Cyprus-Forum.com

[Jerry]

Ps could you answer my questions

or anyone else for that matter

In simple terms the GCs were not getting a fair share of the island.

Most illegal settlers would stay

Turkey would still have a "legal" right to intervene even in the Southern state (that goes against the UN Charter and effectively means that the new State is not sovereign, it is subject to the will of others).

Compensation would have to be paid for by the victim, not the criminal.

Cheated GCs would resent gains made legal at their expense - the new State would not last - Turkey would annex the north.

If you would like an in depth account of the various Annan Plans and how they were "formulated" read "An International Relations Debacle" by Claire Palley ISBN 1-84113-578-X, it's pretty heavy going though.

[B25]

You are being deliberately antagonistic. The AP was shit for many reasons outlined about. Read the details the specifics are all there.

Essentially it would have legalised turkeys invasion
She would have got away scot free for her crimes
we would have lost the north forever
A virgin birth meaning we would have lost our on international voice
Turkey to maintain Guarantor status
the UK to keep the bases forever and the rights to the sea on the continental shelf
The GC would be prohibited from purchasing property in the north, whereas the TC were free to buy where ever
we would have had to wait at turkeys grace to get back any property, whereas the TCs were going to get their immediately
The RoC to pay for ainfrastructure and not a penny from the invador
The turkish troops to be removed and turkeys grace and who the fuck believes turkey these days
Oh and here is a classic, tukey would have undisputed and mandated by the UN intervention rights island wide if she felt the urge to do so.
There are loads more reasons, but I think you get the gist, now fuck off you twat.

[Kikapu]

What Askimows has mentioned above is only some of the deficiencies of the final version(s) of the Annan plan. There are some other ones even more serious and unacceptable for the GC side, pertaining to philosophy of the final political arrangement. Whereas the initial version(s) of the plan (even though unlike the final version they were not fully completed) were based on a philosophy that resembled more to a federal State arrangement, with balanced bi-zonality and bi-communality characteristics; the later version(s) (thanks to the scandalous idea of introducing a so-called virgin birth approach,) shifted dramatically and were based on a philosophy that resembled more to a confederative arrangement between two separate and “legitimately pre-existing nation-states,” with very strong bi-zonality and bi-communality characteristics.

This shifting was done gradually, from version to version, and essentially (in the spirit of the “final” plan,) for the sake expediency, the RoC -from a recognized nation-state with de-jure sovereignty over the entire island and all its people, was silently and indirectly de-legitimized from its existing international status and was demoted to a mere Greek Cypriot state representing only the GCs and the south non-occupied areas; and the Turkish occupation regime in the north (“TRNC”) was silently legitimized and promoted to a Turkish Cypriot State on the basis of the same occupied territory that would represent and belong only to the TC community (and the settlers,) as if the north 29% of Cyprus was the Turkish Cypriot’s exclusive and historically inherited part of Cyprus, alone, and as if no Turkish invasion, ethnic cleansing of the majority of the population there (Greek Cypriots,) occupation and colonization from Turkey ever occurred.

What this would have meant in practice was firstly the effective brushing aside and eradication of the Greek Cypriot’s existential, cultural and historical rights associated with the north part of their country, as if they have never been the indigenous and lawful inhabitants of the north before their ethnic cleansing by Turkey in 1974, and the legalization of the assumption that the Turkish Cypriot community, alone, was historically the exclusive owner of the north 29% of Cyprus; contrary to any and all senses of the historical realities. The limiting by the plan’s provisions Greek Cypriots that would have been allowed and would have chosen to return in the north, would have been regarded and treated as mere immigrants (new-comers) into a foreign country, more or less just like a Polish or any other EU national would come and settle anywhere in Cyprus, with limited cultural and political rights (unless s/he would accept his /her Turkification after a number of years, since the North federal state would essentially legally function and an autonomous mini-Turkish Republic.) Unlike the GC indigenous population that would return in the north, the mainland Turkish settlers that were illegally allowed to colonize the north of Cyprus would almost all have been regarded as fully fletched legitimate citizens of the North State (and Cyprus,) enjoying full political and cultural rights from day one, as if they were the indigenous people of the north of Cyprus since time and memorial. Property rights would have been "settled" on the basis of expediency and primarily if not exclusivelly in favor of the properties' current legitimate but also in favor of all the illegitimate (the majority) current occupiers, with the end result of turning the TC community members (plus the mainland colonizers) from (since even before 1960) having been the owners of the average 17% of the private land in Cyprus, to becoming the "legal" or "legitimate" owners (or in absolute control) of the 24% of the most expensive (representing almost 40% of all the potential real-estate value) of Cyprus’s total private land.

These are just a few of the “side-effects” of this expedient arrangement. The myth that the EU studied the plan and approved it as a balanced and legitimate arrangement, is another scandalous and brain insulting assumption and /or claim. What the EU has basically only "said" is that as long as the trick occurs before Cyprus’s EU accession, and the crime is already "pre-legalized," I am willing to accommodate it (for the sake expediency) as an EU primary law (i.e. a unique situation that pre-existed in the acceding country and which was accepted by the EU as the fact of the matter pertaining to that country alone –just like the case of Latvia and it’s 40% of Russian speaking population that were not regarded by the country as it’s citizens because they couldn’t speak the official language.) If the case was any different, then why all the rush, the agony, the pressure and the anguish to get the Annan plan-5 passed even until the 24 hours minus 5 minutes before Cyprus’s EU accession. If the Annan plan was in compliance with legitimacy, human rights, international legality and EU principles and values, then why all the rush to have it quickly and swiftly adopted before accession. The reason is simple and obvious. You can commit such a trick and a crime to a small and a weak country and its people, but you cannot easily do so to an EU member state.

What kills me most is not to hear the above cynical claims by the foreigners and the Turkish side. What kills me most is to hear these so-called EU approval claims from the mouth of some Greek Cypriots, who in the absence of any stronger arguments as to why we should have accepted the final version of the A-plan, repeat the above same nonsense!

http://www.cyprus-forum.com/cyprus9979-40.html

[Hermes]

Not trying to be argumentative here but was really looking for specifics, for example if the points that I have quoted (and they were in no order just the first two sentences of the article that you posted) were part of the reason why you voted no, could you answer my questions (which were specific to those points) so I (we) can better understand?

Not meaning to be rude but if you cared to read the rest of the article instead of quoting half a line you wouldn't need to ask such idiotic questions.

[Kikapu]

Cypriot Annan Plan referendums, 2004

Reasons for approval by the Turkish Cypriots

Specific reasons for rejection by the Greek Cypriots


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cypriot_An ... dums,_2004

[DTA]

In simple terms the GCs were not getting a fair share of the island.

what was the share in percentage of the north state? what would be fair share in a BBF not partition

Most illegal settlers would stay

what was the number of 'settlers' that would stay? would you call those that have now been born in cyprus settlers and do you expect them to move Turkey? those that have married Turkish cypriots? those that have been here for more than say 10 years? would you force them all to move to Turkey?

Turkey would still have a "legal" right to intervene even in the Southern state (that goes against the UN Charter and effectively means that the new State is not sovereign, it is subject to the will of others).

This would be a huge thing for TCs to give up considering our past what would you suggest instead?

Compensation would have to be paid for by the victim, not the criminal.

Ok I can understand how this would Irk but would you accept the Roc paying compensation to the TCs in a solution?

Cheated GCs would resent gains made legal at their expense - the new State would not last - Turkey would annex the north.

was Anexation part of the Annan plan if things went wrong?

[Kikapu]

The Divisions of Cyprus
by Perry Anderson

"When votes were counted, the results said everything: 65 per cent of Turkish Cypriots accepted it, 76 per cent of Greek Cypriots rejected it. What political scientist, without needing to know anything about the plan, could for an instant doubt whom it favoured?"

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v30/n08/ande01_.html

[DTA]

You are being deliberately antagonistic. The AP was shit for many reasons outlined about. Read the details the specifics are all there.

Essentially it would have legalised turkeys invasion
She would have got away scot free for her crimes
we would have lost the north forever
A virgin birth meaning we would have lost our on international voice
Turkey to maintain Guarantor status
the UK to keep the bases forever and the rights to the sea on the continental shelf
The GC would be prohibited from purchasing property in the north, whereas the TC were free to buy where ever
we would have had to wait at turkeys grace to get back any property, whereas the TCs were going to get their immediately
The RoC to pay for ainfrastructure and not a penny from the invador
The turkish troops to be removed and turkeys grace and who the fuck believes turkey these days
Oh and here is a classic, tukey would have undisputed and mandated by the UN intervention rights island wide if she felt the urge to do so.
There are loads more reasons, but I think you get the gist, now fuck off you twat.

you see I was reading your quote and was going to reply sensibly but the bit in bold just sums you up...

make me you pussy

[DTA]

Not trying to be argumentative here but was really looking for specifics, for example if the points that I have quoted (and they were in no order just the first two sentences of the article that you posted) were part of the reason why you voted no, could you answer my questions (which were specific to those points) so I (we) can better understand?

Not meaning to be rude but if you cared to read the rest of the article instead of quoting half a line you wouldn't need to ask such idiotic questions.

I am sorry that you find my questions idiotic, i wanted to deal with things point by point so as things dont get lost and understanding prevails.

so now can you answer my questions that I have outlined for you?

[supporttheunderdog]

The A plan was an absolute disgrace - Any settlement which does not give (with certain very limited exceptions) the return of property based upon pre 74 legal ownership or at the option of tht owner, compensation, whether Greek Speaking Cypriot or Turkish speaking Cypriot, (and that includes the return of property abandoned even before 1974) should not be accepted.