Piratis, as usual you are taking things entirely out of context and moving the subject thinking that I am trying to convince you of anything. If you look at my posts on things like FIR, G/C voting rights, citizenship, etc I've either corrected your wrong assertion or put forward another perfectly valid point of view which you seem to think is a "bad attitude".
I've told you before we're NOT negotiators, this a chat board but you continously go on about me "accepting" and "signing" as if I was the leader of T/C.
If you want to become educated you should go and read that the UN calls for the immediate withdrew of the Turkish occupation forces from Cyprus.
Again you're moving the subject along to something else, I was talking about the G/C position on insiting negotiating within the UN and on UN resolutions. I know very well the UN resolutions I dont need you to educate me on anything.
The subject of this thread which you seem to have forgotten is "where we mislead?" and I have stated here that according to your leadership a UN plan would be based on security council resolutions. Resolution 750 and 774 explicitly state that the UN endores that a new state of affairs which will solve the cyprus problem be based on the "Set of Ideas" of the secratary general.
These "Set of Ideas" and its map can easily be seen as the basis for the Annan plan. The matter is have your leaders over these five or so years misled you into thinking that a UN sponsored plan, the Annan plan, would be majorly different than what you is on offer now?
This is not a matter of you accepting it or not, as I've stated previously I'm not here to make you accept anything.
That the UN (and EU) recognizes the Republic of Cyprus representing the whole island.
And how has the ROC existed since 1963? You do realize that the UN ackowledges via UN resolutions again that the solution to the problem will result in a new state of affairs that will effectively end the ROC dont you? Infact if you read the EU accession treaty for cyprus, it does n't actually mention the ROC by name because they know it wont exist after a solution too.
Everything else, like e.g. the Annan plan are just suggestions. As you said "nothing is agreed until everything agreed".
Again as usual you did n't bother to read what I wrote and using my quote out of context. I gave that quote as to explain the reason why Annan was authorised by G/C, Greece, T/C and Turkey to "fill in the blanks" because the UN recognised that the leaders would never agree and hence there would never be an agreement if left to agree 100%.
What is agreed is Republic of Cyprus. If you don't like my offers then ok, there are non. Return the grounds of the Republic of Cyprus that you illegally occupy and obey to the resolutions of UN. What you have is illegal, what you do is illegal.
Hold on, you agree to the ROC and in affect its constitution? If that was the case then it there would be no problem at all, the T/C agreed with the ROC all the way until the coup of 1974.
Now please dont even try and use legality here, I have said previously that the TRNC was illegal and I have never said the permenant presence of more than 650 soilders from Turkey was legal. In addition the fact that enosis was illegal and any unilateral change of the 1960 constitution is illegal seems to have passed you by completely.
The fact of the matter is you dont agree with the ROC, you agree to some of it but ignore the major parts such a political equality and vetos. So basically what you are saying is that you are very concerned about the territorial integrity of the ROC but not so concerned about its constitution. This paradox has to be one of the most intellectually bankrupt things you have said so far. It also goes some way of proving suspicions that if the army was not there you would be under no inclination to reach an agreement as was the case between 63-74. The only reason you claim to uphold the ROC is because it serves a purpose for you.
You are placing one paragraph quotes from some documents to intentionally create a wrong impression.
Those quotes where a reply to your statement blaming turkey without exception for the reason there was no solution all this time. That was just an example to show that your assertion was wrong but as usual you throw accusations at me.
How about going now and ask your friend Cleredes to give a fair solution?
Why should I
ask for anything from any G/C leader? As a T/C I know my position and dont need to ask for anything when it comes to a solution, your superiour attitude towards T/C surfaces again.
It seems that you trust him, so i don't think you should have a problem, right?
Again your talking about me as if I was negotiating and by moving the subject matter out of context. Also dont use the word "seems" please use rational arguments as a reason to think that instead of vague words. The two parties implicitly trust each other when comming to an agreement since otherwise there is no point negotiating at all, in the context I mentioned it was Denktas and Clerides so they must have implictly trusted each other it's not anything to do with me trusting Clerides.
If the word of leaders was enough then no referendum would take place.
The word of leaders in the past have been enough to start and end conflicts that have been much much worse then the cyprus problem. The reason there is a referendum is so that in the future neither side could use the argument that their leaders imposed something on them and then insight violence based on them being "traitors". G/C have often in the past used the argument of imposition against the 1960 agreements.
We have the final word, and we will decide if a solution is acceptable or not.
Never did I argue against the referendum, please dont try and make impressions that I did.
And for the Annan plan we decided that it is not.
What?! I missed the referendum? Is it the 25th? Opinon polls are one thing but as we both know they do change, please be accurate with what you write. I've never had a problem with the G/C having their final say and like all T/C if there is a 'No' vote we will move on from there.
Go get some education to learn what democracy means.
I know exactly what democracy means. You are using the word in its purest, its definition because it suits you. But in actuality it does n't work that way, the reality of it is that lots of democratic countries have different systems because every place is different and has different electoral regimes. Your patron, Greece has a threshold system of 3%, this means that even if there was a party that represented the "muslim minority" and got all their votes they would be excluded representation in parliment.
Your democracy/human rights/independance rants are becoming tiresome, we had all those things in 1960 but the G/C choose to ignore them so stop trying to use this argument. The 1960 system implemented democracy and human rights and as I said before the EU agrees with me because it is with this constitution you claim to uphold you are entering the EU with. According to the EU the Annan plan also is democratic and has human rights, so you cant have any complaint here. You may have a problem with it personally but that is not my problem and like I said I am not here to try and make you agree with anything.
To understand that what you are is a small minority that is trying with the force of weapons to harm the interests of the great majority of this island.
The hypocracy of this is sentance is amazing, previously you say you ackowledge the 63-74 period but this massive freudian slip indicates that it's all crocodile tears. What do you think your national guard and thousands of soilders of greece were using to pressure us? flowers? The T/C carried on negotiating with the G/C even under these circumstances and now bring up the issue of force of arms? Of course I forgot it's all turkeys fault even though it had right-of-intervention after the coup. When will you come to terms that it is not all black and white and that actions have consequences?
