I think this thread deserves a detailed response. Here goes:
The A-plan should be considered as a starting point (reference point) and not a basis for negotiations.
I agree. If we insist on calling it "basis of negotiations" then only minimal changes will be achieved and it will be impossible to reverse the GC No. If instead it is "starting point", then we retain all the essential technical work that was done for the Annan Plan (most of the 20,000 pages), but the political issues remain open for re-negotiation with the criterion of finding mutually acceptable solutions.
The final solution should safeguard the effective (efficient) functioning of Cyprus within the E.U.
Yes, but this is very general. Does this mean participation in the European Security and Defense Policy? Does it mean effective implementation of European decisions, and effective participation in European decision making?
There should be a hierarchy between the laws of the Federal state and the laws of two states.
Stronger federalism. If the TCs truly seek power-sharing (as opposed to separate power), then they shouldn't have a problem with this, since on the Federal Level power will be shared. Essentially what is being asked for here is guarantees that the solution will not be a confederation.
The rights of the citizens from each community residing within the other State should be safeguarded.
This is critically important. A plan which fails to address this issue will definitely fail in a referendum.
There should be a shortening of the periods for the return of territories, return of refuges and withdrawal of troops.
Also critically important, and not too difficult to implement.
Political equality should be expressed only at the level of political decisions and not at the level of administrative decisions.
This is a clever formulation. What is being asked for here, is that we should not need consensus even for the most menial administrative tasks on a low administrative level, because that is needlessly inefficient. Some decisions can be taken by GC officials, others by TC officials, depending on who holds the administrative post. On the level of Senate, Presidential Council etc., political equality and joint decision making should be retained. I agree with this proposal.
The air space and the continental shelf of the Country should be defined.
Yes, no sneaky stealing of Cyprus' continental shelf by Britain and Turkey.
New regulating provisions for the issue of settlers and also their exclusion from a future referendum.
"Let's renegotiate the settlers issue". This is appropriately open-ended, since new solutions can only arise through negotiations.
Territorial chapter: Without entirely re-opening the chapter, Karpas area to be included in the GCCS.
Not unfair, maybe TCs could also get Kokkina and Louroudjina region under TC administration.
The elections for the members of the Senate to be carried out according to the provisions of A-plan III.
Unrealistic, I believe an original solution should be found - perhaps cross-voting for the Senate - rather than reverting to something which the TCs rejected.
Abrogation of intervention rights.
He he ... sounds nice, but what will fill the gap? You can't just have a security vacuum.
Complete withdrawal of troops.
See above. With no guarantees from anyone
and no troops, Cyprus would be a sitting duck. GCs and TCs would both reject this in a referendum. WE NEED A NEW SECURITY PROPOSAL.
Effective mechanisms for the resolution of deadlocks.
Fair enough, the Annan Plan's reliance on the Supreme Cort was constitutionally unsound and impractical. Judges are not good for political decisions, neither should they have such power.
British Bases: The treaty of guarantee should not be included into the treaty of establishment.
Nice one! The UK can have bases, but needn't be a guarantor power as well. I approve.
Unified Economy.
Ofcourse, but there do have to be some temporary safeguards, not as blunt as the Annan Plan, to safeguard TCs from economic domination during the first few years after the settlement.
Only one central bank.
Yes, no question about this. Anything else would be nonsense.
Single monetary policy.
Ofcourse. Monetary policy is too blunt an instrument to be exercised at a constituent state level.
Effective implementation of the E.U. decisions.
Critically important.
Harmonization of Taxation policies between the two States so that there will be no antagonistic (negative competing) conditions between them.
This needs careful analysis. On sight it sounds good, but the counter-argument is that the two consituent states, temporarily at least, will have different budgetary needs and different needs in terms of economic policy. Maybe there could be a temporary derogation here, after which time taxation policy will be harmonised.
Matters relating to properties and compensations.
Again a general opening of the properties chapter, like the issue of settlers. This is too sensitive and complex a matter to just "propose a change". It needs to be discussed by the two sides.
Safeguarding of the territorial returns.
Implementation guarantees. Sure, why not?
Explicit transitional provisions (closures) so that there will be no vacuum during the first phase of the implementation of the agreement (solution.)
I am not sure what this means in practice, but it sounds right.
Safeguards for the complete enforcement of the agreement (solution.)
Yeah, OK, OK, we heard you the first time ...
This is actually a concern shared by the TCs as well, it is not just a "GC improvement".
Negotiations without tight deadlines.
There has to be space to discuss things, especially the critical issues of settlers, property and security. Needed compromises have to sink into the public awareness, with the support and encouragement of politicians. If we do another rush-job, we will definitely fail, and maybe have a rebellion in our hands.
Prioritization (hierarchy) of demands and issues to be done during the negotiations.
I agree. Thinking of the list above, could anyone in this forum actually think up of a "prioritization"? Some are very specific technical proposals, others are general concerns about key aspects of the solution. Each point is important in its own way. We just need to get back to the negotiating table in good faith, see what the TC side also proposes (and what it objects to), and only then will possible trade-offs and priorities begin to emerge.
)
