Cyprus-Forum.com

[Pyrpolizer]

Rain water,
forests,
Gold mines,
copper mines,
Fishery,
Game and fauna,
and




Euro mines

[zan]

Rain water,
forests,
Gold mines,
copper mines,
Fishery,
Game and fauna,
and




Euro mines

Have we changed positions here Pyro. I started, all those years ago, by saying that two separate states are better because these problems exist and are insurmountable. The talks are doing their best to prove me wrong and I am more than happy for them to do that. Are YOU now saying the same?

[DT.]

Personally I don't see the difference whether you develop varosha or not. It'll still not be under govt control. As for finding oil or gas in the north of the island then we have every right to be up in arms. You see despite all our shortcomings we've never waivered from the one island mantra. You on the other hand have been claiming a separate state in the north and a hand on assets in the south....wtf!

I personally don't think that's true DT and the 16 or so high level agreements are testament to that. There was of course Taksim over ENOSIS and the declaration of the TRNC when all else failed but again that was then and this is now. It is also not clear because of this confusion over federal/confederal goalposts. Won't varosha be under government control as a federal/confederal government? Again, I suppose how loose it's going to be but by not allowing the hydrocarbons into the mix we can only look at a loose system. We can't have it all ways!!!

There's no issue with sharing all the islands natural resources after a solution. Why do we need consent BEFORE a solution?

I'm sorry I really don't get it? Are you going to stop all development on land till we agree on a solution? Are you freezing all GC land sales?

[zan]

Personally I don't see the difference whether you develop varosha or not. It'll still not be under govt control. As for finding oil or gas in the north of the island then we have every right to be up in arms. You see despite all our shortcomings we've never waivered from the one island mantra. You on the other hand have been claiming a separate state in the north and a hand on assets in the south....wtf!

I personally don't think that's true DT and the 16 or so high level agreements are testament to that. There was of course Taksim over ENOSIS and the declaration of the TRNC when all else failed but again that was then and this is now. It is also not clear because of this confusion over federal/confederal goalposts. Won't varosha be under government control as a federal/confederal government? Again, I suppose how loose it's going to be but by not allowing the hydrocarbons into the mix we can only look at a loose system. We can't have it all ways!!!

There's no issue with sharing all the islands natural resources after a solution. Why do we need consent BEFORE a solution?

I'm sorry I really don't get it? Are you going to stop all development on land till we agree on a solution? Are you freezing all GC land sales?

I am in agreement. There is a but though.......and I think you know it's coming......the "RoC" stop everything too. No more anything. I realise that cannot happen. The whole island cannot simply come to a standstill so there is another option, the " North" is allowed to function as the state it is to become. If the talks are that serious then why not? As I said DT. We cannot have it always. To me, there is still only one way as far as property is concerned and that's compensation. For your land and mine. This I believe is the trickiest part of the talks and we are going to have to commit to it. IMHO.

[Nikitas]

The criticism over territory shows the writer is incapable of thinking properly. The Annan plan contained a demarcation line that is longer, possibly double in length, than the present line, forming loops and twists which would make it impossible to police. It also let the eastern SBA area cut the GC sector in two. This is a nonsense territorial arrangement and naturally it should be re-examined and settled rationally.

There is also a new factor here, the growing importance of new territory, the EEZ, which has to be included in the talks. The settlers of Morphou can squawk all they want, the negotiator has to weigh the importance of some fields and orchards against the benefits from the EEZ. But Cypriots, (and Cypriot journalists in particular, judging from the article), despite their islander status are confirmed land lubbers who are afraid of the sea.

[zan]

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/if-it- ... sCatID=425

There cannot be anyone in northern Cyprus who does not demand a settlement. Settlement ideas might differ, but the status quo cannot be acceptable to anyone. Yet, there are some confused minds who see surrender to Greek Cypriots or becoming a part of Turkey as some sort of a resolution. No one should look for bad intentions behind such outbursts; they are just products of frustration produced by
the status quo.

The local election fewer in northern Cyprus has long turned into a presidential campaign, yet there are months before next February’s election with no candidates around. The left spectrum has started claiming Greek Cypriots stepped back from the “rotation of presidency” convergence of the Mehmet Ali Talat-Demetris Christofias period because incumbent President Derviş Eroğlu retracted from the “cross voting” that was also agreed upon. Of course, cross voting – under which Turkish Cypriots would have a 20 percent bearing effect on the Greek presidential vote and vice versa – was an issue in 2010, but it was a part of a package rejected by Greek Cypriots and thus went down the drain. While rotation of presidency was a principle agreed on in exchange for Talat agreeing to Christofias’ demand of “one state, one nationality and one sovereign.” Yet, it was because of the strong allergy of the Turkish Cypriot people to cross voting that Talat lost the presidential vote to Eroğlu.

Now, rehashing those old discussions with a claim that Anastasiades gave up rotation of presidency because Eroğlu rejected cross voting, sorry to say, is a big lie that cannot help any presidential ambition.

For some time, just because he was the leader of the sole Greek Cypriot party that supported the Annan Plan in 2004, everyone hoped with Anastasiades’ election, there would be a strong prospect of resolving the Cyprus problem. Yet, hiding behind the economic crisis he inherited from Christofias, Anastasiades evaded talks for more than nine months and when he agreed to return to the table, it took months to negotiate a joint statement.

The recent reception of EU ambassadors by Anastasiades has indeed helped decode him once again. What did he say to the EU ambassadors? In a flouting manner, he asked the envoys to tell their capitals they should stop telling Turkish Cypriots that the EU would accept whatever deal the two sides reach on the island. He said he would not agree to permanent derogations and Turkish Cypriots should be clearly told any deal must conform to the acquis communitaire. Enough? No, he further stressed in that meeting that like in many European countries, there was a majority and a minority in Cyprus and a deal should reflect that reality. Oh la la… Can you see the mindset? Indeed that statement is the summary of the Cyprus problem. The mentality that has always believed “the best Turk is a dead Turk” could not ever agree to give Turkish Cypriots more than minority rights. That was the problem in 1963.

That is the problem today. This is the “democrat, pro-settlement” Anastasiades of 2004… Obviously, this is an example of how power changes people.

However, as Norway’s PRIO agency revealed last week, a resolution to the Cyprus problem could bring peace and vast economic benefits to the two peoples, and beyond. After this week’s meeting with his Greek Cypriot counterpart Andreas Mavroyannis, Turkish Cypriot negotiator Kudret Özersay was rather pessimistic, yet trying to preserve his hope: “With this Greek Cypriot mentality and approach, we will have delays in resolving the Cyprus problem…”

Was there a schedule? What delay? Greek Cypriots are not interested at all in a Cyprus resolution; they are just stalling Turkish Cypriots and mocking the world, waiting for a frustrated Turkish Cypriot people surrender to their hegemony. They don’t want to see that with such attitudes they are just pushing for either a two-state resolution, or the north being swallowed by its affectionate “Motherland.”
June/16/2014

[Nikitas]

Going from a reaffirmation of majority rule, ON SOME POINTS, to asserting that this is tantamount to belief in dead Turks etc is total bullshit.

There is not ONE federal state in the world where the democratic principle of one man one vote has been permanently bypassed or excluded from its basic charter. The principle of equality between the federal states is universal, stretching that to the extent that it results in the minority ruling the majority is nonsense.

The best known federal states are the USA, Canada, Australia, Germany, Switzerland, Russia, where in any of those is there a rotating presidency or similar veto powers as those demanded in Cyprus? Nowhere. And several of them have civil wars in their past so the conflict bit is not exclusively Cypriot as some like to pretend inorder to differentiate Cyprus from the rest of the world.

In the EU itself, the Commission is numerically represented by state population, as are the seats in the EU parliament. What Anastassiadis was telling the EU ambassadors is that a similar system should apply in Cyprus.

Taking the implied principle that communities are equal regardless of their numbers should be put to an objective test. How many TCs would like a rotating presidency among ALL communities in Cyprus. I really want to see their reaction to having an Armenian president they did not elect for a year or so, followed by a Maronite, then a Latin and finally a Roma.

Worth noting here that all the derogatory names for the Roma in Cyprus are Turkish words, makes you wonder why.

[zan]

Going from a reaffirmation of majority rule, ON SOME POINTS, to asserting that this is tantamount to belief in dead Turks etc is total bullshit.

There is not ONE federal state in the world where the democratic principle of one man one vote has been permanently bypassed or excluded from its basic charter. The principle of equality between the federal states is universal, stretching that to the extent that it results in the minority ruling the majority is nonsense.

The best known federal states are the USA, Canada, Australia, Germany, Switzerland, Russia, where in any of those is there a rotating presidency or similar veto powers as those demanded in Cyprus? Nowhere. And several of them have civil wars in their past so the conflict bit is not exclusively Cypriot as some like to pretend inorder to differentiate Cyprus from the rest of the world.

In the EU itself, the Commission is numerically represented by state population, as are the seats in the EU parliament. What Anastassiadis was telling the EU ambassadors is that a similar system should apply in Cyprus.

Taking the implied principle that communities are equal regardless of their numbers should be put to an objective test. How many TCs would like a rotating presidency among ALL communities in Cyprus. I really want to see their reaction to having an Armenian president they did not elect for a year or so, followed by a Maronite, then a Latin and finally a Roma.

Worth noting here that all the derogatory names for the Roma in Cyprus are Turkish words, makes you wonder why.

I really don't understand how you can condemn us by saying we would not like a rotating presidency of ALL communities in Cyprus when most of your post consists of saying exactly that YOU do not like it If those communities want to throw their hats into the mix then let them do it but don't use them as your cannon fodder The GCs would be the first to object and it would become a dangerous place for them.

[Oceanside50]

A rotating presidency is stupid. Imagine 100 years ago the negroes of America demanding a negroe as president every other election. The only reason the Tc leaders are demanding a rotating presidency is to weaken the office of presidency and perpetuate a weak central government, because the position of president would be a joke.

[zan]

A rotating presidency is stupid. Imagine 100 years ago the negroes of America demanding a negroe as president every other election. The only reason the Tc leaders are demanding a rotating presidency is to weaken the office of presidency and perpetuate a weak central government, because the position of president would be a joke.

What a silly example If the "Negros" had been allowed a rotating presidency then they might not have suffered another 100 years of oppression and greater trust would have developed. The celebration of the first black president would not have been needed and the disappointment would not of followed after yet another president falls into the trap of big business.