OK, let's have a look ...
Maintenance of the existing system of “guarantees” and the “existing” treaty of alliance. The idea that Turkey should guarantee the TC State is being discussable.
Permanent military presence of Turkey in Cyprus.
Maintenance of Turkey’s intervention “rights” in Cyprus.
This is just as unconstructive as the GC position that all Turkish Troops should leave and all intervention rights abrogated - it is one sided, and un-creative. There is one glimmer of hope in the willingness to have Turkey guarantee only the TCCS, but we know from the survey that such a proposal would not really work for the GCs ...
Absolute (complete) political equality.
Too general, like various of the GC demands. What exactly does this mean?
Complete adherence and safeguarding of the principles of bizonality and bicommunality.
See above: What exactly does this mean?
Virgin birth (the new state of affairs will not develop as a result of an evolution of the existing RoC.)
He he ...
Even if it looks like a Virgin Birth, it will in fact be evolution of RoC, because - as Cannedmoose has pointed out - there is no question of re-negotiating EU accession and UN membership
However, there is a valid point here: Evolution should not be of the "current RoC", but of the "Bicommunal RoC, which has been undergoing a constitutional crisis in recent decades"
No negotiations within the framework of the EU. No EU involvement in the negotiations.
Sounds extreme and paranoid. Aren't we supposed to be solving the Cyprus Problem in order to enjoy the benefits of EU membership?
Economic assistance (financial aid?) and guarantees for its implementation. Lifting of the so-called “isolation.”
OK to economic assistance, and guarantees that it will actually be given, but is the point about lifting isolation meant to be implemented before negotiations even begin? Sounds difficult, unless the GCs get something equally important in return.
Exercising of arbitration by the Secretary general, no too loose deadlines. The negotiations to remain within the parameters of the existing plan.
I agree with deadlines, but not with arbitration. Not while the US is there to guide the pen of the UN Secretary-General.
The minimum possible changes and if there is no agreement, a guarantee for the lifting of the TC community’s “isolation.”
No. This is a recipe for disaster. It's like saying "let's pretend that we negotiate for a while, before you actually recognise our separate state"
Compensations for the degradation of TC properties since 1963.
This is a very positive and helpful TC-centred improvement. I agree absolutely. If a TC gave up a functioning house, why should he return to ruins and get nothing else in return?
Compensation to the TC community for the loss of benefits since the 1st of May 2004, when the RoC joined the EU.
OK, if TCs feel that this is important. So the RoC decision to join the EU made the TCs members of the EU as well, and now they should be compensated for not enjoying its benefits? I have no problem with that, but wouldn't that imply an undermining of the "virgin birth approach" that the TCs are so eagerly seeking?
Out of all these concerns, the only head-on clash with GC demands are the points about security. Neither side can simply "have its way" on this issue, and there is no possible middle ground if we just stick with the old formulas. A new and creative solution to the security issue needs to be found.
As for bizonality, bicommunality, political equality - all of these concepts are acceptable, so long as we discover a definition of these principles consistent with GC concerns as well.
For instance, if bizonality-bicommunality means "ethnic purity of the two constituent states" then this will not work for GCs. If it simply means "majority control of each constituent state", that will be much less unacceptable.
If political equality means "voting on strictly ethnic lines for the Federal Government, and then, on top of that, right to block every decision on every level" then again this will not work for GCs. Something will have to give for the sake of functionality, I propose that cross-voting would be an adequate improvement.
