Cyprus-Forum.com

[Maximus]

Eroglu , Denktash, Soysal are all from the same school Nikitas.
But.... as we know he has already been sided by the negotiator.

I really can't comment on anything without seeing the final solution, which of course may never come.
All want to say is that any solution would contain risks for both sides.
If we don't want to take risks we should better go for agreed partition.

Will Turkey move the "TRNC" to Anatolia though?

[Lordo]

Eroglu , Denktash, Soysal are all from the same school Nikitas.
But.... as we know he has already been sided by the negotiator.

I really can't comment on anything without seeing the final solution, which of course may never come.
All want to say is that any solution would contain risks for both sides.
If we don't want to take risks we should better go for agreed partition.

Will Turkey move the "TRNC" to Anatolia though?

you mean you gave up the megalo idea and no longer want anatolia.

[Nikitas]

"Final solution" sounds ominous!

Maybe, and it is a remote probability, the discovery of hydrocarbons will kindle a more proactive independent streak in the TCs, and they will actively seek a sincere role in the projected BBF just to get the Turks off their backs. On the other hand there is the probability that the BBF will be just an interim stage in Turkey's plans to dominate the island and when the opportunity is presented to complete the process it started in the early 50s.

Not preparing for either eventuality is unforgivable recklessness. Which is one, not the only, but one of the reasons why territory should be the primary consideration, along with a clear, internationally recognised declaration, that the TCs relinquish ALL claims to any part of the island outside their "constituent" state or whatever else they will call it. When this is done they can in the future go their own way without sinking the rest of the island into chaos.

There is evidence to support the above.

After 70 years clamouring for partition we saw the cynical assertion that natural resources in the south belong "equally" to both communities. It is a short step from there to assert that all resources, including sectors that are totally man made in the south, should be "divied" ie taxed and the benefits shared "equally". When their contribution is raised then we hear of the need for a "viable state", or the ubiquitous "special circumstances" and the problem of being a minority which prohibits such equal distribution of their resources.

There is a hell of a difference between "equally" and "equitably". A difference invariably forgotten by Turkey. And the error is not in the translation.