Cyprus-Forum.com

[Lordo]

Erol,

You keep harping about the Annan plan, but do not ask yourself why the GCs rejected it with such clear majority.

The plan gave the TCs all they wanted immediately, but put the GC "benefits" on a long time scale, and at the discretion of Turkey. The GCs, justifiably or not, mistrust Turkey. The military annexes to the plan, those details that regulated the armed forces on both sides in the interim periods were revealing: they gave Turkey a crushing firepower advantage. Why did the Turks insist on this? What was it the led them to ask and get such a military advantage during the time that supposedly the problem was solved and all that remained was the gradual mutual withdrawal of forces?

If Turkey did not comply, what were the remedies available to the GC side? None, and this while the TC "benefits" were complete.

My personal objections to the plan, which still hold for any future plan, hinge on the seriousness with which we deal with the Bizonality issue. Whether we like it or not, this principle is the major pillar of the new deal. A long convoluted demarcation line between the two regions is detrimental to the maintenanace of a Bizonal regime. The nebulous status of the SBAs was a potential source of future conflict, the apportionment of territory and coastline was unacceptable. The present "Green Line" is 72 kilometers, the Annan demarcation line with all those curves and salients was probably twice as long. The point should be to shorten the not lengthen the 72 kilometers.

Personally I see the governance etc issues as secondary. For me the basic issue is to accomodate the security more than the cooperation aspect of daily life. Under a solution it should be possible for any Cypriot to live without ever being put in a situation where he feels that he is being dominated by the "other" side. In other words a GC, if he so choses, can live in the south and never have to deal with a TC official, and vice versa for a TC in the north. My approach is if you want the two BBs of the BBF you should have them in full, no half measures. IF at some point in the future the situation is deemed uneacceptable then let us change it then, not now.

And on top of all that there is always the statement of Soysal, cynical but he said it, that we must also provide for the possibility that the new partnership does not work and the TCs decide to split off and go their own way. To which I say the same planning must be made by the GCs.

For some of us the geopolitical aspect is more risk laden than any other and therefore becomes the No 1 priority. THe TCs do not want to risk a return to the enclaves, and the GCs have an equally reasonable desire not to relive 1974.

i got news for you boy. one day you will wake up and realise how you stupid people were fooled by the rejectionists and your president. how they played like a violin using your fears and your own myths and how the very same people continue to profit form the cyprus problem.

there is a list of gcs who were not refugees and yet have managed to get hold of tc properties and use them as summer houses

any chance we can have some names as to who these gc are. now i wonder if they were on the side of the rejectionists.
i got one more bit of news for you, no matter what agreement we have terggy will always be 5 minutes away and will always have that crushing power you fear so much. and next time you raise ugly head and attempt anything like 1974 she will crush you like no other.
you stupid idiot.

[erolz66]

Erol,

You keep harping about the Annan plan, but do not ask yourself why the GCs rejected it with such clear majority.

It is absolutely clear that Oceanside50 'rejects' it because he does not judged it on what it ACTUALLY says but rather judges it based on the lies of what some unknown individual (Argyros George Argyrou) said it says, even though it is totally clear that those are lies. You may not see this as a problem but I do.

You want to reject it (or any future plan) based on what it SAYS, then fine. Rejecting it because of lies about what it says, as I say, scares me shitless.

[Lordo]

Erol,

You keep harping about the Annan plan, but do not ask yourself why the GCs rejected it with such clear majority.

It is absolutely clear that Oceanside50 'rejects' it because he does not judged it on what it ACTUALLY says but rather judges it based on the lies of what some unknown individual (Argyros George Argyrou) said it says, even though it is totally clear that those are lies. You may not see this as a problem but I do.

You want to reject it (or any future plan) based on what it SAYS, then fine. Rejecting it because of lies about what it says, as I say, scares me shitless.

of course nikitas will not accept the simple fact that people did the same and rejected it not for what it said but for what the rejectionists said it said. stupidity compounded to this day. but i have not lost hope. majority of the gcs have seen the light. the polls say so

[Lordo]

here is another article that says it how it is.
http://cyprus-mail.com/2015/09/06/the-questions-papadopoulos-should-be-ashamed-to-ask/

for lilicant
"The leader of the Citizens’ Alliance Giorgos Lillikas on August 27 urged the government and DISY chief Averof Neophytou “to start thinking about the deconstruction of the image of sainthood they had created for Mr Akinci”. I have met Akinci personally and heard him talk on many occasions. He is a serious man and Lillikas is not fit to lace his shoes. Next to him, he is a midget."

and for baby tasos
"Another prominent member of our political circus, Nicolas Papadopoulos speaking on Sigma TV on August 31, made a different demand. “It would be useful for the president of the republic, DISY and AKEL, all those who accepted the exemptions, [to say] how many Famagustans would return,” he said.

A few days earlier, on August 26, addressing the annual jamboree of the overseas Cypriots, he posed more questions: “Have we seen a map of the territories that would be returned? Has Turkey agreed to the departure of the settlers? Has it agreed to the withdrawal of the Turkish troops?”

This smart-ass nonsense reveals the incredible political nerve of Papadopoulos. He can accuse Anastasiades of many things, but not for stuff that he and his fellow travellers are guilty of. He should be ashamed to ask today how many Famagustans would return to their town. If his father, Demetris Christofias and Lillikas had backed the settlement of 2004, Famagustans would have returned 11 years ago (4/8/2004) to the fenced area and nine years ago (24/10/2006) to rest of the town."

read weep you boys

[Oceanside50]

Erol,

You keep harping about the Annan plan, but do not ask yourself why the GCs rejected it with such clear majority.

It is absolutely clear that Oceanside50 'rejects' it because he does not judged it on what it ACTUALLY says but rather judges it based on the lies of what some unknown individual (Argyros George Argyrou) said it says, even though it is totally clear that those are lies. You may not see this as a problem but I do.

You want to reject it (or any future plan) based on what it SAYS, then fine. Rejecting it because of lies about what it says, as I say, scares me shitless.

of course nikitas will not accept the simple fact that people did the same and rejected it not for what it said but for what the rejectionists said it said. stupidity compounded to this day. but i have not lost hope. majority of the gcs have seen the light. the polls say so

I judge it by exactly what it is and I've referenced everything that was in this plan. Plus I've given you explanations on what a federation(which the annan plan was not!!), functions. with one derogation(plessy v ferguson) the USA turned into a cesspool of discriminatory acts and it lasted for nearly 100 years, in the Annan plan there are more then one derogations, there are many restrictions and from those many restrictions you will get many laws from the tc state against the Gc, and it will be legal because restrictions would be legal because its federal law. the restrictive laws would not be as blatant as a Gc not being able to cut a Tc women's hair, these were the issues in the 1800's in southern America. The issues in Cyprus will be about restricting the GC from owning property or working or investing or setting up schools or trying to take away property from GC. If not then why are all the mechanisms in place to do that?.....whats the reason?

[Oceanside50]

here is another article that says it how it is.
http://cyprus-mail.com/2015/09/06/the-questions-papadopoulos-should-be-ashamed-to-ask/

for lilicant
"The leader of the Citizens’ Alliance Giorgos Lillikas on August 27 urged the government and DISY chief Averof Neophytou “to start thinking about the deconstruction of the image of sainthood they had created for Mr Akinci”. I have met Akinci personally and heard him talk on many occasions. He is a serious man and Lillikas is not fit to lace his shoes. Next to him, he is a midget."

and for baby tasos
"Another prominent member of our political circus, Nicolas Papadopoulos speaking on Sigma TV on August 31, made a different demand. “It would be useful for the president of the republic, DISY and AKEL, all those who accepted the exemptions, [to say] how many Famagustans would return,” he said.

A few days earlier, on August 26, addressing the annual jamboree of the overseas Cypriots, he posed more questions: “Have we seen a map of the territories that would be returned? Has Turkey agreed to the departure of the settlers? Has it agreed to the withdrawal of the Turkish troops?”

This smart-ass nonsense reveals the incredible political nerve of Papadopoulos. He can accuse Anastasiades of many things, but not for stuff that he and his fellow travellers are guilty of. He should be ashamed to ask today how many Famagustans would return to their town. If his father, Demetris Christofias and Lillikas had backed the settlement of 2004, Famagustans would have returned 11 years ago (4/8/2004) to the fenced area and nine years ago (24/10/2006) to rest of the town."

read weep you boys

what differences are there in Akinci that didn't exist in TAlat?.....The man who stood up on a live camera interview and said that the Gc won't get their properties back because the tc have been in isolation for 50 years and they need the properties to catch up to the GC and have economic parity with them.

[Oceanside50]

Erol,

You keep harping about the Annan plan, but do not ask yourself why the GCs rejected it with such clear majority.

It is absolutely clear that Oceanside50 'rejects' it because he does not judged it on what it ACTUALLY says but rather judges it based on the lies of what some unknown individual (Argyros George Argyrou) said it says, even though it is totally clear that those are lies. You may not see this as a problem but I do.

You want to reject it (or any future plan) based on what it SAYS, then fine. Rejecting it because of lies about what it says, as I say, scares me shitless.

of course nikitas will not accept the simple fact that people did the same and rejected it not for what it said but for what the rejectionists said it said. stupidity compounded to this day. but i have not lost hope. majority of the gcs have seen the light. the polls say so

The majority of GC's are hopeful, thats what you see in polls, the actual plan has not been seen by anyone. But in actuality there is no hope, for this plan, because the Tc will insist on a confederation that will again be riddled with discriminatory acts against the Gc..What did the TC do when their veto against the majority Gc was taken away from them?....its still the same story you want to negate the majority's will.....

[erolz66]

I judge it by exactly what it is

No you quoted not from the plan but from a description of the plan written by an individual and submitted to the British parliamentary sub committee.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... 13we12.htm

What you quoted was

The Greek Cypriots will NEVER be permitted to return and form the majority in any of the villages they were ethnically cleansed from in 1974. Annans restrictions mean that even if a Greek Cypriot village is empty today NO Greek Cypriot will ever be allowed back unless SIXTEEN TIMES as many Turkish Cypriots are allowed to colonise it at the same time (Article 3 Para 7 of the foundation agreement). These restrictions because they are on a village-by-village basis will make it impossible for the Greek Cypriots to form any kind of viable community in the north.

What the letter by Argyros George Argyrou submitted as written evidence to the British parliaments Select Committee on Foreign Affairs in 2004 says (as can SEEN in the link I provide above)

Because of the Annan plan the Greek Cypriots will never be permitted to return and form the majority in any of the villages they were ethnically cleansed from in 1974. Annan's restrictions mean that even if a Greek Cypriot village is empty today no Greek Cypriot will ever be allowed back unless 16 times as many Turkish Cypriots are allowed to colonise it at the same time (see Article 3 Para 7 of the foundation agreement). These restrictions because they are on a village-by-village basis will make it impossible for the Greek Cypriots to form any kind of viable community in the north.

All you did was take the lies and misrepresentation that Argyros George Argyrou presented to the British select committee and capitalise a few words.

and I've referenced everything that was in this plan.

No Argyros George Argyrou 'referenced' sections of the Annan plan and the problem is they DO NOT SAY WHAT HE CLAIMS THEY DO and you now repeat here.

http://www.hri.org/docs/annan/Annan_Plan_Text.html (my emphasis)

7. In addition, for a transitional period a constituent state may, pursuant to Constitutional Law, limit the establishment of residence by persons hailing from the other constituent state. To this effect, it may establish a moratorium until the end of the fifth year after entry into force of the Foundation Agreement, after which limitations are permissible if the number of residents hailing from the other constituent state has reached 6% of the population of a village or municipality between the 6th and 9th years and 12% between the 10th and 14th years and 18% of the population of the relevant constituent state thereafter, until the 19th year or Turkey’s accession to the European Union, whichever is earlier. After the second year, no such limitations shall apply to former inhabitants over the age of 65 accompanied by a spouse or sibling, nor to former inhabitants of specified villages.

Just compare what Argyros George Argyrou, and now you repeating it like a mindless parrot, CLAIM this article says and what the article ACTUALLY say. It is so CLEARLY and OBVIOUSLY and UNDENIABLY a gross distortion of what the plan ACTUALLY says. His and now your claims IS NOT TRUE. IT IS A LIE. That you can continue to insist it is not just shows the kind of pathological madness we are dealing with here. When you based you views and arguments and position on something that is plainly NOT TRUE you simply have no credibility - to me at least but I suggest also to anyone who is not blinded by fanaticism.

But in actuality there is no hope, for this plan,.....

No hope for this plan or no hope for the LIES you will no doubt try and claim about this plan just as you have so plainly done so here in regards to the Annan plan ?

[Oceanside50]

Do the Tc want to keep the numbers of Gc below their numbers and are there provisions for it in the Annan plan??? Yes or no?

[erolz66]

Do the Tc want to keep the numbers of Gc below their numbers and are there provisions for it in the Annan plan??? Yes or no?

How about you answer this question first ? Is what Argyros George Argyrou and now you claim Article 3 Para 7 of the foundation agreement of the Annan Plan says a gross distortion of what it actually says ? Yes or No ?

To answer your questions. For a bi-zonal and bi-communal to be part of an agreed solution then such things are meaningless and pointless if the TC community end up being a physical minority and a minority in terms of political representation in BOTH bi-zonal and bi-communal elements. I think that is true for TC and in fact for anyone who genuinely seeks a solution based on bi-zonality and bi-communality. The Annan plan had no permanent provision to ensure that GC could never become numerically dominant in the TC component state. It has TEMPORARY provisions that ensured such. It also had a provision that sought to ensure that there would never be more than 1/3rd of those residing in the TC component state that did not SPEAK TURKISH, which is NOT a provision specific to keeping GC below TC numbers, as the temporary provisions were. These are just FACTS, verifiable by simply reading the Annan Plan provisions, unlike the repeated claims you have made about what the Annan plan said in this regard which are just lies.