halil wrote:BirKibrisli wrote:halil wrote:After the elections in South. 65.4 % of support a reunified Cyprus based on joint sovereignty of two communities .It's mean a federal system.
28 % support a two state solution .Important part of it those who prefer a 2 states solution are supporters of rejectionist partiest such as DİKO,EDEK and EVROKO .They were supporter of the Papadpoulos.
28% of Edek voters and 27.5 % of Diko supporters are in favour of 2 state solution .
44.5 % of Evroko party support a settlement based on 2 states.
Within Akel 18% supports a 2 states solution .
What do the remaining 82% support,halil???
(Kibrisli this applies only Akel)If it is a unitary state, how will Christofias convince them to vote for a BBF????
Difficult part of the puzzle Birkibrisli , how the leaders from both sides can convince their public .
The number of people supporting a two state poicy within the Gc community is much higher than TC community this results makes UBP (national unity party) very happy and pleased .
BirKibrisli have a look what Niyazi KızılYürek was writing at Cyprus observer. another view
May 23rd Common Statement and beyond ethnicity alliances in Cyprus
06.06.2008
Niyazi Kizilyurek
“Leaders have engaged in genuine and meaningful dialogue today and have reviewed the results of the March 21 Agreement. They declared their allegiance to a Federation founded on a bizonal, bicommunal system based on political equality as defined by the related Security Council decisions. There will be a Turkish Cypriot co-founder state and a Greek Cypriot co-founder State alongside the international identity as Federal Government in this partnership.”
The lines above have been taken from the general statement made on May 23rd following the Mehmet Ali Talat-Demetris Christofias meeting. Although it may remind us of the oft repeated statements of the past, you can judge from the circumstances of how it has been told, that this time they mean business. We can safely say that Cyprus has now taken a route that seems to be hard to return from.
Following a long period of stagnation the announcement by the representatives of the two communities in front of the whole world saying: “Our common aim is to establish a Federal State,” is of extreme importance. We should not despair by comparing this pledge with the common statements of the past with similar words ending in no action or result. In the 1977 and 1979 High Level Agreements and in the July 8 Agreement there have been references about a Federal Solution, however the sincerity of the leaders – at least some of them – has most of the time been questioned. As a matter of fact they were known to never promise their community a Federal Solution and they specifically avoided it. If we include the fact that the Cyprus Problem at the time was not a priority in the eyes of the International Community, we can easily separate the differences in the past with the situation today.
The leaders that promise a solution today are those that have shared their searches for a solution with their communities, and that is why they have been elected to power, in other words they have been voted in because of those promises. They also took a step towards a solution when they had no pressure applied to them, making their own choices, in order to open the route to solution and the most important part was that they formed their own formula for a solution. They promised to establish a Federal State in Cyprus which in my opinion has been the reason why the International Community has started to take an interest in Cyprus once again. As a matter of fact following the May 23 Common Statement there have been several motions at the European Union and the United Nations related to Cyprus. President Mehmet Ali Talat went to Brussels upon invitation from the EU Term President. The UN is getting ready to assign the new Cyprus Special Representative.
There is a positive aspect in internal developments on the island. Both sides of Cyprus faced criticism against the May 23 Common Statement however these have not been convincing to the majority thus only affecting people of certain vision. For example the criticism by Papadopoulos against Demetris Christofias was not fully supported even by Papadopoulos’ party. Then there is DISY that put all their support for Christofias. In the North the criticism that is directed at Mehmet Ali Talat is based on “confederation based on two separate sovereign states” however this is a system which has been tried for years and proved unsuccessful, even the supporters of the system do not believe that it would work.
When we take a look at these criticisms closely we can easily see that there is ‘alliance’ independent of ethnical roots in the Cyprus Policies. Those who talk against the May 23 Common Statement, both Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot, can be put in the same ‘alliance.’ This ‘alliance’ comes across as an ‘alliance’ of anti-solution and although they come up with different arguments they are the outcome of similar way of thinking to claim a vast list of demands under the mask of nationalism. The only force that can stand against it is the embrace of an alliance of the solution supporters free from ethnicity. We should keep in mind that Cyprus has two different nations however apart from that there are 2 separate formations free from ethnicity: the solution – supporters and the anti-solution supporters.
The era that we are getting into is certainly expected to get the two wings against each other more than ever; which is why it is inevitable for the solution-supporters to stand against the anti-solution supporters putting forth all their decisiveness and will while try and reach an agreement with the other solution supporting wing. Especially the Greek Cypriot community should not do the same mistakes they did in 2004.
