Cyprus-Forum.com

[zoppovortoi]

A newly qualified lawyer is in some circles considered to be dismissive of thoughts , ideas and views that do not fit into a preconceived strategy regarding the defence of a client ,
irrespective of the substance contained in the opposite views. I asked this question once before , as you correctly point out , and in the absence of a negative response I brought it up again.

Can I also say that I firmly believe that unless the overwhelming majority of Cypriots are comfortable with a given solution , such solution will be short lived and doomed to fail , this is precisely why I opposed the Annan plan, having carefully studied the contents in detail and considered seriously the implications and consequences that would ensue following a rejection of the plan by the majority G/Cs.

I can’t agree with you in the second part.

Because if there was a person able to bring a better solution like Christophias Clirides and many others (who want a solution) it would be a strong possibility to present our views and continue trying for a better solution based not in our fantasy rights but on specific arguments.

Our main problem is not the rejection of the Anan plan but Mr Papadopoulos behavior.

We can say lies between as but with that person in the president chair we are hopeless.

Despo has given a small idea about how our friends become our enemies.

You have said what the Anan plan was doomed to failed and what you have stady the plan.

I’ve also study the plan and I did not see any security problem (this was the main reason you have reject the plan?).

But the truth is what if there wasn’t any specialized in the constitution issues that supporting the plan I would never support it.

In fact the most of specialized lawyer and the most important politicians worldwide they was supporting the plan.

Even the Akel specialized in constitutions(Mr Toumazos Tsielepis) was supporting the plan (even if they cut him from the TV).

The political party’s was against the plan are not characterized by their seriousness.

Let’s start from Greece.

KKE communist party of Greece.

They living in other universe and they did not have any relation with reality.

And we can discuss about their views for Europe and what they was opposite even to our accession to Europe.

LAOS Christian Orthodox Byzantium dreamers.

They live under conspiracy theories about every thing they even introduce a ufo theory about the Great Greek’s from the planet Serious who are born to rule the world.

Their supporters are nationalist fanatics nazist’s who believes in aria race religion grandmothers and some other mindless zombies.

They are worst from the KKE and their political view is something like starwars.

This was the only two parties that support the rejection.

Even Mr Stefanopoulos have said what we have done a big mistake.

In Cyprus the two biggest party’s and the most serious Akel kai Disi was supporting the plan before the referendum and Akel tried to earn some time with the security fantasy argument to try to explain to people about the plan and fight the deionization and the conspiracy theories

Mr Christophias have said what the Anan plan was not explained correctly to the people and he use the word diastrevlosi warped.

They present us the plan warped with fear and false emotions.

Edek was supporting the plan before the Papadopoulos crying.

The 65% of the people was supporting a plan based on the Anan plan when it was much worst (Anan 2).

In fact I can’t see any seriousness in your argument about your study because you are not specialized in the matter.

I do not for one minute accept that this "solution " was a solution that would bring permanent peace and stability in Cyprus. My views on the true ownership of Cyprus are well posted and are genuine , without preconceived notions and ideas regarding majorities or minorities .I have tremendous respect for the UK political system and the way is administered coupled with the compilation of political parties from people of all ethnic entities. At the last UK Council elections I voted for 2 councillors of Pakistani origin , but knowing full well that they would represent the interests of the community at large. Similarly I would vote for a Turkish Cypriot , including Mr Talat , if he and others formed a new "Pan Cyprian" party .
I believe Despo , or her parents became refugees , unlike my self , and can understand her reluctance in accepting that the majority of citizens rejected the plan not out of stupidity but by their democratic right to vote as they believe.

I respect your democratic right but I can’t respect in any way the politicians who are not respecting democracy and the right of people to have emotionally clear information and let them act with logic and not by emotions.

Now the situation sucks like Despo have describe and this is not your fault but our government (and specially our president) fault.

[miltiades]

The following article is the blue print of the Annan Plan (WIKIPEDIA ) , a short synopsis.
My main reasons for rejecting this plan are 3 , Security and guarantees the main part.
1 ) The agreement kept in place the Treaty of Guarantee - an integral part of the 1960 constitution that gave Turkey (as well as Britain and Greece , but irrelevant given the current and past situations) right of intervention in all of Cyprus
"2) (I believe this by their own side. This is unfair as Turkey would not be required to contribute any funds towards the compensation. This particular clause would have pushed the Cypriot economy back by many years.
3) Guarantees were not made available should Turkey not honour the agreement.
4) The settlers problem does not worry me a great deal. Those born in Cyprus can not be expected to be uprooted. Fresh influx of settlers should come under the restrictions that the new Government would have in place.


The UN plan for the reunification of Cyprus (Annan Plan)
Under the final proposals, The Republic of Cyprus would become the United Cyprus Republic. It would be a loose federation composed of two component states. The northern Turkish Cypriot constituent state would encompass about 28.5% of the island, the southern Greek Cypriot constituent state would be made up of the remaining 71.5%. Each part would have had its own parliament. There would also be a bicameral parliament on the federal level. In the Chamber of Deputies, the Turkish Cypriots would have 25% of the seats. (While no accurate figures are currently available, the split between the two communities at independence in 1960 was approximately 80:20 in favour of the Greek Cypriots.) The Senate would have consisted of equal parts of members of each ethnic group. Executive power would be vested in a presidential council. The chairmanship of this council would rotate between the communities. Each community would also have the right to veto all legislation.

One of the most controversial elements of the plan concerned property. During Turkey's military intervention/invasion in 1974, many Greek Cypriots (who owned 90% of the land and property in the north) were forced to abandon their homes. (A large number of Turkish Cypriots also left their homes.) Since then, the question of restitution of their property has been a central demand of the Greek Cypriot side. However, the Turkish Cypriots argue that the complete return of all Greek Cypriot properties to their original owners would be incompatible with the functioning of a bi-zonal, bi-communal federal settlement. To this extent, they have argued compensation should be offered. The Annan Plan attempted to bridge this divide. In certain areas, such as Morphou (Guzelyurt) and Famagusta (Gazimagusa), which would be returned to Greek Cypriot control, Greek Cypriot refugees would have received back all of their property according to a phased timetable. In other areas, such as Kyrenia (Girne) and the Karpass Peninsula, which would remain under Turkish Cypriot control, they would be given back a proportion of their land (usually one third assuming that it had not been extensively developed) and would receive compensation for the rest. All land and property (that was not used for worship) belonging to businesses and institutions, including the Church the largest property owner on the island, would have been expropriated. While many Greek Cypriots found these provisions unacceptable in themselves, many others resented the fact that the Plan envisaged all compensation claims by a particular community to be met by their own side. This was seen as unfair as Turkey would not be required to contribute any funds towards the compensation.

Apart from the property issue, there were many other parts of the plan that sparked controversy. For example, the agreement envisaged the gradual reduction in the number of Greek and Turkish troops on the island. After six years, the number of soldiers from each country would be limited to 6,000. This would fall to 600 after 19 years. Thereafter, the aim would be to try to achieve full demilitarization, a process that many hoped would be made possible by Turkish accession to the European Union. The agreement also kept in place the Treaty of Guarantee - an integral part of the 1960 constitution that gave Britain, Greece and Turkey a right to intervene militarily in the island's affairs. Many Greek Cypriots were concerned that the continuation of the right of intervention would give Turkey too large a say in the future of the island. However, most Turkish Cypriots felt that a continued Turkish military presence was necessary to ensure their security. Another element of the plan the Greek Cypriots objected to was that it allowed many Turkish citizens who had been brought to the island to remain. (The exact number of these Turkish 'settlers' is highly disputed. Some argue that the figure is as high as 150,000 or as low as 40,000. In reality, the low end figure is 60,000 and the high end figure is 120,000.) They are seen as settlers illegally brought to the island in contravention of international law. However, while many accepted Greek Cypriot concerns on this matter, there was a widespread feeling that it would be unrealistic to forcibly remove every one of the these settlers, especially as many of them had been born and raised on the island. "

[zoppovortoi]

The following article is the blue print of the Annan Plan (WIKIPEDIA ) , a short synopsis.
My main reasons for rejecting this plan are 3 , Security and guarantees the main part.

1 ) The agreement kept in place the Treaty of Guarantee - an integral part of the 1960 constitution that gave Turkey (as well as Britain and Greece , but irrelevant given the current and past situations) right of intervention in all of Cyprus

I do not agree with that part on the plan and in many parts but there is not actually any real problem, since the first (and maybe the only) authority in European ground is Europe, we are not living between the cold world, there is no Jounta and there is no Makarios.

And if we plan to slaughter our self’s again or if we plan to make the EOKA C then it would be a problem but then again if that happens then Turkey and Greece will have the right to interfere.

This is very difficult to change since we’ve (Makarios) call them to come.

The rights of Turkey and Greece to interfere are about the security of the constitution and there is no hope to change this thing since we’ve gives them the right on the past by calling them to come.

"2) (I believe this by their own side. This is unfair as Turkey would not be required to contribute any funds towards the compensation. This particular clause would have pushed the Cypriot economy back by many years.

I didn’t understand this.

3) Guarantees were not made available should Turkey not honour the agreement.

If Papadopoulos and Iakouvou didn’t stop the EU voting of the Security Council it would not be 1 in a million for Turkey to not honor the agreement.

4) The settlers problem does not worry me a great deal. Those born in Cyprus can not be expected to be uprooted. Fresh influx of settlers should come under the restrictions that the new Government would have in place.

In the plan a big number (50 000 if I remember correctly) of settlers was going back to Turkey.

And there was a guarantee for keeping the population analogies by preventing more settlements to come and now this problem is getting bigger while the time is passing with no solution.

I respect your opinion but this is not our President opinion that reject’s the federation as he said in the crying rubbish.

It would be a fight with great possibilities to succeed if we’ve adopted your arguments as the rejection reasons (my opinion is what the main rejection reason are not logical because we haven’t a clear view of the plan) and I agree with that policie but I’m afraid what our government can’t present logical arguments about the rejection since our president in his speech was rejecting the philosophy of the plan and now he wants a plan from scratch that it will come after 10 or more years when it would not be a Cyprus problem issue.

Your arguments is the adopted policies of the logic people like the Akel and the Greece government but I’m afraid what our government(Papadopoulos, Lilikas etc) is against to a solution based on the Anan plan and I suppose what they are even against the federation like the most of the rejectionists.

If we calculate that by the 50% who says no to any solution there it will be clear views abut our rejection reasons and what our government is looking for.

And I’m afraid what if we are not going to adopt your words or a similar tactic there it would not be any possibility for a solution because no one will ever believe what we actually want to live with TC.

[zoppovortoi]

I’ve to say a last thing about Miltiadis.

Your role is far away from negative.

You want a solution and you are standing on the middle between the fanatics and this is exactly what our side wants, people like you.

My role is negative(for the balance between the people) because I refuse to support this government in any way and actually I cause fanatism between the people, but I’m afraid what our government is not respecting minority people like your self and people with pure feelings about the reunification.

Your role is necessary to balance the feelings with the logic but my role (and Despo) is also necessary to present a clear view about our government actions.

What is more important?

Is very important to found a logical excuse for our (for the people) rejection if we want a solution, but is also very important to criticized our government actions if eventually some day we will be ready to take our part of responsibility and stop trying to find conspiracy’s and invisible enemies to over pass our responsibility.

Is also very important to criticize the 50% of the GC’s that doesn’t accept any solution and to present the consequences of a no solution situation

You are fighting in your battlefield and I’m fighting in my battlefield, we both want the same thing but we’ve choose a different way to achieve that thing.

I don’t believe what if we keep a guilty silent policy about our government we actually do any good to the Cyprus problem entity we are just supporting a negative policy just to bring balance between the people.

I’m saying what in my opinion the responsibility part and the Cyprus problem entity is more important than the feelings of people.

You’ve the right to support what your role is more important but I simply do not agree with you.

[despo]

Miltiades, I've spent more than ten miniutes reading your posts and I know you pride yourself on your attitude that you love all Cypriots and wish to live in a united Cyprus with your Turkish-Cypriot compatriots. Trouble is, you don't actually care about the needs, problems, desires, political issues, opinions or anything of your TC compatriots. So much so, that you are even deluded into thinking that Tassos Papadopoulos is their President and that he represents them on the world stage. You shut them up and try to prove them "wrong" whenever they try to express a TC opinion by saying "but I love all Cypriots and want to live as happy and loving neighbours with my Turkish Cypriot compatriots." I agree, much of what the TC community might say may be rubbish. But some of it might not be. The point is that they have a political voice in a united Cyprus, otherwise there will never be a united Cyprus. In your vision of a united Cyprus, the TCs will not be allowed to express an opinion different from that of the GCs.

This GC slogan "I want to live together with my GC neighbours" is just meaningless fluff. I seriously doubt that most people on Cyprus today, whether Greek or Turk, are automatically going to jump into each others' arms and live happily together just like that. Moreover, this view of "I love my TC compatriots" is just another way of blurring the serious wrongs that Greek Cypriots have committed, in particular the role we played in destroying the unified Republic of Cyprus as it existed from 1960 to 1963, and just blaming Turkey for everything, blinding ourselves that Turkey might not be the source of all the problems and in order for a viable solution to be reached GC thinking and attitudes have to change as well. By the way, that is the view of the international community as well (and I mean EU as well as UN) that Turkey is not to blame for everything and the GCs have to change their positions.

What we need to do is stop thinking in these fluffy, "I love my TC compatriots" terms and start thinking in real political terms to find political solutions to political problems.

I don't really care if I am insulting or offending some people. Maybe it's time rejectionists started feeling offended. Perhaps that way some of them might wake up to the fact that their opinion is not some God-given truth, as they seem to imagine it is. I also feel liberated now - since 2004 - because for too many decades our opinions were policed, if you felt a bit uncomfortable about the behaviour of GC "heroes" or thought some of the things our political leadership was doing or what we were doing as a community might not be so intelligent you were forced to shut up or branded a "traitor." No, I think it's good that there are different opinions now gradually emerging, different voices are slowly being heard, and that we dispute each other's views as GCs, not just disputing with the Turks all the time.

But, yet again, Miltiades, you fail to explain - after the crushing destruction of the last UN attempt for a settlement, just exactly how is this "better" settlement, better than Annan, now going to be achieved? How, Miltiades, and when?

[miltiades]

DESPO WROTE :
"Miltiades, I've spent more than ten minutes reading your posts and I know you pride yourself on your attitude that you love all Cypriots and wish to live in a united Cyprus with your Turkish-Cypriot compatriots. Trouble is, you don't actually care about the needs, problems, desires, political issues, opinions or anything of your TC compatriots "

You are most kind spending more that 10 minutes reading my posts . I posted 437 , and you managed to summarise my views by spending 1.3 seconds per post , whilst I don't expect you to read all my posts , however had you taken the time to at least read some you would not post such absurdities as "you don't actually care about the needs, problems, desires, political issues, opinions or anything of your TC compatriots " In some posts I made it clear that I cant wait for a political party to emerge embracing all communities and stated that if the leader of a PanCyprian party was Mr Talat or any other Turkish Cypriot he would have my vote. I suggest you withdraw those remarks . Forgive my impertinent question but can you please refer me to a part of the Annan plan that offered Cyprus international or European guarantees that would ensure Turkeys adherence to the agreement. And what if Turkey was not allowed to join the EU, blocked not by Greece or Cyprus but , Germany or France or any of the of the 5 or 6 members that are opposed to her joining. Would Turkey be likely then to honour the agreement ? You must know something that I most certainly do not.
Can I also correct your blatant interpretation of the referendum outcome " after the crushing destruction of the last UN attempt for a settlement " The outcome was a result of the casting of votes by the majority against the plan. NOT THE LAST ATTEMPT BY UN FOR A SETTLEMENT
No agreement can be reached unless the majority of Cypriots , Turkish and Greek feel secure and equal .Such guarantees will only be accepted if instigated by International bodies , USA , Britain Europe etc. Turkeys continued right of intervention , based on the 60 agreement will never be accepted by the majority.

I'm still curious to know if you are indeed a newly qualified lawyer .

[zoppovortoi]

Would Turkey be likely then to honour the agreement ? You must know something that I most certainly do not.

We have not adopted the 1960 agreement as it was.

There was a safety valve was saying what only if the UN powers fails then the 1960 agreement energized.

I found this absolutely safe and I’ve to say what this argument is rubbish like the most of the arguments we’ve present for psychology reasons.

[despo]

Miltiades, in any of your 437 posts did you ever outline how, after the deliberate destruction of the last UN effort at a settlement, there was actually going to be settlement? When and how, Miltiades, please stop dodging the issue.

No, I'm not going to withdraw my remarks. You are incapable of understanding that within both the RoC and every framework for a settlment that GCs have agreed to (e.g. bizonal, bicommunal federation) the TCs are to be politically represented as a community. There is not going to be a situation where we have a Greek state with a subjugated Turkish minority. If you want a Pan-Cyprian political party then why don't you go and start it? And remember that the TCs and GCs have very different political demands and priorities. Moreover, if such a political party were to be formed, it would involve ppl travelling daily between north and south and have to have an office in the north and as such would get branded as "illegal" by our GC rejectionists.

And, no, I am not a newly qualified lawyer, or a laywer. Can you please stop being so patronising. Now, since I have answered your question can you please answer mine: when is the new Cyprus settlement that you fantasise going to come about, and when?

As for Turkey's adherence to the agreement that is implicated in the signing of the agreement. Isn't this what Tassos said would ensure that Turkey would have to apply the Customs Union, the fact that they signed it? Morover, the EU said it would be the guarantee - the Annan Plan would have been enshrined within Turkey's obligations before they could even start negotiations with the EU.

Yet again you resort to another meaningless slogan which would never have crossed your mind to say had Tassos Papadopoulos come out with it. In any case, since - according to the rejectionists - the Annan Plan "gave" Turkey "everything" it wanted, why wouldn't they have implemented it?

If Turkey is to be blocked by German or France or whoever else from joining the EU then how the hell is this fantastic EU settlement that rejectionists were claiming was going to be achieved by a "no" to the Annan Plan going to come about.

Miltiades wrote: "NOT THE LAST ATTEMPT BY UN FOR A SETTLEMENT"

When is this new attempt going to happen? When, Miltiades, when? Have you not noticed that Annan's last report on the issue said we are very far from the possiblity of new negotations? Have you not noticed that the EU supported the Annan Plan and is now playing no role in pushing for new UN negotiations? Have you also not noticed that the EU is not requiring Turkey to remove its troops, etc. before joining the EU (just to start direct trade with the GCs!)? How can the EU be used to get a "better" deal when it does not support any of the positions that GC rejectionists used against the Annan Plan. And WHEN, Miltiades, WHEN are these fantasy negotiations and this fantasy settlment that you are fantasising about going to come? WHEN??? HOW????

If the majority of the GCs continue to oppose a settlement that is seen as acceptable by the international community and if their opposition to such a settlement continues to be interpreted by the international community as "hardline" and "nationalist" as it is today, then the only solution that will then be availble is formal division of the island! Don't you get it?!?

So Miltiades, when, when, when and how is this new settlement that will give the GCs everything they want and will also be accepted by the TCs going to come about????????

[zoppovortoi]

Europe wants a solution and they will push as to that direction to a bizonal, bicommunal federation similar to the Anan plan. I do not agree what there is no hope.

There is no hope with this government because Mr. Papadopoulos have made it clear what he don’t want bizonal, bicommunal federation and a strong negative factor is the GC 50% who says no to any solution.

I believe what there is hope if Greek government changes her attitude and stop this guilty silence about our government and maybe then the people will realize what he is governed by psychopaths.

Because the toppouzos Kipreos will never realize what’s going on while this government present things in this propaganda self destruction way.

But this is very difficult to happen. Let’s do not forget what we’ve (not we exactly the toppouzo-patriots only) what Mr. Stefanopoulos was a hero because he was supporting the Cypriot people and after he changed his position and speak about our big mistake and our emotional reaction the same people call him traitor. We are like a cartoon show.

I will vote anyone who wants a solution, I’m not affiliated with no political party and i swear what I will vote anyone who wants a solution from any party.

[miltiades]

Despo , in all of my posts I specifically refrained from putting forward any ideas regarding the contents of a likely new settlement proposals , and concentrated instead on "hitting hard the extremists and the hate brigade , mostly the G/Cs. Living away from Cyprus for more than 40 years does mean that I'm not always able to catch up with political developments as they occur and rely on the net for gaining the latest information.
As to when a new settlement will be made available , well the last one took over 30 years , the new one perhaps a little less .Can you please stop misinterpreting my posts by stating ""So Miltiades, when, when, when and how is this new settlement that will give the GCs everything they want and will also be accepted by the TCs going to come about???????? """
You are inferring by the above comment that the contents are attributable to myself and this could not be further from the truth.
I'm at work now and do not have adequate time to answer your points but will endeavour to do so when time permits , in the meantime thank you for confirming that you are not a newly qualified lawyer , (It was not a patronising question either ) , can you now please get off your high horse and stop behaving like a newly qualified lawyer . You are making statements such as this >>>Moreover, the EU said it would be the guarantee - the Annan Plan would have been enshrined within Turkey's obligations before they could even start negotiations with the EU. <<
Please direct me to the source so I can read it and apologise to you profusely. I think all Cypriots are unaware of such EU guarantees so you will be doing the whole nation a favour .Please enlighten me.