Cyprus-Forum.com

[Viewpoint]

You are avoiding the question.
Tell me where in the Anan Plan you saw those "many checks and balances to ensure precise clear cut bounderies, guidelines and guarantees " Remember these refer to the governing and law producing system.

But since you brought about other issues just tell me what check and balance was there for the eventuality that the EU would not accept the letter of the Co-Presidents to turn the Anan Plan into a Primary EU law. I could go on to thousands of points that there was absolutely no check and balance no answer to potential problems... thousands not just one.

I wouldnt do this normally but here you are:

"Union of Cyprus in whole or in part with any other country, any form of
partition or secession, and any other unilateral change to the state of
affairs established by the Foundation Agreement and this Constitution is
prohibited."

[Pyrpolizer]

You are avoiding the question.
Tell me where in the Anan Plan you saw those "many checks and balances to ensure precise clear cut bounderies, guidelines and guarantees " Remember these refer to the governing and law producing system.

But since you brought about other issues just tell me what check and balance was there for the eventuality that the EU would not accept the letter of the Co-Presidents to turn the Anan Plan into a Primary EU law. I could go on to thousands of points that there was absolutely no check and balance no answer to potential problems... thousands not just one.

I wouldnt do this normally but here you are:

"Union of Cyprus in whole or in part with any other country, any form of
partition or secession, and any other unilateral change to the state of
affairs established by the Foundation Agreement and this Constitution is
prohibited."

You haven't answered my question where is the check and balance in case the EU would refuse to make the Anan Plan primary Aquis..

The example you just provided , offers absolutely no answer as to what the balance would be in case the state of affairs would simply not work because of a million reasons e.g lack of money for relocations and re-housing, and for supporting all that huge government machine to name just one.

[Viewpoint]

You are avoiding the question.
Tell me where in the Anan Plan you saw those "many checks and balances to ensure precise clear cut bounderies, guidelines and guarantees " Remember these refer to the governing and law producing system.

But since you brought about other issues just tell me what check and balance was there for the eventuality that the EU would not accept the letter of the Co-Presidents to turn the Anan Plan into a Primary EU law. I could go on to thousands of points that there was absolutely no check and balance no answer to potential problems... thousands not just one.

I wouldnt do this normally but here you are:

"Union of Cyprus in whole or in part with any other country, any form of
partition or secession, and any other unilateral change to the state of
affairs established by the Foundation Agreement and this Constitution is
prohibited."

You haven't answered my question where is the check and balance in case the EU would refuse to make the Anan Plan primary Aquis..

The example you just provided , offers absolutely no answer as to what the balance would be in case the state of affairs would simply not work because of a million reasons e.g lack of money for relocations and re-housing, and for supporting all that huge government machine to name just one.

I get the feeling you have never even read the AP and want me to analyze it for you, which I do not have the time nor the inclination to do. The AP was a solution that was the only plan put before the peoples vote it was a compromise between taksim and enosis, although not perfect (basically it contains checks and balances which for example were the remaining armies, guarantees and even the UN & EU to oversee the transition) which can never be achieved due to the chasm between the two sides it was hope and a chance to move forward, do you have a solution today? are you one inch closer to a solution since the AP? do you have any hope that a solution can be found taking into consideration the differences between us as individuals let alone the two sides? You were told the AP was bad for you and followed like sheep, you were promised that entry into the EU would bring you a better deal, you still believe that you have done no wrong and that the TCs should accept minority rights in a unitary GC state...well I got news for you it aint gonna happen, we will never allow it. If 50 years of banging your head against a brick wall is not enough for you to understand this then you will never understand that TCs cannot be won over this way and without their support you will never find any solution.

But you have highlighted a very important point maybe the TCs were to compromising in lowering the level of checks and balances and thats why in any future negotaitions we should demand more stringent and detailed controls, which is what I have been saying all along, thank you for supporting me.

[Pyrpolizer]

My Gosh again....
There is absolutely no communication with you.
On a side note this Anan Plan rumination in this forum is really stupid. It's been 9 years it died and burried. If you wanted to discuss it you should do so in 2004. In fact you could of discuss it in 2005 when you joined the forum, instead of discussing about Eurovision like you did

Back to our "discussion" now.
a) You always keep on repeating that you want a solution that as you said will have

many checks and balances to ensure precise clear cut bounderies, guidelines and guarantees

I asked you whether the Anan Plan that you support so passionately really had all those many checks and balances.
You said yes, whereas the truth is the Anan Plan had absolutely no "balances" or solutions to possible problems. See the few cases I gave you above.
The fact is the Anan Plan was written on grounds of TOTAL AMBIGUITY with absolutely no answers to problems. What they called "constructive ambiguity" remember?

In a nutshell you are contradicting yourself. On one hand you say you want a system that will provide a hell lot of checks and balances for every eventuality and on the other you support passionately the Anan Plan that literally had NONE.

My conclusion is that you supported the Anan Plan (and still want it back) for totally different reasons, be it the ones Kikapu said 100s of times.

NB. Not only I have studied the 182 pages of Anan Plan in detail and spotted hundreds of contradictions and not possible implementations as well as the basic facts that the GCs would lose their properties, I have studied also some of the laws of it (the other 20,000) pages that the UN had them at their web page at http://www.cyprus-un-plan.org/ and very hastily removed them a month after the referendum.
In fact today you cannot find them ANYWHERE on the net, whereas the other 182 pages are still available.

[Viewpoint]

You are the one contradicting yourself, you asked me if the AP met my demand for checks and balances, then you go onto say why are you discussing it is dead and buried...why the hell did you raise the issue if you didnt want me to discuss it. You are the one with a mental block, I have stated that the AP was a push in the right direction, although not perfect it was an opportunity to break the dealock, have you had the same opportunity since? believe me you will never have one again. At least 9 years ago we took that bold step forward, what did you do?

Now we understand from our debate that the checks, balances and guarantees are so important and were very minimal in the AP which 9 years ago was sufficent for me but after 9 years of getting to know the GC mentality stronger guarantees and plenty more checks and balances are required in any new attempt at finding a solution.

[Pyrpolizer]

You are the one contradicting yourself, you asked me if the AP met my demand for checks and balances, then you go onto say why are you discussing it is dead and buried...why the hell did you raise the issue if you didnt want me to discuss it. You are the one with a mental block, I have stated that the AP was a push in the right direction, although not perfect it was an opportunity to break the dealock, have you had the same opportunity since? believe me you will never have one again. At least 9 years ago we took that bold step forward, what did you do?

Now we understand from our debate that the checks, balances and guarantees are so important and were very minimal in the AP which 9 years ago was sufficent for me but after 9 years of getting to know the GC mentality stronger guarantees and plenty more checks and balances are required in any new attempt at finding a solution.

Even mentioning the name "Kikapu" is enough for you to go nuts...

But thank you for admitting my point.
And thank you for admitting you wanted the Anan Plan for other reasons-most probably those that Kikapu says.

[Viewpoint]

You are the one contradicting yourself, you asked me if the AP met my demand for checks and balances, then you go onto say why are you discussing it is dead and buried...why the hell did you raise the issue if you didnt want me to discuss it. You are the one with a mental block, I have stated that the AP was a push in the right direction, although not perfect it was an opportunity to break the dealock, have you had the same opportunity since? believe me you will never have one again. At least 9 years ago we took that bold step forward, what did you do?

Now we understand from our debate that the checks, balances and guarantees are so important and were very minimal in the AP which 9 years ago was sufficent for me but after 9 years of getting to know the GC mentality stronger guarantees and plenty more checks and balances are required in any new attempt at finding a solution.

Even mentioning the name "Kikapu" is enough for you to go nuts...

Not really because his opinions for me carry no weight, if you want to follow him like the rest of the sheep on this forum you can but the above comment is no more than avoiding the real issues. So are we in agreement that more checks and balances and guarantees are vital in any new agreement because we trust one another even less than we did 9 years ago? or like Kikapoooo you want to get rid of the major checks and balances in the AP being the security guarantees?

[repulsewarrior]

...the gates are open, vp. they have been for a little while, and millions have crossed.

[Viewpoint]

...the gates are open, vp. they have been for a little while, and millions have crossed.

Your point being?

[boulio]

The annan plan version 3 was a good point for negotiations i believe,after that the plan went waywire with vast turkish demands included in versions 4 and 5