the RoC, turning the RoC into a BBF state? Why dissolve the RoC totally? Turkey itself has gone through several constitutional changes and so has France, Greece, Spain etc. Why this insistence on dissolving the existing state?

The insistence makes for suspicion. I recall Gul saying that under the Annan plan the TRNC would lose its sovereignty but then so would the GCs. Is this deal all about who is going to lose the most?
Nikitas
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 7420
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2007 2:49 pm

Postby pg » Fri Feb 29, 2008 11:27 pm

Both sides wants the other side never to have existed..., but will at the same time not accept to start with a new blank page. Clearly no side really wants a virgin birth anyway. Jesus.
pg
Member
Member
 
Posts: 57
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 7:53 pm

Postby Viewpoint » Sat Mar 01, 2008 2:15 pm

Nikitas wrote:So from the above I gather that there is no alternative to Virgin Birth. What is wrong with amending the constitution of the RoC, turning the RoC into a BBF state? Why dissolve the RoC totally? Turkey itself has gone through several constitutional changes and so has France, Greece, Spain etc. Why this insistence on dissolving the existing state?

The insistence makes for suspicion. I recall Gul saying that under the Annan plan the TRNC would lose its sovereignty but then so would the GCs. Is this deal all about who is going to lose the most?


The 1960 constitution didnt work back then what makes you think it will work today? and wasnt it the GCs who claim it was forced upon them?
User avatar
Viewpoint
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 25214
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2005 2:48 pm
Location: Nicosia/Lefkosa

Postby Viewpoint » Sat Mar 01, 2008 2:16 pm

GeorgeV97qaue wrote:Viewpoint the GC's rejected the plan because it was one sided. The TC's and Turkey got the better deal. Do you think the GC's are stupid or something. Please see my points where I believe it favoured the TC's. Firstly not all the refugees could return to their homes. Yes they were to be compensated but guess who was going to pay for that. The Cypriot people through Taxes. Turkey should be made to pay any type of compensation not the Cypriot people.

Hope this clarifys why we the GC's rejected the plan. My family lost property in Varosha and I was against the plan because it just wasnt fair. Although I didnt like Paps he made the right call when he asked us to reject the plan.


Its called compromising, the next deal maybe even worse than the last one which is usually the case.
User avatar
Viewpoint
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 25214
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2005 2:48 pm
Location: Nicosia/Lefkosa

Postby Nikitas » Sat Mar 01, 2008 3:26 pm

Viewpoint said:

"The 1960 constitution didnt work back then what makes you think it will work today? and wasnt it the GCs who claim it was forced upon them?"

That is why we are talking about changing it. The sate remains the same, the constitution changes. In Turkey when they have constitutional amendments they do not dissolve the state every time. Why do it in Cyprus?
Nikitas
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 7420
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2007 2:49 pm

Postby BirKibrisli » Sat Mar 01, 2008 3:56 pm

The Annan Plan had two very important elements for the GCs...
Turkish troops would be largely withdrawn,plus all but 46,000 settlers would return to Turkey...Surely Christofias doesn't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater.... :(
User avatar
BirKibrisli
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 6162
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2005 4:28 pm
Location: Australia

PreviousNext

Return to Cyprus Problem

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests