Cyprus-Forum.com

[Bananiot]

bg_turk wrote

I want to ask TCs who voted for the plan, to explain what was the main reason behind their positive vote.

Why do you not just shut it, Piratis, and show some respect to what the writer of the topic asked in the first place. We know your views and repeating them time and time again is frustrating for all of us.

[Viewpoint]

what you constitute as unity may not necessarily conform to what I or others believe it entails

How can unity entail almost exclusively division? What you claim is a paradox. If your aim was unity you wouldn't ask for a separate confederal state, a racist separation based on peoples race, separate elections, separate flag, separate anthem etc. How can all these 'separate' join up to make what you call "united"??? There was almost nothing united about it.

So don't tell us that the reason that you voted "yes" was unity. The reason was the exact opposite: legalization of division.

Calm down, you seem very annoyed we dont even appear to have the right to have our own version of united, well hey reality check here we can think what we want.

Were we to be under a federal roof?
Were we to have one Cypriot identity?
One flag for a united Cyprus?
One external voice?
One currency?
many things would have been uniform but hey that may not mean unity to the degree that you desire or demand buts its unity my friend to many. More unity than we have ever had and are likely to have in the near future.

[Kifeas]

The Turkish Cypriots were also ready to vote yes for the first Annan plan as well.

Garbitch, some of Annan's plans were worst than others, but all of them were very biased against GCs.
What TCs had before the referendum was 36% illegally occupied part of Cyprus and an unrecognized pseudo state. (which among other things had as an effect the economic isolation etc).

What they would get the day after the referendum if both sides had voted yes, was a separate legal and recognized state in a weak confederation with a GC state. Not only that, they would be EU citizens, and they would get huge financial support in order to bring them to RoC standards.
All that by giving up 7% of the ground that they didn't own in the first place.

It is like somebody that was given 1 million dollars of stolen money but he can not use them as he wishes. Then they offer to him to give back a small part of these money and keep the rest legally. Thats a hell of a deal for him, don't you think?

But we, the people that were robed from our land and rights, want most of them back, not just a tiny part just to close the CYprus problem because it suits some others this way.

Actually the first two versions of the a-plan, with some improvements on the issue of property reinstatements /compensations and some minor improvements on the issue of functionality, they could have been easily acceptable by the majority of the GCs.

People who like to talk about the philosophy of the plan must know that there were some fundamental changes in this philosophy, between the first 3 versions and the last 2 versions, and these were carried out by Annan and the UN, upon pressure from the Turkish side.

This about the philosophy of the plan, which some of our politicians keep talking about and which they say we shouldn't attempt to change. My answer to them is this. Annan himself and his grew already have changed the philosophy of his plan during the process. Which version's philosophy we should not try and change, the 1-3 versions or the last ones?

[garbitsch]

I do not really find it feasable for you to talk on behalf of Turkish Cypriot community, and you are really diverting the main topic.

I don't talk on the TCs behalf. I am just stating the obvious. Do you really think anybody would believe that TCs voted "yes" because they wanted unity? The only unity that was a factor for them was the one with the EU, not Greek Cypriots.

Piratis, please do not tell me that the Greek Cypriots have the aim to unify with Turkish Cypriots. They just want to kick the settlers and the army out and turn back to their homes or get compensation. BUT I have observed quite a big majority of Turkish Cypriot youth wanting to live with Greek Cypriots. Your lack of vision comes from your stubborness of not visiting North and trying to know Turkish Cypriots better. I am not saying 65% had the aim to unify with Greek Cypriots, but at least 50% had that aim. Do you know how many incidents between Turkish Cypriot youth and the Turkish students occured during the rallies? Did you know that a Turkish Cypriot was holding the flag of RoC in a rally by YES supporters? Please do not show Turkish Cypriots opportunistic and insult them. With that attitude you play on my nerves and make me say things that I do not want to say. Yes, as Bananiot said, please zip your mouth just for once and let the Turkish Cypriots talk about themselves.

[Piratis]

They just want to kick the settlers and the army out and turn back to their homes or get compensation.

Yes, and their human rights also, anything wrong with that? However at the same time they don't mind living together with TCs.

I am not saying 65% had the aim to unify with Greek Cypriots, but at least 50% had that aim.

If the majority of TCs want to unify with GCs, then how comes the result of the negotiations was the Annan partition plan? Didn't you demand a separate state build on land stolen from GCs, separate flag and anthem, separation of people based on their race etc? If TCs want unity, then how did all these appear in the plan??? Who wanted them?

Were we to be under a federal roof?

No. In federations people are free to become residents of any state of their country they like. Annan plan was a loose confederation.

Were we to have one Cypriot identity?

We have an EU identity. Does this make Cyprus the same one country as France?

One flag for a united Cyprus?

Just like one flag for EU, while at the same time each country has its own flag. Your "union" with us would not be any more union than we have with Latvia.

One external voice?

Which would be the result of oppressing the democratic rights of GCs by offering to the 18% TC minority a 50% power.

One currency?

Ok. That would be one. Our taxes would be one also. We would have to pay taxes to feed your settlers.

In general it was a loose confederation. Not only TCs would get a separate mainly independent country, they would get only as much union with us as it would be needed to be able to control the whole Cyprus with their 50% power and have the money flowing from south to north. In return they would give to us only a tiny part of what was stolen from us in 74!!

[Piratis]

Why do you not just shut it, Piratis, and show some respect to what the writer of the topic asked in the first place. We know your views and repeating them time and time again is frustrating for all of us.

Oh, ok. Sorry for expressing my opinion.
TCs after 30 years of occupation and trying of getting their "TRNC" recognized remembered "unity" and this has nothing to do with EU, nothing to do with Turkish EU accession, nothing to do with the fact that what was offered to them was 95% of their partition dream. OK

[garbitsch]

Why do you not just shut it, Piratis, and show some respect to what the writer of the topic asked in the first place. We know your views and repeating them time and time again is frustrating for all of us.

Oh, ok. Sorry for expressing my opinion.
TCs after 30 years of occupation and trying of getting their "TRNC" recognized remembered "unity" and this has nothing to do with EU, nothing to do with Turkish EU accession, nothing to do with the fact that what was offered to them was 95% of their partition dream. OK

Yes it has nothing to do with all of those you've counted.

[cypezokyli]

kifeas wrote:

Actually the first two versions of the a-plan, with some improvements on the issue of property reinstatements /compensations and some minor improvements on the issue of functionality, they could have been easily acceptable by the majority of the GCs.

People who like to talk about the philosophy of the plan must know that there were some fundamental changes in this philosophy, between the first 3 versions and the last 2 versions, and these were carried out by Annan and the UN, upon pressure from the Turkish side.

This about the philosophy of the plan, which some of our politicians keep talking about and which they say we shouldn't attempt to change. My answer to them is this. Annan himself and his grew already have changed the philosophy of his plan during the process. Which version's philosophy we should not try and change, the 1-3 versions or the last ones?

actually i was wondering quite a while on this one kifeas.
i am not going to discuss the bias of the plans.
but just from negotiating, and acceptance-from-both-sites perspective i guess the UN really messed it up from aplan 4.
before they go to switzerland it was most probable that the tc would have voted yes, while the gcs had still some concerns.
instead they came up with aplan number 4 which was potraied as a disaster in the south and as ala-turka in the north. both the press and the politicians felt like that.
it doesnt really matter if it was indeed so much in favor of tcs. the fact is that they pushed the gc public opinion to over 90% OXI.
i dont like conspiracy theories. but i think that aplan 4 was a stupid move... propaganda wise.
at that point it was the gcs who needed to get an idea of victory, and they didnt give it.

the actual provisions also got worse, but my point refers mostly on the public opinion. and they didnt claculate at all the gc public opinion