Cyprus-Forum.com

[Tony-4497]

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

I will never accept a territory ratio similar to the one in the Annan plan. Can you not see that the ratio is ALL that will stay a few years after a solution??

I would be curious to find out what this concept you are referring to might be. Do you really understand what a BBF with POLITICAL EQUALITY means?? However much you negotiate, the outcome CANNOT be very different to the Annan-plan, by definition.

Socrates

The intentions of the Turks are clear and have been stated in no uncertain terms- they want to agree a solution that gives them a degree of sovereignty over an ethnically defined area (which ANY BBF solution with political equality is bound to do). They will then do a split a la Montenegro, Czechoslovakia etc and we will be left with 70% of Cyprus (nothing you can include in the solution can prevent this).

..And the above is the best case scenario! - the worst could be that when the disagreements etc start in the federal government we end up in a deadlock with 2 separate statelets without either having international recognition and cannot function in the UN, EU etc (i.e. we become a "community" and are no longer a country).

This is why I (and the vast majority of GCs) believe that only an idiot could accept an Annan-plan type solution.

[Viewpoint]

Which are the GC members of this forum (if any) that would have returned to their homes under GC administration if the Annan plan was accepted?

I know that polls have been made that measure the acceptance of the Annan plan among refugees. Has any poll measured the acceptance of Annan plan separately just for those refugees that would have returned under GC administration?

Yes, there are such polls that were made after the refferendum (exit polls.)

Kyrenians: 87% rejection
Morfou area (all supposed to return under GC state): 67% rejection.
Entire famagusta district (incl. karpasia): 71% rejection.
Varoshia town (all returning under G/C state): 56% rejection.

do you have an independent link to these figures???

[Viewpoint]

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.

Well said Tony,many more Cypriots on both sides are starting to realize that we have exausted the unification solution as both sides want different things. Agreeing the land distribution and allowing for some GCs refugees to return to the north Im certain a land % can be agreed. We can finally put settle this issue and get on with our lives without the Cyprus problem hanging over our heads.

[Socrates]

Viewpoint

Unfortunately our government doesn’t give me the right to say what you are wrong but this was actually what Dektash said for all this years and I’m just wondering how stupid do they fill all those who proves what Dektash was right?

But is not the right time to speak about partition and I’m just hoping what you are not another one nationalist Ntektash style psychopath like Tony.

Now a new effort has started for a BBF solution and the reasonable people must support this effort.

[Tony-4497]

But is not the right time to speak about partition and I’m just hoping what you are not another one nationalist Ntektash style psychopath like Tony.

That's a bit rich from someone who has voted for the Annan plan!!

How is what I am suggesting (i.e. confederation of 2 states) different to the Annan plan?? (which you supported!)

In practice, absolutely none - in all respects, the substance is the same as the Annan plan i.e. a Turkish ethnic area, over which the Turks have sovereignty, their own laws and constitution, police, flag etc, they can restrict GCs from returning or voting etc. You will still be able to visit Kerynia as a tourist and looking at the "TRNC" flag under both the Annan plan and my solution! What's the difference?

The only key differences under my solution are positive i.e.:
1. We get 82% of the land instead of 70%
2. We represent ourselves within the EU, with our own President, rather than having to have a TC president HALF the time, TC (i.e. Turkish) vetos left right and centre etc..
3. We have our own supreme courts, with no foreign judges
4. Turkey doesn't get right of military intervention in our state
5. We don't have to pay for 90% of the (bloody expensive) central government structure etc
6. There is no risk of deadlock in complex power sharing arrangements and hence conflict/ loss of country status

Your turn now - please educate me.. in PRACTICAL terms, what is the difference between an Annan-plan type solution and a confederation??

[Socrates]

1.We get 82% of the land instead of 70%

We was getting the 70% plus the 1/3 of the TC area and this is 80% you are not so good in math, start with algebra it will help you.

2. We represent ourselves within the EU, with our own President, rather than having to have a TC president HALF the time, TC (i.e. Turkish) vetos left right and centre etc..

The TC president is also Cypriot and is our side who supported all this years what we are able to live together. You are just like Dektash.

3. We have our own supreme courts, with no foreign judges

Very bad, the foreign judge like the foreign soccer referees will be better than ours.

You are not able to understand what Europe means.

4. Turkey doesn't get right of military intervention in our state

If we start an economy and psychology war there will be big problem in our relations and there is always a real war possibility and as a different state they have the right to call Turkey to protect them.

5. We don't have to pay for 90% of the (bloody expensive) central government structure etc

Eat and sleep less it will help you.

6. There is no risk of deadlock in complex power sharing arrangements and hence conflict/ loss of country status

This is risky arrangement for our economy and this is obvious to every one.

You are just a racist man, tour kind had destroyed as once and you want to do it again.

Two separate states two separate economies.

Economy and psychology war for ever.

The Anan plan was a chance for reunion and cooperation for a common future and your bullshits are supporting a war in infinity.

But actually you are just dreaming even that nightmare you are imagined can’t happen because if this effort will collapse they will gain the right to vote for them self’s and they will keep everything because no one will take us seriously if we prove what we was manipulated them for 30 years.

They will be able to bring some millions Turks.

They can keep manipulate as about our properties and they have the right to take their properties in our side.

Vkarte ta mathkia sas monoi sas.

Ntektash and Tony keep walking.

[Kifeas]

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

I will never accept a territory ratio similar to the one in the Annan plan. Can you not see that the ratio is ALL that will stay a few years after a solution??

I would be curious to find out what this concept you are referring to might be. Do you really understand what a BBF with POLITICAL EQUALITY means?? However much you negotiate, the outcome CANNOT be very different to the Annan-plan, by definition.

Socrates

The intentions of the Turks are clear and have been stated in no uncertain terms- they want to agree a solution that gives them a degree of sovereignty over an ethnically defined area (which ANY BBF solution with political equality is bound to do). They will then do a split a la Montenegro, Czechoslovakia etc and we will be left with 70% of Cyprus (nothing you can include in the solution can prevent this).

..And the above is the best case scenario! - the worst could be that when the disagreements etc start in the federal government we end up in a deadlock with 2 separate statelets without either having international recognition and cannot function in the UN, EU etc (i.e. we become a "community" and are no longer a country).

This is why I (and the vast majority of GCs) believe that only an idiot could accept an Annan-plan type solution.

No Tonny, there are ways that something like this will not happen, and still call it a BBF. The way is if we conceptually separate bi-communality from bi-zonality, and tread them as two separate concepts or levels of governance. The way for this, is to regard the two States (zones) to inherently be ruled and controlled by their residents on the basis of their Cypriot citizenship (i.e. regardless of them being members of the one community or the other,) instead of them being inherently and constituantly owned and ruled by each one of the two communities respectively. Like for example the way the States in the USA are regarded. I.e. the state of Florida belongs to all its residents, regardless of their "ethnic" background, and the constitutive power derives from all the residents and not from the members of one ethnic group alone, like for example from the members of the Hispanic or the Afro-American community of the entire US, exclusively and alone. The only relationship the two states will have with the communities will be an indirect one, due to the arranged fact that the majority of the residents of each state will come from each community respectively, so that it allow for the TCs to have an area in which they will administrate by majority of residency presence, but not by virtue of an institutionalized inherent ownership. The institutionalized inherent ownership of the whole of Cyprus (both of the states) will belong to all Cypriots from both of the two communities, just that each one will be administrated by its residents.

Bi-communality (i.e. political rights administrated on the basis of ethnic origin) will represent a separate and complementary level of governance only in a virtual sense (i.e. not one based on territory) in the Central federal legislature (i.e. in the Upper house /senate.) The Lower house, as well as the two state governments, their constitutions and legislatures will be based not on a community (ethnic) basis, but will represent only their Cypriot citizen permanent residents.

Alternatively, an "arrangement" similar to the Annan plan, I agree with you is totally unacceptable, and the only way I would personally ever give it a chance would be if the territorial ratios of the two "ethnically based" states will be on the basis of the populations of the two ethnic groups (community,) as you also describe above, i.e. on a maximum 80:20 basis.

Political equality, as it is defined by the UN SC relevant resolutions, reads as follows:

“While political equality does not mean equal numerical participation in all federal government departments and administration; it should be reflected inter alia in various ways: in the requirement that the federal constitution of the State of Cyprus be approved or amended with the concurrence of both communities, in the effective participation of both communities in all organs and decisions of the federal government; in safeguards to ensure that the federal Government will not be empowered to adopt any measures against the interests of one community, and the equality and identical powers and functions of the two federated states.” (SG report to the SC: S/23780, paragraph 11.)

The above definition was adopted by SC Resolution 750 (1992.)

As one can see from the above definition, political equality doesn’t imply a 50:50 power sharing as such, i.e. duality in every federal administrative or legilslative function -as it was assumed in the case of the federal government’s administrative department heads', nor a 50:50 legislative participation as it was assumed by the Annan plan in the federal senate, neither it implies an outright excessively disproportionate participation –as it was assumed in the federal government’s cabinet (presidential council,) in which there was a 2:1 ratio; but instead it calls for an effective participation in the decision making -something which (effective participation) doesn’t imply separate absolute majorities either!

[cypezokyli]

it is true that political equality does not mean equal numerical participation.
but the way i understand the above , political equality means (as in the 1960s) veto - rights.

my understanding is that what is important for tcs is precisely that a system "ensures that the federal Government will not be empowered to adopt any measures against the interests of one community" , and not equal numerical participation. in that sense (and recalling a proposed system of parliament by kifeas ) i believe we agree.

[Morphou]

'...Morfou area (all supposed to return under GC state): 67% rejection...'


Just to clarify something: The town of Morphou was to be returned to its rightful owners BUT a large agricultural land ( 90%) would have been left under T/C control. Morphou without its land its unthinkable....hence the large rejection by its people. In other words under the Anan plan only the houses of the town of Morphou would have been returned......now what people would do with just houses and not land only god knows.

[Socrates]

I’ve read what Kifeas said for 3 times but unfortunately my English is not so good and I can’t understand the whole meaning.

it is true that political equality does not mean equal numerical participation. but the way i understand the above , political equality means (as in the 1960s) veto - rights.

I agree with that but I can’t understand how we will achieve this:

ensures that the federal Government will not be empowered to adopt any measures against the interests of one community

How Anan plan was against this?

The numerical issue is so important if there are veto rights?

I’ll try to find more info on this in Greek because I’m kind of dizzy.