The security issue was over blown out of proportion by AKEL in order to justify their inexplicable "soft no". While the UN were looking for ways to address this issue, Papadopoulos sent Akelite foreign minister Iacovou to Moscow, to secure a Russian veto at the Security Council to the proposed resolution that was to address Akel's "fears".
The A plan on security basically copies the 1959 Constitution but its miles better. It allows the EU a direct say before a guarantor power exercises the right to intervene. Apart from this, its difficult for me to imagine how Turkey or Greece or Britain come to that, could in the very near future be involved in old style politics when all three countries are in the UN abiding by the fledgeling constitution of the EU.
Our "no" meant the situation remaining as it is today with 35 000 fully armed turkish soldiers in the island and sadly without a solution. After the solution just a token number of 650 turkish soldiers would remain and when people argue that this is unacceptable then these people need to explain how they sleep in the night when 50 times more turkish soldiers are just a stone's throw away from their doorstep.
Therefore, the security issue was really just another excuse to damp the A plan. That is ok, but we need to be told the alternative. What is this magical solution we are after which will leave zero foreign soldiers on the island and how will we pursue this solution and with what allies and by what means, that is, if you agree that politics is the art of the feesible.
Am I a fanatical supporter of the A plan, as Piratis suggests? The answer is clearly no, I would support another, better plan, when it materiales. However, history and experience teaches me that the next plan that will be thrown at us won't be as good as the A plan. Take for example the issue of the settlers. How many will there be after 10 or 20 years? The figure of 41 000 that would remain if the A plan was accepted would look like peanuts to the figure we would be discussing then.