askimwos
Here is VP again feeling threatened and promoting his masters taksim agenda.
Where did I do this please free yourself of a set mentality I did nothing of the sort and only aired issues that have to be taken into account for TCs to say YES again.
So I guess your problem is security? This can easily be sorted with an international UN force overseeing the implementation of the solution for say 10-15 years. This international force should be given the powers to intervene should one of the 2 parts fail to implement any part of the agreement. In order to do so they should be given the powers to intervene based on article 2 of the UN charta.
The UN are useless in moments of crisis, no same TC would be comfortable with UN protection..although the majority of TCs agree to the army leaving as long as the same happens in the south, I cannot see a way past ditching Turkish guarantees altogether...these is the only entity Tcs trust to act in times of need.
Maybe middle ground could be found and Turkey guarantees only the north state.
I do not see any state dominating one another in the Annan plan, what I see are problems with the workability and I expained how these could be solve in my previous post.
The 9-people cabinet allows both the two communities to stop something that may be seen as harming their communities. However, this can only be done if 2 of the 3 members of the TC side disagree with something and if at least 4 of the members of the GC side disagree. This is a step forward from the 1960 agreement where just the president or the vice-president could veto a decision. The 9 member cabinet can only be elected from the senate (24 GC, 24 TC) from a common ballot, i.e. one or more political parties from each community need to cooperate in order to elect the 9 member cabinet office.
I could go on and on discussing the governement structure of the Annan plan that most of GCs had no problem with as this in my opinion was balanced, and based on political equality and maybe better than the 1960's one.
However the balance is struck in numbers the essence must be that for each decision that effects one community more negatively than the other eg Aktritas, constitutional etc then a certain % has to be obtained form that community otherwise the bill will not go through and cannot be forced.
The BBF means that the issues of education, health, local policing, local justice, transport, local economy etc are devolved to the local governments with the issues of federal policing, federal justice, defence, sovereinty, national resources, national waters and aerial space and national economy being controlled by the federal government.
I agree, with the correct structure and safeguards the Federal level will be the uniting factor of the 2 states, and will be made up of both GCs and TCs.
I could go on and on writing about the fact that there is nothing that suggest forced domination of one state to the other.
As for your argument about what happened in the past and whether these can be forgotten, I guess you have to ask your own community about this - the last time I checked the TCs voted 67% for the Annan plan. I say accept the changes suggested above and I gurantee you that 90% of GC will also say yes to such a plan.
My community will only vote YES to a plan that will incorporate 2 specific areas one for TCs and one for GCs, equal political power and effective security.
I think you have to convince your community more than mine as what you suggest has not been put forward or presented as such by your ex eoka man and his cronies.
It obvious that your side cannot go back to the table as this would in effect mean that no result would cement division forever, so its a big risk and one they would rather avoid as they to can sense that the wind is not in their favor as they lost a great deal of credibility over the resounding rejection of the AP.