Cyprus-Forum.com

[Bananiot]

DT, I fail to understand your contribution to the debates in this forum. Most of the times (like your last post) you choose to ignore the issues raised and instead try to turn the debate on its head. Lazaros Mavros speaks every day for two hours in his talk show and writes everyday his column in the newspaper he works for but you reckon I should shut up and not be concerned with him.

I posted something Lazaros Mavros wrote. Why do you not comment on his comment? Do you agree, do you disagree? Why?

For Christ's sake, stop dealing with the posters every time. I can criticise anyone I wish, so do you? Especially the accountable rulers and those that reach us every day anywhere we are.

[humanist]

Bananiot

Humanist, we have been through this numerous times. There can be only one solution that can be negotiated. Bizonal, bicommunal federation with political equality of the two component states. The details will be decided with good will on behave of the two parts.

If we aspire for something "better", we would need to think of a different recourse to negotiations. Staying as we are (as Piratis and other losers suggest) is not an option because simply things will not be the same tomorrow. They will only get worse.

Bananiot thank you for your response. I am sorry for asking the question again, however I am not sure what you see as political equality under a BBF. Once again BBF is a complex model and I am not sure how you and the TC's see as a viable system. Perhaps am politically inept can you give me some examples of what political equality you and the TC's are looking for?

For me political equality is what I have in Australia, as an Australian citizen belonging to more than one minority group I have the right and equal poilitical equality as any toher Australian citizen, if I choose to do so I can run for Prime Minister. And a few Cyprots have made it hight up in State governement, to this end it means am one person and I have one vote to a democratically elected governement.

Further, I wish to ask what BBF model you andthe TC's put forth, are we talking one where under this structure the TC's have a state purely run for them and Turkey, can they assure that GC's living within that state share political equality?

Finally, my stance is that I support things to stay as they are if the political equality you are fighting for TC's means that GC's are disadvantaged. Perhaps fairness and Justice means that we are prepared to accept te worse as you say in your post than loose our country not the TC's but Turks.

[alekcen]

First of all alekcen when you copy & paste what some other person said you should quote him, not pretend that it is your own words. Although using the words of some other idiot wouldn't make you sound any smarter anyways

Any other idiot??? U r talking about one of the best Cypriot Historians, but ofcourse for u my big dimocratic Greek, who speak differently is idiot.
You are just pathetic, grow up and talk like a mature man.

This is what political equality means:

Quote:

By political equality we refer to the extent to which citizens have an equal voice over governmental decisions. One of the bedrock principles in a democracy is the equal consideration of the preferences and interests of all citizens. This is expressed in such principles as one-person/one-vote, equality before the law, and equal rights of free speech. Equal consideration of the preferences and needs of all citizens is fostered by equal political activity among citizens

It is from the first result in Google when you search for Political Equality.
http://www.hks.harvard.edu/inequality/S ... /Verba.pdf

As you can see political equality means equality among citizens and it is expressed in such principles as one-person/one-vote.

The above is the political equality that I accept and promote

AHHHH, what to say, just think a bit mate. Political equality among the communitees!!!! Thats whats the political equality thats been agreed from both sides. As i can see u follow politics closely, so closley that u have no idea whats been going on for years.

Furthermore nowhere in any agreement we discussed about land distribution in a BBF. It goes without saying that we would accept such thing only if the territory that the TCs would rule would be very small, e.g. 5%, and that in return to allowing them to rule that 5% of Cyprus they would also make compromises from their rights. Also BBF should be a true federation where the central govermentis above the states, and this central goverment is elected democratically by the people as a whole, one person/one vote.

Do you realise what ur saying ? OK let me, ask u something am curious about, do u live in Cyprus now???

Freedom from the foreign invadors was the right of Cyprus as it was the right of every other Greek island and territory. Are you going to tell me that Rhodos (just one example) didn't have the right to be liberated and unite with the rest of Greece because there is turkish minority living there???

Freeedom yes , but not exterminate them!!!!!!! Please read the initial post, of Mr Droushiotis and then argue again. Especialy the first parts.

So what is "your way of realism"? That the Greeks should always give in to the Turks? That is defeatism, not realism. If you are realist then you should come out and clearly say that when we have the power we should gain on the loss of the Turks as much as possible. Why not? After all human rights, democracy or any other principle doesn't matter for your "realism". All it matters is that the strong can impose its will on the weak, and the weak (if "realistic") should just accept it. Right?

No its not right, but u should know when to compromise and when ur not 100% right. I ve explain u above my way of realism, am tired of repeating and repeating !!!!!!

[humanist]

I am still not sure what political equality, TC's are asking for in this process? I am not sure what a two governement structure will look like in a united Cyprus as stated by Talaty in his Famagusta gazette interview.

[Piratis]

Any other idiot??? U r talking about one of the best Cypriot Historians, but ofcourse for u my big dimocratic Greek, who speak differently is idiot.
You are just pathetic, grow up and talk like a mature man.

You are pathetic because you want to betray your country! Shameless traitor! And only another idiot would say that idiot Drousiotis is "historian".

AHHHH, what to say, just think a bit mate. Political equality among the communitees!!!! Thats whats the political equality thats been agreed from both sides. As i can see u follow politics closely, so closley that u have no idea whats been going on for years.

The last thing we agreed was the 1960 agreements. For anything else to be agreed it needs to be approved by the Cypriot people, and the Cypriot people would never approve such racist and undemocratic thing.

Political Equality is the equality among citizens and it is expressed in such principles as one-person/one-vote. That is how political equality works in all democratic countries and that is what we want for our country as well.

Do you realise what ur saying ? OK let me, ask u something am curious about, do u live in Cyprus now???

Yes do you? Did you notice that your crappy "solutions" are rejected by the 76% of the people, or you missed that "detail"?

Freeedom yes , but not exterminate them!!!!!!! Please read the initial post, of Mr Droushiotis and then argue again. Especialy the first parts.

Nobody ever said to exterminate them. They can be a minority like every other. Like the Greeks that live in Turkey for example. Why accept double standards against us? We will not.

No its not right, but u should know when to compromise and when ur not 100% right. I ve explain u above my way of realism, am tired of repeating and repeating !!!!!!

You didn't explain anything. You are trying to avoid the question which I and Nikitas made to you.

[Nikitas]

"The coup was the first step towards enosis. "

The joke is that it was not. The game of the coup was double union which by necessity involved partition. Read speeches by Papadopoulos after the the Evros agreement. Read Greek army officers reports of how they were told to retreat to certain spots after the first ceasefire, which obviously had been prearranged. JRead how the junta in Athens could not believe that Cyprus was being bombed, indicating that the agreement involved a joint military operation which was meant to go smoothly, but did not. Someone did not keep their end of the bargain.

[Nikitas]

Magnus asked

"What exactly is going to stop the 'northern constituent state' from breaking away to form their own 'country' six months down the line? "

This is what the proponents of the Annan plan are not prepared to discuss. But more important is that we are not thinking of the consequences of such a development.

The first thing that happens is that without the safety net of the RoC which gives us international legal personality we are fucked. Plain and simple.

Second thing is that the breakaway stetelet can then lay claim to anything it wants, like being the legtimate successor of the state in international bodies etc.

Third is that the breakaway state can enter into any kind of agreement it wants, including defence and cooperation agreements with Turkey and thus make monkeys of any limitations on immigration and troop numbers.

You understand now why the territory issue is vital? Territory precedes all other issues and its formulation should be in the form not only of defining the northern statelet but also in a declaration by the TC community that it will have no further territorial claims in the future on any other part of the ISLAND not only the RoC, so as to leave the matter of the British bases to be settled between the GCs and Britain. There must also be an agreement between the GC state and Britain about the bases, making it clear to ALL that the bases are on GC territory.

The way to open territorial claims by the norther state, in the event of a secession from the unitary state, is via the bases. If it sounds outlandish just remember how Turkey claims the island of Gavdos, south of Crete as part of the "grey areas" of the Aegean and how it claims that the extension of territorial waters in the Ionian Sea is against Turkish interests. The Ionian islands were never part of the Ottoman Empire and Gavdos is not in the Aegean but in the Libyan sea.

We have to wake up and realise who we are dealing with. Else we will pay dearly for our self imposed obliviousness.

[Bananiot]

You also consider double union a good solution Nikitas, do you not?

[CopperLine]

Nikitas
I understand the concern with the 'what if' scenario (or the 'what stops the constituent state doing X' in the future). But isn't the basic problem that afflicts us is that we can't even get to an agreed first step, never mind what may happen so many steps down the road.

[Nikitas]

NO, I do NOT conside double union a good solution. Refer to my past posts, in which I made clear that the conversion of Cyprus into a province of Greece is a horrible idea.

And why? Because it takes one more part of Hellenism, which is not a notion identical to the Athens centered modern Greek state, and stops its potential. Union by necessity means an act of two equal and equally willing parties. It does NOT mean assimiliation of one by the other. In a true union each side is meant to contribute its abilities so as to enhance the resulting new entity. And this was never on the cards in Enosis, either of the whole or part of Cyprus.