Cyprus-Forum.com

[miltiades]

Can anyone tell us what percentage of the voters in northern Cyprus was actually T/C .

[Murataga]

Time for us all to put on our thinking caps...

In 2004 Turkish Cypriots voted by an overwhelming majority of 65% FOR a solution to reunite Cyprus...In 2010 they voted,albeit by a slim majority,FOR a President who is well known for his wish for a 2 state solution...So,what happened,or what did not happen,during the ensuing 6 years to bring about such a different result??? Please spend at least a couple of minutes seriously pondering this issue before putting fingers to keyboard...Thanks...

Hi Bir - It`s been a long time since we talked so I hope my message finds you in good health and spirits.

As for your inquiry... First of all you should realize that Talat and the ideology that he represents has historically had little success in TC politics. A notable victory came only during the AP referendum period. The fact of the matter is that Talat used the valuable asset of projecting an inflated sense of hope during his election campaign at the time. The source was the AP. TCs followed him and said Yes. The unfruitful results are self-explanatory.

People were grossly disappointed by the outcome where no benefit was gained by the TC side. Not only that but we watched helplessly the GC side become a powerful EU member country. Add to that Talat`s failure to reach a point in the current talks for a referendum, I think his defeat was inevitable.

Admit it or nor, like it or not: it was a huge compromise for the TCs to say Yes to the AP. For this we were promised the removal of the embargoes at the least yet received practically the middle finger and witnessed the political ascendancy of the GCs to something unimaginable 15 years ago. Not only did we get practically nothing for voting yes but we also found ourselves in the disadvantaged position of starting the Talat-Christofias talks fin comparison to the pre-AP era, i.e. we can not negotiate for things we already declared we agreed to by saying yes to the AP - something we were repeatedly warned about by a fat old man at the time...

[BirKibrisli]

I can see a clear theme emerging from this thread...As far as most GCs are concerned the Annan Plan was Partition in disguise,so the TCs voted for partition in 2004 and they voted for a Partitionist in 2010,nothing has changed...

Perhaps this is where the problem lies...Those TCs who voted for the Annan plan did not think they were voting for Partition...They thought were voting for Reunification with a lot of compromises..Remember that the arch-partitionist,Denktash and his former party,he UBP were srongly against the AP...Varosia and Morphou were to be returned. Turkish Army would be withdrawn,albeit according to a timetable...All but 45000 of the settlers would depart...A certain percentage of the GC refugees would be allowed to return....and of course the ultimate compromise for the TCs,the trnc would be abolished...All this certainly did not seem like partition to the TCs..So the two sides had very different perceptions of what was on offer...There was also a lot of hype and perhaps even some exaggeration regarding the potential EU benefits,but this could not have played such a big role,in my opinion...The TCs knew they would get all the benefits as individuals anyway...As long as they could get themselves an RoC citizenship identity card...The promise of lifting the embargoes and the ensuing turn about did not help the matters either...The TCs saw the GC rejection as a slap in the face...A solution was withing their reach,the long decades of political and social uncertainty and dependence on the goodwill of Turkey were about to come to an end...It would have been a terrible disappointment...Emotions play a big part in most Cypriots life,sometimes to the detriment of sensible and logical analysis of the events...Bloody civil wars and decades of continuing and escalating disputes and animosity often deprive people of objective judgement...This is playing an important part in the current impasse I believe...Neither side really understands or appreciates the other's predicament...Hence what seems to be a big compromise for one side can easily be dismissed as insignificant for the other...This is what happens if you try to solve a long standing dispute without coming to terms objectively with the historical reasons underlining it...

Hi Bir how are you my friend.

1)Not all "TCs" are partitionists. See my percentages above. Besides unfortunately we have a large percentage of settlers in the so called "TC" voting. I heard yesterday that the Karpas peninsula voted en mass for Eroglu. But we all know the Karpas is all settlers...

2)I can understand the "slap in the face" feeling among the pro true unification "TCs" who i estimate about 40%. I beleive among the real TCs the percentage of those is around 60%. Unfortunately the will of the real TCs has been eroded by the settlers my friend....

hello,dear Pyro...great to hear from you...

There is no doubt the will of the real TCs has been eroded,but I think the situation was pretty much the same in 2004...That does not explain the about turn...A lot of people have made very valid comments...Talat did promise the world and delivered little...He did neglect the domestic issues...He couldn't dispell the corruption or nepotism image of his former political partners...The TCs felt rejected once again by their GC compatriots,as they did believe they were making big compromises to reunite their country...

I am not sure if Christofias could have done any more to help Talat,but I feel that the EU certainly let him down in a big way...They did too little too late to prop up his image as a go-getter...The EU took the easy road,the self-interest road,and in doing so diminished Talat as an effective politician/statesman...All these added up,but I still feel there are more important factors at play,things we might not even be aware of at this stage...

[BirKibrisli]

Time for us all to put on our thinking caps...

In 2004 Turkish Cypriots voted by an overwhelming majority of 65% FOR a solution to reunite Cyprus...In 2010 they voted,albeit by a slim majority,FOR a President who is well known for his wish for a 2 state solution...So,what happened,or what did not happen,during the ensuing 6 years to bring about such a different result??? Please spend at least a couple of minutes seriously pondering this issue before putting fingers to keyboard...Thanks...

First of all, what percentage of the electorate in the occupied territory was “Turkish Cypriot” in 2004 compared to that of 2010? Have you bothered to do some research before asking this question?

Secondly, from those “Turkish Cypriots” that are still left in Cyprus from 2004, how many of them have finally realized that the RoC will never accept their stupid blackmails such as “power sharing”, the theft of GC land, and many more? A fair number I’d say…

I don't think there would have been much diference between the ratio of settlers to TCs during those years,GR...Talat's party made a conscious effort to limit the number of settlers given trnc citizenship...

Your second point is not valid...The TCs do not see their demand for political equality as "blackmail" or "stupid"...And they do not consider their use of the GC refugee land as theft...It is time you started thinking outside the GC state popaganda square...

[Paphitis]

Another fact-observation:

In 2004, the RoC left (with the notable exception of EDI) united to elect the most reactionary right winger this place has ever known. Papadopoulos eventually turned GC's into scared, xenophobic and solution-phobic people who in their majority now prefer partition even if they don't say it.

If you and your Turkish friends believe that most GCs want partition then I challenge you to have another referendum with two options:
1) Partition
2) A true unification with no division of land and people.

If you are right then we will all vote for partition, and the Cyprus issue will end there. But of course this is not what will happen and you know it.

There is no doubt that the vast majority of TCs will vote for partition (because this is what they want), while the vast majority of GCs will vote for a true unification (because this is what we want).

So stop saying bollocks that most GCs want partition.

What confuses your small brain probably is that the majority of Cypriots prefer the "de-facto" partition from an Annan plan kind of partition, that not only would legalize the partition of Cyprus but would also give to Turkey the control of the whole island.

You need to define Partition, in terms of land distribution.

For example, agreed partition could be defined as 63:37, 71:29 or 80:20!

The first two options would clearly be rejected by the GCs, which means that the status quo will remain. The RoC will need to accept Partition as a solution only if and when the GC electorate vote in favour of this in a plebiscite.

The third option, partition based on 80:20, and which also addresses the issue of any property losses incurred by any GC refugees would be the only possible scenario that could be accepted by the GCs.

And let's be realistic here. It is probably the most viable and workable solution possible. A "BBF" based on the Turkish/TC model, will never be workable as GCs will lose political control since Turkey will control and influence the entire island.

So either we have status quo, or agreed partition based on 80:20, if we are unable to agree to a single unified state or a proper BBF based on one sovereignty, one citizenship and one international entity.

Since the TCs will not agree to the latter, it is up to them to propose a partition plan based on a fairer model, which has a chance of being accepted by most GCs. The alternative is that things will remain as they are.

[Bananiot]

Pyrpolyser, I find it extremely difficult to believe that Papadopoulos was just plain naive, as you described him. He did not read the Annan Plan, you say, and believed everything Klerides told him. Not in a million times. Papadopoulos could only become President with the votes of AKEL. He needed to convince these people (who were led to believe by Papaioannou - his advice before dying, to the party - that the worst nationalist in Cyprus was Papadopoulos and if he ever became President that could mean the end of the left) that he would solve the Cyprob on the basis of the Annan plan. He even featured in huge posters pre 2003 elections, saying exactly this.

His agenda was clear. Become President and bury the efforts for solution on a BBF basis. He had an issue with this, primarily, not with the specific plan. His followers today have the same issue with BBF. Thus, the wily Papadopoulos fooled Christofias into supporting him, promising to deliver solution and Christofias was convinced that the "man has changed".

In short, Papadopoulos was a prime partitionist, rejectionist, ultra nationalist and Turk hater. He was voted in by the left! At least, the left in the north held a responsible/honourable stance ...

[BirKibrisli]

I can see a clear theme emerging from this thread...As far as most GCs are concerned the Annan Plan was Partition in disguise,so the TCs voted for partition in 2004 and they voted for a Partitionist in 2010,nothing has changed...

Perhaps this is where the problem lies...Those TCs who voted for the Annan plan did not think they were voting for Partition...They thought were voting for Reunification with a lot of compromises...Remember that the arch-partitionist,Denktash and his former party,he UBP were srongly against the AP...Varosia and Morphou were to be returned. Turkish Army would be withdrawn,albeit according to a timetable...All but 45000 of the settlers would depart...A certain percentage of the GC refugees would be allowed to return....and of course the ultimate compromise for the TCs,the trnc would be abolished...All this certainly did not seem like partition to the TCs..So the two sides had very different perceptions of what was on offer...There was also a lot of hype and perhaps even some exaggeration regarding the potential EU benefits,but this could not have played such a big role,in my opinion...The TCs knew they would get all the benefits as individuals anyway...As long as they could get themselves an RoC citizenship identity card...The promise of lifting the embargoes and the ensuing turn about did not help the matters either...The TCs saw the GC rejection as a slap in the face...A solution was withing their reach,the long decades of political and social uncertainty and dependence on the goodwill of Turkey were about to come to an end...It would have been a terrible disappointment...Emotions play a big part in most Cypriots life,sometimes to the detriment of sensible and logical analysis of the events...Bloody civil wars and decades of continuing and escalating disputes and animosity often deprive people of objective judgement...This is playing an important part in the current impasse I believe...Neither side really understands or appreciates the other's predicament...Hence what seems to be a big compromise for one side can easily be dismissed as insignificant for the other...This is what happens if you try to solve a long standing dispute without coming to terms objectively with the historical reasons underlining it...

What is a "compromise" according to you?

If Republic of Cyprus allows you to have your own land in Paphos does this count as a compromise from our side? If GCs say that after a solution there can be some TC ministers in the government, some TC members in the parliament and a TC member in the EU parliament, is this a compromise from our side? If we say that we will allow TC teams to play in international games, is this a compromise? If we say that the "Cyprus Turkish Airlines" can fly direct from Cyprus to anywhere they want, is that a compromise?

If TCs believe that giving some land back to the rightful owners is a compromise from them, or if they believe that the removal of the Turkish troops and Turkish settlers who are illegally in Cyprus is a compromise from them, then obviously they don't know what "compromise" means.

I believe that the right way to measure how much compromises each side made is to measure against the 1960 agreements (which favor the TCs to begin with). When you do that you will realize that it is only the GCs who made compromises, and no compromise whatsoever was made by the TCs.

If you take as benchmark the 1960 Constitution to decide on who is making 'compromises" you are on shaky grounds,Piratis...The TCs can argue that they made the ultimate compromise by walking out of government and letting the GCs run the show for all these years...It is time to repay the compromise and let the TCs run the RoC government for the next 46 years...
Why don't you take the post 1974 reality as benchmark..??? a lot has happened since the 1960 agreement,you don't need me to remind you...Will you ever begin to see the world outside official GC propaganda framework???When it does suit you you want to start the argument from 1974,when it doesn't you are happy to go back to 1960...You want to have your cake and eat it too...I can understand why for propaganda purposes the RoC government would insist they reperesent all of Cyprus..But you cannot ignore the reality that across the green line there is an entity self-titled the TRNC,and you need to deal with that reality...This is where most GCs go wrong in my opinion..They cannot differentiate between their governments propaganda and the reality...Hence you cannot see the real compromises the TCs are making...Which is a pity,becuase that stops you from feeling empathy and compassion for them...And vice versa...The biggest obstacle to overcome if we are to find a just and lasting solution...

[Paphitis]

I can see a clear theme emerging from this thread...As far as most GCs are concerned the Annan Plan was Partition in disguise,so the TCs voted for partition in 2004 and they voted for a Partitionist in 2010,nothing has changed...

Perhaps this is where the problem lies...Those TCs who voted for the Annan plan did not think they were voting for Partition...They thought were voting for Reunification with a lot of compromises...Remember that the arch-partitionist,Denktash and his former party,he UBP were srongly against the AP...Varosia and Morphou were to be returned. Turkish Army would be withdrawn,albeit according to a timetable...All but 45000 of the settlers would depart...A certain percentage of the GC refugees would be allowed to return....and of course the ultimate compromise for the TCs,the trnc would be abolished...All this certainly did not seem like partition to the TCs..So the two sides had very different perceptions of what was on offer...There was also a lot of hype and perhaps even some exaggeration regarding the potential EU benefits,but this could not have played such a big role,in my opinion...The TCs knew they would get all the benefits as individuals anyway...As long as they could get themselves an RoC citizenship identity card...The promise of lifting the embargoes and the ensuing turn about did not help the matters either...The TCs saw the GC rejection as a slap in the face...A solution was withing their reach,the long decades of political and social uncertainty and dependence on the goodwill of Turkey were about to come to an end...It would have been a terrible disappointment...Emotions play a big part in most Cypriots life,sometimes to the detriment of sensible and logical analysis of the events...Bloody civil wars and decades of continuing and escalating disputes and animosity often deprive people of objective judgement...This is playing an important part in the current impasse I believe...Neither side really understands or appreciates the other's predicament...Hence what seems to be a big compromise for one side can easily be dismissed as insignificant for the other...This is what happens if you try to solve a long standing dispute without coming to terms objectively with the historical reasons underlining it...

What is a "compromise" according to you?

If Republic of Cyprus allows you to have your own land in Paphos does this count as a compromise from our side? If GCs say that after a solution there can be some TC ministers in the government, some TC members in the parliament and a TC member in the EU parliament, is this a compromise from our side? If we say that we will allow TC teams to play in international games, is this a compromise? If we say that the "Cyprus Turkish Airlines" can fly direct from Cyprus to anywhere they want, is that a compromise?

If TCs believe that giving some land back to the rightful owners is a compromise from them, or if they believe that the removal of the Turkish troops and Turkish settlers who are illegally in Cyprus is a compromise from them, then obviously they don't know what "compromise" means.

I believe that the right way to measure how much compromises each side made is to measure against the 1960 agreements (which favor the TCs to begin with). When you do that you will realize that it is only the GCs who made compromises, and no compromise whatsoever was made by the TCs.

If you take as benchmark the 1960 Constitution to decide on who is making 'compromises" you are on shaky grounds,Piratis...The TCs can argue that they made the ultimate compromise by walking out of government and letting the GCs run the show for all these years...It is time to repay the compromise and let the TCs run the RoC government for the next 46 years...
Why don't you take the post 1974 reality as benchmark..??? a lot has happened since the 1960 agreement,you don't need me to remind you...Will you ever begin to see the world outside official GC propaganda framework???When it does suit you you want to start the argument from 1974,when it doesn't you are happy to go back to 1960...You want to have your cake and eat it too...I can understand why for propaganda purposes the RoC government would insist they reperesent all of Cyprus..But you cannot ignore the reality that across the green line there is an entity self-titled the TRNC,and you need to deal with that reality...This is where most GCs go wrong in my opinion..They cannot differentiate between their governments propaganda and the reality...Hence you cannot see the real compromises the TCs are making...Which is a pity,becuase that stops you from feeling empathy and compassion for them...And vice versa...The biggest obstacle to overcome if we are to find a just and lasting solution...

Your stupidity really amazes me.

Who cares about the 1959 agreements? The situation was unworkable, and now it is all over.

The question is this. Do the TCs want Partition, or do they want a unified state or a proper BBF?

Since all indications are that most of you want Partition, then you better offer something very tangible and fair, so that your proposals can be unanimously accepted. Otherwise, we just continue as we are. The choice is yours really!

[BirKibrisli]

I can see a clear theme emerging from this thread...As far as most GCs are concerned the Annan Plan was Partition in disguise,so the TCs voted for partition in 2004 and they voted for a Partitionist in 2010,nothing has changed...

Perhaps this is where the problem lies...Those TCs who voted for the Annan plan did not think they were voting for Partition...They thought were voting for Reunification with a lot of compromises...Remember that the arch-partitionist,Denktash and his former party,he UBP were srongly against the AP...Varosia and Morphou were to be returned. Turkish Army would be withdrawn,albeit according to a timetable...All but 45000 of the settlers would depart...A certain percentage of the GC refugees would be allowed to return....and of course the ultimate compromise for the TCs,the trnc would be abolished...All this certainly did not seem like partition to the TCs..So the two sides had very different perceptions of what was on offer...There was also a lot of hype and perhaps even some exaggeration regarding the potential EU benefits,but this could not have played such a big role,in my opinion...The TCs knew they would get all the benefits as individuals anyway...As long as they could get themselves an RoC citizenship identity card...The promise of lifting the embargoes and the ensuing turn about did not help the matters either...The TCs saw the GC rejection as a slap in the face...A solution was withing their reach,the long decades of political and social uncertainty and dependence on the goodwill of Turkey were about to come to an end...It would have been a terrible disappointment...Emotions play a big part in most Cypriots life,sometimes to the detriment of sensible and logical analysis of the events...Bloody civil wars and decades of continuing and escalating disputes and animosity often deprive people of objective judgement...This is playing an important part in the current impasse I believe...Neither side really understands or appreciates the other's predicament...Hence what seems to be a big compromise for one side can easily be dismissed as insignificant for the other...This is what happens if you try to solve a long standing dispute without coming to terms objectively with the historical reasons underlining it...

What is a "compromise" according to you?

If Republic of Cyprus allows you to have your own land in Paphos does this count as a compromise from our side? If GCs say that after a solution there can be some TC ministers in the government, some TC members in the parliament and a TC member in the EU parliament, is this a compromise from our side? If we say that we will allow TC teams to play in international games, is this a compromise? If we say that the "Cyprus Turkish Airlines" can fly direct from Cyprus to anywhere they want, is that a compromise?

If TCs believe that giving some land back to the rightful owners is a compromise from them, or if they believe that the removal of the Turkish troops and Turkish settlers who are illegally in Cyprus is a compromise from them, then obviously they don't know what "compromise" means.

I believe that the right way to measure how much compromises each side made is to measure against the 1960 agreements (which favor the TCs to begin with). When you do that you will realize that it is only the GCs who made compromises, and no compromise whatsoever was made by the TCs.

If you take as benchmark the 1960 Constitution to decide on who is making 'compromises" you are on shaky grounds,Piratis...The TCs can argue that they made the ultimate compromise by walking out of government and letting the GCs run the show for all these years...It is time to repay the compromise and let the TCs run the RoC government for the next 46 years...
Why don't you take the post 1974 reality as benchmark..??? a lot has happened since the 1960 agreement,you don't need me to remind you...Will you ever begin to see the world outside official GC propaganda framework???When it does suit you you want to start the argument from 1974,when it doesn't you are happy to go back to 1960...You want to have your cake and eat it too...I can understand why for propaganda purposes the RoC government would insist they reperesent all of Cyprus..But you cannot ignore the reality that across the green line there is an entity self-titled the TRNC,and you need to deal with that reality...This is where most GCs go wrong in my opinion..They cannot differentiate between their governments propaganda and the reality...Hence you cannot see the real compromises the TCs are making...Which is a pity,becuase that stops you from feeling empathy and compassion for them...And vice versa...The biggest obstacle to overcome if we are to find a just and lasting solution...

Your stupidity really amazes me.

Who cares about the 1959 agreements? The situation was unworkable, and now it is all over.

The question is this. Do the TCs want Partition, or do they want a unified state or a proper BBF?

Since all indications are that most of you want Partition, then you better offer something very tangible and fair, so that your proposals can be unanimously accepted. Otherwise, we just continue as we are. The choice is yours really!

Listen ,you shithead...Because you are too thick to understand what Piratis and I are talking about,you cannot go around calling people "stupid"...got it,stupid????
Now go to your room and play with your model planes,especially designed for the intellectually challenged..

[Paphitis]

I can see a clear theme emerging from this thread...As far as most GCs are concerned the Annan Plan was Partition in disguise,so the TCs voted for partition in 2004 and they voted for a Partitionist in 2010,nothing has changed...

Perhaps this is where the problem lies...Those TCs who voted for the Annan plan did not think they were voting for Partition...They thought were voting for Reunification with a lot of compromises...Remember that the arch-partitionist,Denktash and his former party,he UBP were srongly against the AP...Varosia and Morphou were to be returned. Turkish Army would be withdrawn,albeit according to a timetable...All but 45000 of the settlers would depart...A certain percentage of the GC refugees would be allowed to return....and of course the ultimate compromise for the TCs,the trnc would be abolished...All this certainly did not seem like partition to the TCs..So the two sides had very different perceptions of what was on offer...There was also a lot of hype and perhaps even some exaggeration regarding the potential EU benefits,but this could not have played such a big role,in my opinion...The TCs knew they would get all the benefits as individuals anyway...As long as they could get themselves an RoC citizenship identity card...The promise of lifting the embargoes and the ensuing turn about did not help the matters either...The TCs saw the GC rejection as a slap in the face...A solution was withing their reach,the long decades of political and social uncertainty and dependence on the goodwill of Turkey were about to come to an end...It would have been a terrible disappointment...Emotions play a big part in most Cypriots life,sometimes to the detriment of sensible and logical analysis of the events...Bloody civil wars and decades of continuing and escalating disputes and animosity often deprive people of objective judgement...This is playing an important part in the current impasse I believe...Neither side really understands or appreciates the other's predicament...Hence what seems to be a big compromise for one side can easily be dismissed as insignificant for the other...This is what happens if you try to solve a long standing dispute without coming to terms objectively with the historical reasons underlining it...

What is a "compromise" according to you?

If Republic of Cyprus allows you to have your own land in Paphos does this count as a compromise from our side? If GCs say that after a solution there can be some TC ministers in the government, some TC members in the parliament and a TC member in the EU parliament, is this a compromise from our side? If we say that we will allow TC teams to play in international games, is this a compromise? If we say that the "Cyprus Turkish Airlines" can fly direct from Cyprus to anywhere they want, is that a compromise?

If TCs believe that giving some land back to the rightful owners is a compromise from them, or if they believe that the removal of the Turkish troops and Turkish settlers who are illegally in Cyprus is a compromise from them, then obviously they don't know what "compromise" means.

I believe that the right way to measure how much compromises each side made is to measure against the 1960 agreements (which favor the TCs to begin with). When you do that you will realize that it is only the GCs who made compromises, and no compromise whatsoever was made by the TCs.

If you take as benchmark the 1960 Constitution to decide on who is making 'compromises" you are on shaky grounds,Piratis...The TCs can argue that they made the ultimate compromise by walking out of government and letting the GCs run the show for all these years...It is time to repay the compromise and let the TCs run the RoC government for the next 46 years...
Why don't you take the post 1974 reality as benchmark..??? a lot has happened since the 1960 agreement,you don't need me to remind you...Will you ever begin to see the world outside official GC propaganda framework???When it does suit you you want to start the argument from 1974,when it doesn't you are happy to go back to 1960...You want to have your cake and eat it too...I can understand why for propaganda purposes the RoC government would insist they reperesent all of Cyprus..But you cannot ignore the reality that across the green line there is an entity self-titled the TRNC,and you need to deal with that reality...This is where most GCs go wrong in my opinion..They cannot differentiate between their governments propaganda and the reality...Hence you cannot see the real compromises the TCs are making...Which is a pity,becuase that stops you from feeling empathy and compassion for them...And vice versa...The biggest obstacle to overcome if we are to find a just and lasting solution...

Your stupidity really amazes me.

Who cares about the 1959 agreements? The situation was unworkable, and now it is all over.

The question is this. Do the TCs want Partition, or do they want a unified state or a proper BBF?

Since all indications are that most of you want Partition, then you better offer something very tangible and fair, so that your proposals can be unanimously accepted. Otherwise, we just continue as we are. The choice is yours really!

Listen ,you shithead...Because you are too thick to understand what Piratis and I are talking about,you cannot go around calling people "stupid"...got it,stupid????
Now go to your room and play with your model planes,especially designed for the intellectually challenged..

It is very unfortunate to rad such one sided debate in terms of intelligence. Piratis has given you some very clear definitions, but you are too stupid to realise and are incapable to simplify things into what is real. You don't wouldn't know reality if came and spat in your face.

The possible scenarios can be whittled down to just 3-4, including status quo. Even this is acceptable to us if we don't have a better alternative.

It is the TCs that don't know what they want, and if they do, they don't know how to achieve a result. It is your community that needs to work things out, because we are quite happy to keep the status quo for as long as it takes. If you want agreed Partition, then you know how to achieve this. If you want a BBF, then you know how to compromise in order to achieve a workable BBF acceptable to both communities.

Otherwise, the status quo continues to the day you die, stupid!

No need to complicate things.