Cyprus-Forum.com

[Alexandros Lordos]

Some more information ...

The following are changes which were particularly popular amongst those who voted No in last April's referendum. I list them because they provide an insight into the reasons for the TC No voters last April ...

- Enforceable guarantees for the implementation of the solution (so, many who voted No also feared that the solution wouldn't be implemented, like GCs)

- Each refugee that will not receive his original home, to be entitled to a new home in the same town or village (I am not sure how to interpret this, maybe respondents were confused by this question, or maybe they didn't like the fact that under the solution almost all TCs would be required to forfeit their properties in the south in order to keep their current properties in the north)

- Compensation to be in cash (so, TCs were also worried that in the end they would be left with worthless bonds)

- The right to become a resident of the other constituent state to be granted sooner (therefore some TCs voted No because they disliked the limitations in basic freedoms)

- More settlers to be allowed to remain, not just 45,000 (so some TCs voted No because of the forced departure of some settlers)

- Strong implementation mechanism for the departure of illegal workers (so some TCs voted No, because they felt that illegal workers would not leave as planned)

- Strong incentives and compensation for those who will leave Cyprus (so again, the suffering of settlers who will leave caused a sympathy No vote)

- Turkey to contribute for ten more years, international donors to contribute more (so, No votes out of fear that there just won't be enough money to pay for the solution)

- Limit to public borrowing (so, No vote out of fear that TC administration would make a mess if left too free, leading to economic breakdown)

- Bicommunal political parties (so, No vote because institutions would be too separate)

- Presidential Council by direct election (so, No vote because of "shortage of democracy")

- New state to be legal continuity of RoC (so, No vote out of fear that the new state would be left in a legal limbo)

Ofcourse, I am sure that those who voted No also had other more basic reasons, such as the fact that territory would be handed over to GCs, that there would not be separate sovereignty etc., but my survey did not offer such "possible improvements" so I have no relevant data.

[turkcyp]

Hey Alex,

Do not worry. It is not your fault. You and I have been trying to discuss his changes to Annan Plan in another topic, and it seems that even in this forum, there was not that interest in that kind of discussion. And I can see that you have tried your best but there is not simple enough discussion in TC society about this issue.

There is this mentality set in TCs brain post April; that, (even at the top level of prime minister) GCs have rejected the plan so they should come up with changes and we should look to see if we can accommodate those changes. That is of course should be done. But furthermore what is necessary is to see if TCs want any more changes in Anna Plan.


Your primary problem, (which was not your own doing anyway) was that you did not have a point of reference to start. After the April when there was “No” answer in south, there were ample of theories in the south of what GCs did not like in the referendum. So you had a point of reference to start from.

But because there was a “Yes” vote in north. Nobody bothered to create any theories or any other explanation of what kind of further changes TCs want in Annan Plan. In any case it was for sure that TCs would want less changes in Annan plan than GCs (After all they have accepted it) but nevertheless they may have asked for soma changes that could be done to Anna Plan to satisfy TCs more. And these changes does not have to come at the expense of GC desires anyway (otherwise it would be counterproductive).

Some of my suggestions to the Anna Plan could (I think at least) be accepted by GCs without any worry.

Even with my criticism is, “Good Work” under these circumstances you could not do any better. I guess my criticism is more to the TC society than you.

Take care,

[Alexandros Lordos]

But because there was a “Yes” vote in north. Nobody bothered to create any theories or any other explanation of what kind of further changes TCs want in Annan Plan. In any case it was for sure that TCs would want less changes in Annan plan than GCs (After all they have accepted it) but nevertheless they may have asked for soma changes that could be done to Anna Plan to satisfy TCs more. And these changes does not have to come at the expense of GC desires anyway (otherwise it would be counterproductive).

You know, my friend, when I was meeting TCs last month to help me prepare the questionnaire, I was almost begging them to think of changes they would like to see, but still nothing (and we are mostly talking about University professors here) ...

Like you, I do believe TCs should be a bit more constructively critical of solution proposals offered to them ... otherwise, we run the risk of them agreeing to a solution and then deciding they didn't like it after all ...

By the way, now that you see the final survey, what other improvements do you think I should have asked for? I know you are probably going to say "GCs to exercise voting rights in south even if they live in the north" but to be honest my friend, I felt that such an amendment would make the solution dysfunctional insofar as the limited cross-voting we now have in the Annan Plan, (which is important if we are going to have a culture that creates moderate politicians) would be taken away as well, and each constituent state would just elect "ethnic leaders" rather than "leaders of men". And ethnic leaders have little motive to reach compromises and strive for consensus. That's why I didn't include this potential amendment ...

As you see from the survey, many people were in favour of bicommunal political parties. But such parties can only develop if cross-voting is applied ...

[magikthrill]

- More settlers to be allowed to remain, not just 45,000 (so some TCs voted No because of the forced departure of some settlers)

LoL. Obviously the person who is voting wouldn't want to be deported.

Alexandre, do you have any correlations between this question and the person who answered this questions' political identity, ie settler or TC , using the appropriate legal definitions?

[boulio]

i think you should have asked hoe the t/c feel about turkey and its occupation forces,since this serve was annonymous people would let there true feelings be voiced.

[magikthrill]

I think I read in a post that one of the reasons why TCs voted no is because according to the AP they though the Turkish military had to leave too early.

So I'm guessing the like the Turkish forces and they would like them to stay there.

[Alexandros Lordos]

Alexandre, do you have any correlations between this question and the person who answered this questions' political identity, ie settler or TC , using the appropriate legal definitions?

Well, the Pearson Correlation coefficient (if that means something to you) between settler status and demand for more settlers to remain is .127, which at my sample size is significant at the 99% level. This means that there is certainly a correlation, but it is weak, settler status is not the only factor which determines if someone will want more settlers to remain or not ...

Many TCs thought it was absolutely essential for more settlers to remain. And equivalently, many settlers thought it was totally unacceptable if more settlers remained. So, there are other factors also involved ...

[Alexandros Lordos]

i think you should have asked hoe the t/c feel about turkey and its occupation forces,since this serve was annonymous people would let there true feelings be voiced.

Well ... I did ask. 80% of TCs feel they trust the army as an institution (which is much higher than the score for any other institution). Similarly, 80% partly or totally agree with the statement "The Turkish Army is here to protect us", while 66% agree with the statement "I am happy for Turkey to guide our policies". Before you ask, there is not much difference in these percentages between TCs and settlers ...

I guess these results spoil a popular myth of ours that "TCs are unhappy to have Turkey around" ...

I think maybe the myth developed because over the last couple of decades the only contacts GCs had with TCs were with those who were totally against the regime, so we got a misleading impression ...

[Alexandros Lordos]

Some more data ...

the following are changes which TCs consider tolerable, as opposed to desirable or essential.

- Turkey to only have the right to intervene in the TC constituent state.

- Turkey to require security council authorisation before it can intervene.

- The Treaty of Guarantee to be replaced by a European Security agreement, in which Turkey will also play a part, when Turkey joins the EU.

- All Greek and Turkish troops to become part of an integrated European Security force, when Turkey joins the EU.

- Refugees to be entitled to a greater percent of their property in the other constituent state, than currently provided for in the Annan Plan.

- Compensation of GCs to be paid by TC state and compensation of TCs to be paid by GC state.

- The right to buy property in the other constituent state to be granted within 6-9 years, not 15 years as provided for in the Annan Plan.

- Three international judges to come from EU countries

- Senate special majority to apply in only the most essential issues.

So, the study yielded 9 changes which are tolerable, and 19 changes which are desirable ...

[Alexandros Lordos]

Some more info ...

Motives of TCs for wanting a solution:

- Becoming members of the European Union: Primary motive 75%, Secondary Consideration 16%, Not at all a motive 6%

- Being the masters of our own house: Primary motive 72%, Secondary Consideration 17%, Not at all a motive 7%

- Putting an end to economic isolation: Primary motive 64%, Secondary Consideration 22%, Not at all a motive 12%

- Overcoming the risk of another war: Primary motive 61%, Secondary Consideration 18%, Not at all a motive 17%

- Being re-united with Greek Cypriots: Primary motive 17%, Secondary Consideration 29%, Not at all a motive 50%

- Being able to return to ancestral homes that are currently under GC administration: Primary motive 12%, Secondary Consideration 31%, Not at all a motive 53%


Speaking personally, I must say I found this result very disappointing ...