Cyprus-Forum.com

[Mano]

hey everybody just wanted to hear some opinions

what does everybody think were the reasons why Denktash refused to put the ANNAN III to referendum after the Hague?

[Kifeas]

hey everybody just wanted to hear some opinions

what does everybody think were the reasons why Denktash refused to put the ANNAN III to referendum after the Hague?

What is your opinion?

[Mano]

After reading through David Hannay’s Book ‘the search for a solution’ and reading over Kofi Annan's Report to the Security Council S/2003/398

I would have to say that I have formed the opinion that Denktash from the very beginning never wanted a solution; well at least not a solution that would have him giving into compromises.

I believe he was nothing more than an obstacle for a solution, both Clerides and Papadopoulos… Yes Papadopoulos, had stated that they were willing to agree on to the Annan III on the condition that Denktash did so too; if he really wanted a solution he should have accepted to do so.

The result of his haggling was for the island to remain to this date divided.

Prior to Cyprus being accepted into the EU the Greek Cypriots were under pressure to accept compromises, but Denktash's negative stance gave the Greek Cypriots a free pass into the EU; as a result Papadopoulos after securing Cyprus EU entry was less willing to compromise….


so now whats ur opinion?

[turkcyp]

IMO, TC soceity would not have voted majority "yes" to Annan 3, becuase there were no equality of communities, but rather equality of states as some members of this forum keeps on pushing as well.

Therefore it does not matter what he had said for Annan 3. For me I think he acted in accordance with the TC will for Annan 3, (not because of the same reasons but they were the same end at the end) but he acted againts TCs will for Annan 5.

Annan 5 was much better for TCs than Annan 3. All these documents are very well analyzed by the TC society for months, before referandum. There were plenty of opposing and supporting newspaper articles about this and it seemed to me that there was less of a chauventic debate but more of a rational debate about the plans in north compared to south. (not trying to say rational debate did not exist in south.)

[erolz]

IMO, TC soceity would not have voted majority "yes" to Annan 3, becuase there were no equality of communities, but rather equality of states as some members of this forum keeps on pushing as well.

Turkcyp would equality of states satisfy you if there were protections to ensure that one state always had a TC majority of say 3/4? If not then it would be helpful to me to understand why.

[Mano]

i would have to disagree with u,
i believe the TC ppl would have accepted the plan

i am not a tc so i dont have much right to say this, but from what iv read
there were huge demonstrations in northern Cyprus after Denktash refused the Annan plan at the Hague. Numbering up to 90,000 if im not mistaken, and that’s a huge portion of the TC population.

Could u please clarify something u said earlier? About the equality business, I was under the impression that in Annan III tc were given political equality, did they not?

[turkcyp]

Turkcyp would equality of states satisfy you if there were protections to ensure that one state always had a TC majority of say 3/4? If not then it would be helpful to me to understand why.

I think I have given an answer to this question in the other topic Erol...

In short, for me communal equality is much more important then state equality. We can have federal state where the senators are not equal (30-10 instead of 24-24), or we can even have unitary state like the one 1960 constitution envisoned. But in any point, there has to be a safeguard that makes sure that decisions taken and bills passed satisfy the majority of TCs.

Neither of the Annan Plans were satisfying that albeit that Annan 5 was much better than Annan 3.

******

i would have to disagree with u,
i believe the TC ppl would have accepted the plan

Amy be you are right but may be not!

For example I know for a fact that I know a lot of people who had voted "Yes" for Annan 5 (including me) but who would have voted "No" to Annan 3 (including me).

When Annan Plan 3 came about the sentiment in north was it is significantly much better than all the previous plans but it fails very short of satisfying communal equality.

Could u please clarify something u said earlier? About the equality business, I was under the impression that in Annan III tc were given political equality, did they not?

Sure I would elaborate. Annan 3 was makingno distinction about whether GCs that resettle in TCCS state could vote in senate elections in GCCS or TCCS. This would effectively means that at the senate there would be
- 24 GC from GCCS
- 8 GC from TCCS
- 16 TC from TCCC....

This scenario would even be acceptable if it was said that the bills required majority of TC senators. It did not said that. What it said was it required 1/4 (and 2/5 in some cases) approval for each state without making any distinction between whether they are GC or TC senators from TCCS.

[Kifeas]

Turkcyp would equality of states satisfy you if there were protections to ensure that one state always had a TC majority of say 3/4? If not then it would be helpful to me to understand why.

You could ask me Erolz and I could explain you why Turkcyp doesn't favour equality of the Constituent states but only the communities, irrespective of constituent state boundaries.

Because in the case of political equality of communities it will require up to 50% of TCs to agree on a bill or decision that will presumably will not favour the TC community. In the case of political equality on the basis of Constituent state it will require only 40% of TCs to approve the same presumably unfavourable bill for the TC community and the rest (up to the needed 50%) hypothetically will be contributed by the GCs living with the TCCS. This is his real problem. He believes that there is a 40% of TCs who will, given the chance, betray the TC community and form a collision with the GCs in order to pass unfavourable bill for the TC community. Do you such a high percentage (40%) of TC traitors in your community???

[turkcyp]

You could ask me Erolz and I could explain you why Turkcyp doesn't favour equality of the Constituent states but only the communities, irrespective of constituent state boundaries.

Because in the case of political equality of communities it will require up to 50% of TCs to agree on a bill or decision that will presumably will not favour the TC community. In the case of political equality on the basis of Constituent state it will require only 40% of TCs to approve the same presumably unfavourable bill for the TC community and the rest (up to the needed 50%) hypothetically will be contributed by the GCs living with the TCCS. This is his real problem. He believes that there is a 40% of TCs who will, given the chance, betray the TC community and form a collision with the GCs in order to pass unfavourable bill for the TC community. Do you such a high percentage (40%) of TC traitors in your community???

Where is that 40% you keep on talking about? Let’s calculate. Assuming that as Annan Plan said 1/3 is GC settled.

- 24 GC senators from GCCS
- 8 GC senators from TCCS
- 16 TC senators from TCCS.

Two scenarios:
1) %50 plus 1. Then you can have a scenario where a decision can be taken which is opposed by TCs completely. We will have 24 GC senators from GCCS and 1 GC senator from TCCS and it is the law. No TC consent is necessary.
2) Majority of each state is necessary. (Remember this was never the case in Annan Plan, neither 3 or 5) Then we can have a bill which has 24 GC senators from GCCS plus 8 GC senators from TCCS, plus 5 TC senators from TCCS and it is law. So a law where 11/16 TC senators have opposed in other words 68% of the TCs oppose becomes law.

If we would accept a bill that %68 of TC society objects then why didn’t we accept Annan Plan. I mean it was only rejected by %76 of the GC society. I am sure we can have some tweaks here and there that can reduce that %76 into %68 NO and %32 YES in GC side. You should not be objecting to this, since you have no problem in assuming that TCs would like to have solution where they may be forced to accept bills where %68 do not like.

The idea is not if 32% of society would like the bill (as you propse) the idea is 68% of society woul oppose to a bill. And I would call 68% a very sound majority. Don't you think.

[Kifeas]

Where is that 40% you keep on talking about? Let’s calculate. Assuming that as Annan Plan said 1/3 is GC settled.

- 24 GC senators from GCCS
- 8 GC senators from TCCS
- 16 TC senators from TCCS.

for what reason you mix the senators of the GCCS into this eqaution. we are talking about separate majorities. You should only forcus on the senators of the TCCS, like below


The 40% reference (actually 39%) is on the assumption that only 25% (or 1/4) of the population of the TCCS is from the GC community.

18+6 = 24

24/2 = 12, 12+1 = 13 (separate majority)
13 - 6 (from GCs) = 7 TCs

7 TCs over 18 TCs = 39%