Cyprus-Forum.com

[repulsewarrior]

...yes bill, making a country has more risks for a gambler than a las vegas one arm bandit.

we hope that our leaders and politians are reasonable people who are rational thinkers
;with a deadline in mind willing t o do something different, something neither side expects
and something which turkey as a 'secular state' and a leader on the international stage
would not refuse. if cyprus were a nato country, what's his name in turkey (not gul but the leader atthe center of deep state) may see that
as way to keep troops in Cyprus.

...enclaves boys; keep the line but repopulate and redistribut e the land.
what a picture: displaced greek and turk returning as communities. homes
for settlers, at least for some...instead of houses. Bizonal because there are two National Assemblies under a Federal Goverment where we can identify ourselves as Individuals all equal as Cypriots and as Persons;

please read my manifesto....lol:)

[Epiktitos]

Right! I geddit!

I think they've agreed on quite a lot of waddevers, just none of the IMPORTANT stuff lol!

Yes, but to stress that.... any agreement on waddevers to date becomes null and void if they fail to agree on the remaining waddevers. ..... cos the only important waddever that has been agreed, and it was agreed at the outset, is that nothing is agreed 'til everything has been agreed.

What are the chances of "everything" being agreed?

I don't understand this logic.

The logic is that any particular offer (say to accept 50,000 settlers) is not isolated and unilateral; this caveat prevents the other side from making political miles out of a good faith offer, for example the way they do in their oft-repeated condemnation of the EU for accepting a "divided" island into the EU despite the GCs rejecting the AP, which the tcs accepted it; or the other gem of constantly bringing up the EUs "broken promise" to end the "embargo" in justifying the refusal to honour commitments made under the EU customs protocol.

Thank you newbie. That makes sense.

What doesn't make sense is why I can't make any anagrams out of your name

Another way to look at the settlement talks over the years is as a kind of Fruit Machine, A One-Armed Bandit Machine of the type they have in places like Las Vegas.These machines have "hold" buttons on each of the spinning reels so that a player can "hold" a favourable position on one or some of the reels 'til the next pull of the handle.

Over the years the Turkish negotiating position has been to try and claim the "hold" positions from the previous talks; and as we all know Turkey goes on and on about the positions in previous negotiations, particularly the last and late Annan Scam.

Do keep telling you all, it's all about Fruit.

Sorry if can just add,... nothing agreed til all agreed = no hold buttons.

My worry is that an over-generous offer may be made with a view to "nothing agreed till all agreed" and then suddenly it's all agreed and we're stuck with an unwanted agreement.

The "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed" approach is the safety mechanism against exactly this: if the other side seems ready to agree, and you're bound to your promise of accepting 50,000 anatolian peasants, you then come up with a final unacceptable demand, such "no guarantors", and maybe even get the parliament to pass a motion to that effect, just so no one is in any doubt.

[Oracle]

Right! I geddit!

I think they've agreed on quite a lot of waddevers, just none of the IMPORTANT stuff lol!

Yes, but to stress that.... any agreement on waddevers to date becomes null and void if they fail to agree on the remaining waddevers. ..... cos the only important waddever that has been agreed, and it was agreed at the outset, is that nothing is agreed 'til everything has been agreed.

What are the chances of "everything" being agreed?

I don't understand this logic.

The logic is that any particular offer (say to accept 50,000 settlers) is not isolated and unilateral; this caveat prevents the other side from making political miles out of a good faith offer, for example the way they do in their oft-repeated condemnation of the EU for accepting a "divided" island into the EU despite the GCs rejecting the AP, which the tcs accepted it; or the other gem of constantly bringing up the EUs "broken promise" to end the "embargo" in justifying the refusal to honour commitments made under the EU customs protocol.

Thank you newbie. That makes sense.

What doesn't make sense is why I can't make any anagrams out of your name

Another way to look at the settlement talks over the years is as a kind of Fruit Machine, A One-Armed Bandit Machine of the type they have in places like Las Vegas.These machines have "hold" buttons on each of the spinning reels so that a player can "hold" a favourable position on one or some of the reels 'til the next pull of the handle.

Over the years the Turkish negotiating position has been to try and claim the "hold" positions from the previous talks; and as we all know Turkey goes on and on about the positions in previous negotiations, particularly the last and late Annan Scam.

Do keep telling you all, it's all about Fruit.

Sorry if can just add,... nothing agreed til all agreed = no hold buttons.

My worry is that an over-generous offer may be made with a view to "nothing agreed till all agreed" and then suddenly it's all agreed and we're stuck with an unwanted agreement.

The "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed" approach is the safety mechanism against exactly this: if the other side seems ready to agree, and you're bound to your promise of accepting 50,000 anatolian peasants, you then come up with a final unacceptable demand, such "no guarantors", and maybe even get the parliament to pass a motion to that effect, just so no one is in any doubt.

I wish grown men wouldn't play these games of piling on ever-increasingly absurd caveats simply because they think in the end all can be revoked to the shout of "fooled ya!"

I disagree with pretty much everything that has been "agreed" (50,000 As, rotating presidency, bizonalism or bicommunalism). It would be kinder if they just stopped and changed tack rather than continue dishonestly, as though they will reach some kind of strong, sensible agreement built upon this pile of cards.

The '50,000 Anatolians' is a particularly revolting 'turn' since there were, only, about 100,000 TCs. This would constitute a huge increase to stomach on top of apparently conceding that Turkey had a 'right' to invade (otherwise why negotiate in this way?) and inject her citizens into us. But of course, we did something majorly 'wrong' for which we needed a Presidential public apology, so the rest just follows.

The whole thing has gone too far and they should just call in the EU to explicitly state to Turkey the only acceptable conditions for a modern European country.

[bill cobbett]

Right! I geddit!

I think they've agreed on quite a lot of waddevers, just none of the IMPORTANT stuff lol!

Yes, but to stress that.... any agreement on waddevers to date becomes null and void if they fail to agree on the remaining waddevers. ..... cos the only important waddever that has been agreed, and it was agreed at the outset, is that nothing is agreed 'til everything has been agreed.

What are the chances of "everything" being agreed?

I don't understand this logic.

The logic is that any particular offer (say to accept 50,000 settlers) is not isolated and unilateral; this caveat prevents the other side from making political miles out of a good faith offer, for example the way they do in their oft-repeated condemnation of the EU for accepting a "divided" island into the EU despite the GCs rejecting the AP, which the tcs accepted it; or the other gem of constantly bringing up the EUs "broken promise" to end the "embargo" in justifying the refusal to honour commitments made under the EU customs protocol.

Thank you newbie. That makes sense.

What doesn't make sense is why I can't make any anagrams out of your name

Another way to look at the settlement talks over the years is as a kind of Fruit Machine, A One-Armed Bandit Machine of the type they have in places like Las Vegas.These machines have "hold" buttons on each of the spinning reels so that a player can "hold" a favourable position on one or some of the reels 'til the next pull of the handle.

Over the years the Turkish negotiating position has been to try and claim the "hold" positions from the previous talks; and as we all know Turkey goes on and on about the positions in previous negotiations, particularly the last and late Annan Scam.

Do keep telling you all, it's all about Fruit.

Sorry if can just add,... nothing agreed til all agreed = no hold buttons.

My worry is that an over-generous offer may be made with a view to "nothing agreed till all agreed" and then suddenly it's all agreed and we're stuck with an unwanted agreement.

The "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed" approach is the safety mechanism against exactly this: if the other side seems ready to agree, and you're bound to your promise of accepting 50,000 anatolian peasants, you then come up with a final unacceptable demand, such "no guarantors", and maybe even get the parliament to pass a motion to that effect, just so no one is in any doubt.

I wish grown men wouldn't play these games of piling on ever-increasingly absurd caveats simply because they think in the end all can be revoked to the shout of "fooled ya!"

I disagree with pretty much everything that has been "agreed" (50,000 As, rotating presidency, bizonalism or bicommunalism). It would be kinder if they just stopped and changed tack rather than continue dishonestly, as though they will reach some kind of strong, sensible agreement built upon this pile of cards.

The '50,000 Anatolians' is a particularly revolting 'turn' since there were, only, about 100,000 TCs. This would constitute a huge increase to stomach on top of apparently conceding that Turkey had a 'right' to invade (otherwise why negotiate in this way?) and inject her citizens into us. But of course, we did something majorly 'wrong' for which we needed a Presidential public apology, so the rest just follows.

The whole thing has gone too far and they should just call in the EU to explicitly state to Turkey the only acceptable conditions for a modern European country.

Naturally agree with our O's last sentence above.

But regretfully we have agreed to talks within UN Parameters which include a BBF and wishing to keep the moral high ground we have also approached the talks on the basis of some internationally accepted normal laws, so that, for instance, on the matter of the Illegal Settlers, a great many would have rights to remain, human rights that take precedence over the illegality of Turkey's Scammy Settler Programme so those born in CY or married to tissies do have a right to remain, whether some of us like it or not.

Now the same UN Parameters and normal international laws apply to Turkey. We will all be familiar with the many UN Resolutions on CY and the interpretations over the years in many individual cases from the ECHR and lately from the ECJ in the Mr A v The O's case. So within any settlement there must be, again for instance, respect for CY unity, sovereignty and integrity, the total withdrawal of the Turkish Occupation Army, effective tissy participation in government, respect for property rights as per the '74 kochans etc.

Coming back to the matter of the BBF... regretfully other than referring to it as a Federal solution, the UN parameters don't give clear guidance in such matters as the relative sizes of the zones, the political power of each zone and their relationship to Central Government and we're left to argue over such things as the meaning of the word "Federation" and Turkey will of course interpret Federation to mean Confederation and to hang on to a disproportionate territorial "share".

Naturally Turkey hasn't turned up at these talks willing to respect all these UN and other Parameters, as ever picking and choosing those to home in on for advantage, principally a confederal interpretation of a BBF and ignoring the others and indeed inventing new interpretations of normal laws so that for instance, carpet baggers and others acquire "rights" by current use of land over legal owners.

Fortunately we all know the talks will fail because of this intransigence from Turkey, this Turkish wish to hang on to the Spoils of War, to insist on Intervention Rights and to generally show no good will.

... and think it's great that they will fail cos within any Agreement, any Settlement there has to be respect for an unwritten Spirit of The Agreement and who in their right mind expects Turkey to show any Spirit to Respect an Agreement?

[YFred]

Right! I geddit!

I think they've agreed on quite a lot of waddevers, just none of the IMPORTANT stuff lol!

Yes, but to stress that.... any agreement on waddevers to date becomes null and void if they fail to agree on the remaining waddevers. ..... cos the only important waddever that has been agreed, and it was agreed at the outset, is that nothing is agreed 'til everything has been agreed.

What are the chances of "everything" being agreed?

I don't understand this logic.

The logic is that any particular offer (say to accept 50,000 settlers) is not isolated and unilateral; this caveat prevents the other side from making political miles out of a good faith offer, for example the way they do in their oft-repeated condemnation of the EU for accepting a "divided" island into the EU despite the GCs rejecting the AP, which the tcs accepted it; or the other gem of constantly bringing up the EUs "broken promise" to end the "embargo" in justifying the refusal to honour commitments made under the EU customs protocol.

Thank you newbie. That makes sense.

What doesn't make sense is why I can't make any anagrams out of your name

Another way to look at the settlement talks over the years is as a kind of Fruit Machine, A One-Armed Bandit Machine of the type they have in places like Las Vegas.These machines have "hold" buttons on each of the spinning reels so that a player can "hold" a favourable position on one or some of the reels 'til the next pull of the handle.

Over the years the Turkish negotiating position has been to try and claim the "hold" positions from the previous talks; and as we all know Turkey goes on and on about the positions in previous negotiations, particularly the last and late Annan Scam.

Do keep telling you all, it's all about Fruit.

Sorry if can just add,... nothing agreed til all agreed = no hold buttons.

My worry is that an over-generous offer may be made with a view to "nothing agreed till all agreed" and then suddenly it's all agreed and we're stuck with an unwanted agreement.

The "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed" approach is the safety mechanism against exactly this: if the other side seems ready to agree, and you're bound to your promise of accepting 50,000 anatolian peasants, you then come up with a final unacceptable demand, such "no guarantors", and maybe even get the parliament to pass a motion to that effect, just so no one is in any doubt.

I wish grown men wouldn't play these games of piling on ever-increasingly absurd caveats simply because they think in the end all can be revoked to the shout of "fooled ya!"

I disagree with pretty much everything that has been "agreed" (50,000 As, rotating presidency, bizonalism or bicommunalism). It would be kinder if they just stopped and changed tack rather than continue dishonestly, as though they will reach some kind of strong, sensible agreement built upon this pile of cards.

The '50,000 Anatolians' is a particularly revolting 'turn' since there were, only, about 100,000 TCs. This would constitute a huge increase to stomach on top of apparently conceding that Turkey had a 'right' to invade (otherwise why negotiate in this way?) and inject her citizens into us. But of course, we did something majorly 'wrong' for which we needed a Presidential public apology, so the rest just follows.

The whole thing has gone too far and they should just call in the EU to explicitly state to Turkey the only acceptable conditions for a modern European country.

Naturally agree with our O's last sentence above.

But regretfully we have agreed to talks within UN Parameters which include a BBF and wishing to keep the moral high ground we have also approached the talks on the basis of some internationally accepted normal laws, so that, for instance, on the matter of the Illegal Settlers, a great many would have rights to remain, human rights that take precedence over the illegality of Turkey's Scammy Settler Programme so those born in CY or married to tissies do have a right to remain, whether some of us like it or not.

Now the same UN Parameters and normal international laws apply to Turkey. We will all be familiar with the many UN Resolutions on CY and the interpretations over the years in many individual cases from the ECHR and lately from the ECJ in the Mr A v The O's case. So within any settlement there must be, again for instance, respect for CY unity, sovereignty and integrity, the total withdrawal of the Turkish Occupation Army, effective tissy participation in government, respect for property rights as per the '74 kochans etc.

Coming back to the matter of the BBF... regretfully other than referring to it as a Federal solution, the UN parameters don't give clear guidance in such matters as the relative sizes of the zones, the political power of each zone and their relationship to Central Government and we're left to argue over such things as the meaning of the word "Federation" and Turkey will of course interpret Federation to mean Confederation and to hang on to a disproportionate territorial "share".

Naturally Turkey hasn't turned up at these talks willing to respect all these UN and other Parameters, as ever picking and choosing those to home in on for advantage, principally a confederal interpretation of a BBF and ignoring the others and indeed inventing new interpretations of normal laws so that for instance, carpet baggers and others acquire "rights" by current use of land over legal owners.

Fortunately we all know the talks will fail because of this intransigence from Turkey, this Turkish wish to hang on to the Spoils of War, to insist on Intervention Rights and to generally show no good will.

... and think it's great that they will fail cos within any Agreement, any Settlement there has to be respect for an unwritten Spirit of The Agreement and who in their right mind expects Turkey to show any Spirit to Respect an Agreement?

What?

But regretfully we have agreed to talks within UN Parameters
You mean there was another way? You are turning out to be a fine hellen Billy boy.

[bill cobbett]

Right! I geddit!

I think they've agreed on quite a lot of waddevers, just none of the IMPORTANT stuff lol!

Yes, but to stress that.... any agreement on waddevers to date becomes null and void if they fail to agree on the remaining waddevers. ..... cos the only important waddever that has been agreed, and it was agreed at the outset, is that nothing is agreed 'til everything has been agreed.

What are the chances of "everything" being agreed?

I don't understand this logic.

The logic is that any particular offer (say to accept 50,000 settlers) is not isolated and unilateral; this caveat prevents the other side from making political miles out of a good faith offer, for example the way they do in their oft-repeated condemnation of the EU for accepting a "divided" island into the EU despite the GCs rejecting the AP, which the tcs accepted it; or the other gem of constantly bringing up the EUs "broken promise" to end the "embargo" in justifying the refusal to honour commitments made under the EU customs protocol.

Thank you newbie. That makes sense.

What doesn't make sense is why I can't make any anagrams out of your name

Another way to look at the settlement talks over the years is as a kind of Fruit Machine, A One-Armed Bandit Machine of the type they have in places like Las Vegas.These machines have "hold" buttons on each of the spinning reels so that a player can "hold" a favourable position on one or some of the reels 'til the next pull of the handle.

Over the years the Turkish negotiating position has been to try and claim the "hold" positions from the previous talks; and as we all know Turkey goes on and on about the positions in previous negotiations, particularly the last and late Annan Scam.

Do keep telling you all, it's all about Fruit.

Sorry if can just add,... nothing agreed til all agreed = no hold buttons.

My worry is that an over-generous offer may be made with a view to "nothing agreed till all agreed" and then suddenly it's all agreed and we're stuck with an unwanted agreement.

The "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed" approach is the safety mechanism against exactly this: if the other side seems ready to agree, and you're bound to your promise of accepting 50,000 anatolian peasants, you then come up with a final unacceptable demand, such "no guarantors", and maybe even get the parliament to pass a motion to that effect, just so no one is in any doubt.

I wish grown men wouldn't play these games of piling on ever-increasingly absurd caveats simply because they think in the end all can be revoked to the shout of "fooled ya!"

I disagree with pretty much everything that has been "agreed" (50,000 As, rotating presidency, bizonalism or bicommunalism). It would be kinder if they just stopped and changed tack rather than continue dishonestly, as though they will reach some kind of strong, sensible agreement built upon this pile of cards.

The '50,000 Anatolians' is a particularly revolting 'turn' since there were, only, about 100,000 TCs. This would constitute a huge increase to stomach on top of apparently conceding that Turkey had a 'right' to invade (otherwise why negotiate in this way?) and inject her citizens into us. But of course, we did something majorly 'wrong' for which we needed a Presidential public apology, so the rest just follows.

The whole thing has gone too far and they should just call in the EU to explicitly state to Turkey the only acceptable conditions for a modern European country.

Naturally agree with our O's last sentence above.

But regretfully we have agreed to talks within UN Parameters which include a BBF and wishing to keep the moral high ground we have also approached the talks on the basis of some internationally accepted normal laws, so that, for instance, on the matter of the Illegal Settlers, a great many would have rights to remain, human rights that take precedence over the illegality of Turkey's Scammy Settler Programme so those born in CY or married to tissies do have a right to remain, whether some of us like it or not.

Now the same UN Parameters and normal international laws apply to Turkey. We will all be familiar with the many UN Resolutions on CY and the interpretations over the years in many individual cases from the ECHR and lately from the ECJ in the Mr A v The O's case. So within any settlement there must be, again for instance, respect for CY unity, sovereignty and integrity, the total withdrawal of the Turkish Occupation Army, effective tissy participation in government, respect for property rights as per the '74 kochans etc.

Coming back to the matter of the BBF... regretfully other than referring to it as a Federal solution, the UN parameters don't give clear guidance in such matters as the relative sizes of the zones, the political power of each zone and their relationship to Central Government and we're left to argue over such things as the meaning of the word "Federation" and Turkey will of course interpret Federation to mean Confederation and to hang on to a disproportionate territorial "share".

Naturally Turkey hasn't turned up at these talks willing to respect all these UN and other Parameters, as ever picking and choosing those to home in on for advantage, principally a confederal interpretation of a BBF and ignoring the others and indeed inventing new interpretations of normal laws so that for instance, carpet baggers and others acquire "rights" by current use of land over legal owners.

Fortunately we all know the talks will fail because of this intransigence from Turkey, this Turkish wish to hang on to the Spoils of War, to insist on Intervention Rights and to generally show no good will.

... and think it's great that they will fail cos within any Agreement, any Settlement there has to be respect for an unwritten Spirit of The Agreement and who in their right mind expects Turkey to show any Spirit to Respect an Agreement?

What?

But regretfully we have agreed to talks within UN Parameters
You mean there was another way? You are turning out to be a fine hellen Billy boy.

Oh!!! Stop half quoting you mischievous git. I said .... " But regretfully we have agreed to talks within UN Parameters which include a BBF

[cymart]

There should be a 5 part meeting where all sides can talk face to face and put all the issues on the table,aiming to hammer out a compromise-otherwise this never ending charade will get nowhere,just as it has done for decades....whoever refuses to attend it gets the blame..

[runaway]

There should be a 5 part meeting where all sides can talk face to face and put all the issues on the table,aiming to hammer out a compromise-otherwise this never ending charade will get nowhere,just as it has done for decades....whoever refuses to attend it gets the blame..

Greece remains silent and south cyprus has refused it till now.

[YFred]

There should be a 5 part meeting where all sides can talk face to face and put all the issues on the table,aiming to hammer out a compromise-otherwise this never ending charade will get nowhere,just as it has done for decades....whoever refuses to attend it gets the blame..

Greece remains silent and south cyprus has refused it till now.

They can't afford the air fare?

[Oracle]

There should be a 5 part meeting where all sides can talk face to face and put all the issues on the table,aiming to hammer out a compromise-otherwise this never ending charade will get nowhere,just as it has done for decades....whoever refuses to attend it gets the blame..

Only one side decides what it is prepared to agree ... the RoC!