Cyprus-Forum.com

[Socrates]

Try to understand and digest the difference between the two concepts, the Annan plan (a confederation /loose federation between two separate ethnically owned and based state structures,) and what the G/C side is ready to accept -as I described it above. The Annan plan formula is very prone and can easily lead in the future into splitting opportunities and options like the Serbia /Montenegro or the Czechoslovakian cases, regardless of the fact that there will be prohibiting provisions in the federal constitution, simply because the “inherent” ethnic ownership basis of the two areas (zones) became an institutionalised ingredient of the same constitution, and thus it indirectly legitimises the splitting on a purely ethnic basis, should the central federal government proves to be ineffective and inefficient in its functioning. And we all know how such a government can easily be made to be proved ineffective and inefficient, should one of the two sides chooses to do so.

The Anan plan was not giving any chance for partial changes on the constitution so the Montenegro case is existing only in you imagination because something like that will not be accepted from at least one of the guarantee powers.

That’s why I agree with the treaty of 60 there can not be a better one.

I didn’t understand what you are saying but I suspect what you speaking about a new kind of solution that was never appear before, I’ll check it. I think what you are not talking about BBF but you are talking about BF and something like that is all ready out of the UN plans.

[Tony-4497]

And there is the previous example of the 50% what they prefer partition from a solution based on BBF.
While this situation will still be build from the psychopaths of our government

Socrates

I think the psychopath here is not our government.. The psychopaths are those who would actually prefer an Annan-plan type BBF to a partition.

Partition is infinitely better than any form of BBF negotiated in recent years, as such a BBF gives the best of both worlds to TCs and the worst of both worlds to us. Unless there is a true and full unification of the country (which Turks reject outright), a clean partition is by far the best choice.

Anyone with half a brain should be able to see that even if we enter into some sort of complex power-sharing arrangement, like a BBF with a TC state, this will inevitably lead to the Montenegro scenario. The ONLY thing that will matter at that point will be the borders between the 2 states - that's why I personally don't care much about anything else other than the land sharing % - as this is the only thing of relevance that will exist after all the turmoil.

The solution which I believe can be accepted by both sides at a referendum NOW is the return of a large part of land (so that the split becomes a fair 82%:18%) and formation of a confederation of 2 states. This can start as an interim solution, and if later on the 2 parties are getting on well they can consider further integration.

[Socrates]

Is it maybe because you get offended too easily? "Kalamaras" is a common nick name for people from Greece.

I've seen racism against Sri Lankes, Arabs etc and a negative stereotyping of some others (e.g. girls from Russia), but apart from the innocent nick name I have never seen a person from Greece to be mistreated due to his origin (if we exclude Pontians)

The kalamaras thing and the stranger thing from the Cyprus people is not about racism are about money and the stranger attitude is just un excuse from the true reason. GREEDY

Who are you and why take a piece of my pie?

Shri lanka Arabs and Turks are facing pure racism. Russian women’s have problem because they are more pretty and more female from the Cypriot w and my girlfriend is from Russia also. Always there are some reasons and some excuses.

[Piratis]

The Anan plan was not giving any chance for partial changes on the constitution so the Montenegro case is existing only in you imagination because something like that will not be accepted from at least one of the guarantee powers.

The brake up of Chehoslovakia was also prohibited supposedly. I think Kifeas explains how easy an "official" partition would have been if we had accepted the disguised partition of Annan plan.

Serdar Denctash (the pseudo foreign minister) had used the brake up of Chehoslovakia as an example for what should happen in Cyprus. Look a couple of months back in the forum and you will find the thread about it.

[Socrates]

They didn’t have the guarantees we was and the whole situation is different.

The above funny person is suggesting the partition. Well done.

[Kifeas]

Try to understand and digest the difference between the two concepts, the Annan plan (a confederation /loose federation between two separate ethnically owned and based state structures,) and what the G/C side is ready to accept -as I described it above. The Annan plan formula is very prone and can easily lead in the future into splitting opportunities and options like the Serbia /Montenegro or the Czechoslovakian cases, regardless of the fact that there will be prohibiting provisions in the federal constitution, simply because the “inherent” ethnic ownership basis of the two areas (zones) became an institutionalised ingredient of the same constitution, and thus it indirectly legitimises the splitting on a purely ethnic basis, should the central federal government proves to be ineffective and inefficient in its functioning. And we all know how such a government can easily be made to be proved ineffective and inefficient, should one of the two sides chooses to do so.

The Anan plan was not giving any chance for partial changes on the constitution so the Montenegro case is existing only in you imagination because something like that will not be accepted from at least one of the guarantee powers.

That’s why I agree with the treaty of 60 there can not be a better one.

I didn’t understand what you are saying but I suspect what you speaking about a new kind of solution that was never appear before, I’ll check it. I think what you are not talking about BBF but you are talking about BF and something like that is all ready out of the UN plans.

What I am talking about is a Bi-communal AND a Bi-zonal Federation!
What you are talking about is a Bi-communal_Bi-zonal Confederation!

The Annan plan 5 was a Bi-communal_Bi-zonal Confederation!

[Kifeas]

The solution which I believe can be accepted by both sides at a referendum NOW is the return of a large part of land (so that the split becomes a fair 82%:18%) and formation of a confederation of 2 states. This can start as an interim solution, and if later on the 2 parties are getting on well they can consider further integration.

Personally, only under such a territory ratio (or close to it) I would have ever accepted a concept such as that of the Annan plan! However, there are ways a BBF concept would be introduced that would make it feasible for me and most GCs to accept a similar territory ratio like that of the Annan plan, without this depriving the TCs from any of their legitimate rights and desires, even though it will deprive them from most of their illegitimate ones which the Annan plan had provided for them.

[Socrates]

Personally, only under such a territory ratio (or close to it) I would have ever accepted a concept such as that of the Annan plan! However, there are ways a BBF concept would be introduced that would make it feasible for me and most GCs to accept a similar territory ratio like that of the Annan plan, without this depriving the TCs from any of their legitimate rights and desires, even though it will deprive them from most of their illegitimate ones which the Annan plan had provided for them.

Okay I misunderstood you. If our government has a clear position like the above I would never be so anger with them.

If our government has the same thoughts with the above funny guy then we are in the way of the total loose of everything.

Probably if the BBF collapse then we will speak for the same numbers and biggest from 29% and the settlers issue will be very big and dangerous about the population analogies.

I was suspecting what the Europe we will bring us a confederation to keep the ground in their borders, but I’m afraid what if this new process collapse there will not be another chance for a common agreement and they will let them to vote for their own future in a solution Montenegro type.

[Kifeas]

Personally, only under such a territory ratio (or close to it) I would have ever accepted a concept such as that of the Annan plan! However, there are ways a BBF concept would be introduced that would make it feasible for me and most GCs to accept a similar territory ratio like that of the Annan plan, without this depriving the TCs from any of their legitimate rights and desires, even though it will deprive them from most of their illegitimate ones which the Annan plan had provided for them.

Okay I misunderstood you. If our government has a clear position like the above I would never be so anger with them.
If our government has the same thoughts with the above funny guy then we are in the way of the total loose of everything.

Probably if the BBF collapse then we will speak for the same numbers and biggest from 29% and the settlers issue will be very big and dangerous about the population analogies.

I was suspecting what the Europe we will bring us a confederation to keep the ground in their borders, but I’m afraid what if this new process collapse there will not be another chance for a common agreement and they will let them to vote for their own future in a solution Montenegro type.

No my friend, our government has a very clear position on the whole issue, and it is quite near and close (I do not want to say identical so that not to be misunderstood for acting as a representative of it here) to how I describe the issues here in the forums. I believe if you just live your anti-Papadopoulos fanaticism on the side for a while, you will also be able to see it.

[Socrates]

I don’t really believe what you actually believe the above comment.

They have changed their position 100 times even them self’s doesn’t know what we are after.

I’m not criticizing Papadopoulos by my anger (I do that) and by him past (allakse sior) but I’m criticizing him also about his total policy and in true facts (propaganda, problem with the UN, the loosing of our friends and goes on).

If he truly want a solution and if he eventually manage to bring a solution I’ll take back all I’ve said and I’ll congratulate him but is man were I will not be able to trust because he is changing his position and destroy our image in the foreigners exactly like Makarios and I can't see any logical reason for that (except religion or other psychology one).