Cyprus-Forum.com

[Lit]

Eroglu: “Our red lines must be drawn on the slogan “No” to the return of Guzelyurt” [occupied Morfou]

Illegal Bayrak television (28.10.09) broadcast the following:
“Prime Minister Dervis Eroglu has underlined the need not to make any concession while negotiating a solution to the Cyprus problem.

Speaking before entering today’s meeting of Council of Ministers, the Premier said he hasn’t got a problem with President Mehmet Ali Talat who is conducting the talks. Mr Eroglu said as Prime Minister he has as much responsibility as the one sitting at the negotiation table.

Complaining of attempts to divide the country into two; those in support of a solution and those not, he reminded that peace efforts were launched when his party was in power. ‘I have grown bored of the claim that the UBP is against a solution’, he said.

Mr Eroglu stated that the UBP Government was in support of a lasting solution which will make it possible for the Cyprus Turkish people in live in peace forever and underlined the need for a possible agreement to be based on the existence of two states and two peoples in Cyprus.

Noting that giving concessions would make it easier to bring a solution to the Cyprus problem, the Premier said he wanted President Talat not to be too flexible at the table and to remain insistent on issues, on which he is rightful.”

Moreover, illegal Bayrak television (27.10.09) broadcast the following:
“Nine civil society organizations based in Guzelyurt [occupied Morfou] have formed the Guzelyurt Civil Society Platform to voice the problems being faced in the district.

Members of the Platform visited Prime Minister Dervis Eroglu who said ‘our red line must be drawn on the slogan No to the return of Guzelyurt’.

Speaking on behalf of the Platform during the visit, Sinasi Ozdes said that the main source of the difficulties being faced in the district was the Cyprus problem.
‘Uncertainty is our biggest problem’ he said.

Speaking after listening to the views of members of the Platform, Prime Minister Eroglu explained the work being carried out by his government to help develop the region.

Referring to the rallies organized in the past under the slogan ‘Guzelyurt cannot be returned’, Mr Eroglu said ‘I stood behind my words at the cost of being swept from power. I am still standing behind my words. Our red line must be drawn on the slogan No to the return of Guzelyurt’.”

[Lit]

Here is the link to the article above:

http://www.moi.gov.cy/moi/pio/pio.nsf/A ... enDocument

[Nikitas]

No to Morphou because Dervis said so, no to Mesaoria because it is the location of the airport, no to Karpasia because they will put the pipelline through when the pipedream becomes reality. So why are we talking?

[YFred]

Not sure what the aims of your Muhtar X has been in these negotiations any more. This article in Cyprus Mail should be ringing alarm bells in everyones ears except those who do not want any negotiations.

Christofias’ dawdling over presidential council is inexcusable
By Loucas Charalambous

THE PROVISIONS of the Annan Plan for executive authority were its wisest provisions. This was recognised by people who had voted against the plan; not even the late Tassos Papadopoulos had objected to them.

According to these provisions (Articles 25 to 29), executive power would have been exercised by a presidential council, which would have been elected by parliament and the senate. In parliament, where representation would have reflected the populations of the two constituent states, a simple majority would be required, while in the senate (in which there would be 24 Turkish Cypriots and 24 Greek Cypriots) a special majority (40 per cent from each community) would have been required.

The presidential council would have been run by the president and vice-president, who would have been elected by its members. A Greek Cypriot would have been the president for 40 months and a Turkish Cypriot for 20. These provisions ensured co-operation between the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot parties, for the election of the six members of the council and the two presidents.

In other words, the provisions ensured the co-operation of the two communities, which President Christofias has been citing as an argument to justify all the fuss he has made about ‘weighted voting’ so that the president is voted directly by the people.

This raises the following question: if these provisions of the Annan plan secured, in the constitutional aspect, an arrangement that was acceptable to everyone, why has Christofias used up all the negotiation time so far to change them?

During the infamous Antenna TV debate, the president’s talks adviser Toumazos Tselepis had given an answer. He said that something else had to be found because the presidential council had been demonised in 2004. This is not correct. If my memory serves me well, nobody expressed objections to the presidential council nor had they demonised it in 2004.

The truth lies elsewhere. Christofias was so persistent about changing the provision because he felt the change would better serve his personal ambitions. He wanted an arrangement that would give him the highest probability to be elected president. He calculated that his best chance of winning would be in direct elections as Turkish Cypriot leftists would not have voted for any other Greek Cypriot politician.

He fears that if co-operation is required in parliament and the senate, there is a possibility that all other parties could join forces against an alliance of the two left-wing parties. Not even the electoral co-operation with the left-wing CTP was guaranteed, because a leader like Mehmet Ali Talat or Ferdi Sabit Soyer could have chosen to enter an alliance with Nicos Anastassiades and DISY (this may have been Turkey’s wish) in parliament and the senate.

Christofias wasted almost the entire 14 months of the negotiations, by complicating one of the easiest issues simply because he wanted to secure his own political future.

Time was wasted on this nonsense while real discussion of the much more serious issues has not even begun yet. I wonder if there is anyone optimistic enough to believe that it is still possible to reach an agreement.



Copyright © Cyprus Mail 2009

[Gregory]

Not sure what the aims of your Muhtar X has been in these negotiations any more. This article in Cyprus Mail should be ringing alarm bells in everyones ears except those who do not want any negotiations.

Christofias’ dawdling over presidential council is inexcusable
By Loucas Charalambous

THE PROVISIONS of the Annan Plan for executive authority were its wisest provisions. This was recognised by people who had voted against the plan; not even the late Tassos Papadopoulos had objected to them.

According to these provisions (Articles 25 to 29), executive power would have been exercised by a presidential council, which would have been elected by parliament and the senate. In parliament, where representation would have reflected the populations of the two constituent states, a simple majority would be required, while in the senate (in which there would be 24 Turkish Cypriots and 24 Greek Cypriots) a special majority (40 per cent from each community) would have been required.

The presidential council would have been run by the president and vice-president, who would have been elected by its members. A Greek Cypriot would have been the president for 40 months and a Turkish Cypriot for 20. These provisions ensured co-operation between the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot parties, for the election of the six members of the council and the two presidents.

In other words, the provisions ensured the co-operation of the two communities, which President Christofias has been citing as an argument to justify all the fuss he has made about ‘weighted voting’ so that the president is voted directly by the people.

This raises the following question: if these provisions of the Annan plan secured, in the constitutional aspect, an arrangement that was acceptable to everyone, why has Christofias used up all the negotiation time so far to change them?

During the infamous Antenna TV debate, the president’s talks adviser Toumazos Tselepis had given an answer. He said that something else had to be found because the presidential council had been demonised in 2004. This is not correct. If my memory serves me well, nobody expressed objections to the presidential council nor had they demonised it in 2004.

The truth lies elsewhere. Christofias was so persistent about changing the provision because he felt the change would better serve his personal ambitions. He wanted an arrangement that would give him the highest probability to be elected president. He calculated that his best chance of winning would be in direct elections as Turkish Cypriot leftists would not have voted for any other Greek Cypriot politician.

He fears that if co-operation is required in parliament and the senate, there is a possibility that all other parties could join forces against an alliance of the two left-wing parties. Not even the electoral co-operation with the left-wing CTP was guaranteed, because a leader like Mehmet Ali Talat or Ferdi Sabit Soyer could have chosen to enter an alliance with Nicos Anastassiades and DISY (this may have been Turkey’s wish) in parliament and the senate.

Christofias wasted almost the entire 14 months of the negotiations, by complicating one of the easiest issues simply because he wanted to secure his own political future.

Time was wasted on this nonsense while real discussion of the much more serious issues has not even begun yet. I wonder if there is anyone optimistic enough to believe that it is still possible to reach an agreement.



Copyright © Cyprus Mail 2009

I'm not sure where this person gets his info from but President Papadopoulos had not accepted the executive council and neither had those that voted no as Mr Charalambous states. The fundamental reason behind this is that a council which does not promote a strong central figure of authority in a President will only weaken further the already loose proposed federation. It has been a long standing argument by the GC side that a President will be the executor of any proposed government and he will be elected directly by the people and not by a revolving committee.

Anything other than that and the respective federal states will promote an image of clearer leadership and thus greater autonomy from the federal govt.

Mr Charalambous it seems is too simple minded or too dishonest to be able to realise this.

[YFred]

Not sure what the aims of your Muhtar X has been in these negotiations any more. This article in Cyprus Mail should be ringing alarm bells in everyones ears except those who do not want any negotiations.

Christofias’ dawdling over presidential council is inexcusable
By Loucas Charalambous

THE PROVISIONS of the Annan Plan for executive authority were its wisest provisions. This was recognised by people who had voted against the plan; not even the late Tassos Papadopoulos had objected to them.

According to these provisions (Articles 25 to 29), executive power would have been exercised by a presidential council, which would have been elected by parliament and the senate. In parliament, where representation would have reflected the populations of the two constituent states, a simple majority would be required, while in the senate (in which there would be 24 Turkish Cypriots and 24 Greek Cypriots) a special majority (40 per cent from each community) would have been required.

The presidential council would have been run by the president and vice-president, who would have been elected by its members. A Greek Cypriot would have been the president for 40 months and a Turkish Cypriot for 20. These provisions ensured co-operation between the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot parties, for the election of the six members of the council and the two presidents.

In other words, the provisions ensured the co-operation of the two communities, which President Christofias has been citing as an argument to justify all the fuss he has made about ‘weighted voting’ so that the president is voted directly by the people.

This raises the following question: if these provisions of the Annan plan secured, in the constitutional aspect, an arrangement that was acceptable to everyone, why has Christofias used up all the negotiation time so far to change them?

During the infamous Antenna TV debate, the president’s talks adviser Toumazos Tselepis had given an answer. He said that something else had to be found because the presidential council had been demonised in 2004. This is not correct. If my memory serves me well, nobody expressed objections to the presidential council nor had they demonised it in 2004.

The truth lies elsewhere. Christofias was so persistent about changing the provision because he felt the change would better serve his personal ambitions. He wanted an arrangement that would give him the highest probability to be elected president. He calculated that his best chance of winning would be in direct elections as Turkish Cypriot leftists would not have voted for any other Greek Cypriot politician.

He fears that if co-operation is required in parliament and the senate, there is a possibility that all other parties could join forces against an alliance of the two left-wing parties. Not even the electoral co-operation with the left-wing CTP was guaranteed, because a leader like Mehmet Ali Talat or Ferdi Sabit Soyer could have chosen to enter an alliance with Nicos Anastassiades and DISY (this may have been Turkey’s wish) in parliament and the senate.

Christofias wasted almost the entire 14 months of the negotiations, by complicating one of the easiest issues simply because he wanted to secure his own political future.

Time was wasted on this nonsense while real discussion of the much more serious issues has not even begun yet. I wonder if there is anyone optimistic enough to believe that it is still possible to reach an agreement.



Copyright © Cyprus Mail 2009

I'm not sure where this person gets his info from but President Papadopoulos had not accepted the executive council and neither had those that voted no as Mr Charalambous states. The fundamental reason behind this is that a council which does not promote a strong central figure of authority in a President will only weaken further the already loose proposed federation. It has been a long standing argument by the GC side that a President will be the executor of any proposed government and he will be elected directly by the people and not by a revolving committee.

Anything other than that and the respective federal states will promote an image of clearer leadership and thus greater autonomy from the federal govt.

Mr Charalambous it seems is too simple minded or too dishonest to be able to realise this.

TPapa had a list of things he wished to change after the vote. Was the leadership one of those issues?

[Gregory]

Not sure what the aims of your Muhtar X has been in these negotiations any more. This article in Cyprus Mail should be ringing alarm bells in everyones ears except those who do not want any negotiations.

Christofias’ dawdling over presidential council is inexcusable
By Loucas Charalambous

THE PROVISIONS of the Annan Plan for executive authority were its wisest provisions. This was recognised by people who had voted against the plan; not even the late Tassos Papadopoulos had objected to them.

According to these provisions (Articles 25 to 29), executive power would have been exercised by a presidential council, which would have been elected by parliament and the senate. In parliament, where representation would have reflected the populations of the two constituent states, a simple majority would be required, while in the senate (in which there would be 24 Turkish Cypriots and 24 Greek Cypriots) a special majority (40 per cent from each community) would have been required.

The presidential council would have been run by the president and vice-president, who would have been elected by its members. A Greek Cypriot would have been the president for 40 months and a Turkish Cypriot for 20. These provisions ensured co-operation between the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot parties, for the election of the six members of the council and the two presidents.

In other words, the provisions ensured the co-operation of the two communities, which President Christofias has been citing as an argument to justify all the fuss he has made about ‘weighted voting’ so that the president is voted directly by the people.

This raises the following question: if these provisions of the Annan plan secured, in the constitutional aspect, an arrangement that was acceptable to everyone, why has Christofias used up all the negotiation time so far to change them?

During the infamous Antenna TV debate, the president’s talks adviser Toumazos Tselepis had given an answer. He said that something else had to be found because the presidential council had been demonised in 2004. This is not correct. If my memory serves me well, nobody expressed objections to the presidential council nor had they demonised it in 2004.

The truth lies elsewhere. Christofias was so persistent about changing the provision because he felt the change would better serve his personal ambitions. He wanted an arrangement that would give him the highest probability to be elected president. He calculated that his best chance of winning would be in direct elections as Turkish Cypriot leftists would not have voted for any other Greek Cypriot politician.

He fears that if co-operation is required in parliament and the senate, there is a possibility that all other parties could join forces against an alliance of the two left-wing parties. Not even the electoral co-operation with the left-wing CTP was guaranteed, because a leader like Mehmet Ali Talat or Ferdi Sabit Soyer could have chosen to enter an alliance with Nicos Anastassiades and DISY (this may have been Turkey’s wish) in parliament and the senate.

Christofias wasted almost the entire 14 months of the negotiations, by complicating one of the easiest issues simply because he wanted to secure his own political future.

Time was wasted on this nonsense while real discussion of the much more serious issues has not even begun yet. I wonder if there is anyone optimistic enough to believe that it is still possible to reach an agreement.



Copyright © Cyprus Mail 2009

I'm not sure where this person gets his info from but President Papadopoulos had not accepted the executive council and neither had those that voted no as Mr Charalambous states. The fundamental reason behind this is that a council which does not promote a strong central figure of authority in a President will only weaken further the already loose proposed federation. It has been a long standing argument by the GC side that a President will be the executor of any proposed government and he will be elected directly by the people and not by a revolving committee.

Anything other than that and the respective federal states will promote an image of clearer leadership and thus greater autonomy from the federal govt.

Mr Charalambous it seems is too simple minded or too dishonest to be able to realise this.

TPapa had a list of things he wished to change after the vote. Was the leadership one of those issues?

yes

[YFred]

Not sure what the aims of your Muhtar X has been in these negotiations any more. This article in Cyprus Mail should be ringing alarm bells in everyones ears except those who do not want any negotiations.

Christofias’ dawdling over presidential council is inexcusable
By Loucas Charalambous

THE PROVISIONS of the Annan Plan for executive authority were its wisest provisions. This was recognised by people who had voted against the plan; not even the late Tassos Papadopoulos had objected to them.

According to these provisions (Articles 25 to 29), executive power would have been exercised by a presidential council, which would have been elected by parliament and the senate. In parliament, where representation would have reflected the populations of the two constituent states, a simple majority would be required, while in the senate (in which there would be 24 Turkish Cypriots and 24 Greek Cypriots) a special majority (40 per cent from each community) would have been required.

The presidential council would have been run by the president and vice-president, who would have been elected by its members. A Greek Cypriot would have been the president for 40 months and a Turkish Cypriot for 20. These provisions ensured co-operation between the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot parties, for the election of the six members of the council and the two presidents.

In other words, the provisions ensured the co-operation of the two communities, which President Christofias has been citing as an argument to justify all the fuss he has made about ‘weighted voting’ so that the president is voted directly by the people.

This raises the following question: if these provisions of the Annan plan secured, in the constitutional aspect, an arrangement that was acceptable to everyone, why has Christofias used up all the negotiation time so far to change them?

During the infamous Antenna TV debate, the president’s talks adviser Toumazos Tselepis had given an answer. He said that something else had to be found because the presidential council had been demonised in 2004. This is not correct. If my memory serves me well, nobody expressed objections to the presidential council nor had they demonised it in 2004.

The truth lies elsewhere. Christofias was so persistent about changing the provision because he felt the change would better serve his personal ambitions. He wanted an arrangement that would give him the highest probability to be elected president. He calculated that his best chance of winning would be in direct elections as Turkish Cypriot leftists would not have voted for any other Greek Cypriot politician.

He fears that if co-operation is required in parliament and the senate, there is a possibility that all other parties could join forces against an alliance of the two left-wing parties. Not even the electoral co-operation with the left-wing CTP was guaranteed, because a leader like Mehmet Ali Talat or Ferdi Sabit Soyer could have chosen to enter an alliance with Nicos Anastassiades and DISY (this may have been Turkey’s wish) in parliament and the senate.

Christofias wasted almost the entire 14 months of the negotiations, by complicating one of the easiest issues simply because he wanted to secure his own political future.

Time was wasted on this nonsense while real discussion of the much more serious issues has not even begun yet. I wonder if there is anyone optimistic enough to believe that it is still possible to reach an agreement.



Copyright © Cyprus Mail 2009

I'm not sure where this person gets his info from but President Papadopoulos had not accepted the executive council and neither had those that voted no as Mr Charalambous states. The fundamental reason behind this is that a council which does not promote a strong central figure of authority in a President will only weaken further the already loose proposed federation. It has been a long standing argument by the GC side that a President will be the executor of any proposed government and he will be elected directly by the people and not by a revolving committee.

Anything other than that and the respective federal states will promote an image of clearer leadership and thus greater autonomy from the federal govt.

Mr Charalambous it seems is too simple minded or too dishonest to be able to realise this.

TPapa had a list of things he wished to change after the vote. Was the leadership one of those issues?

yes

Not that I don't trust you but can somebody find the list of 8 things TPapa wished to change?