Cyprus-Forum.com

MicAtCyp,

basically, demands for improvements interrelate in the following way:

- Firstly, there are three demands that are required by everyone who does not accept the plan as it is, and these are rate of troop withdrawal, settlers, and economic justice of the solution. These three demands interlock with the specific demands which each subgroup expressed. For instance, the Security-Guarantees group, dont just demand withdrawal of intervention rights, they also worry about settlers. And the Return of Refugees group doesn't just worry about property rights, they are also concerned about troop withdrawal.

- Secondly, the "European Solution" group seems to demand a wide array of improvements: From Property Rights, to Security Guarantees, to Basic Freedoms, and also the Economy. And ofcourse, settlers and troops.

-Thirdly, the "Bury the Plan" group demands all the above, plus radical changes in decision making mechanisms.

You will find the precise list of improvements that each group demands in the actual study. If you missed the download link, it is a few posts up, in a message from Erol.

Concerning the percentage that a Plan would get without improvements in property rights: 40% arises from the study, it is not my own opinion. Basically it is the 24% who are already in the Yes camp, plus the 14% who belong in the Security-Guarantees group. All the other groups (Return of Refugees, European Solution, Bury the Plan) demand substantial improvements in Property Rights. - therefore the Yes vote would not be greater than 40%.

You are right when you say that the issue of property rights is more important for refugees than for non-refugees - especially so for refugees from Kyrenia and Mesaoria villages, who will not be getting anything back through territorial adjustment.

Anyway, you are probably reading the study yourself by now, so I will wait to hear your comments ...

Erol, you are right. The data you are asking for is important, but it is not in the actual study, only the clusters that arise from that data ... I will try and make a new pdf file with that data, and send it to you as soon as I can.

If you wish for a brief summary though, most Greek Cypriots believe they have much in common with Turkish Cypriots, very few believe that a liberation struggle would help, most believe in the "Greekness" of Cyprus, and the vote is split as to whether Turkish Cypriots are devious and self-serving.

mikkie2,

I found your comments thought provoking, though I must admit I am not a legal expert and some of the issues you put forward are somewhat beyond me.

Concerning whether we would need "a permission" to amend the constitution in the future - always ofcourse with the consent of both communities - I took it for granted that we will not be talking about a Cuprus saddled with Guarantor powers - that improvement, for me, goes without saying. As for the EU and UN, I don't see why an amendment of our constitution - or of the constitution of any country - would concern them, the only exception being if an amendment contravenes European Law, which I don't see being the case here.

Concerning separation of powers: Let us not forget that the Judiciary works with laws drawn up by the Legislative branch, and not according to some abstract justice principle. If the legislative is dominated by one community, through inadequate safeguards, then the minority group will not be able to find justice from the courts.

As for the Economy, I agree with you that a fuller integration will work against future discrimination, since it will be next to impossible to enact a measure that would only hurt GCs or TCs.

Anyway, I am not 100% sure about these issues, as I said I am not an expert.

Alex,

I was basing my assumptions on the current UN plan on the table, which envisages judges on the supreme court from foreign countries, that Cyprus would need to seek permission from the guarantors to change the constitution, and on top of that to be agreed by the UN security council.

Yes, I agree that the judiciary and legislature are linked, but bear in mind that the legislature will have to be bound by EU law, therefore the judiciary will be also. In any case, the judiciary can sometimes go against the legislature if it deems that its going against certain principles. A law may be passed but it is not proven until it is tested in the courts. If a law passed by the legislature is ridiculous then it will more than likely get trashed in the courts. This happens the world over. In any case, people will have the ultimate recourse to the European Courts.

I am not a legal expert either, but I try to get an understanding of issues and then form my opinions. I am not saying that I am right, its just the way I see things.

Some comments:

Erolz wrote:

Can any GC on this forum state that they accept that the TC community SHOULD have a RIGHT to a status greater than that of just a minority and that such recognition is fair and just? I am beginning to wonder.

I am still trying to understand what does "a status greater than that of just a minority" mean to you, erolz? The language example did not really explain your thoughts for the reasons that other members have already pointed out. A question that may help: what would your real concerns as a TC in a Cyprus be, if there were not ANY internal borders (to quote from your previous post)? Please note that no borders means no restrictions and no limitations in where one chooses to live, work or travel.


Insan wrote:

What do you think? What worst may happen in a Cyprus where GC politicians and big capital owners have full control over Cyprus.. ? What's the occurence probability of the above scenario ?

When it comes to making a profit at the expense of others, greedy GC politicians and capitalists will not "discriminate" between GC's and TC's. The same holds true for greedy TC politicians etc.

MicAtCyp wrote

Othelle,

I don't need any lessons from you dear newcomer, and before giving me advices better start reading this thread from it's very begining to understand what is going on. You will then realise that my my critisism was based on the article itself and not on who the writter was.

Quoting from your post that started all this:
"PS. Who is this Alexandros Lordos? Is he the son of the owner of Palm Beach, and Lordos Beach hotels? Well, if yes then that explains it all ..."

Your "that explains it all" line demonstrated clearly that your criticism was based on the family background of the writer and not on his work. Imho this was a biased and unfair (not to mention childish) thing to do. Other than that I am glad to see that you have finally started discussing the actual report that Alexandros went into a lot of trouble preparing.

By the way B-Anan-iot will be very glad to meet a C-Anan-iot like you here.

I do not know what a C-Anan-iot like me (?) is (but I can certainly distinguish an ID-iot when I come across one )
Regarding B-Anan-iot's posts I think that unfortunately there is a lot of truth in what he writes.

Erolz wrote:

If the only thing that is making GC 'tolerate' a federal solution is the current status quo (de facto partition, Turkish troops and lost property) what then happens when the current staus quo changes (no partition, no Turkish troops, reclaimed or compensated property and a Turkey unable to intervene in the future)? Is it not reasonable to expect/fear that such 'tolerance' may also change?

How people feel depends on how they are treated. In our case I would say that it all depends on what this "federal" solution will be like. Will this solution establish a fair system of administration towards ALL its citizens regardless of their ethnic or religious background? Will it be taking into acount the concerns of all Cypriots? Or will it be a solution that people will be given to accommodate themselves with or even foced to accept? The answers to these questions will imo determine whether the solution is a functional (and therefore a lasting) one.

Best regards to all

O.

Othellos wrote:I am still trying to understand what does "a status greater than that of just a minority" mean to you, erolz? The language example did not really explain your thoughts for the reasons that other members have already pointed out. A question that may help: what would your real concerns as a TC in a Cyprus be, if there were not ANY internal borders (to quote from your previous post)? Please note that no borders means no restrictions and no limitations in where one chooses to live, work or travel.

What it means to me in practice is that any decision in Cyprus that is likely to affect the GC community differently to the TC community (like language, or enosis or more realisticaly the example that seeks to ban or limit foreign investment from non EU countries) should require the seperate consent of the two communites equally. Decisions that affect TC and GC in the same way should be made on a straight numerical vote of all Cypriots. Decisions that affect only the TC community (or GC community) should be made by that community. Is that any clearer? Personally I am not so insistant on bi zonality though it may be necessary and wise for a transitional period imo.

To Erol and Alexandros,

I am glad the full report is now available for everybody and thank you both for your cooperation.
Alexandre I will revert after I study the report. I ve seen your first replies to my questions and I found them quite honest and straight.

******************************************************************************************

Othellos wrote: Your "that explains it all" line demonstrated clearly that your criticism was based on the family background of the writer and not on his work.

Nope! You are wrong. My critisism was on polls in general and "someones" work whose name I did not even notice and preceded its actual noticing as you can very clearly see from the PS. Have a closer look .Besides, exactly the same views were repeated by me in this forum many times in the past, and this can be verified to you by older members of the forum.

Othellos wrote: Other than that I am glad to see that you have finally started discussing the actual report that Alexandros went into a lot of trouble preparing.

Finally??? And when did yourself really study the report when Alexandros himself admitted it is impossible to do so from the newspaper summary? Haven’ t you noticed that I was the one who took the initiative and proposed a fast way for all of us to have the full report? Why should I do that, if my intention was to be unfair with Alexandros?

So stop playing the role of the solicitor and the good advisor here, because frankly speaking this is ridiculous for a newcomer.

Othellos wrote: do not know what a C-Anan-iot like me (?) is (but I can certainly distinguish an ID-iot when I come across one )

Distinguishing two of them together was always easier for me.

Yes, but I know who A_Anan_iot is!

My critisism was on polls in general and "someones" work whose name I did not even notice and preceded its actual noticing as you can very clearly see from the PS.

I do not think so, but at the same time this is not worth discussing any further.

So stop playing the role of the solicitor and the good advisor here, because frankly speaking this is ridiculous for a newcomer.

This thing that you have against "new members" expressing views that you may not agree with makes you sound like a broken record player. Not that I care but.....

O.

Alexandre,

Could you please supply the data concerning the answers to each one of the 10 questions? Questions 1, 2.1-2.20, and 6 are obviously a must to have the results. Also I may need to ask you to process some more co-relations other than those included in the report I guess that wouldn’t be a problem right? As an example I am sure you can very easily process how much was the yes or no among DESY AKEL DIKO etc, as well as on a refugee-non refugee basis as I am very curious about these.

Now I got stuck to figure 3.6 on page 29.
In my opinion there must be something wrong with this table.As we know the OXI got 76% whereas in this table we see just only one group exceeding the 76% and that group according to figure 3.1 is only 5.8% of the population sample.I tried to verify the validity of this table by multiplying the various percentages of each group i.e 60x0.095+70x0.498+75x0.349+78x0.058=71% OXI!!
There is a big 5% error here and if we add the 3% statistical error then I wonder how seriously can we accept that 40% of the people who knew the Anan Plan extremely well voted the way your poll says.
Although I completely agree with your coments and explanations on page 30, this figure of 40% is really surprising for me....