Cyprus-Forum.com

[Kifeas]

The Annan central bank issue is yet another example of the concept of duality that the Turks wanted to instill into everything pertaining to the new state of affairs, both from an initiation and from a continuation perspective, but also to care and cure for a possible future split. So far, the TCs did not have a “TRNC” central bank in the north, since the occupied north essentially functions under the monetary umbrella of Turkey. Yet, for the purpose of agreeing to a solution, they came up with the concept of a virtually “pre-existing” (essentially fictitious) Central Bank in the north that -together with the already existing, real and essentially the only functional RoC Central Bank, would subsequently (both) virtually demote themselves into “branches,” in the process of formation of the Federal Central Bank of the common government, so that in a symbolic way or sense they indicate the coming together of “two pre-existing central banks.” With this they aimed at achieving two things. The first is to consolidate the idea that the new state of affairs is not a continuation (evolution) of the RoC, but a virgin birth inception of the out of the blue coming together of two equal “nation /state” sides. The second is -in case the Annan-land experiment would have failed (or made to fail,) and based on the already consolidated initial concept of “virgin birth inception,” the two sides to be regarded as having the same and equal succession or legacy right of the failed commonly created central government’s sovereignty residual, as its hypothetical initial constituents. Hence the inception of the virtual concept of the “pre-existence” of two equal –virtually demoted into the two branches- central banks.

I said it many times. There is no need arguing endlessly on the purposefulness or usefulness of each and every single aspect and /or detail of the Annan plan. To really see and understand the attitude and the (ill) intentions of the Turkish side in accomodating the Annan plan, one has to only look at the constitution of the Turkish Cypriot “constituent” State, and compare it with the respective one of the GC “constituent” state. For me it was enough to understand what it was all about in their minds, and the single most important criterion in rejecting the plan! By the way, can one explain to me why, while in the initial 3 versions of the plan the term that was adopted was that of Component States, in the last 2 versions -4 and 5, the term was changed to that of “Constituent” States? The answer is very simple. Because the term component has only one definition, while the term Constituent has two definitions, with the most common and valid being the one I just described above. Another case of constructive (destructive) ambiguity?

In 1975 and 1977 high-level agreements, the GC community made the huge and unprecedented historical compromise to accept in principle the evolvement of the RoC into a bi-zonal and a bi-communal FEDERATION. This by itself was a very painful and a so-far unreciprocated by the TC community compromise, that the GC community has conceded. This is the maximum we can offer, and it is our red-line. Alternatively, we may as well go for full partition on the basis of 80:20, or try and keep things as they are until the TC change their mind, or until hell freezes and until or until we are strong. Disguised partitions under the spirit and roof of functional confederations of two conceptually “pre-existing,” ethnically based, “quasi-sovereign nation /states,” veiled under the letter of terms such as (loose) federations that the Annan plan had introduced and suggested, are a dead-end waste of time. We haven’t conceded to them for 32 years -as Rolandis would have wanted us to have done, and we will not concede to them now.

[michalis5354]

By the way, can one explain to me why, while in the initial 3 versions of the plan the term that was adopted was that of Component States, in the last 2 versions -4 and 5, the term was changed to that of “Constituent” States?

This is clearly Papadopoulos fault who had failed to negotiate constructively the last vesrions of the A plan which ended to the form AP5 which has been rationally rejected by the GCs. I blame Papadopoulos for this who ought to have worked hard at negiatiations and make it clear that the last changes proposed by the Turkish side are not acceptable. However he kept silent to make the plan as worst as possible to reject it afterwards!

[Viewpoint]

The Annan central bank issue is yet another example of the concept of duality that the Turks wanted to instill into everything pertaining to the new state of affairs, both from an initiation and from a continuation perspective, but also to care and cure for a possible future split. So far, the TCs did not have a “TRNC” central bank in the north, since the occupied north essentially functions under the monetary umbrella of Turkey. Yet, for the purpose of agreeing to a solution, they came up with the concept of a virtually “pre-existing” (essentially fictitious) Central Bank in the north that -together with the already existing, real and essentially the only functional RoC Central Bank, would subsequently (both) virtually demote themselves into “branches,” in the process of formation of the Federal Central Bank of the common government, so that in a symbolic way or sense they indicate the coming together of “two pre-existing central banks.” With this they aimed at achieving two things. The first is to consolidate the idea that the new state of affairs is not a continuation (evolution) of the RoC, but a virgin birth inception of the out of the blue coming together of two equal “nation /state” sides. The second is -in case the Annan-land experiment would have failed (or made to fail,) and based on the already consolidated initial concept of “virgin birth inception,” the two sides to be regarded as having the same and equal succession or legacy right of the failed commonly created central government’s sovereignty residual, as its hypothetical initial constituents. Hence the inception of the virtual concept of the “pre-existence” of two equal –virtually demoted into the two branches- central banks.

I said it many times. There is no need arguing endlessly on the purposefulness or usefulness of each and every single aspect and /or detail of the Annan plan. To really see and understand the attitude and the (ill) intentions of the Turkish side in accomodating the Annan plan, one has to only look at the constitution of the Turkish Cypriot “constituent” State, and compare it with the respective one of the GC “constituent” state. For me it was enough to understand what it was all about in their minds, and the single most important criterion in rejecting the plan! By the way, can one explain to me why, while in the initial 3 versions of the plan the term that was adopted was that of Component States, in the last 2 versions -4 and 5, the term was changed to that of “Constituent” States? The answer is very simple. Because the term component has only one definition, while the term Constituent has two definitions, with the most common and valid being the one I just described above. Another case of constructive (destructive) ambiguity?

In 1975 and 1977 high-level agreements, the GC community made the huge and unprecedented historical compromise to accept in principle the evolvement of the RoC into a bi-zonal and a bi-communal FEDERATION. This by itself was a very painful and a so-far unreciprocated by the TC community compromise, that the GC community has conceded. This is the maximum we can offer, and it is our red-line. Alternatively, we may as well go for full partition on the basis of 80:20, or try and keep things as they are until the TC change their mind, or until hell freezes and until or until we are strong. Disguised partitions under the spirit and roof of functional confederations of two conceptually “pre-existing,” ethnically based, “quasi-sovereign nation /states,” veiled under the letter of terms such as (loose) federations that the Annan plan had introduced and suggested, are a dead-end waste of time. We haven’t conceded to them for 32 years -as Rolandis would have wanted us to have done, and we will not concede to them now.

Total verbal diarrhoea.

[Viewpoint]

Excuse me but are you trying to tell us you are some kind of Talat's assistant?
If yes then you should reveal your real name, otherwise stop backing your arguments with insinuations that you are some sort of insider...

:lol::lol:

I would rather not reveal my identity for fear of repraisals from the likes of Kifeas and Piratis but you can believe me or not I know what was agreed.

[Kifeas]

The Annan central bank issue is yet another example of the concept of duality that the Turks wanted to instill into everything pertaining to the new state of affairs, both from an initiation and from a continuation perspective, but also to care and cure for a possible future split. So far, the TCs did not have a “TRNC” central bank in the north, since the occupied north essentially functions under the monetary umbrella of Turkey. Yet, for the purpose of agreeing to a solution, they came up with the concept of a virtually “pre-existing” (essentially fictitious) Central Bank in the north that -together with the already existing, real and essentially the only functional RoC Central Bank, would subsequently (both) virtually demote themselves into “branches,” in the process of formation of the Federal Central Bank of the common government, so that in a symbolic way or sense they indicate the coming together of “two pre-existing central banks.” With this they aimed at achieving two things. The first is to consolidate the idea that the new state of affairs is not a continuation (evolution) of the RoC, but a virgin birth inception of the out of the blue coming together of two equal “nation /state” sides. The second is -in case the Annan-land experiment would have failed (or made to fail,) and based on the already consolidated initial concept of “virgin birth inception,” the two sides to be regarded as having the same and equal succession or legacy right of the failed commonly created central government’s sovereignty residual, as its hypothetical initial constituents. Hence the inception of the virtual concept of the “pre-existence” of two equal –virtually demoted into the two branches- central banks.

I said it many times. There is no need arguing endlessly on the purposefulness or usefulness of each and every single aspect and /or detail of the Annan plan. To really see and understand the attitude and the (ill) intentions of the Turkish side in accomodating the Annan plan, one has to only look at the constitution of the Turkish Cypriot “constituent” State, and compare it with the respective one of the GC “constituent” state. For me it was enough to understand what it was all about in their minds, and the single most important criterion in rejecting the plan! By the way, can one explain to me why, while in the initial 3 versions of the plan the term that was adopted was that of Component States, in the last 2 versions -4 and 5, the term was changed to that of “Constituent” States? The answer is very simple. Because the term component has only one definition, while the term Constituent has two definitions, with the most common and valid being the one I just described above. Another case of constructive (destructive) ambiguity?

In 1975 and 1977 high-level agreements, the GC community made the huge and unprecedented historical compromise to accept in principle the evolvement of the RoC into a bi-zonal and a bi-communal FEDERATION. This by itself was a very painful and a so-far unreciprocated by the TC community compromise, that the GC community has conceded. This is the maximum we can offer, and it is our red-line. Alternatively, we may as well go for full partition on the basis of 80:20, or try and keep things as they are until the TC change their mind, or until hell freezes and until or until we are strong. Disguised partitions under the spirit and roof of functional confederations of two conceptually “pre-existing,” ethnically based, “quasi-sovereign nation /states,” veiled under the letter of terms such as (loose) federations that the Annan plan had introduced and suggested, are a dead-end waste of time. We haven’t conceded to them for 32 years -as Rolandis would have wanted us to have done, and we will not concede to them now.

Total verbal diarrhoea.

Viewpoint, the things you have learned by following my posts all this time, you wouldn’t have learned even if you had attended not one but two universities, for 4 years each, and all these completely free of charge. Therefore, you should be thankful instead and not to be spitting were you should normally have been kissing …not that it is expectable from such an arrogant, pompous and audacious individual like you to have done anything better whatsoever.

[Viewpoint]

The Annan central bank issue is yet another example of the concept of duality that the Turks wanted to instill into everything pertaining to the new state of affairs, both from an initiation and from a continuation perspective, but also to care and cure for a possible future split. So far, the TCs did not have a “TRNC” central bank in the north, since the occupied north essentially functions under the monetary umbrella of Turkey. Yet, for the purpose of agreeing to a solution, they came up with the concept of a virtually “pre-existing” (essentially fictitious) Central Bank in the north that -together with the already existing, real and essentially the only functional RoC Central Bank, would subsequently (both) virtually demote themselves into “branches,” in the process of formation of the Federal Central Bank of the common government, so that in a symbolic way or sense they indicate the coming together of “two pre-existing central banks.” With this they aimed at achieving two things. The first is to consolidate the idea that the new state of affairs is not a continuation (evolution) of the RoC, but a virgin birth inception of the out of the blue coming together of two equal “nation /state” sides. The second is -in case the Annan-land experiment would have failed (or made to fail,) and based on the already consolidated initial concept of “virgin birth inception,” the two sides to be regarded as having the same and equal succession or legacy right of the failed commonly created central government’s sovereignty residual, as its hypothetical initial constituents. Hence the inception of the virtual concept of the “pre-existence” of two equal –virtually demoted into the two branches- central banks.

I said it many times. There is no need arguing endlessly on the purposefulness or usefulness of each and every single aspect and /or detail of the Annan plan. To really see and understand the attitude and the (ill) intentions of the Turkish side in accomodating the Annan plan, one has to only look at the constitution of the Turkish Cypriot “constituent” State, and compare it with the respective one of the GC “constituent” state. For me it was enough to understand what it was all about in their minds, and the single most important criterion in rejecting the plan! By the way, can one explain to me why, while in the initial 3 versions of the plan the term that was adopted was that of Component States, in the last 2 versions -4 and 5, the term was changed to that of “Constituent” States? The answer is very simple. Because the term component has only one definition, while the term Constituent has two definitions, with the most common and valid being the one I just described above. Another case of constructive (destructive) ambiguity?

In 1975 and 1977 high-level agreements, the GC community made the huge and unprecedented historical compromise to accept in principle the evolvement of the RoC into a bi-zonal and a bi-communal FEDERATION. This by itself was a very painful and a so-far unreciprocated by the TC community compromise, that the GC community has conceded. This is the maximum we can offer, and it is our red-line. Alternatively, we may as well go for full partition on the basis of 80:20, or try and keep things as they are until the TC change their mind, or until hell freezes and until or until we are strong. Disguised partitions under the spirit and roof of functional confederations of two conceptually “pre-existing,” ethnically based, “quasi-sovereign nation /states,” veiled under the letter of terms such as (loose) federations that the Annan plan had introduced and suggested, are a dead-end waste of time. We haven’t conceded to them for 32 years -as Rolandis would have wanted us to have done, and we will not concede to them now.

Total verbal diarrhoea.

Viewpoint, the things you have learned by following my posts all this time, you wouldn’t have learned even if you had attended not one but two universities, for 4 years each, and all these completely free of charge. Therefore, you should be thankful instead and not to be spitting were you should normally have been kissing …not that it is expectable from such an arrogant, pompous and audacious individual like you to have done anything better whatsoever.

You and people like are the reason why we will never be united and reconfirm my reasons for moving away from reunification, you have this pschological need for vegence and hate for anything Turkish which make you very dangerous. This will ensure you go to the grave knowing you did nothing for reunification. The sad part is that you do not realize that you do far more damage than any good. Im sure you are very proud of yourself thats the type of person you are.

[Pyrpolizer]

Hi Kifeas,

Where have you been re? Vocations?
Your absense was inflicting.

[Pyrpolizer]

………The second is -in case the Annan-land experiment would have failed (or made to fail,) and based on the already consolidated initial concept of "virgin birth inception," the two sides to be regarded as having the same and equal succession or legacy right of the failed commonly created central government’s sovereignty residual, as its hypothetical initial constituents. Hence the inception of the virtual concept of the "pre-existence" of two equal –virtually demoted into the two branches- central banks……..

I totally agree Kifeas.
Imo the Anan Plan was practically impossible to succeed. If you look at it financially the state could not even sustain itself and the huge Government structure. Not a single penny would be left for relocation projects so that some GCs would return. In the end we would be begging to split just to survive.

It was designed to fail, and was designed to be ready to recognise two separate states after its failure.

Viewpoint never explained us what’s the use of a Central Bank having branches in each CS. Are we Germany here or USA where the Central Bank needs branches 1000 miles away???

This is clearly Papadopoulos fault who had failed to negotiate constructively the last vesrions of the A plan which ended to the form AP5 which has been rationally rejected by the GCs. I blame Papadopoulos for this who ought to have worked hard at negiatiations and make it clear that the last changes proposed by the Turkish side are not acceptable. However he kept silent to make the plan as worst as possible to reject it afterwards!

Yeah right. I would like to know what would you do, if you were in the position of Honourable Mr Papadopoulos trying to negotiate and telling De Soto we will never accept this and that, and De Soto laughing at you, coming back changing the Anan Plan exactly as per what you would never accept.
Do you know De Soto was appointed at Sahara next to here, and they kicked him out of there after they learned what a paid up crook he was?

[michalis5354]

Yeah right. I would like to know what would you do, if you were in the position of Honourable Mr Papadopoulos trying to negotiate and telling De Soto we will never accept this and that, and De Soto laughing at you, coming back changing the Anan Plan exactly as per what you would never accept.
Do you know De Soto was appointed at Sahara next to here, and they kicked him out of there after they learned what a paid up crook he was?

I said that he ought to have negotiated the plan constructively and in good faith to make as many improvements possible no matter If the plan would have been rejected! The plan got worst and the fact that it got worst it is because he failed to do proper negotiations.

De Soto made a speech after the negotiations that Papadopoulos did not claim enough at negotiations and therefore the final plan was a reflection of that. He was even shocked hearing his speech on TV.

[Pyrpolizer]

I would rather not reveal my identity for fear of repraisals from the likes of Kifeas and Piratis….

You and people like are the reason why we will never be united and reconfirm my reasons for moving away from reunification, you have this pschological need for vegence and hate for anything Turkish which make you very dangerous.

VP will you ever stop this? Kifeas, Piratis and anyone else who writes here is just an average frustrated Cypriot just like you! We are all victims of circumstances, nobody is going to hurt you or anyone else. Perhaps shout a little -out of frustration- and that’s all.

I totally disagree with you that the reason for not reaching a solution so far is because of the "kind of people" you try to label Kifeas, Piratis etc.. In fact if you sincerely search your own heart, you will discover that the reason we did not reach a solution so far is because of some people seemingly very polite, very civil, wearing ties and black suits. Hope you understand me….

Oh, btw Denktash was wrong. Cypriots are not donkies. They are lambs. Stupid, innocent, calm, sleepy, moving with the pack lambs, very good food for the wolves.