The Best Cyprus Community

Skip to content


Will Turkey choose Cyprus or EU?

Benefits and problems from the EU membership.

Postby Kifeas » Thu Jul 06, 2006 10:48 pm

Kikapu wrote:Despo,

Thanks a lot for posting the European Parliment procedings of 2004. It was my first read so I got to learn a little bit more. I wonder had the Greek Cypriots were given the true knowledge of the vast support by the international community to the Annan Plan by their leaders, rather than being lied to and deceived by PappaD, which appears that he has played on the GC's fears. Was PappaD really serving his people with the Annan Plan, or he was serving himself and his bunch of power hungry followers. In any case, they had served disservice to the GC's by asking for the "NO" vote, since I don't think many GC's even read or heard much about the plan.



Kikabu, why -instead of anathematizing Papadopoulos for “lying” and “deceiving” the GCs, don’t you “grab the hot charcoals with your own hands,” and comment on the particulars of what I say on the actual plan itself? Prove to us why Papadopoulos was lying in relation to the plan, rather than regurgitating the rhetoric that others produced on the issue!
User avatar
Kifeas
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 4927
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2005 10:19 am
Location: Lapithos, Kyrenia, now Pafos; Cyprus.

Postby Kikapu » Thu Jul 06, 2006 11:01 pm

Kifeas,

I was remarking on what I read and not on the Plan itself. So what I wrote about was how the International community was on board with the plan, and the GC's were not given the facts for them to "really" make up their own minds. So, do you think they would vote "yes" for partition today, or accept the original Annan Plan, since that may be the by-product of the rejection of the AP?
User avatar
Kikapu
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 13540
Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2006 6:18 pm

Postby Kifeas » Thu Jul 06, 2006 11:13 pm

Kikapu wrote:Kifeas,

I was remarking on what I read and not on the Plan itself. So what I wrote about was how the International community was on board with the plan, and the GC's were not given the facts for them to "really" make up their own minds. So, do you think they would vote "yes" for partition today, or accept the original Annan Plan, since that may be the by-product of the rejection of the AP?



And where do you base your claim that "the GCs were not given the facts for them to really make up their own minds?" Based on what evidence have you reached to the above conclusion? Just because several parliamentarians -most of which hadn't even read the plan then- said how good it was? Is this the evidence you have?
User avatar
Kifeas
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 4927
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2005 10:19 am
Location: Lapithos, Kyrenia, now Pafos; Cyprus.

Postby Kikapu » Thu Jul 06, 2006 11:34 pm

Kifeas wrote:
Kikapu wrote:Kifeas,

I was remarking on what I read and not on the Plan itself. So what I wrote about was how the International community was on board with the plan, and the GC's were not given the facts for them to "really" make up their own minds. So, do you think they would vote "yes" for partition today, or accept the original Annan Plan, since that may be the by-product of the rejection of the AP?



And where do you base your claim that "the GCs were not given the facts for them to really make up their own minds?" Based on what evidence have you reached to the above conclusion? Just because several parliamentarians -most of which hadn't even read the plan then- said how good it was? Is this the evidence you have?


Now, you're making an assumption, that no one else had read the AP. If the media were in bed with PappaD to conceal the AP and other peoples views, then I can say, that the GC's were not given the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help their god.
User avatar
Kikapu
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 13540
Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2006 6:18 pm

Postby miltiades » Thu Jul 06, 2006 11:36 pm

Kikapu , I think you should read once again the full script of the Annan Plan , this is where I made up my mind regarding the plan. I rejected it not because the GC Government told me too , but because my logic rejected a plan that would lead my island into the abyss of darkness and catastrophe.
http://www.tcea.org.uk/Annan-Plan-For-C ... lement.htm
User avatar
miltiades
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 16321
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2006 10:01 pm

Postby Kifeas » Fri Jul 07, 2006 12:00 am

Kikapu wrote:
Kifeas wrote:
Kikapu wrote:Kifeas,

I was remarking on what I read and not on the Plan itself. So what I wrote about was how the International community was on board with the plan, and the GC's were not given the facts for them to "really" make up their own minds. So, do you think they would vote "yes" for partition today, or accept the original Annan Plan, since that may be the by-product of the rejection of the AP?



And where do you base your claim that "the GCs were not given the facts for them to really make up their own minds?" Based on what evidence have you reached to the above conclusion? Just because several parliamentarians -most of which hadn't even read the plan then- said how good it was? Is this the evidence you have?


Now, you're making an assumption, that no one else had read the AP. If the media were in bed with PappaD to conceal the AP and other peoples views, then I can say, that the GC's were not given the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help their god.


And who says Kikapu that "the media were in bed with PappaD to conceal the AP and other people's views?" The above parliamentarians of the EP? Where you in Cyprus and thus you are able to confirm such a thing on your own, or you simply take for granted and at face value what (some) others claim? Were they (those parliamentarians) in Cyprus by themselves and thus they know by fact, or they just parrot what others have suggested to them to have been the case? I was in Cyprus, and I can confidently confirm that each side or view was given amble chance and time to make their case heard. I claim this because I was here! You? Where do you base your claims? The Parliamentarians that spoke above? Where do they base their claims? Where they here? No! And even if we assume that all the above that they said have some -even the slightest of truth in them, why hasn't the percentage of people supporting the plan increased since them, but instead the opposite it true, as the polls indicate?

Kikapu, just because someone says or claims something, be it me, you, Despo, miltiades, bananiot, Paten, Poos, Verheugen, or whoever else, without at the same time being able to substantiate it, it doesn't automatically mean that it is also a fact!
User avatar
Kifeas
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 4927
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2005 10:19 am
Location: Lapithos, Kyrenia, now Pafos; Cyprus.

Postby Kikapu » Fri Jul 07, 2006 12:20 am

[quote="Kifeas"][And who says Kikapu that "the media were in bed with PappaD to conceal the AP and other people's views?" The above parliamentarians of the EP? Where you in Cyprus and thus you are able to confirm such a thing on your own, or you simply take for granted and at face value what (some) others claim? Were they (those parliamentarians) in Cyprus by themselves and thus they know by fact, or they just parrot what others have suggested to them to have been the case? I was in Cyprus, and I can confidently confirm that each side or view was given amble chance and time to make their case heard. I claim this because I was here! You? Where do you base your claims? The Parliamentarians that spoke above? Where do they base their claims? Where they here? No! And even if we assume that all the above that they said have some -even the slightest of truth in them, why hasn't the percentage of people supporting the plan increased since them, but instead the opposite it true, as the polls indicate?quote

Kifeas,

If what you say is true that you can not trust the EU parliamentarians to speak the truth, then I don't why the ROC joined a "club of liars". And, no I was not in Cyprus as you well know, so I will have to rely on official statements from an official body. Ask the people if they would support a partition, and my guess, the answer will be "NO". Of course, once the ROC is in the EU, people are lead to believe this will solve all the problems, so there's no need to vote for the AP anymore, so you're right, they do not support the AP, because once again they are being mislead.
User avatar
Kikapu
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 13540
Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2006 6:18 pm

Postby cypezokyli » Fri Jul 07, 2006 12:39 am

Kifeas wrote:
cypezokyli wrote:I always anjoy the rhetoric of KKE.

may i ask which exactly imerialist plans did the AP served ?
(i am not asking why we should have rejected the plan , but why and how it serves imperialist interests. )


Does it take much common sense to realise Cyp? Which else other than the Anglo-American and Turkish ones? Was Cyprus under the Annan plan going to ever be regarded as an independed and sovereign country, or a protectorate of Turkey and the UK, and a "country" that would have never been able to speak with one voice, but always vulnerable to external manipulation and influence.

First of all, let me ask you this simple question. Can I ever ask you to sign a contract with me, in which you vow and guarantee that no matter what (unconditionally,) you are obliged to always regard and treat me as your friend, and that you are obliged to always support the whatever ventures I make or take? Can I ever ask you (or demand from you) to do such a thing for me? Will you ever do it if I ask you something like that? Not only you will never do such a thing, but if you have the slightest dignity you will even regard such a proposition as an insult!


Yet, this is what we were asked to do for Turkey! That we are obliged to always be Turkey’s friends (and Greece’s,) no matter what, and unilaterally (i.e. in a one-way direction and not mutually!)


even if we accept that the plan was designed to serve turkeys interests , i still do not see the american interests (or the british ) from the plan. i cannot even understand what the US will be afraid of if the cyprus is united or divided...

as for the example withthe friends. i think thats an overexaguration or an oversimplification. firstly you can simply view the fact that we would support tukeys accession in the EU as part of the contract. it has nothing to do with friendship whatsoever. not to mention, that in any case, it is in our interests to have turkey in the EU (assuming a solution or not). so if you consider our support for the EU as part of the deal, then i donot see where the problem is.
i mean , assumin the plan was good enough, wouldnt you bargain our support for a solution on the cyppro ? i mean the whole idea of us entering the EU, was precisely to use it as a tool to solve the cyppro.

as to the country not being able to speak in one voice. again how do we reach such a conclusion? from the constitution ? if yes, then what kind of a BBF constituion would allow cyprus to speak with one voice?

(if we are always going to suspect the tcs that they will be instrumentalizedby turkey , (and thus preventing cyprus speaking in one voice) in a united cyprus just to serve turkeys interests, then how are we going to unite in a BBF ? )
cypezokyli
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 2563
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 6:11 pm
Location: deutschland

Postby Alexis » Fri Jul 07, 2006 2:06 pm

as for the example withthe friends. i think thats an overexaguration or an oversimplification. firstly you can simply view the fact that we would support tukeys accession in the EU as part of the contract. it has nothing to do with friendship whatsoever. not to mention, that in any case, it is in our interests to have turkey in the EU (assuming a solution or not). so if you consider our support for the EU as part of the deal, then i donot see where the problem is.
i mean , assumin the plan was good enough, wouldnt you bargain our support for a solution on the cyppro ? i mean the whole idea of us entering the EU, was precisely to use it as a tool to solve the cyppro.


Once again cypezokyli you have come up with a very fair and valid point. At the end of the day this is all about bargaining, after all that is exactly what negotiations are. Unfortunately either way we play we are now going to have to negotiate in part with Turkey and not just TCs unless of course Turkey starts to distance herself from the Cyprob (as Greece has in the past decade or so) by giving TRNC more autonomy and withdrawing the vast majority of her troops from Cyprus, as requested by UN resolutions (Please see other threads or go and read resolutions if you think that the UN have not requested this). What I would say though is that the GC as a community obviously decided that the AP's provisions were not good enough in return for supporting Turkey's accession to the EU, so instead we effectively go back to square one and instead of negotiating the Cyprob exclusively we make it part of the accession process for Turkey. Either way we at some point have to bargain our support for Turkey in return for concessions in a comprehensive settlement for Cyprus which favour us. I feel that this is a risky strategy as we now rely on Turkey being admitted to the EU and negotiating freely with us. What would be ideal is some mechanism for negotiating with the TCs only and keeping Turkey/Greece/UK out of the main discussions. This will be difficult with Turkey but the best way to go forward is to do something pro-active which will help the everyday TCs, e.g. allowing direct trade. This won't knock out Turkey altogether but it may show the international community that we at least are serious about re-kindling the re-unification process and that it is in fact Turkey with her unneccessary involvement in Cyprus and violation of UN resolutions that is in the way of a comprehensive solution.
Alexis
Contributor
Contributor
 
Posts: 405
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 3:36 pm
Location: UK

Postby Socrates » Thu Jul 13, 2006 3:26 pm

even if we accept that the plan was designed to serve turkeys interests , i still do not see the american interests (or the british ) from the plan. i cannot even understand what the US will be afraid of if the cyprus is united or divided...


The conspiracy theories are ridiculous and they have no reason.

USA and UK only interest is to help Turkey to be a Europe member.

These theories are a psychotically problem and are based on the Christians illness.

This illness suggesting what USA and UK want the Anan plan to fail. This is absolutely ridiculous since everyone knows what they try to update the Muslim world in their standards to be able to control them.

The symbiosis between Muslim and Christians is a great issue for them.

They have many reasons to support a workable solution but they have more reasons to put Turkey in Europe and this is only their interference.

Is not necessary to be a Christian to have a Christian virus of the past, because this psychology is beyond logic and it’s deep rooted under emotions.

The actual ideology comes from this unreasonable illness suggest what USA and UK are enemies of the world and they are under one conspiracy to destroy Europe.

And it’s based in the Christians anti-Semitic conclusions.

Because there is not one logical reason that agree with the opinion what is a plan against us, there is some mythologies about the enemies of orthodoxy (who gives them a shit? they are just sick) and enemies of Hellenism which is more logical but it doesn’t suit in any way in the bullshit what the Americans want the Anan plan to fail and eventually destroy Europe.

I’m ready to discuss about this because this is not irony is my well think conclusion of the no reason conspirology

Actually the UK was loosing a big part of the military bases and as united Cyprus could even fight together to through them out.
Socrates
Member
Member
 
Posts: 128
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2006 10:10 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Cyprus and the European Union

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests