Cyprus-Forum.com

[Piratis]

My point was this. Your option is the same or very similar to the constitution of 1960. We tried that and for reasons we all know failed miserably.

The main reasons were:

1) The 1960 agreements were not a result of the democratic wish of Cypriots, but they were instead imposed on us with no alternative option given.

2) The Ottoman/British way of dividing Cypriots along ethnic lines was incorporated by them into the 1960 constidution.

3) It had problems of functionality

4) It allowed foreign intervention and foreign troops which led to the events of 1974. (by Greece and Turkey, and UK in the background)

Therefore if we are going to change something from the 1960 agreements we need to make them better if its going to have a chance to survive.

Of course those that wanted the Annan plan didn't care for how long it would survive. In fact it was the opposite. They wanted to make that plan as bad as possible so it would fail as fast as possible since the result after its failure would be 2 separate countries, what their aim has always been.

Therefore the solution of the Cyprus problem will not be anything similar to the Annan plan. Cyprus will remain de facto divided for as long as Turkey has the power to enforce this illegality. Then it would be returned to RoC and the necessary changes to the RoC constidution will be applied as per the EU acquis to make it more functional and democratic.

Meanwhile we will be forced to live in a divided country, but at least we will have democracy and we will not be treated as second category citizens by our own government.

[Bananiot]

Kifeas, are you suggesting that in theory, the "north state" can have a Greek Cypriot majority but it would be run and administered by the TC's?

[Kifeas]

Kifeas, are you suggesting that in theory, the "north state" can have a Greek Cypriot majority but it would be run and administered by the TC's?

I am suggesting that both in theory and in practice, (and assuming a careful and correct territorial adjustment and a reasonable time frame of freedom of settlement derogations /limitations,) the TC community will always be the substantial majority within the boundaries of the North (TC) state, provided also that the TC community will continue to remain in its largest portion as residents of the North (TC) state. Nevertheless, like in any or all other part of the world, the internal inherent power of each state's constitutional structure should derive from (all) its permanent residents, and not from the members of one community alone (as it was the case of the Annan plan.) The states and their constitutions should be multicultural, and should not prejudice against members of either community, with the exception of the state government’s working language. For example, the EU has 22 official languages, but only 3 are the working languages of its various institutions.

Yes, in the extreme scenario in which, for whatever reason, the majority of the members of the TC community will decide to move and become permanent residents of the South (GC) state, or emigrate elsewhere in Europe, then inevitably the majority of the residents of the North (TC) state may end up being form the GC community. ...If there is such a possibility ...against all odds. Would should we do in such a scenario, live the north empty from inhabitants?

If the territorial adjustment is done on a fairer basis, I personally would be willing to accept permanent majority guarantees for the TCs in the North (TC) state, even though as I said above, this not needed in practice. However, if the North (TC) state will cover the 29% of Cyprus, and more importantly the 48% of Cyprus coastline areas (as in the A-plan,) then I am not prepared for such a concession, regardless of the fact that most likely it will always remain of theoretical importance and only in the books.

[Kifeas]

I would like to add something relevant to the above post. The GC community has a 3,500 years old historical and cultural presence in this country. In the whole of this country, and evenly so in all of its parts and cornerst! It is a very heavy load, but also a historical right! It is not something we can trade with anything in this world, since it defines what we are. It is not something that can be compensated with money. We cannot accept any solution which will in one way or another deprive us of the right, the sentiment and the notion of regarding the whole of this country as our homeland, and the right to protect our and our country’s entire historical heritage.

To the extent that the TC community will understand, recognise and accept this reality and fact, then to the same extent it will gain the trust, respect, support, help and co-operation of the GC community in retaining and enhancing its own distinct cultural and ethnic identity and political equality, in a multicultural Cyprus. To the extent that the TC community will continue ignoring and belittling and even worst try to falsify the above fact and reality –a historical reality of thousands of years old, and to the extent that it will continue insisting on solutions that will end up depriving from us of the above natural and historical rights -by claiming and citing the so called "realities on the ground" of the last 30 or 40 years, then to the same extent it is inviting the continuation of the disheartening and hatred of the GC community towards them.

[stuballstu]

Piratis wrote

Quote:
My point was this. Your option is the same or very similar to the constitution of 1960. We tried that and for reasons we all know failed miserably.

The main reasons were:

1) The 1960 agreements were not a result of the democratic wish of Cypriots, but they were instead imposed on us with no alternative option given.

Piratis

Why do you continue to post in-accuracies?

The constitution of Cyprus was negotiated between Britain, Turkey, Greece, Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots. It was NEVER forced upon anyone. The democratically elected politicians not only negotiated it but accepted it.

You could have stayed under British Rule as an alternative.

However it suited the Greek/Greek Cypriot politicians at the time as it would give him the excuses to follow the quest of ENOSIS.

[Kifeas]

Piratis wrote

Quote:
My point was this. Your option is the same or very similar to the constitution of 1960. We tried that and for reasons we all know failed miserably.

The main reasons were:

1) The 1960 agreements were not a result of the democratic wish of Cypriots, but they were instead imposed on us with no alternative option given.

Piratis

Why do you continue to post in-accuracies?

The constitution of Cyprus was negotiated between Britain, Turkey, Greece, Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots. It was NEVER forced upon anyone. The democratically elected politicians not only negotiated it but accepted it.

You could have stayed under British Rule as an alternative.

However it suited the Greek/Greek Cypriot politicians at the time as it would give him the excuses to follow the quest of ENOSIS.

stuballstu, I am afraid that it is you that posts inaccuracies in this case. The 1960 agreements we negotiated only by Greece, Turkey and Britain, but the two communities have not taken part in those negotiations. It is also true that Makarios and the GC leadership, once they saw the whole package, they did not want to sign it, and in the end they had to be blackmailed by the British in accepting them, which threatened them with imitate partition on the basis of the McMillan plan that they had previously devised with Turkey. May we see your source which verify what you have suggested above?

[Piratis]

You could have stayed under British Rule as an alternative.

Sure, sure. Like if they put a gun on your head and make you give them everything you have and then they tell you "Hey, you could have died as an alternative".

What i say is perfectly accurate. The Cyprus constidution should have been decided by Cypriots ALONE with democratic procedures. Instead of that it was decided by others and to us it was presented us "take it or leave it", with "leave it" meaning to continue to be slaves of the British.

However it suited the Greek/Greek Cypriot politicians at the time as it would give him the excuses to follow the quest of ENOSIS.

http://www.un.org/Depts/dpi/decolonizat ... ration.htm

"the Assembly approved resolution 1541 (XV), defining free association with an independent State, integration into an independent State, or independence as the three legitimate options of full self-government."

So who are you to tell us what we can and what we can't do since even union with Greece was a perfectly legitimate option for Cypriots to choose from in a democratic way?

We NEVER asked for anything we didn't have the right for. The ones that caused all conflicts in Cyprus are those that came as invaders from abroad and then wanted to impose their will on us against the will of the great majority of the population of our island.

[Bananiot]

How in heaven the Cypriots alone could decide the Cyprus Constitution when in 1959 we were fighting for enosis, it really beats me. It is all very easy to blame everybody else if you isolate incidences and forget the underlining fctors. In 1959, Piratis, we cared not for an independent Cyprus. We had eyes and ears only for enosis and this is what brought us to this predicament. Yes, we were forced to accept the 1959 constitution but, we thought we could use it as a stepping stone to achieve enosis. And yes, the "others" will do the job for us again, if we do not stop flying in the clouds.

[MR-from-NG]

Excellent post Bananiot. Your comments are always closest to the truth.

[Issy1956]

Agree totally with you Bananiot- the GC persuit of Enosis bought us to this point today-where we might have been without it who knows.