Bananiot wrote:Do you realise GR that you are telling one Greek nationalist that another Greek is a nationalist? Hermes, Eroglu is no friend of mine but along with old Denktash he is the favourite friend of our nationalists because he is the reason for their existence. Without Eroglu they would be jumping off the Dover cliffs. You claim you know me but you ask ridiculous questions of the type "do you support universal principles?"
And yes, politics is the art of the feasible, and anyone that impulsively goes for the desirable, will perish. We have tried this in the past and this is where it has got us. Our only hope is to forge an alliance with the moderate-progressive forces within the TC community, and try to save whatever can be saved, under the circumstances. Both sides need to compromise and even if the solution does have plenty to be desired, we could hope that after living peacefully together for some decades, and have convinced each other that we can tolerate each other, we could later on think of a better arrangement that will be closer the European acquis.
If we do not do this we will face oblivion, every day that passes sees the consolidation of the Turkish presence in Cyprus and the number of settlers increases by the day. We need solution like fresh air, even if some aspects of it will not be palatable. This is the real patriotic stance, everything else is epea pteroenta (of which we had plenty from the Greek nationalists) and have led to catastrophy for Cyprus.
Bananiot,
The only problem with your reasoning with the above is, unless there is a settlement based on EU Principles, you are not going to get rid of Turkey or the settlers as you hope and wish to do, which is why Turkey was happy to have agreed on the 2004 Annan Plan, which meant that Turkey would have been able to exclusively control the the north through its puppet leaders in the north and have an influence over the whole island as a guarantor. The Cyprus issue is not just between the TC's and the GC's for them to try have a experimental settlement, by allowing few decades of a non EU Principles settlement just so for the sides to build trust before moving forward with full European acquis. Just how do you expect people to build trust with each other when one group is benefiting at the expense of the other and why would those who are benefiting at the expense of the others to give up on their privileges few decades later?
Maybe you want to use South Africa's past apartheid system as an example where in the end it became a more democratic system there, but surely this cannot be expected to be accepted by anyone in the 21st century as a starting point for any settlement anywhere in the world that would start with an apartheid system, let alone within the EU. Besides, we have already tried out that experimental settlement agreement with the 1960 agreements which was not based on EU Principles and it didn't work, so why try it again and get the same bad results? If we have a settlement based on EU Principles, then Turkey would not have any reason to remain in Cyprus, just because she won't be able to have any influence on the TCs or on Cyprus, just because Turkey herself does not have a system based on EU Principles. Turkey needs Cyprus to have a system where she can have direct and indirect influence in Cyprus and on the TCs. The European acquis denies Turkey in what she wants, which are the reasons as to why we should have it in Cyprus.