Bananiot wrote:For a start, I would like to point out to oracle that she can rest assure I am not one bit interested in what there is between her ... lines. Also, I wish she would stop taking the cue from others and jump into debates expecting us to pay special attention to her and above all read between her lines. It is getting rather tedious. For every one.
One needs to have a certain amount of political culture in order to understand, first the need for the meeting between the two leaders and secondly the fine technicalities the joined communiqué negotiated. One such person would have understood first that the meeting became a necessity in order to prevent the worse, that is, the slow down in the Working Groups and the Technical Committees. The two leaders stepped in in order to save the process which started last month and this by itself shows that both are genuine about finding a solution.
Then, both showed courage in not insisting on certain vocal slogans that were heard over the last period. Talat in effect put an end to the virgin birth talk. This was good for the Greek side and people that are really interested in solution appreciated this move by Talat. Christofias, unlike his present day supporters in government (DIKO, EDEK) did not mince his words either. His two partners in government would have been more than happy to see the end of the current effort, but Christofias had the interest of the process in mind and was quite happy to meet Talat again on the day Talat had asked for face to face negotiations of the two leaders to begin. This is something that we have not been seeing in the past and the emphasis was not on scoring points but on tackling pressing issues. So, depending on your prospective, you either like what you see or you see weak presidents in front of you who are selling your country because of their acemilikki.
The business about “component” and “constituent” underlines the almost totally legalistic view we have of a serious, political problem. This is because we have been bogged down for many decades by incompetent lawyers who would be looking for a hard to find job when the Cyprob is history. This applies to both, Greek and Turkish side.
P.S. Pantheman: I know now exactly who you are and I would be more that interested to hear you face to face.
Bananiot, on one hand you talk about "tyrany of the words" and call some terms as legalistic things that do not matter, and at the same time all you have to give in support of what you believe is empty words like "reunification" when in practice what you support is the worst kind of partition.
What reunifications means is one Cyprus with no borders, where all Cypriots are equal citizens without racist discriminations and are free to settle anywhere in their country that they want to with full political rights.
What happened in germany is called reunification. What you are trying to apply to Cyprus is partition in practice.
Bananiot knows only too well that the alternative to a BBF is not a clean partition along 82-18 % of land,but the preservation of the status quo at best and the annexation of 38% of Cyprus by Turkey at worst...
In that scale the Annan plan would be the "very worst".
In the first two cases we would not sign away our lands, and we would be able to defend ourselves by having our international voice and our veto rights in EU. Our economy would not collapse either.
With something like Annan plan, not only we would again have partition in practice, but that partition would be legal, meaning that our chances of getting back our lands would be even less, and also we would lose our international voice which is the only thing we have to defend ourselves from Turkey. Not only that but our economy would totally collapse as well.
Admirable gal or blind faith in ones suitability; I cannot fathom. 
) I guess behind every post, lurks a virtual politician. 
