Cyprus-Forum.com

[Kifeas]

May be the give and take part of this process has started and yes, for a meaningful and potentially productive last act, both leaders must bear in mind that political equality is the order of the day and the only realistic prospective for a sucessful conclusion.

The one man one vote call is a sure prescription for disaster since it does not take into account the realities in Cyprus.

Bananiot, we have accepted rotating presidency and even went as far as giving a 4:2 term ratio, when it should have only been a 4:1. The GCs have also accepted a bi-zonal federation, which together with rotating presidency are both favorable to the TCs departures from the 1960 setup. I hope you will be honest enough to accept this fact. Now, will you please tell me, in this give and take scenario for which you are talking about, what has the Turkish /TC side given to the GCs, in exchange of the above?

[Oracle]

The one man one vote call is a sure prescription for disaster since it does not take into account the realities in Cyprus.

What are these "realities" which make the system of democracy, desired by ~6 billion people, uniquely disastrous for Cypriots?

[Bananiot]

Kifeas, have you left out "bicommunal" on purpose or was it just a slip? I expect the TC side to give everything that the Annan Plan gave us (Varosia, Morphou etc) and take a favourable look at those points we raised in 2005, to make the plan more palatable to our side so that we can all vote for it.

[Kifeas]

Kifeas, have you left out "bicommunal" on purpose or was it just a slip? I expect the TC side to give everything that the Annan Plan gave us (Varosia, Morphou etc) and take a favourable look at those points we raised in 2005, to make the plan more palatable to our side so that we can all vote for it.

Yes, I did leave "bi-communal" out on purpose, since I only spoke about favorable to the TCs departures from the 1960 setup; and since the 1960 setup was a bi-communal one, I do not consider it a departure in the same way that "bi-zonality" is.

Of course you must be joking when you mention that the TCs are giving out Varosia, Morphou, etc. Since when have they belonged to them in the first place, to be regarded as give-outs to the GCs? Where they TC territories under the 1960 unitary sate setup, to be now given as a balancing act towards what they GC are giving to them? Even the size of the TC administrating zone that we have accepted, which is much higher than the TC legitimate proportion, should be regarded as a favorable to the TCs give out, and now you talk to me about them giving us Varoshia and Morfou, which are of GC ownership (by vast majority) areas? And then you complain that GCs in this forum find your views provocative and outrageous.

To this end, my initial question to you remains unanswered so far.

[Viewpoint]

Kifeas, have you left out "bicommunal" on purpose or was it just a slip? I expect the TC side to give everything that the Annan Plan gave us (Varosia, Morphou etc) and take a favourable look at those points we raised in 2005, to make the plan more palatable to our side so that we can all vote for it.

Yes, I did leave "bi-communal" out on purpose, since I only spoke about favorable to the TCs departures from the 1960 setup; and since the 1960 setup was a bi-communal one, I do not consider it a departure in the same way that "bi-zonality" is.

Of course you must be joking when you mention that the TCs are giving out Varosia, Morphou, etc. Since when have they belonged to them in the first place, to be regarded as give-outs to the GCs? Where they TC territories under the 1960 unitary sate setup, to be now given as a balancing act towards what they GC are giving to them? Even the size of the TC administrating zone that we have accepted, which is much higher than the TC legitimate proportion, should be regarded as a favorable to the TCs give out, and now you talk to me about them giving us Varoshia and Morfou, which are of GC ownership (by vast majority) areas? And then you complain that GCs in this forum find your views provocative and outrageous.

Its called negotiating for what you lost control of...simple really but of course the blind cannot see.

[Kifeas]

Kifeas, have you left out "bicommunal" on purpose or was it just a slip? I expect the TC side to give everything that the Annan Plan gave us (Varosia, Morphou etc) and take a favourable look at those points we raised in 2005, to make the plan more palatable to our side so that we can all vote for it.

Yes, I did leave "bi-communal" out on purpose, since I only spoke about favorable to the TCs departures from the 1960 setup; and since the 1960 setup was a bi-communal one, I do not consider it a departure in the same way that "bi-zonality" is.

Of course you must be joking when you mention that the TCs are giving out Varosia, Morphou, etc. Since when have they belonged to them in the first place, to be regarded as give-outs to the GCs? Where they TC territories under the 1960 unitary sate setup, to be now given as a balancing act towards what they GC are giving to them? Even the size of the TC administrating zone that we have accepted, which is much higher than the TC legitimate proportion, should be regarded as a favorable to the TCs give out, and now you talk to me about them giving us Varoshia and Morfou, which are of GC ownership (by vast majority) areas? And then you complain that GCs in this forum find your views provocative and outrageous.

Its called negotiating for what you lost control of...simple really but of course the blind cannot see.

In that sense, VP, you are also negotiating for the lost control of your statehood, identity, representation and legality in the face of the international community; as well as Turkey's EU accession membership. If they mean anything to you, and instead you prefer to remained isolated forever, and sucked for good and disappear in the ocean of your fellow Anatolian Turks.

We have shown that we can and will survive, even with 36% less of our country. You on the other hand, are just about to disappear from the face of earth as a Cypriot community.

[YFred]

Kifeas, have you left out "bicommunal" on purpose or was it just a slip? I expect the TC side to give everything that the Annan Plan gave us (Varosia, Morphou etc) and take a favourable look at those points we raised in 2005, to make the plan more palatable to our side so that we can all vote for it.

Yes, I did leave "bi-communal" out on purpose, since I only spoke about favorable to the TCs departures from the 1960 setup; and since the 1960 setup was a bi-communal one, I do not consider it a departure in the same way that "bi-zonality" is.

Of course you must be joking when you mention that the TCs are giving out Varosia, Morphou, etc. Since when have they belonged to them in the first place, to be regarded as give-outs to the GCs? Where they TC territories under the 1960 unitary sate setup, to be now given as a balancing act towards what they GC are giving to them? Even the size of the TC administrating zone that we have accepted, which is much higher than the TC legitimate proportion, should be regarded as a favorable to the TCs give out, and now you talk to me about them giving us Varoshia and Morfou, which are of GC ownership (by vast majority) areas? And then you complain that GCs in this forum find your views provocative and outrageous.

Its called negotiating for what you lost control of...simple really but of course the blind cannot see.

In that sense, VP, you are also negotiating for the lost control of your statehood, identity, representation and legality in the face of the international community; as well as Turkey's EU accession membership. If they mean anything to you, and instead you prefer to remained isolated forever, and sucked for good and disappear in the ocean of your fellow Anatolian Turks.

"Isolated for ever?" there is nothing to compare the arrogance of a spoilt child.

[Kifeas]

Kifeas, have you left out "bicommunal" on purpose or was it just a slip? I expect the TC side to give everything that the Annan Plan gave us (Varosia, Morphou etc) and take a favourable look at those points we raised in 2005, to make the plan more palatable to our side so that we can all vote for it.

Yes, I did leave "bi-communal" out on purpose, since I only spoke about favorable to the TCs departures from the 1960 setup; and since the 1960 setup was a bi-communal one, I do not consider it a departure in the same way that "bi-zonality" is.

Of course you must be joking when you mention that the TCs are giving out Varosia, Morphou, etc. Since when have they belonged to them in the first place, to be regarded as give-outs to the GCs? Where they TC territories under the 1960 unitary sate setup, to be now given as a balancing act towards what they GC are giving to them? Even the size of the TC administrating zone that we have accepted, which is much higher than the TC legitimate proportion, should be regarded as a favorable to the TCs give out, and now you talk to me about them giving us Varoshia and Morfou, which are of GC ownership (by vast majority) areas? And then you complain that GCs in this forum find your views provocative and outrageous.

Its called negotiating for what you lost control of...simple really but of course the blind cannot see.

In that sense, VP, you are also negotiating for the lost control of your statehood, identity, representation and legality in the face of the international community; as well as Turkey's EU accession membership. If they mean anything to you, and instead you prefer to remained isolated forever, and sucked for good and disappear in the ocean of your fellow Anatolian Turks.

"Isolated for ever?" there is nothing to compare the arrogance of a spoilt child.

It is written in stone that you will remain isolated forever, if you do not wish to become sensible and compromise so that a solution is found. 35 years should have been enough to teach you that this is what will remain the case, and has nothing to do with my arrogance anymore than it has to do with your own and Turkey’s arrogance.

[Nikitas]

Bananiot said:

"May be the give and take part of this process has started "

So far I have seen a lot of give by the GC side. The big test for both leaders will be the territorial issue, not the properties which seems to have everyone over a barrel. The territory coming under the administration of each community is the test. There we will see the true face of the other side.

Just to remind us all what the GCs have so far accepted- political equality of the two communities, rotating presidency, special voting privilieges in the senate, international competence of each state in certain areas, and to cap it all the acceptance of 60 000 settlers.

If in view of all this the territory proportions are less favorable than 25-75 we will know we have been diddled.

[Bananiot]

Kifeas, I am totally indeferrent of what your nationalist friends think of my views. Your last post, however, says a lot about your views. Mind you, what you suggest might be perfectly okay, if you were to close your eyes and pretend that 1974 never happened.