YFred wrote:Kikapu wrote:Bananiot wrote:The most crucial chapters that are discussed at the talks, as most people know, are governance and property. The rest have been or can easily be agreed upon. YFred said something interesting, that is, when you see the far right worry, something good may be brewing.
The governance issue is debated about the effective participation of the two communities in the central state. The UN resolution seems to be understood differently by the two sides. Of course I completely ignore the far right cry for a unitary state and moving away from the bbf proposal. Talat wants equal representation in all bodies of the central state whereas Christofias seems to want participation which will not be detrimental to decision making. Remember, the UN said, effective participation. How does one translate "effective participation"? In my opinion, equal participation will give the sense of justice to the Turkish Cypriots and we stand to lose nothing by accepting this. It will be a huge step towards enhancing the reconciliation process.
The property issue sees our side wanting to safeguard the right of all refugees to return to their properties while the Turkish Cypriot side has opted for an exchange and compensation policy in order to make sure that there will be a Turkish Cypriot majority in the Turkish Cypriot state. Another issue that seems to be of concern to the TC side is the % of Turkish Cypriot owned land within the TC state.
This is how things stand at the moment. Those of us that seek solution wholeheartedly as the only way to safeguard the existence of our island, can compromise in a spirit of good will for the benefit of our common country. Christofias has been pressed very hard by the deep state in the Greek Cypriot side (oh yes, it exists since day one of the RoC) and he even finds it difficult to reform a stale, anachronistic education system, which has seen our education records plummet to record lows while producing, xenophobic children who are racist and spoilt brats. If Christofias finds the strength to stand up to the reactionaries, you will be surprised how many people will stand by his side.
As I said we should accept the idea that the Turkish Cypriots will participate on an equal basis in all decision making bodies of the Central state. Also, by definition, it is not possible for one community to have a majority of either population or land ownership in both states. The legal owner of every property should have the final say of course and any exchanges or compensations need to be very welcome by all concerned, at the end of the day.
If we cannot agree on the above, partition is the only way left and this will prove detrimental to both Greek and Turkish Cypriots. Thus, eventually what it boils down in the end is what we want, partition or bbf. All other options do not exist and it is a waste of time even arguing about them even as an exercise on paper.
Bananiot,
The first question I need to ask you is, from what you read of this "secret" document on page one, do you agree with the terms Talat insisting on.?
Second question is, do you not see Talat's proposals as a Confederation and not a Federation.?
Third question is, after all you read about the AP, don't you think this is what AP looks like once the disguised partition veil has been removed.?
You tell us that you are against Partition and Confederation, but at the same time, you want the solution based on what's in this "secret" document, or did I get this wrong and that you do not want these proposals made by Talat, because you are against Partition and Confederation.? Can you please clarify your position.!
Let me tell you all what these proposal by Talat are to me. YES, they are Confederation based proposals and YES, they are Partition based proposals and I do not see anything close to resembling a Unified Cyprus, the country or the people. It is actually far worse than any Confederation can be, just as the AP was. Therefore, these proposals are the naked truth of what the AP was about, and Talat has no choice but to spell them out in details, because the AP cannot be used as the basis of these talks in it's original format with it's disguised partition veil on. Once the AP has been stripped down to it's "Birthday Suit", you get to see it very clearly what it was all about. So my friend Bananiot, this is what you actually voted for when you voted for the 2004 AP, even though you may have thought you were voting for something different that was going to bring long lasting peace to Cyprus. So let me ask you again. Knowing what you know now, would you still vote for the 2004 AP, and if so, then you have no choice but to agree with what Talat is proposing in this "secret" document.
In closing this posting, let me put what Talat's proposal really means in a laymen’s terms. It is an "Open Marriage" proposal. It means that either one of the married couple can have whom ever they want for sex, with or without any protections, when they want it ,how, and where. They can invite to the house whom ever they want and let them stay there and do as they wish as long as they want, whether the other partner likes it or not, because there is nothing the other partner can do about it, because they both agreed on their "Open Marriage" agreement. So let me ask all those members who support Talat's proposals, and that is, are you all willing to have an open marriage relationship which your partners and spouses in the same way as I described above, that you will let you spouse go off with another person to have sex with as they seem fit and you can do the same of course, but you cannot stop your partner from doing what they want with whom they want, even if you are not willing to do it yourself, but from here on, you cannot stop your partner.? So let me see those hands who are up to Talat’s proposals and are equally up to Open Marriages and Open Relationships of their own.!
Kicks,
Let me reassure you that there is nothing wrong with my Eye-sight. When I did my customary stint at Gulseren, In practice I fired 14 shots. 10 hit the centre.
You have a problem. Its called a closed mind.
Let us take your argument about marriage. Since when have we been able to control what our partners do? A successful marriage depends on love, loyalty, trust, respect consideration and sex in that order. A partner can choose what to do when ever they wish. Only place where this is illegal is in Saudi, Iran and Afghanistan, as far as I am aware. So what keeps a partner from doing what you suggested? The disapproval of the other partner. She knows that if she does, than its over. These choices we always have to make.
Now, lets take it away from a marriage and apply it to a company. If a company merges with another, they will trade with each other. So what happens when one company finds another cost effective supplier. Then what? Would they be loyal or would they opt for a more cost effective company. That’s a rhetorical question.
No that’s apply it to Cyprus. The peace has been agreed as you suggested. Who would the TC’s trade with more cost effectively. GCs or Turks. Considering that TCs produce cheaper than GCs and Turks can produce cheaper than TCs on account of economies of scale, and TC labour is cheaper than GC labour, who would the TCs prefer to trade with. Again rhetorical questions. Good relationship is achievable and does not need anything to hold it together. It holds itself.
When it comes to foreigners. If there is peace, TCs will be in the EU. Turks sooner or later will follow. Now, are we to close our borders to everybody. Immigration will continue like everywhere else. Perfectly normal. If it wasn’t for immigration I wouldn’t be able to have the life I had for the last 35 years in London, and I am grateful to my English friends here and in the TC lands. Your attitude to migrants are bordering on Xenophobia, and so does most of the right wing Greeks you tend to side with, which is worrying because I thought you were a reasonable man.
You keep going on about stolen lands. I have no doubt that most people will get their rights. We cannot satisfy everybody. But for the sake of our children’s future we have to move on.
I',m glad you bought up a corporate merger. You see when 2 companies merge the combined new company is determined by the capitalisation (or valuation) of the 2 firms. The 2 firms agree on each others valuations and then issue the new share capital to the shareholders of these 2 firms in the same ratio as their valuation's were. So a 1 billion Euro company and a 0.5 billion euro company would merge into a 1.5 euro company with the biggest one owning 2/3 of the shares of the new company.
This is the free market....There is never a situation where the shareholders of a billion euro company would agree to merge 50-50 with the shareholders of a 1/2 billion euro company.
The ceo would get fired, which is what we'll do with Christofias if he presents this to us.
Gavvole mavre, ela re gatse; gumbare. Endaxi, evharisto bolla. 
