Cyprus-Forum.com

[supporttheunderdog]

see http://www.makarios.eu/cgibin/hweb?-A=1584&-V=english
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1129&dat=19740713&id=fWQwAAAAIBAJ&sjid=YW0DAAAAIBAJ&pg=7190,2048965

here also isn extract from Big Mak's speech to the UN on 19/7/74
quote
I am obliged to say that the policy of the military regime in Greece towards Cyprus, and particularly towards the Greek Cypriots, has been insincere. I wish to stress that it was a policy of duplicity.

For some time talks were going on between the Greek and Turkish Cypriots in search of a peaceful solution to the Cyprus problem, which on many occasions has occupied the time of the Security Council and the General Assembly of the United Nations. The representative of the Secretary General and two constitutional experts from Greece and Turkey have been attending the talks. The Security Council has repeatedly renewed, twice yearly, the mandate of the peace-keeping force in Cyprus, expressing every time hope for a speedy solution of the problem.

It cannot be said that up to now the progress of the talks has been satisfactory. But how could there be any progress in the talks while the policy on Cyprus of the regime in Athens has been double-faced? It was agreed by all the parties concerned that the talks were taking place on the basis of independence. The regime of Athens also agreed to that, and time and again the Greek Ministry of Foreign Affairs declared that the position of Greece on this issue was clear. If that were the case, why had the military regime of Greece created and supported the terrorist organisation 'EOKA B', whose purpose was stated to be the union of Cyprus with Greece and whose members called themselves 'unionists'?

Inside the camps of the National Guard, the Greek officers continually charged that while Enosis was feasible its realisation was undermined by me. When reminded that Greece had made its position clear on this and that it supported independence, their reply was that no attention should be given to the words of diplomats. Under such circumstances how was it possible for the talks to arrive at a positive result? The double-faced policy of the Greek regime was one of the main obstacles to the progress of the talks.
unquote

Sadly there are still people who think Enosis is desireable, let alone achieveable. Fools!

[Piratis]

see http://www.makarios.eu/cgibin/hweb?-A=1584&-V=english
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1129&dat=19740713&id=fWQwAAAAIBAJ&sjid=YW0DAAAAIBAJ&pg=7190,2048965

here also isn extract from Big Mak's speech to the UN on 19/7/74
quote
I am obliged to say that the policy of the military regime in Greece towards Cyprus, and particularly towards the Greek Cypriots, has been insincere. I wish to stress that it was a policy of duplicity.

For some time talks were going on between the Greek and Turkish Cypriots in search of a peaceful solution to the Cyprus problem, which on many occasions has occupied the time of the Security Council and the General Assembly of the United Nations. The representative of the Secretary General and two constitutional experts from Greece and Turkey have been attending the talks. The Security Council has repeatedly renewed, twice yearly, the mandate of the peace-keeping force in Cyprus, expressing every time hope for a speedy solution of the problem.

It cannot be said that up to now the progress of the talks has been satisfactory. But how could there be any progress in the talks while the policy on Cyprus of the regime in Athens has been double-faced? It was agreed by all the parties concerned that the talks were taking place on the basis of independence. The regime of Athens also agreed to that, and time and again the Greek Ministry of Foreign Affairs declared that the position of Greece on this issue was clear. If that were the case, why had the military regime of Greece created and supported the terrorist organisation 'EOKA B', whose purpose was stated to be the union of Cyprus with Greece and whose members called themselves 'unionists'?

Inside the camps of the National Guard, the Greek officers continually charged that while Enosis was feasible its realisation was undermined by me. When reminded that Greece had made its position clear on this and that it supported independence, their reply was that no attention should be given to the words of diplomats. Under such circumstances how was it possible for the talks to arrive at a positive result? The double-faced policy of the Greek regime was one of the main obstacles to the progress of the talks.
unquote

Sadly there are still people who think Enosis is desireable, let alone achieveable. Fools!

Apart from a small minority, nobody wants to be under a military regime, neither Cypriots nor any other Greek. So if the question is "Did Cypriots want to be ruled by the Athens junta?", the answer would obviously be no.

Beyond that, Cypriots own their own island and they have the right to do what they want with it. What is desirable in this regard should also be achievable. If it is not achievable that is due to some fascist imperialists who deny to the Cypriot people their freedom. We will continue to fight those fascist imperialists until the day they have no say on anything that goes on in our own island.

[Get Real!]

Has anyone ever seen a single statement by Makarios to that effect?

In fact has the Political parties ever given up the idea. Just a single statement by any of the political leaders will do. I gather Akel has denounced enosis in the 90s. Is this correct?

Although it's a stupid question, should a Taksim supporter be asking it?

[Lordo]

Where did I say I am a taksim supporter. I just wanted to hear just once if Makarios ever said, actually chaps you knows theis enosis palarva was is not right. I no longer agree with it.

It is a very important aspect of the Cyprus Problem.

In fact as far as I am aware only Akel ever said supporting enosis was bad idea so far.

[Sotos]

Where did I say I am a taksim supporter. I just wanted to hear just once if Makarios ever said, actually chaps you knows theis enosis palarva was is not right. I no longer agree with it.

It is a very important aspect of the Cyprus Problem.

In fact as far as I am aware only Akel ever said supporting enosis was bad idea so far.

What was a bad idea is Turks coming Greece and Greek islands such as Cyprus where they do not belong. You should have stayed in Central Asia and we would have no problems. We accepted not to have enosis because we were blackmailed not because it was a bad idea!

[Get Real!]

Where did I say I am a taksim supporter.

Good! Then I’m sure you’ll be more than happy to denounce Taksim by denouncing the “TRNC” right here on this forum!

Let’s hear it…

[repulsewarrior]

...it would help Lordo, if you acknowledge your commitment, because if you support the aims of "Turks", you will not be treated to the Goodwill you seek, either by Turks, Greeks, and the "Greeks" who are also members of this debate.

[Lordo]

My commitment is to the Cypriot people to live under a united island in a united country. How ever that does not mean a single zone. There are too many people on both sides who do not wish to live in one zone. Some have a lot of economic and political power to take the single zone back to 1963.

I see no problem with the Cypriots mvong into a single zone government at some point in the future when all the Cypriots are ready. However force it now and we will end up with two states.

As to TRNC it is irrelevent today. The talks and what they would lead to is far more important.

I do not seek the help or good will from anybody xcept to respect the political decision of both communities. Cypriots should be good at maths. When you have fractions to add up we have to use the lowest common denominator. It applies equally here. You cannot force the TCs to do anything against their will. They have shown their good intensions in 2004 and all they got was a slap in the face. They may not be so generous next time.

[supporttheunderdog]

beyond it would not surprise me if one of the PIGS did not leave first, or rather is invited to leave as the rest of Europe gets fed up with the repeated bail-outs,

There are two things wrong with this statement. Firstly, there is no legal mechanism by which a member of the EU can be "invited" to leave the EU. Secondly, Greece’s eurozone partners are lending this money, not gifting it.

In other words, those contributing to the "bail-outs" are making a profit on their investment and the majority of their money is being returned to European banks that have in the past bought Greek bonds. These banks are mainly German and French Banks which would collapse without these "bail-outs" because they lent recklessly and are technically insolvent as a result.

See the following
http://www.incyprus.com.cy/en-gb/Cyprus/4170/24731/euro-exit-warning
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/8990974/Greece-out-of-euro-if-bail-out-fails.html

I suspect that if anything the French and German Governments will let Greece go to the wall but bail out their banks. I am, also sure a way can be found to ease someone out of the EU, evenn if new laws have to be created.

I think this shows how bad Enosis would have been for Cyprus: indeed apart from some vague arguements about security no one has yet demonstrated in what way Enosis would have benefited the averge Cypriot Citizen: I would go so far as to say that it was the call for Enosis and attampts to implement it that undermined the security of Cyprus since it ultimately lead to the events of 1963/74 and in particular to the Invasion on 1974, where the Greeks, having invaded and provoked the Turkish Invasion then effectively abandoned Cyprus to theTurkish invaders.

I stand by my thesis that Enosis would have turned Cyprus into an economic backwater.

[Bananiot]

Well, any response to Lordo's last comment?