The Best Cyprus Community

Skip to content


"NO" supporters of AKEL who will you vote?

Everything related to politics in Cyprus and the rest of the world.

Postby Kifeas » Sat Jun 23, 2007 12:48 pm

Issy1956 wrote:You guys would make me laugh if I was so sad to see our country permantly divided. If you think there will be a better deal in the future than the one that you stupidly rejected then you are all seriously deluded. What chances of the TC agreeing to cede Morphou again for example. You will all look back on the Annan plan with the sad regret of a lost opportunity in due time-mark my words.


The solution to be agreed upon will make it irrelevant whether the TCs will "cede" Morphou or not, because every person will be free and able to move and settle anywhere they wish around Cyprus, without quotas and any other apartheid restrictions. It will just be a case of you having to accept the reality that the biggest the territory of the north state, the highest the degree by which you will share it with the GCs! If you do not wish to "cede" Morphou, then it means you are opting for a north state's territory larger than that of the Annan plan, which means that you will have to digest the fact that close to 50% of its (state's) resident population will be GCs! Of course you should also forget the racist, kemalist, nationalist, monocultural peace of shit constitution that you presented under the Annan plan, by which you intended to suppress, treat as second class citizens and exclude the all GCs that would have settled within the north (TCC) state! If you do not want to share the north state with the GCs, then your only option will be to settle for only the 18% of the territory of Cyprus!

For every percentage of more territory -above the 18%, you will have to accept and digest that this will have to be covered by GC state residents with full politician, human and cultural rights, unlike the piece of shit constitution you have dared to present under the Annan plan! Forget that you will ask again the GCs to worship Ataturk in order to be elected in any post of the state in which they will be residents, or that they should have to learn Turkish in order to become candidates or to obtain "internal citizenship!" These things are only done by your kemalist motherland against the Kurds, and that is why it will never see the door of the EU, for being such a fascist and chauvinist state!
User avatar
Kifeas
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 4927
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2005 10:19 am
Location: Lapithos, Kyrenia, now Pafos; Cyprus.

Postby zan » Sat Jun 23, 2007 1:11 pm

Piratis wrote:It is very obvious that TCs and Turkey will give nothing from what they illegally occupy unless in return they will gain even more on our loss. (as it was the case with Annan plan)

So if you thought we rejected the Annan plan because we hope that we can agree with TCs something better you are mistaken. The liberation of our country will not come with Turkeys/TCs agreement, and this is something we know very well already. The only thing that TCs and Turkey accept is partition so there is really no space for an agreed solution.

Sotos, from the alternatives that we will probably have Papadopoulos is the less bad when it comes to the Cyprus Problem. Unfortunately he lacks marketing skills and this is not good, but at least we know that he will not promise one thing and sell us off behind closed doors like some others might do.


The ill gotten gains that you guys eeked out of the EU and the UN are being enjoyed and flaunted by you but you will not declare those at customs will you :roll:
User avatar
zan
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 16213
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2005 8:55 pm

Postby 74LB » Sat Jun 23, 2007 1:18 pm

Kifeas wrote
Of course you should also forget the racist, kemalist, nationalist, monocultural peace of shit constitution that you presented under the Annan plan, by which you intended to suppress, treat as second class citizens and exclude the all GCs that would have settled within the north (TCC) state!

For every percentage of more territory -above the 18%, you will have to accept and digest that this will have to be covered by GC state residents with full politician, human and cultural rights, unlike the piece of shit constitution you have dared to present under the Annan plan! Forget that you ask the GCs to worship Ataturk in order to be elected in any post of the state in which they will be residents, or that they should have to learn Turkish in order to become candidates! These things are only done by your kemalist motherland against the Kurds, and that is why it will never see the door of the EU, for being such a fascist state!


Kifeas, I have tried to respond to your crticism of the TCCS constitution in the 'GC Author Antonis Angastiniyotis and GCs - READ and LEARN!' thread (http://www.cyprus-forum.com/viewtopic.php?t=11537&start=240) as my interpretation of some points differ to yours and to me it's not as bad as you make out.

I'm not saying the AP was ideal (but then neither was the 1960 constitution if you listen to some of the views in this forum), but it certainly can be used as a foundation (then again, maybe foundation isn't the right word, maybe a 'point of reference') when putting together any proposals for a new solution.

I would imagine that a lot of people from both communities, as well as from the UN and other countries, were involved in putting together the Annan Plan. What I find hard to understand though, is that if it was so one-sided in your view (and the view of the very high percentage of the GC's that voted NO), how come it was accepted as a plan to vote on in the first place ? Why weren't any contradictory items, or blatantly 'one-sided favoritisms' (if I can interpret you as meaning this) ironed out and negotiated before being put to the vote ?
74LB
Contributor
Contributor
 
Posts: 455
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 3:16 pm
Location: UK

Postby Piratis » Sat Jun 23, 2007 2:08 pm

What I find hard to understand though, is that if it was so one-sided in your view (and the view of the very high percentage of the GC's that voted NO), how come it was accepted as a plan to vote on in the first place ? Why weren't any contradictory items, or blatantly 'one-sided favoritisms' (if I can interpret you as meaning this) ironed out and negotiated before being put to the vote ?


The Annan plan was never accepted by our side nor it was the result of negotiations. The negotiations were going on for long time, but with no result since the two sides did not agree.

Then the UN asked from us to accept to put in a referendum a plan that they would prepare before the plan was prepared. They asked from us to trust them that they would create a fair plan, and they also said that if we would reject it then the plan would be null and void anyways so there was no risk.

So we accepted the proposal hoping that the UN would prepare something fair based on the UN principles and the UN resolutions. Unfortunately when we saw the plan it was anything but fair. However we had allready taken a commitment to put whatever plan the UN prepared in a referendum, so we did. That plan was naturally rejected by GCs, and naturally accepted by TCs, since it was one sided pro-Turkish plan, which is now null and void.

I just wonder if the plan was a pro-Cypriot plan instead of a pro-Turkish one, if Ankara would have honored their commitment and allowed the plan to be placed in referendum.
User avatar
Piratis
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 12261
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 11:08 pm

Postby zan » Sat Jun 23, 2007 2:16 pm

Squirm baby squirm!!!!!!
User avatar
zan
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 16213
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2005 8:55 pm

Postby Piratis » Sat Jun 23, 2007 2:21 pm

The Annan plan was created to solve another "Cyprus problem". Not the Cyprus problem of the 100s of thousands of refugees and the Cyprus problem of the sovereignty of Cyprus which is violated by the Turkish troops, but the "Cyprus Problem" of Turkey's accession in the EU. They tried to legalize the illegalities and not solve but close our problem, so legally there would be no Cyprus Problem as an obstacle to Turkey's accession, and Greek Cypriots would be neutralized and not allowed to even demand their lands and human rights.

This is why the plan was rushed in referenda just months before our EU accession, while nothing was happening during the previous 3 decades.
User avatar
Piratis
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 12261
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 11:08 pm

Postby zan » Sat Jun 23, 2007 2:31 pm

Your time was spent duping the EU and the UN and should have been spent negosiatingt the Annan Plan.
User avatar
zan
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 16213
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2005 8:55 pm

Postby humanist » Sat Jun 23, 2007 2:47 pm

kifeas
I just wonder if the plan was a pro-Cypriot plan instead of a pro-Turkish one, if Ankara would have honored their commitment and allowed the plan to be placed in referendum.


Never in a million years. But that is okay too because in a century's time the Turkish seaking Cypriot will be extinct and Turkey will have no excuse for being here, wella its all Cypriot again.

:lol:
User avatar
humanist
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 6585
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 11:46 am

Postby Kifeas » Sat Jun 23, 2007 2:50 pm

Piratis wrote:The Annan plan was created to solve another "Cyprus problem". Not the Cyprus problem of the 100s of thousands of refugees and the Cyprus problem of the sovereignty of Cyprus which is violated by the Turkish troops, but the "Cyprus Problem" of Turkey's accession in the EU. They tried to legalize the illegalities and not solve but close our problem, so legally there would be no Cyprus Problem as an obstacle to Turkey's accession, and Greek Cypriots would be neutralized and not allowed to even demand their lands and human rights.

This is why the plan was rushed in referenda just months before our EU accession, while nothing was happening during the previous 3 decades.


I suppose you meant just days before our EU accession!
User avatar
Kifeas
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 4927
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2005 10:19 am
Location: Lapithos, Kyrenia, now Pafos; Cyprus.

Postby Viewpoint » Sat Jun 23, 2007 10:06 pm

humanist wrote:kifeas
I just wonder if the plan was a pro-Cypriot plan instead of a pro-Turkish one, if Ankara would have honored their commitment and allowed the plan to be placed in referendum.


Never in a million years. But that is okay too because in a century's time the Turkish seaking Cypriot will be extinct and Turkey will have no excuse for being here, wella its all Cypriot again.

:lol:


I think you mean we will return to our roots which are Turkish and you will be facing 37% of Cyprus being lost for ever, to the Turks you detest so much, they will be your immediate neighbours 80 million Turks right on your door step...good luck.
User avatar
Viewpoint
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 25211
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2005 2:48 pm
Location: Nicosia/Lefkosa

PreviousNext

Return to Politics and Elections

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests