Cyprus-Forum.com

Piratis wrote:

I fully support your individual rights and the individual rights of the other law-abiding GCs to return to their ancestral lands within the framework of a sovereign Republic of Northern Cyprus.

And who are you to decide? The people who that area belongs should be the ones to democratically decide if they want a separate state on their own land and not you. The great majority of the people of that area do not want a separate state, do not want the settlers and they do not want the Turkish troops.

So what you say is: "I support democracy as long as what happens is what we want" ... ridiculous.

No state would allow seperatists to excercise their wish of seperation even if they want to do it democratically.
All refugees who wish to return for solely humanitarian reasons to the North, should be welcomed but as an integral, inseperable and unalienable part of the TRNC. TRNC should reserve the right to deny entry to those who seek to destroy it.

Your really dillusioned.

The TRNC in its current form goes against all the political agreements ever made regarding the island. That's it in a nut-shell.
Now, many will find this strange coming from a fairly moderate GC who would have probably voted for the Annan Plan had he got the chance. The fact remains that the TRNC is illegal for a reason and in its current state cannot exist. The spirit of the 1960 agreements was to avoid two doomsday scenarios:

1) Enosis of Cyprus with Greece
2) Separation of Cyprus into two states

This was for a reason. Both scenarios were arguably the worst that could happen to each community at the time (TC and GC rrespectively).

In the current situation the TRNC accounts for one of these scenarios.

And who do we have to thank for the currrent situation??? look no further,

Cypriots

And who do we have to thank for the currrent situation??? look no further,

Cypriots

Precisely, and that is why we need to stop beating the drums of partition which is always going to be a bad state of being for Cyprus, realise that both communities need each other to make Cyprus work and move on.

Alexis wrote:

And who do we have to thank for the currrent situation??? look no further,

Cypriots

Precisely, and that is why we need to stop beating the drums of partition which is always going to be a bad state of being for Cyprus, realise that both communities need each other to make Cyprus work and move on.

Why don’t we give it a try on this board? Alexis, you said you might have voted for the Annan plan. I take that to mean you did not like parts of it. Could you put together a plan that you would like (short and precise please) and we all can add or subtract or even agree. See if we can do what the politicians cannot.

Alexis wrote:

And who do we have to thank for the currrent situation??? look no further,

Cypriots

Precisely, and that is why we need to stop beating the drums of partition which is always going to be a bad state of being for Cyprus, realise that both communities need each other to make Cyprus work and move on.

Pure Utopia, Cypriots are not capable or posess the desire to reunite and live together as one nation. This will becomemore andmore evident as time passes, in another 30 years, our children will still be arguing the same old crap.

If there's one thing that will fuel this, it's partition.

Why don’t we give it a try on this board? Alexis, you said you might have voted for the Annan plan. I take that to mean you did not like parts of it. Could you put together a plan that you would like (short and precise please) and we all can add or subtract or even agree. See if we can do what the politicians cannot.

Apologies in advance if this is too long, but I have this predisposition to rant. Anyways, this is just a starter for 10, which could do with fleshing out. Please remember, at the end of the day this just my opinion.

Ok, let's be realistic, the Annan Plan is massive and I would ideally want to sift through and analyse each clause. There's no time to do that, but I would like to point out my main gripes with the plan and what I would do differently:

1) For me (and many GCs) the right of residence anywhere in Cyprus for all Cypriots is paramount. The permanent restrictions on residence based on ethnic background was clearly unacceptable. Individuals should be allowed to choose where to live. This does not mean there should not be a transition period. Resrictions on the amount of property any one individual can purchase coupled with restrictions on large businesses buying large swathes of land can be imposed for a fixed time.

2) The wording of the Annan Plan was very clever in attempting to make the constitution of Cyprus amenable to both communities. In doing this, however it throws up some stunning contradictions in terms (subject to interpretation of course). The devil is mainly in the detail, but it is worth looking at the following article:

START QUOTE
Article 2 The United Cyprus Republic, its federal government, and its constituent states
1. The status and relationship of the United Cyprus Republic, its federal government, and its constituent states, is modeled on the status and relationship of Switzerland, its federal government, and its cantons. Accordingly:
a. The United Cyprus Republic is an independent state in the form of an indissoluble partnership, with a federal government and two equal constituent states, the Greek Cypriot State and the Turkish Cypriot State. Cyprus is a member of the United Nations and has a single international legal personality and sovereignty. The United Cyprus Republic is organised under its Constitution in accordance with the basic principles of rule of law, democracy, representative republican government, political equality, bi-zonality, and the equal status of the constituent states.
b. The federal government sovereignly exercises the powers specified in the Constitution, which shall ensure that Cyprus can speak and act with one voice internationally and in the European Union, fulfill its obligations as a European Union member state, and protect its integrity, borders, resources and ancient heritage.
c. The constituent states are of equal status. Within the limits of the Constitution, they sovereignly exercise all powers not vested by the Constitution in the federal government, organising themselves freely under their own Constitutions.
2. The constituent states shall cooperate and co-ordinate with each other and with the federal government, including through Cooperation Agreements, as well as through Constitutional Laws approved by the federal Parliament and both constituent state legislatures. In particular, the constituent states shall participate in the formulation and implementation of policy in external relations and European Union affairs on matters within their sphere of competence, in accordance with Cooperation Agreements modeled on the Belgian example. The constituent states may have commercial and cultural relations with the outside world in conformity with the Constitution.
3. The federal government and the constituent states shall fully respect and not infringe upon the powers and functions of each other. There shall be no hierarchy between federal and constituent state laws. Any act in contravention of the Constitution shall be null and void.
4. The Constitution of the United Cyprus Republic may be amended by separate majority of the voters of each constituent state in accordance with the specific provisions of the Constitution.
END QUOTE

This is very cunningly worded to make the country look united (amenable to GCs) but at the same time give the Constituent states a lot of autonomy (amenable to TCs).
For the most part this article should stay. In fact I would probably have voted for Annan simply bassed on clause 1a). For me, my main worry is the fact that there is no hierarchy between the federal government and the constituent states. To the best of my knowledge this system has never been tried out before; even in Switzerland this is not the case. Now, many TC will argue for as loose a federation as possible, to prevent them becoming a 'minority in their own country'. I would say that at the federal level a mechanism can be put in place which will ensure that the GCs can never dominate proceedings in issues that are sensitive to both communities. I would go further and suggest that in general a three-tier system might work:

A) Federal Centralised government with maybe a senate (50-50) and a house of representatives (proportional rep with limits?), with a mechanism to prevent GC dominance on certain issues. At this level only national issues such as health are dealt with.

B) Constituent States government elected by members of that community only that deals with sensitive local and constituent state issues such as schools, social services etc....

C) Local government. Does not deal with any issues that are sensitive to the communities. I.E. only deals with things like transport, utilities, street lighting, hospitals, etc...

The taxation system would reflect the above to ensure that, e.g. GCs pay for GC schools and TCs for TC schools.

3) Restitution for property. I strongly believe that adequate compensation should be given to disspossed refugees that are not given their homes back. Compensation is clearly the way forward as it allows many established settlers to stay and also deals with the other complexities of the property issue. If at all possible, however, land should be given back to the original owners. Problem is, who pays for this, I believe the GCCS pays for TC refugees it dispossessed and that Turkey should pay for GC refugees, this will lighten the burden for the TCCS. Raising the money internationally may be an option.

4) Territorial adjustment. This begins to become a secondary issue simply because there will be no residence and political restrictions in either constituent state based on ethnicity. Many GC would welcome some kind of adjustment though. For me the present lines can stay provided that there is true freedom of culture, residence and politics in both states under the mechanism described above.

The objective is a unified two-state federation which has some sort of bond. The idea is to make Cypriots proud of their country and not just their ethnicity.

the United Cyprus Republic, its federal government, and its constituent states, is modeled on the status and relationship of Switzerland

This : http://www.admin.ch/ is the official website of Switzerland. Note that it says: Welcome to the Authorities of the Swiss Confederation.
Not only the Annan plan was based on a confederation, and not a Federation as it has been agreed, the relationship between the two states is even weaker than that of the Swiss confederation.

While, as Alexios noted, the Annan plan says: "There shall be no hierarchy between federal and constituent state laws.", the constitution of Switzerland says:

Art. 49 Supremacy of and Respect for Federal Law
1 Federal law takes precedence over contrary cantonal law.
2 The Confederation shall ensure that the Cantons respect federal law.

Therefore what was proposed to us with the Annan plan was not even a confederation, but a weak association of two separate countries (= disguised partition).

The "unity" was only as much as it was needed for Turkey to legalize partition, and for TCs to receive the benefits of such "union" (EU membership, money flowing from the GCs to TCs), while GCs received in return about 7% of land only! Our human rights were not respected. What kind of "solution" was this that didn't even restore the basic human rights of people? The Americans were thinking only to solve the problem of the EU accesion of Turkey and thats the only problem the Annan plan was trying to solve. NOT the Cyprus problem.

Yes we agreed for BBF. We never agreed for disguised partition or confederation and we will never do.
The next plan should be based on a country such as the US or Russia who are indeed federations (as we agreed) and not on a confederation.