Cyprus-Forum.com

[Kifeas]

23 May Agreement
The Leaders today had genuine and fruitful discussions, and reviewed the results achieved pursuant to the 21
March agreement.
They reaffirmed their commitment to a bi-zonal, bi-communal federation with political equality, as defined by relevant Security Council resolutions. This partnership will have a Federal Government with a single international personality, as well as a Turkish Cypriot Constituent State and a Greek Cypriot Constituent State, which will be of equal status.

Christofias was indeed very wrong -and is down to his poor English but also to George Iakovou's stupidity (because his English is supposed to be better,) to have accepted placing his signature under the above sentence, which was presented to him by Talat himself. The sentence could have been phrased differently, and Christofias was caught unprepared and ill informed, no matter if he wants to accept it or not.

HOWEVER, even in this case -i.e. of a sentence prepared by the Turkish side in order to be later manipulated and distorted to suit their approach and theory, they managed to make a mistake themselves. The mistake is obvious, if one examines the syntax of the phrase. How an agreement by the two community leaders (because that is how they meet and negotiate) will possibly produce a result (i.e. two founding states according to the Turks) whose (result's) definition means that it is the one that has to have produced the agreement in the first place? In other more simple terms, how can a daughter be the mother of her mother, and how can a mother be the daughter of her daughter?

This is precisely what the Turks are trying to tell us, i.e. that the mother can be the daughter of her daughter, and the daughter can be the mother of her mother. Not very unusual in terms of the way the Turkish logic works.

To be able to interpret the term constituent states as having the meaning of "founding states," it presupposes that the two founding states are already existing, that they are the ones negotiating with each other, and that the product of their negotiations is the creation of a federal government. Otherwise, what kind of founding states they are, if they are termed to be a by-product of the foundation agreement itself, between the two community leaders?

Why is the sought solution termed as that of a bi-zonal and bi-communal federation, if it was going to be one between two already existing "founding" (nation)-states? Why didn’t the High Level agreements of 1977 and the UN in their resolutions termed it as that of a bi-state federation?

[Kikapu]

We will stand our ground and fight for what we believe is right. Well done President Talat.

Thanks for the concession (in a round about way) on your "Founding State" claim . I'm sure it was very painful for you not finding the words "Founding States" in Halil's post. What you may believe that is your right is one thing, but how you change what Talat already agreed on, is another when those in higher places are just keeping with the document that he signed. Is there any wonder why the UN and the EU is not making demands to accommodate Talat and his wishes. The only thing Talat can do now not to go along with this agreement, is to let these talks die and hope for another document to be signed by others in the future, assuming the GCs will go along with it. My guess is a NO, and this is as far as they will go from a Unitary state to a Federal state, but not to 2 Founding states when so many GCs have their homes, land and history in the north. I would still like to know from you, how come you like this agreement and not my BBF plan.? Doesn't my BBF plan comply with this agreement. I know it does not comply with an independent two state solution, and that's because I didn't read "Founding States" anywhere.!

Your plan is flawed and you tried to sell us capitulation packaged with a bow.

If my BBF plan is flawed according to you, then stands the reason that the agreement Talat signed is also flawed.!

Does that then mean, that Talat was committing capitulation to the south by signing that "flawed" agreement.?

He is your man after all, so will you now condemn Talat for capitulating to the GCs with a bow.?

[Kikapu]

23 May Agreement
The Leaders today had genuine and fruitful discussions, and reviewed the results achieved pursuant to the 21
March agreement.
They reaffirmed their commitment to a bi-zonal, bi-communal federation with political equality, as defined by relevant Security Council resolutions. This partnership will have a Federal Government with a single international personality, as well as a Turkish Cypriot Constituent State and a Greek Cypriot Constituent State, which will be of equal status.

Christofias was indeed very wrong -and is down to his poor English but also to George Iakovou's stupidity (because his English is supposed to be better,) to have accepted placing his signature under the above sentence, which was presented to him by Talat himself. The sentence could have been phrased differently, and Christofias was caught unprepared and ill informed, no matter if he wants to accept it or not.

HOWEVER, even in this case -i.e. of a sentence prepared by the Turkish side in order to be later manipulated and distorted to suit their approach and theory, they managed to make a mistake themselves. The mistake is obvious, if one examines the syntax of the phrase. How an agreement by the two community leaders (because that is how they meet and negotiate) will possibly produce a result (i.e. two founding states according to the Turks) whose (result's) definition means that it is the one that has to have produced the agreement in the first place? In other more simple terms, how can a daughter be the mother of her mother, and how can a mother be the daughter of her daughter?

This is precisely what the Turks are trying to tell us, i.e. that the mother can be the daughter of her daughter, and the daughter can be the mother of her mother. Not very unusual in terms of the way the Turkish logic works.

To be able to interpret the term constituent states as having the meaning of "founding states," it presupposes that the two founding states are already existing, that they are the ones negotiating with each other, and that the product of their negotiations is the creation of a federal government. Otherwise, what kind of founding states they are, if they are termed to be a by-product of the foundation agreement itself, between the two community leaders?

Why is the sought solution termed as that of a bi-zonal and bi-communal federation, if it was going to be one between two already existing "founding" (nation)-states? Why didn’t the High Level agreements of 1977 and the UN in their resolutions termed it as that of a bi-state federation?

Kifeas,

Very good explanation on the Turkish Cypriot Constituent State and a Greek Cypriot Constituent State argument, aka the "Founding States" by some.!

I particularly liked your using the mother-daughter references which helped see clearly where each side is coming from on the question of "Founding states". It seems like all these politicians were all watching all three movies of the "Back to the Future" and have forgotten whether they were in the present, in the future or in the past, which may have confused them, but your mother-daughter explanation should bring them back to reality to the present time, which it has, in fact, and that is what Talat is not happy about. And as you have stated, had there been 2 established states in Cyprus already, then

a) why would the TCs would want to form any kind of "United Cyprus" with the GCs when they can be independent, and

b) it would then become a Confederation and not a Federation.

Too bad there wasn't a 4th movie on "Back to the Future" with another dimension, which may have helped Talat understand where he is going wrong with his thinking on the agreement he had signed already, so that he would stop complaining, that what he signed was not what he wanted to sign, but he was signing something he thought he wanted to sign.!

[Viewpoint]

We will stand our ground and fight for what we believe is right. Well done President Talat.

Thanks for the concession (in a round about way) on your "Founding State" claim . I'm sure it was very painful for you not finding the words "Founding States" in Halil's post. What you may believe that is your right is one thing, but how you change what Talat already agreed on, is another when those in higher places are just keeping with the document that he signed. Is there any wonder why the UN and the EU is not making demands to accommodate Talat and his wishes. The only thing Talat can do now not to go along with this agreement, is to let these talks die and hope for another document to be signed by others in the future, assuming the GCs will go along with it. My guess is a NO, and this is as far as they will go from a Unitary state to a Federal state, but not to 2 Founding states when so many GCs have their homes, land and history in the north. I would still like to know from you, how come you like this agreement and not my BBF plan.? Doesn't my BBF plan comply with this agreement. I know it does not comply with an independent two state solution, and that's because I didn't read "Founding States" anywhere.!

Your plan is flawed and you tried to sell us capitulation packaged with a bow.

If my BBF plan is flawed according to you, then stands the reason that the agreement Talat signed is also flawed.!

Does that then mean, that Talat was committing capitulation to the south by signing that "flawed" agreement.?

He is your man after all, so will you now condemn Talat for capitulating to the GCs with a bow.?

Your interpretation of political equality and President Talats are different, yours exposes us to capitulation not our Presidents.

[humanist]

VP would you be able to explain what political equality means for you?

cheers

[Viewpoint]

VP would you be able to explain what political equality means for you?

cheers

Each consituent state has the same weight politically 50-50 and reserves the right to stop any decisions on sensative matters effecting that state more negatively than the other. This can be in the shape of 2 houses upper and lower...the lower being proportional represenstation the upper house 50-50 with noway of one state stealing the others seats.

[Kikapu]

We will stand our ground and fight for what we believe is right. Well done President Talat.

Thanks for the concession (in a round about way) on your "Founding State" claim . I'm sure it was very painful for you not finding the words "Founding States" in Halil's post. What you may believe that is your right is one thing, but how you change what Talat already agreed on, is another when those in higher places are just keeping with the document that he signed. Is there any wonder why the UN and the EU is not making demands to accommodate Talat and his wishes. The only thing Talat can do now not to go along with this agreement, is to let these talks die and hope for another document to be signed by others in the future, assuming the GCs will go along with it. My guess is a NO, and this is as far as they will go from a Unitary state to a Federal state, but not to 2 Founding states when so many GCs have their homes, land and history in the north. I would still like to know from you, how come you like this agreement and not my BBF plan.? Doesn't my BBF plan comply with this agreement. I know it does not comply with an independent two state solution, and that's because I didn't read "Founding States" anywhere.!

Your plan is flawed and you tried to sell us capitulation packaged with a bow.

If my BBF plan is flawed according to you, then stands the reason that the agreement Talat signed is also flawed.!

Does that then mean, that Talat was committing capitulation to the south by signing that "flawed" agreement.?

He is your man after all, so will you now condemn Talat for capitulating to the GCs with a bow.?

Your interpretation of political equality and President Talats are different, yours exposes us to capitulation not our Presidents.

He can interpret what ever he wants after the fact, but the facts remains, that he has signed a flawed agreement deliberately on false intentions. My interpretation of that signed "flawed" agreement reflects on what he signed. So why do I get the blame of not giving you a BBF Confederations based on "Founding States", when that's not what your man Talat signed, no matter how intentional he was to deceive people with a disguised wordings to mean "Founding States" to achieve a Confederation settlement, when all along the settlement called for a Federation settlement, which is what I approve anyway. I gave you a Federation settlement BBF plan based on face value of the agreement that was signed by Talat and Christofias. If you have any complaints about my BBF plan, you should really address them to Talat for trying to be too cleaver by playing games with hidden intentions when the whole world is looking. Perhaps Talat should have been more honest and said it in plain English just what he wanted to sign so that we would all known what he meant to say and not complain after the fact, that he in fact "snookered" himself without any help from anyone else. But just for the record, BBF Federation settlement is what the UN, the US and the EU are waiting for, therefore, Talat has no supporters out there on his disguised intentions about Confederation based on "Founding States", except for all the NeoPartitionist, of course.!

[Viewpoint]

Nothing has been agreed or put forward for referendum yet although we in the north think it never will, you are speculating what President Talat will demand goes in a final agreement as if you know. You are not god and you are not Chritofiyas (might be wrong there) so stop talking out of your arse which appears to be your speciality.

[Kikapu]

VP would you be able to explain what political equality means for you?

cheers

Each consituent state has the same weight politically 50-50 and reserves the right to stop any decisions on sensative matters effecting that state more negatively than the other. This can be in the shape of 2 houses upper and lower...the lower being proportional represenstation the upper house 50-50 with noway of one state stealing the others seats.

So your idea of political equality being totally undemocratic for starters, which would mean already violating the Federal Constitution as well as individuals democratic and Human Rights, but lets just go along with it for a minute and ask you how you would prevent when one of the 50% upper house state senators ask the people of their state to vote for a independence in a referendum and as soon as the majority of that state says yes (only the TCs voting in the north and only the GCs voting in the south on such a referendum), they will walk off the government to create a constitutional crises. This is the reason why your idea of political equality is flawed and it can never be accepted by the GCs I believe. It will make it way too easy for the repeat of 1963 all over again.!

[Kikapu]

Nothing has been agreed or put forward for referendum yet although we in the north think it never will, you are speculating what President Talat will demand goes in a final agreement as if you know. You are not god and you are not Chritofiyas (might be wrong there) so stop talking out of your arse which appears to be your speciality.

We are not talking about what may be presented in a referendum. We are talking about what Talat was complaining just yesterday, that Christofias was not abiding by the agreed agreement signed by both Talat and Christofias March 2008. Christifias is reading the agreement at face value as it was written, but Talat is saying that it should read "Founding States" and yet no such words appear anywhere. No wonder Talat is being ignored by the UN and the EU of his claims, because what Talat and you claim, the "Founding states" are not in the agreement.!