Cyprus-Forum.com

[cypezokyli]

one more question.

how serious to you consider the costs of the parameter "time" in calculating the costs of the yes and the no.

i.e. if we would get foe example what akel proposed as changes after 15 or 20 years , is that considered a victory?

[Piratis]

how serious to you consider the costs of the parameter "time" in calculating the costs of the yes and the no.

i.e. if we would get foe example what akel proposed as changes after 15 or 20 years , is that considered a victory?

I am not aware if AKEL has officially proposed some changes after the referendum. If you are talking about the changes that Papadopoulos has proposed, then even if we achieve those things in 10-15 years it is still better. (and those things are the bare minimum, not a "victory")

What are 10 years when they are compared with the rest of our lives, the lives of our children, grandchildren, grand-grandchildren etc?

I can understand that some people might had a dilemma of the kind: "Annan plan is not very good, but it is acceptable. If we wait we might get something better but we might not. So maybe is better to accept what we are offered now so we will not miss this chance"
This is perfectly acceptable and I can understand the people that voted "yes".

However can you also understand that for some other people (the majority) the way of thinking was more or less in the lines of: "Annan plan is unacceptable. We can not live with such a plan. Even the current status is better than this disguised partition offered to us. Therefore we have no choice other than voting 'no' and hope that something at least acceptable will come in the future"

[cypezokyli]

and if nothing comes?

[Othellos]

I am not a "double agent" to have the evidence. Do you believe that the Americans would not pay anything to have it their way? They do this all the time around the world. Or you don't believe this either? If Cyprus was unstable then the next best thing would be to incite a coup. For anything beyond that they would need an excuse, that fortunately they do not have.

If you have no substantial evidence about Cypriot being bribed by the US to betray their own country then how is one supposed to take seriously what Papadopoulos says and you repeat, Piratis?

For the interests of those that made the plan. With a "yes" and a "no" they win. With a "yes" and a "yes" they would win even more. As they say "Their game, their rules" how can they lose?
Voting "no" simply meant that we lost less than what we would lose by voting "yes".

What I cannot understand, Piratis, it why did Tassos Papadopoulos sent a letter to the UNSG asking him to reinitiate discussions on the Annan plan after this was first rejected by the Turkish side? Obviously he felt confident that they would reject it again and again, but this didn't happen as they (the turks) finally realised that they had been stupid already once and that this stupidity of theirs got us in the EU. So they were forced to talk, and this was the point where things got ugly for Papadopoulos who for his own reasons he did not even try to improve a UN plan that he didn't really want. The idea and only that this plan could have been accepted, caused only panic to Papadopoulos and this is why he went as far as calling over Denktash jr. to discuss ways to sabotage the referendum - a really stupid move imo.

Even the current status is better than this disguised partition offered to us. Therefore we have no choice other than voting 'no' and hope that something at least acceptable will come in the future"

And who will make this happen? Tassos Papadopoulos? How?

O.

[Bananiot]

Time works against us, there is no doubt about this but Piratis (and probably Papadopoulos and his rejectionist followers) thinks that an acceptable solution will come only when and if the balance of power changes in our favour (he has stated this on numerous occasions). Perhaps then we can go to war and achieve maximum benefits, why should we negotiate when we have the upper hand? Isn't this what we did prior to 1974?

Insted of biting the bait Chirac is throwing at us we should think about the long term interests of Cyprus and try to bond the accession aspirations of Turkey with a viable and agreed solution to the Cyprob but this can only work if we have strong international support which will come only if we shed the maximalist asks. This is possible if we explicitly state that we accept the A Plan with some changes that can be agreed by both parts. This will put Turkey on the spot and really test her intentions. This is the time to do this, rather than waiting for a nebulous change of the balance of power in the distant future that may never come.

What Papadopoulos has achieved is to turn the whole world against us and leave us in a rocking boat while at the same time he has deguiltified Turkey. He will eventually prove to be a bad influence for Cyprus, a tsunami that hit us at a most crucial instance and led Simitis to proclaim that "we allowed history to bypass us". I blame AKEL more than Papadopoulos because the latter at least is doing what he has always believed to be the correct thing to do. He is very consistent with himself. But AKEL?