Cyprus-Forum.com

[brother]

The Tc will never go back to the ROC without any representation, why would they do that when they see tassos as not trustworthy, these comments are not to offend anyone but stop for one minute and put yourself in there shoes and lets see what you would do.....who can answer that question.

[-mikkie2-]

The point is brother they would!

The vice president post is vacant for example. It has not been taken over by the GC's.

[brother]

Then why have they not so far, to get the benefits of E.U even denktas has sent his grandkids to get ROC passports but thats it but i do understand where you coming from

[-mikkie2-]

You said that the TC's would not have representation if they came into the RoC. I was pointing out that the vice-president post is vacant therefore the TC's would be represented if they took up their post!

[brother]

Woud the GC accept a TC president of the ROC?

[metecyp]

What I was saying was that the TC's hava a way to enter into a partnership by 1st exercising their rights given to them under the RoC. From then on we then have the means to negotiate a new state of affairs AS CYPRIOTS. If that leads to a bizonal, bicommunal federation then fine

I don't understand why TCs are asked to go back to the RoC as a preconditon for a settlemenet. What if the TCs go back to the RoC but that doesn't lead to a bizonal, bicommunal federation? It's quite possible. Then what happens? Or after all GCs refugees return back and hence some TCs become refugees themselves for the 3rd time, how are you going to adress bizonality? Make people move one more time? It just doesn't make sense.

[pantelis]

Adephe gardash /brother,

You criticize the Greek Cypriot leadership, past and present, for mistakes. I grand you, mistakes were made.

I have a question for you.

Who do you consider as THE TURKISH CYPRIOT LEADERSHIP and how much does this leadership represent the opinion and desires of the majority of the Turkish Cypriots?

[Bananiot]

This is what mikkie had to say.

"The provisions of the A plan that disgust me are the compromise over political rights, restricted freedom of movement of Cypriots, the fact that ALL settlers will stay resulting in the severe restrictions of refugees to get their property back and the fact that Turkey (and UK) enhances her rights in Cyprus. If these issues are addressed properly then we have something we can work with".

The above constitute blatant distortion of the A plan, for example, the plan does not call for all the settlers to stay but for 41000, a figure that Talat agreed and in excess of about 5000 from the figure acceptable by Papadopoulos. Lets see what we have today.

Partition of the island - no political rights - not a single refugee returning - 35000 fully armed turkish soldiers whose number could expand in no time - an ever increasing number of settlers - constant leaving of TC's - the North part increasingly becoming a district of Turkey - the building boom which is a sign of things becoming permanent - international isolation of the RoC - no sign of the infamous european solution promised by Papadopoulos - opening fronts with the most powerful nations and institutions of the world, just to mention a few.

The question which we should be honest enough to answer is this. Was the A plan better than the permanent partition of Cyprus?

[brother]

The reason more emphasis is put on the ROC leader tassos is because he has the ball in his court and can make it happen, but all he is doing at the moment is playing political blackmail hence read my post 'let greek cypriots veto turkey'

[pantelis]

"Was the A plan better than the permanent partition of Cyprus?"

As a teacher, you should know the idiom that goes,

"A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush."