I thought to start a thread wherein people can comment about my study, which was a poll of 1000 Greek Cypriots into what type of solution they would like and how they would wish to see the Annan Plan changed.
For those who have missed it, the download link for my study is as follows: (right click - save target as)
http://www.visionmatters.co.uk/GCandUNPlan.pdf
How do the TCs in the forum feel? Can the changes recommended in the study be incorporated? How do the GCs in the forum feel? Are the changes recommended in the study sufficient?
I look forward to hear from everyone ...
Any comments / feedback regarding Alexandros' study?
20 posts
• Page 1 of 2 • 1, 2
Any comments / feedback regarding Alexandros' study?
by Alexandros Lordos » Sat Dec 11, 2004 8:18 pm
- Alexandros Lordos
- Contributor
- Posts: 987
- Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2004 8:41 pm
by Othellos » Sun Dec 12, 2004 8:32 am
Hello Alexandos
My conratulations for your initiative to conduct this study. One thing that still puzzles me is to what extend one can rely on your findings with respect to the level of understanding among the public? Personally I remember discussing the plan with several people who claimed they knew the plan while they still ignored several important aspects of it. Could there be another way to "verify" the true level of awareness of those interviewed, perhaps throught a short, quiz-like "questionnaire" on the key aspects of the plan (just thinking aloud here)?
Best Regards
O.
My conratulations for your initiative to conduct this study. One thing that still puzzles me is to what extend one can rely on your findings with respect to the level of understanding among the public? Personally I remember discussing the plan with several people who claimed they knew the plan while they still ignored several important aspects of it. Could there be another way to "verify" the true level of awareness of those interviewed, perhaps throught a short, quiz-like "questionnaire" on the key aspects of the plan (just thinking aloud here)?
Best Regards
O.
- Othellos
- Contributor
- Posts: 291
- Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2004 6:52 pm
by Alexandros Lordos » Sun Dec 12, 2004 11:30 am
Yes Othellos, I think you are right. The main focus of the study was not on how well people understood the Plan, but rather on what improvements to the Plan they require ... If someone wants to reliably estimate true level of awareness (and compare that with perceived awareness) , then the best way to do it is what you suggest: A quiz-type questionnaire, and then also a question on how well they think they know the Plan. Comparing the two (perceived Vs actual awareness) would yield some very interesting results ...
- Alexandros Lordos
- Contributor
- Posts: 987
- Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2004 8:41 pm
by Othellos » Sun Dec 12, 2004 3:36 pm
The main focus of the study was not on how well people understood the Plan, but rather on what improvements to the Plan they require ...
Then the next logical question to wonder about is this: how can one know what changes he or she wants to see in the UN plan when he / she may not understand the proposal in the first place (still thinking aloud).
O.
- Othellos
- Contributor
- Posts: 291
- Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2004 6:52 pm
by Piratis » Sun Dec 12, 2004 4:18 pm
how can one know what changes he or she wants to see in the UN plan when he / she may not understand the proposal in the first place (still thinking aloud).
They know some basic facts, e.g. that not all refugees will return, that most settlers will stay etc. The rest are what politicians managed to convince them.
Personally I believe that if people understood the plan more, the rejection would have been even higher. This is because all the positive points are well known and publicized while not all negative points were publicized in the same degree and the "no" campaign was mainly restricted to the points that could be easily understood by the average person.
-
Piratis - Moderator
- Posts: 12261
- Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 11:08 pm
by MicAtCyp » Mon Dec 13, 2004 12:59 am
Piratis I had the same opinion like you.However sometimes polls can prove our opinion wrong.According to Alexandros poll the people who knew the Anan Plan very well voted yes in greater numbers than the average polulation, but at the same time those of them who voted NO want much much more changes to approve it.
I think this is a safe conclusion so far, although I admit that I did not read all of it yet.
I think this is a safe conclusion so far, although I admit that I did not read all of it yet.
-
MicAtCyp - Regular Contributor
- Posts: 1579
- Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2004 10:10 am
by MicAtCyp » Sun Jan 02, 2005 11:38 pm
Hi Alexandre and Happy New year.
OK finally I have read your complete study. I don't really have anything other that possitive comments for your initiative, your hard work, and for your care to promote a useful study to those circles that might help promote a fair solution to the Cyprus problem.
Herebelow are my comments which please consider as constructive critisism that might help in case you would some day perhaps revise some parts.
Obviously your study is based on those 20 parts of question No 2. The first thing one would ask, are those 20 questions enough? In my opinion you missed a very important question that of the British bases, and their upgrading to a state within a state with sea shell rights.
Despite of that I would say the other 20 questions were critical, relevant, and covered the subject almost completely. The fact they were critical can be seen from the fact that the sum of the percentages of people who answered "it is essential" with those who said "nice to have" in most cases ranges from 90-100%.
A comment I would like to make here, is whether you considered checking that "nice to have" percentage , whether it actually represents our "negotiating margin".
I will start my comments from page 31 onwards since I already gave my comments for the rest in previous posts.
Page 42. Greater proportion of each refugees property. I already gave my opinion previously that this is very vague and subjective. In my opinion anything less than 100% or partial regain and partial exchange with TC property will not be satisfactory, and even if the Plan passes will create terrible problems after a solution that can even lead to bloodshed. The bonds are totally out of question.
Page 43 fig 4.4 That's a very unexpected result. In my opinion there must be something wrong with this table.
Fig 4.5 Again I am happy from the fact thar the sum of Essensial and nice to have comes near to 100%
Figure 4.6. This 53% like you noticed is a relatively small percentage but if we add the "would be nice" percentage we reach the 80% figure. Perhaps an additional conclusion might be that more than half do not beleive they will be satisfied by any plan regarding this issue, so they want to have an alternative way to claim their rights.
Page 45.I think here you were carried away by the propaganda of the NO supporters. The 90% cost is totally irrelevant because according to the economics of the Anan Plan (See Vasiliou study) both constituent states would receive less than what they themselves would contribute-and they would always be on very serious deficit. The 90% would ONLY be valid if the economics of the Anan Plan were correct. Furthermore if that would occur, it would only be valid as financing of the TC Fed State by the GC Fed state through the Fed State AND NOT as cost of running the Fed State itself.
(Actually it would be valid for that too, but to a much lesser degree I think about 1/20 th of the total)
Page 46. Settlers:Imagine what your poll would show if the people knew the WHOLE truth about how many settlers would stay according to the Anan Plan...
Page 49 Fig 4.11. A very good and interesting result.Perhaps the hardcore of your study. I will keep this on file. May I repeat once again however my protest regarding the missing question about the British bases and their donation of sea shell rights.I wonder where that would rank in this graph.
Page 54 last paragraph: Wow 69% of them are women! It’s a long time now I discovered that women are cleverer than men on some issues....
page 55.The problem however is that we are already in Europe and there is not a single chance anymore for derrogations. The Anan Plan was designed for acceptance BEFORE we entered the EU!!
Page 56. Paragraph before last: This is what actually the Bankers and the bussiness people want.
page 57. Hmmm very interesting!! So the very maximum the Anan Plan can get even if ALL the demands of the GCs are satisfied is ONLY 75%...
Page 59. It seems to me there is a FIXED percentage of about 50% of people who say "Either burry the Plan or let the right of refugees to return intact".
Page 59. Fig 4.14 I think there must be something wrong here. If on the first 2 options the refugees are a minority then on at least one of the rest of the options they should be the majority.
Page 61. Second paragraph. Here I disagree. The right of return of refugees DOES affect the matter of Bizonality and it is wrong to say that the changes we want will not affect the "rights" of the TCs.Not only it is wrong IT IS ALSO UNETHICAL to tell the TCs that the changes we want will not take away any rights from them.Of course they will take away rights from them, rights that were unjustifiably deprived from the GCs on the first place.
Furthermore in my opinion the average GC people do not know what bizonality means in terms of how it is going to affect their basic human rights.
This is repeated on page 76 3rd line, and like I said I disagree.
Page 76 middle:The matter of withdrwal of troops. I think in addition to the eventual complete removal of all troops, there should be a question as how the GCs would feel when the next day after a solution we would have inside the United Republic 38K Turkish troops with full intervention rights, and how would they feel if after the 29 months and until 2011 we would still have 6000 Turkish and 6000 Greek troops. And what changes they would like to see on this. In my opinion the number of troops should be reduced to about 2000 within one week after a solution and down to zero 3 years after and their rights be very limited and specific-certainly with no rights on the other constituent state.
page 78.Count me inside the bitterness group : - )
OK finally I have read your complete study. I don't really have anything other that possitive comments for your initiative, your hard work, and for your care to promote a useful study to those circles that might help promote a fair solution to the Cyprus problem.
Herebelow are my comments which please consider as constructive critisism that might help in case you would some day perhaps revise some parts.
Obviously your study is based on those 20 parts of question No 2. The first thing one would ask, are those 20 questions enough? In my opinion you missed a very important question that of the British bases, and their upgrading to a state within a state with sea shell rights.
Despite of that I would say the other 20 questions were critical, relevant, and covered the subject almost completely. The fact they were critical can be seen from the fact that the sum of the percentages of people who answered "it is essential" with those who said "nice to have" in most cases ranges from 90-100%.
A comment I would like to make here, is whether you considered checking that "nice to have" percentage , whether it actually represents our "negotiating margin".
I will start my comments from page 31 onwards since I already gave my comments for the rest in previous posts.
Page 42. Greater proportion of each refugees property. I already gave my opinion previously that this is very vague and subjective. In my opinion anything less than 100% or partial regain and partial exchange with TC property will not be satisfactory, and even if the Plan passes will create terrible problems after a solution that can even lead to bloodshed. The bonds are totally out of question.
Page 43 fig 4.4 That's a very unexpected result. In my opinion there must be something wrong with this table.
Fig 4.5 Again I am happy from the fact thar the sum of Essensial and nice to have comes near to 100%
Figure 4.6. This 53% like you noticed is a relatively small percentage but if we add the "would be nice" percentage we reach the 80% figure. Perhaps an additional conclusion might be that more than half do not beleive they will be satisfied by any plan regarding this issue, so they want to have an alternative way to claim their rights.
Page 45.I think here you were carried away by the propaganda of the NO supporters. The 90% cost is totally irrelevant because according to the economics of the Anan Plan (See Vasiliou study) both constituent states would receive less than what they themselves would contribute-and they would always be on very serious deficit. The 90% would ONLY be valid if the economics of the Anan Plan were correct. Furthermore if that would occur, it would only be valid as financing of the TC Fed State by the GC Fed state through the Fed State AND NOT as cost of running the Fed State itself.
(Actually it would be valid for that too, but to a much lesser degree I think about 1/20 th of the total)
Page 46. Settlers:Imagine what your poll would show if the people knew the WHOLE truth about how many settlers would stay according to the Anan Plan...
Page 49 Fig 4.11. A very good and interesting result.Perhaps the hardcore of your study. I will keep this on file. May I repeat once again however my protest regarding the missing question about the British bases and their donation of sea shell rights.I wonder where that would rank in this graph.
Page 54 last paragraph: Wow 69% of them are women! It’s a long time now I discovered that women are cleverer than men on some issues....
page 55.The problem however is that we are already in Europe and there is not a single chance anymore for derrogations. The Anan Plan was designed for acceptance BEFORE we entered the EU!!
Page 56. Paragraph before last: This is what actually the Bankers and the bussiness people want.
page 57. Hmmm very interesting!! So the very maximum the Anan Plan can get even if ALL the demands of the GCs are satisfied is ONLY 75%...
Page 59. It seems to me there is a FIXED percentage of about 50% of people who say "Either burry the Plan or let the right of refugees to return intact".
Page 59. Fig 4.14 I think there must be something wrong here. If on the first 2 options the refugees are a minority then on at least one of the rest of the options they should be the majority.
Page 61. Second paragraph. Here I disagree. The right of return of refugees DOES affect the matter of Bizonality and it is wrong to say that the changes we want will not affect the "rights" of the TCs.Not only it is wrong IT IS ALSO UNETHICAL to tell the TCs that the changes we want will not take away any rights from them.Of course they will take away rights from them, rights that were unjustifiably deprived from the GCs on the first place.
Furthermore in my opinion the average GC people do not know what bizonality means in terms of how it is going to affect their basic human rights.
This is repeated on page 76 3rd line, and like I said I disagree.
Page 76 middle:The matter of withdrwal of troops. I think in addition to the eventual complete removal of all troops, there should be a question as how the GCs would feel when the next day after a solution we would have inside the United Republic 38K Turkish troops with full intervention rights, and how would they feel if after the 29 months and until 2011 we would still have 6000 Turkish and 6000 Greek troops. And what changes they would like to see on this. In my opinion the number of troops should be reduced to about 2000 within one week after a solution and down to zero 3 years after and their rights be very limited and specific-certainly with no rights on the other constituent state.
page 78.Count me inside the bitterness group : - )
-
MicAtCyp - Regular Contributor
- Posts: 1579
- Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2004 10:10 am
by Alexandros Lordos » Mon Jan 03, 2005 4:08 pm
Hi MicAtCyp,
Happy New Year to you too.
Thank you for taking the time to read my study and make comments. The praise is appreciated, but your constructive criticism even more so ...
Here are my thoughts/responses:
a. British Bases/Seashell rights - I must admit my ignorance on this issue: What exactly did the British get in the Annan Plan? Or was it in the revised Treaty of Establishment? If you have a link or a quote for me, I would appreciate it ...
b. Cost of Federal Government - I am not sure I understand what you are trying to explain to me, how exactly was I carried away here by the "No" propaganda? ... do you have a link for the Vassiliou study, by the way? Or if you have it on your computer, maybe you could e-mail it to me at [email protected] ...
c. Derogations from acquis. How exactly does being inside the EU change things, in the matter of derogations? Last thing I heard, the EU assured the UN that it would accomodate the terms of any Cyprus settlement, even if that meant derogations. How is it different now?
d. Graphs about refugees. Nothing wrong here ... don't forget that refugees are only 40% of the total population, so there is no reason why any particular sub-group should be very far from this percentage. As for chart 4.4 (many refugees not having a problem with property provisions) don't forget that the Annan plan would have meant for many refugees full restitution of property (Famagusta, Morphou, even Karpasia) ...
e. ECHR petitions. I agree with your alternative interpretation ...
f. Thought that "nice to have" is our negotiating margin ... wow! This hadn't occured to me ...
g. Actual percent of property. You are right that my question is vague. Perhaps a second study is called for, studying exclusively the issue of property and right of return, so that we can get some more detailed data ... An issue that we certainly need to resolve, is how much interest there is to return under TC administration, and what other amendments people would like to see before they feel secure enough to relocate to the north. I think Clerides made a crucial error in assuming that there would be no such interest, therefore falling into the "compenstation only, no restitution" trap during the negotiations.
h. Security and troop levels. Again, this could profitably be the subject of a further study ...
i. Rights of TCs. I guess I was thinking about political equality when I said that no rights need be removed from them ... it never occured to me that it is their "right" to hold on to extra property that doesn't belong to them ... but I guess you have a point.
j. Bitterness group. I am in there myself too, but also in "hope" ...
Have a nice day ...
Happy New Year to you too.
Thank you for taking the time to read my study and make comments. The praise is appreciated, but your constructive criticism even more so ...
Here are my thoughts/responses:
a. British Bases/Seashell rights - I must admit my ignorance on this issue: What exactly did the British get in the Annan Plan? Or was it in the revised Treaty of Establishment? If you have a link or a quote for me, I would appreciate it ...
b. Cost of Federal Government - I am not sure I understand what you are trying to explain to me, how exactly was I carried away here by the "No" propaganda? ... do you have a link for the Vassiliou study, by the way? Or if you have it on your computer, maybe you could e-mail it to me at [email protected] ...
c. Derogations from acquis. How exactly does being inside the EU change things, in the matter of derogations? Last thing I heard, the EU assured the UN that it would accomodate the terms of any Cyprus settlement, even if that meant derogations. How is it different now?
d. Graphs about refugees. Nothing wrong here ... don't forget that refugees are only 40% of the total population, so there is no reason why any particular sub-group should be very far from this percentage. As for chart 4.4 (many refugees not having a problem with property provisions) don't forget that the Annan plan would have meant for many refugees full restitution of property (Famagusta, Morphou, even Karpasia) ...
e. ECHR petitions. I agree with your alternative interpretation ...
f. Thought that "nice to have" is our negotiating margin ... wow! This hadn't occured to me ...
g. Actual percent of property. You are right that my question is vague. Perhaps a second study is called for, studying exclusively the issue of property and right of return, so that we can get some more detailed data ... An issue that we certainly need to resolve, is how much interest there is to return under TC administration, and what other amendments people would like to see before they feel secure enough to relocate to the north. I think Clerides made a crucial error in assuming that there would be no such interest, therefore falling into the "compenstation only, no restitution" trap during the negotiations.
h. Security and troop levels. Again, this could profitably be the subject of a further study ...
i. Rights of TCs. I guess I was thinking about political equality when I said that no rights need be removed from them ... it never occured to me that it is their "right" to hold on to extra property that doesn't belong to them ... but I guess you have a point.
j. Bitterness group. I am in there myself too, but also in "hope" ...
Have a nice day ...
- Alexandros Lordos
- Contributor
- Posts: 987
- Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2004 8:41 pm
20 posts
• Page 1 of 2 • 1, 2
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest
© 2002 - 2015 Cyprus-Forum.com
