Cyprus-Forum.com

[Tony-4497]

It makes no difference who the President is - at the referendum it was proven beyond doubt that people have their own views on the Cyprus problem and do not follow "leaders".

In my opinion, GCs will never vote for a plan that involves complex power sharing arrangements (such as a BBF, Annan or otherwise), as this would be a recipe for disputes, fights and eventually disaster. No President can change this. Christofias (the most popular Cypriot) couldn't even convince 25% of his own supporters (who are the most "disciplined" voters) to follow his initial YES decision, that's why he changed it.

GCs may accept a plan that creates only 1 state (i.e. not a BBF) where everyone gets to go home etc. Even this is uncertain though, as many would not be prepared to take the chance of living in a mixed society. In any case, this is not on the table as it is unacceptable to TCs.

Accordingly, the only way a solution can be found is through the creation of 2 independent states with an 80:20 land split. This is the only way GC would be convinced to vote for a solution versus the status quo - i.e. land for sovereignty.. Otherwise GC would rather keep the status quo and happily veto Turkey from joining the EU to eternity.

This is the only deal that can work in Cyprus (i.e. Turks give back 17% of stolen land and in return receive a sovereign TC state and consent for Turkey's EU accession). Whoever says otherwise is dreaming or misleading others. Any fairly designed poll would show exactly this result, that's why no such poll has ever been conducted in Cyprus (other than the referendum, that is) - the true will of the GC people is being ignored, disguised and misrepresented by worthless and/or corrupt leaders and presidents.

If I had the time and inclination I would create a new party called "EIGHTY" with a clear, stated policy of accepting any solution that guarantees an independent, sovereign GC state on 80% of land and absolute safety - whilst rejecting anything else and blocking Turkey's EU accession process until it accepts and implements such a solution (or returns to the 1960 agreements). In such a case I would have a much better chance of being President than Christofias!

[sadik]

It makes no difference who the President is - at the referendum it was proven beyond doubt that people have their own views on the Cyprus problem and do not follow "leaders".

In my opinion, GCs will never vote for a plan that involves complex power sharing arrangements (such as a BBF, Annan or otherwise), as this would be a recipe for disputes, fights and eventually disaster. No President can change this. Christofias (the most popular Cypriot) couldn't even convince 25% of his own supporters (who are the most "disciplined" voters) to follow his initial YES decision, that's why he changed it.

GCs may accept a plan that creates only 1 state (i.e. not a BBF) where everyone gets to go home etc. Even this is uncertain though, as many would not be prepared to take the chance of living in a mixed society. In any case, this is not on the table as it is unacceptable to TCs.

Accordingly, the only way a solution can be found is through the creation of 2 independent states with an 80:20 land split. This is the only way GC would be convinced to vote for a solution versus the status quo - i.e. land for sovereignty.. Otherwise GC would rather keep the status quo and happily veto Turkey from joining the EU to eternity.

This is the only deal that can work in Cyprus (i.e. Turks give back 17% of stolen land and in return receive a sovereign TC state and consent for Turkey's EU accession). Whoever says otherwise is dreaming or misleading others. Any fairly designed poll would show exactly this result, that's why no such poll has ever been conducted in Cyprus (other than the referendum, that is) - the true will of the GC people is being ignored, disguised and misrepresented by worthless and/or corrupt leaders and presidents.

If I had the time and inclination I would create a new party called "EIGHTY" with a clear, stated policy of accepting any solution that guarantees an independent, sovereign GC state on 80% of land and absolute safety - whilst rejecting anything else and blocking Turkey's EU accession process until it accepts and implements such a solution (or returns to the 1960 agreements). In such a case I would have a much better chance of being President than Christofias!

Tony, here are some opinion poll conductud by M. Faiz and forum member Alexandros Lordos.
http://www.cypruspolls.org

According to these polls, most GCs are against partition and they, in principle, support a BBF. Do you think these surveys are not correct?

[cypezokyli]

piratis wrote

Quote:
and if you agree with dysi on the most important question , that is: the cyprus problem what devides you?

Everything else. Even in the Cyprus problem case the position of DISY is different than the one of AKEL.

AKEL supports unity (with some more compromises than DIKO-EDEK are willing to make).

hey piratis i dont really think we are referring to the same thing. i was not referring to akel position as a party. i was referring to the akel prominent members who voted yes even though their party told them to vote no. i believe that as a matter of principle (as it happened with a number of dysi members) if you disagree with your party on the cyprus problem then really...u need to change a party.

Tony-4497 wrote:

In my opinion, GCs will never vote for a plan that involves complex power sharing arrangements (such as a BBF, Annan or otherwise), as this would be a recipe for disputes, fights and eventually disaster. No President can change this. Christofias (the most popular Cypriot) couldn't even convince 25% of his own supporters (who are the most "disciplined" voters) to follow his initial YES decision, that's why he changed it.

see sadik thats why this idea about hard nos and soft nos would have been a good idea. then we wwouldnt have everyone interpreting the no in his one way.

tony, even though the partition idea is indeed rising in the gc community, i dont think your views represent the whole no vote.
plus u tend to ignore the power of propaganda. the polls on annan plans 1-3 didnt have 75% of the people against it. ofcource AP 1 with AP 5 are different, but u assuming that the BBF is unacceptable by the gc community goes a little bit too far. firstly BBF we accepted. our elected goverment. it is wrten in SC resolutions.

anyway...we can only speculate on how cypriots vote...but for sure we disagree. just out of curiosity,how do you see a cooperation between akel and dysi?

[Tony-4497]

According to these polls, most GCs are against partition and they, in principle, support a BBF. Do you think these surveys are not correct?

I think they are fundamentally flawed and misleading in the sense that the key questions asked could only lead to those results..

Most questions appeared to me to be irrelevant and designed to provide a basis for the (apparently pre-determined) conclusions..

The key question that should have been asked was not asked. This question should have forced the person to choose between the only 2 realistically feasible solutions that may be available to GCs. Those are:

1. An Annan-plan type solution - even a HUGELY improved version (which is unlikely) cannot be fundamentally different given that it will still be a BBF and provide for political equality i.e. sharing of power at all levels, complex decision making processes, stop being a sovereign, EU country and becoming a "community" which is only one of 2 equal partners in a such a country, with an equal say in how this country acts, having TurkishC presidents/leaders at the country level representing us, new flag and anthem, 30/70 land split, sharing of the wealth, having large concetrations of TC living in your town, having to listen to the hodjas praying, risk of intercommunal fighting etc etc

OR

2. A pure GC country as we have it today, where we are masters of our own destiny, have full safety and prosperity and no risk of disputes and fights over power sharing, represent ourselves in the world and the EU, AND re-gain 17% of land.. hence having ALL of Cyprus except an area of 20% where TCs can get on with their lives and live as good neighbours. This way almost all refugees go home under sovereign GC rule. In any case, per other polls, less than 10% of refugees would be prepared to go back under TC rule in a BBF! Essentially, this way everyone who wants to go back can do so, as those few Kyrenia people who would want to return to the TC state will be a tiny percentage of the (more concentrated) TC population, hence not a threat to the sovereign TC state.

I believe that 80-90% of GC would vote for (2). What do you think?

[sadik]

According to these polls, most GCs are against partition and they, in principle, support a BBF. Do you think these surveys are not correct?

I think they are fundamentally flawed and misleading in the sense that the key questions asked could only lead to those results..

Most questions appeared to me to be irrelevant and designed to provide a basis for the (apparently pre-determined) conclusions..

The key question that should have been asked was not asked. This question should have forced the person to choose between the only 2 realistically feasible solutions that may be available to GCs. Those are:

1. An Annan-plan type solution - even a HUGELY improved version (which is unlikely) cannot be fundamentally different given that it will still be a BBF and provide for political equality i.e. sharing of power at all levels, complex decision making processes, stop being a sovereign, EU country and becoming a "community" which is only one of 2 equal partners in a such a country, with an equal say in how this country acts, having TurkishC presidents/leaders at the country level representing us, new flag and anthem, 30/70 land split, sharing of the wealth, having large concetrations of TC living in your town, having to listen to the hodjas praying, risk of intercommunal fighting etc etc

OR

2. A pure GC country as we have it today, where we are masters of our own destiny, have full safety and prosperity and no risk of disputes and fights over power sharing, represent ourselves in the world and the EU, AND re-gain 17% of land.. hence having ALL of Cyprus except an area of 20% where TCs can get on with their lives and live as good neighbours. This way almost all refugees go home under sovereign GC rule. In any case, per other polls, less than 10% of refugees would be prepared to go back under TC rule in a BBF! Essentially, this way everyone who wants to go back can do so, as those few Kyrenia people who would want to return to the TC state will be a tiny percentage of the (more concentrated) TC population, hence not a threat to the sovereign TC state.

I believe that 80-90% of GC would vote for (2). What do you think?

Aren't these questions also designed to get the answer you want? You might as well add things like "would you like to live in an area dominated by the other community where they might rape and kill you and..."

Your assumption that the GCs can block Turkish membership to the EU under any circumstances is wrong. GCs can do this only if other big EU countries want this to be done, so this might eliminate the most important aspect of your plan.

Like in the case of unification, an agreement is also needed in the case of a seperation, otherwise nothing would change. And agreement is needed for the property issue, which we have not managed to make so far.

Nevertheless, if an agreement can be reached in main issues and if the seperate TC state is also going to be a member of the EU, then this plan might be accepted in a referandum by the TCs.

[Alexios]

I would say that anybody, including my friend Ttofis, mouhtar of Trahypedoula village would be better than Tassos:))))

[cypezokyli]

Aren't these questions also designed to get the answer you want? You might as well add things like "would you like to live in an area dominated by the other community where they might rape and kill you and..."

exactly

Your assumption that the GCs can block Turkish membership to the EU under any circumstances is wrong. GCs can do this only if other big EU countries want this to be done, so this might eliminate the most important aspect of your plan.

exactly.

tony-4497 u still didnt explain what makes you so sure of the upcoming bloodshed? could you be more specific?
moreover u r really sure concering on people having constant beliefs and not having beliefs being created. once again look at the thread concerning drousiotis report on unops and perhaps u will understand...

[Maria28]

DISY supports what has been agreed between the junta of Athens and Turkey back in the 70s which is to split Cyprus into 2 parts.

Don't you think you are exaggerating Mr. Moderator?

[Tony-4497]

sadik, cypez

Aren't these questions also designed to get the answer you want?

The very fundamental difference is that I set out the REAL options that are available and not some dreamt up fantasies about 1-unitary state or gereral stuff about federations. The concept of federation can vary from 1 country with a little bit of autonomy/ self-governance for one region to a BBF providing political equality - which is the only thing available and is much closer to confederation than the federation GCs had in mind.

In addition, ignoring the land sharing aspect in those poll questions is quite outrageous. It is an established principle that in such cases there is a trade off known as "land for sovereignty". Accordingly, a 2-state solution would gain a crucial advantage over a BBF if it meant getting an additional 10% of land. This has huge implications at all levels, including the number of refugees who can return.

Your assumption that the GCs can block Turkish membership to the EU under any circumstances is wrong.

You are joking, right??! Wake up and smell the coffee boys. If you think for one second that any GC president would allow Turkey to enter the EU before ending the occupation, you are dreaming. That would be the worst kind of national treason - as it would remove the one and only tool that Cyprus has in trying to stop the occupation. The only reason Turkey has been allowed to start the process was to make this tool even more powerful.

Nevertheless, if an agreement can be reached in main issues and if the seperate TC state is also going to be a member of the EU, then this plan might be accepted in a referandum by the TCs.

Agreed - and I don't think there will be any main issues, just security.

tony-4497 u still didnt explain what makes you so sure of the upcoming bloodshed?

I never said I am sure of a bloodshed. I am actually quite objective. What I said is that there is a RISK of bloodshed. I base this view on historical and current data and facts/ risk factors i.e. the ONLY time we tried this before it ended in bloodshed, the perceived unfairness inherent in any BBF providing political equality (i.e. 82%=18%), the cultural, language and religious differences, the hatred amongst a significant portion of the population in both communities and the fact that it only takes a few fanatics to start the violence, and the fact that this has NEVER worked anywhere in the world (i.e. Muslims & Christians sharing power - e.g. former Yugoslavia).

You may convince yourself that this RISK is very low. In my view however most GC will NOT take this risk, EVEN if they agree with you that it is low, simply because of the IMPACT of what will happen IF it turns ugly.
As I have said before, GC are not prepared to play russian rulette with their safety, prosperity and future in the naive hope that it MAY work out and despite all indications to the contrary.

[cypezokyli]

You are joking, right??! Wake up and smell the coffee boys. If you think for one second that any GC president would allow Turkey to enter the EU before ending the occupation, you are dreaming. That would be the worst kind of national treason - as it would remove the one and only tool that Cyprus has in trying to stop the occupation. The only reason Turkey has been allowed to start the process was to make this tool even more powerful.

we cannot alone stop turkeys accession. we need support from others. and if others are going to support us they ll do it just for their own reasons. if turkey realises that she doesnt come in the EU for other reasons than the cyprus problem...then why would they give in?

Quote:
tony-4497 u still didnt explain what makes you so sure of the upcoming bloodshed?


I never said I am sure of a bloodshed. I am actually quite objective. What I said is that there is a RISK of bloodshed. I base this view on historical and current data and facts/ risk factors i.e. the ONLY time we tried this before it ended in bloodshed, the perceived unfairness inherent in any BBF providing political equality (i.e. 82%=18%), the cultural, language and religious differences, the hatred amongst a significant portion of the population in both communities and the fact that it only takes a few fanatics to start the violence, and the fact that this has NEVER worked anywhere in the world (i.e. Muslims & Christians sharing power - e.g. former Yugoslavia).

You may convince yourself that this RISK is very low. In my view however most GC will NOT take this risk, EVEN if they agree with you that it is low, simply because of the IMPACT of what will happen IF it turns ugly.
As I have said before, GC are not prepared to play russian rulette with their safety, prosperity and future in the naive hope that it MAY work out and despite all indications to the contrary.

the risk could be high or low. what i argue is that the risk lies in our hands and not the hands of some fanatics.
as i tried to explain in you in another thread tony :
- the muslim -christian divide is not a characteristic of the cyprus problem. so mentioning muslim -chrstian examples dont really apply in our case. actually a i would say, that the same way we dont fast before xmass and easter but still we eat with all our appettite on those religious days...that the same what they do
the language barrier is only a barrier if u choose to see it like that. you can also see it as a challange. we make turkish the first foreign language in our schools, and so do they with greek, and after a generation no language "barrier" anymore. as simple as that.
the cultural difference is not great. actually we have many things in common. and as soon the language "barrier" is overcommed then it is quite easy.

the "it only takes a few fanatics" and "we tried that before" as i told you before 1963 was a complete different story.
fanatics dont just appear...they are created. plus one is not just a fanatic, it takes a whole situation for sth to turn into sth stupid. let me give a current example from our side fanatics, that is APOEL vs AEL fanatics. it doesnt happen that everytime they meet they fight. and it is not because the police was succesful all other times. it is because this time there was a whole climate created that lead to all that stupidity. the press and the officials helped into the creation of that climate. the same way that we had gc and tc leadrship creating a war like climate that they were not able to control in the 1960s. thats why i refer to risk of bloodshed depending on leaders and not on fanatics.
therefore, i dont think that the risk is low or high. i think it depends on our actions.

(where are these fanatics the last 2 years since the borders opened?)