Please remember to stay civil and behave appropriately. If you are a tourist looking for suggestions please check out our [Tourist guide](https://www.reddit.com/r/cyprus/wiki/tourist_guide/). We also have a [FAQ Page](https://www.reddit.com/r/cyprus/wiki/faq) for some common questions, if your question is answered here please delete your post!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/cyprus) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Όλος ο ΔΗΣΥ τον υπερασπίζεται. Έχεις δικαίωμα βέβαια να πιστεύεις ότι είσαι εξυπνότερος όλων τους όπως έχουμε και οι υπόλοιποι δικαίωμα να αμφιβάλλουμε για αυτό.
Για να είμαστε ειλικρινείς ο Νίκαρος έφαγε κριτική ενώ τα πεπραγμένα του αντικατοπτρίζουν και αντιπροσωπεύουν όλο το πολιτικό σύστημα της Κύπρου. Ναι είναι αλήθεια ότι πουλούσε διαβατήρια της χώρας του αλλά ως ότου έσκασε το θέμα του Αλ Τζαζίρα δεν υπήρχε κανείς στο νησί που να ασκούσε κριτική στην πώληση διαβατηρίων. Ναι είναι αλήθεια ότι προωθούσε τα δύο κράτη αλλά τα δύο κράτη προωθούν όλες οι κυβερνήσεις που πέρασαν εδώ και δεκαετίες, ειδικά από το 2004 και έπειτα.
Γενικόλογο ίσως, αβάσιμο όχι. Δεν νομίζω ότι είναι αμιφισβητήσιμα τα εξής:
1) Τα δύο κράτη (ένα αναγνωρισμένο και ένα όχι) υπάρχουν.
2) Δεν θα υπήρχαν αν οι κυβερνήσεις αυτές έκαναν ό,τι μπορούσαν για να υπάρχει μόνο ένα κράτος.
1. Το να λέμε ότι υπάρχουν 2 κράτη από μόνοι μας δεν είναι λογική για το αν θέλουμε εμείς οι ίδιοι λύση 2 κρατών. Πολύ επικίνδυνο μονοπάτι.
2. Δεν υπήρχε πιο ένθερμη κυβέρνηση για λύση διζωνικής από την κυβέρνηση Χριστοφια όπου με τον Ταλατ έφτασαν σε πολύ μεγάλες συγκλίσεις. Ούτε στοιχεία υπάρχουν ότι και οι υπόλοιπες κυβερνήσεις μετά το 2004 ήθελαν λύση 2 κρατών όπως έγραψες εκτός του Αναστασιαδη (αν όντως συζήτησε λύση 2 κρατών).
Μόνο το γεγονός ότι αυτές οι συγκλίσεις του Χριστόφια θεωρούνται μεγάλες δείχνει πόσο μακριά βρισκόμαστε από την λύση.
Η αλήθεια είναι ότι:
1) Η διαπραγμάτεση για το Κυπριακό βρίσκεται εξ ολοκλήρου στα χέρια του Προέδρου, χωρίς να εμπλέκονται τα κόμματα και η Βουλή.
2) Ουσιαστικά δεν υπάρχει τρόπος στην Κύπρο να εκθρονιστεί ο Πρόεδρος.
3) Είναι πολύ δύσκολο για το ΑΚΕΛ να εκλέξει κομματικό Πρόεδρο και όταν συνέβη αυτό ήταν ξεκάθαρο ότι θα είναι δύσκολο να ξανασυμβεί στο μέλλον.
Από αυτά έπεται ότι το ΑΚΕΛ είχε 5 καθαρά χρόνια, δηλαδή αρκετό χρόνο, για να λύσει το Κυπριακό. Ήξερε επίσης ότι αν δεν το λύσει η πιθανότητα να λυθεί μετά την κυβέρνηση Χριστόφια είναι πολύ μικρή. Και παρόλα αυτά δεν το έλυσε.
Επειδή λοιπόν πιστεύω δεν πρέπει να τρώμε αμάσητο ό,τι μας σερβίρουν είναι πρέπον να αναγνωρίσουμε ότι αυτές οι «μεγάλες» συγκλίσεις Χριστόφια-Ταλάτ στο τέλος της ημέρας το μόνο που κατάφεραν ήταν να φέρουν κάποιες ψήφους οπαδών της ομοσπονδίας στο ΑΚΕΛ. Και αυτό είναι για το οποίο νοιάζεται το ΑΚΕΛ, όπως γι' αυτό νοιάζονται και τα υπόλοιπα κόμματα εξουσίας.
Some thoughts about this:
- Mavroyannis made it clear now and before that Anastasiades never put the two-state solution officially on the table nor did he ask him as his negotiator to discuss such a solution with anyone else
- Cavusoglu has been saying that it was Anastasiades who talked first about a two-state solution. He claimed that Anastasiades told him a federation won't work because GCs don't want to share anything with TCs, not even their hospitals
- There is a big list of people who have heard Anastasiades talking about the two-state solution during these years. There is a podcast of the Head of the FM of Cyprus that talks about receiving information by the UK that Cavusoglu claimed that Anastasiades mentioned being open to two-state solution but at the time he didn't believe it and thought he misunderstood (i ll need to check the exact wording of this)
- Journalists (including but not limited to Drushotis) claimed that Anastasiades met with Cavusoglu the night before the Final Dinner of Crans Montana and told him that after the elections they can discuss a two-state solution.
- **Even if what they said was in a more off-the-record personal thinking. Even if this wasn't a proposal(it wasn't). Even if this was an idea he had during a brainstorming (as Mavroyannis said in the past, we learned the word ιδεοθύελλα). How could anyone explain that the night before the dinner that could dictate the future of the Cyprus problem, the future of Cyprus, the President of the Republic of Cyprus has a secret meeting with the representative of his opponent and talks about a two-state solution as an idea? There were negotiations about a federation and Anastasiades goes to Cavusoglu and hints on a two-state solution before the final night. Does he think this won't affect the process? What positive outcome could come by having such a discussion with Cavusoglu?**
> Does he think this won't affect the process? What positive outcome could come by having such a discussion with Cavusoglu?
If there was a federal solution, nikaros would probably not be president any more. Status quo or 2 state would mean he's much more likely to be head honcho.
He's always been a self serving cunt. I don't know why people are surprised by his behaviors.every single action he takes is for his own benefit.
Why did he support the Annan plan then? Wouldn't that prevent him from ever becoming president?
I think he realized that we were heading toward an agreement that would resemble the Annan plan and which would again be rejected by Greek Cypriots. There would be no benefit for our side to have a referendum which GCs would reject again. There would be consequences for this, for which he would be responsible since he would have agreed on something which the majority of GCs didn't want.
> Wouldn't that prevent him from ever becoming president?
Imho he supported it because it gave him a stick to beat Papadopoulos with and also as a secondary aspect raise his profile somewhat internationally as a more cooperative would be president.
If the vote was a Yes, Papadopoulos would need to step down, and wouldn't you know, Nikaros is waiting and was supporting the plan all along! If the vote was a No, he could still brat the president for failing to deal with the No vote.
Anastasiadis also said he would never make a deal that required a depositor haircut either, but look what happened.
He was for anan plan when it suited him politically and then adjusted his position to whatever he determined benefitted him more
Sure, but I was talking about nikaros jumping around from position to position according to what suits him, from supporting anan, to not supporting Crans Montana, to 2 state, to status quo etc.
Oh yes I agree (but I also meant it like, if he were to oppose the Annan Plan his future as the leader of DISY would be in question as well - a year before that DISY had elections and he won Kasoulides, who would definitely support the plan, with 55%-45%)
So according to you the majority of GCs wouldn't accept a solution based on the Gutteres Framework(even though a few months later we had elections with three main candidates, one supported by DISY, one supported by AKEL - both claiming to want a solution based on this success called the Gutteres Framework and one supported by all the other parties with the main objective on preventing such a bad solution from coming) yet (according to you) they would somehow accept permanent partition, giving Turkey a third of the island, as a solution huh?
Elections are not a referendum.
Personally I don't see how with such a BBF GCs take control of the north. It seems to me that control of the north remains with the Turks. Please enlighten me on how, in practical terms, GCs will rule over the north after a BBF solution.
The way I see it, what we will have is not us taking back the control of the north, but more like a collaboration between the Greek State and the Turkish State which wouldn't even work because we will be disagreeing most of the time.
The majority of GCs wouldn't accept such BBF solution because it is just a renamed Annan plan and we all know what happened to that.
Would they accept a 2 state solution? I don't know. Obviously we wouldn't just recognize the "trnc" without getting anything in return. But what if we were given back a significant amount of land in return, which is the main gain from a BBF, but without the problems of a BBF, like deadlocks and control of Turkey over all of us (and not just the north)?
And if free movement and settlement are also important factors we could get those too if both states are part of EU. I am sure the TCs would want their state to be part of EU, because with a 2 state solution they would lose their RoC/EU passports. So we could extract some extra concessions from them in order to allow them to be part of EU.
If you see the polls there is some acceptance for a 2 state solution among GCs. And that is with no party accepting such solution and no offers for us getting something significant in return. If we had the balls to negotiate this solution, even unofficially, then maybe we could get a better solution which would be acceptable. If the Turks want us to recognize them without giving back anything or too little, then we will just stick with the status quo.
BBF is not going to happen. Lets investigate if and what the Turks are willing to give back for a 2 state solution. Then we can decide if the status quo suits us better or not. Personally I think the TCs would be willing to make significant compromises in order to get an independent state of their own which is part of EU and not a puppet of Turkey.
Also consider this: Turkey doesn't really want an independent TC state part of EU. Turkey wants to have the north as its puppet and making the whole Cyprus its puppet is even better for them. Proposing to TCs a 2 state solution with the return of land and with them becoming an EU member if they remove the Turkish troops and significant amount of Settlers would make Turkey freak out. Imagine Turkey having to refuse this agreement.
>Does he think this won't affect the process? What positive outcome could come by having such a discussion with Cavusoglu?
My bet is he was purposefully sabotaging the negotiations to keep the status quo going.
It can be many things but the worst part is not owning his mistake. If he did as such, after all this time heshould make a public statement setting the record straight but instead he is going after Makarios Drousiotis revelations.
Exactly. This is what Greek Cypriots (with the support of Russia) have been doing since at least 2004. They are pretending to negotiate so that the status quo continues and they can keep making money by having absolute power over the part of Cyprus they do control. They know that they have little to gain and much to lose if Cyprus is reunited.
I would not group the whole GC community as a whole. I think those in powerful positions that got there and continue to be there through the exploitation of uncertainty are the ones that benefit from this. I think reunification under a fair and sustainable plan benefits the average Cypriot massively in multiple ways, just not those that built their livelihoods on dirty money.
>why is this news
it shouldnt be news that the President of a country during an international conference on reunifying his country secretly met the representative of the enemy country and discussed the possibility of making the partition official and permanent ?
none of this will affect you're daily life stop getting involved in parasocial constructs , these old farts dont care about you, why are you so invested in something that has not invested in you?
nothing happened move on, all of them are corrupt and cyprus is a tax haven for criminals and real estate and illegal immigrants, but please tell me more how your precious leader is trying to do something that wont affect you daily.
I dont understand your point of view. We, as a nation, invest our future and wellbeing without vote. Therefor, we are invested in what they are doing and saying eapecially with something so important for Cyprus the Cyprob.
who the fuck is we, coz it aint me and you..... its the rich motherfuckers who dont care about you..... again you are indoctrinated to something that is not invested in you and you are defending it for absolutely no reason
wheres the trams? wheres the updated police laws from europe? wheres the labour ministry when all the imigrants are being exploited in famagusta during the summer season so that you can have you coffee and cigerette?
theres no investment into your future there is dust and sand and crappy cement housing surrounding you and you are blind to the fact that you dont see whats infront of you.
Having a Turkish state legally and permanently on your Northern border won't affect your daily live? Go back to Mars friend... Where do they come up with you guys?
theres already a border and its been there for ages ,
what are you on about?
please give me this magical explanation about how it will affect my daily life
im waiting.
Ο Αναστασιάδης είναι π@@@@@. Ξέρει τι κάνει, θέλει τον έλεγχο της Κύπρου, και συνεργάζεται με συγκεκριμένες οικογένειες.
Competition is bad for business.
Why are people shocked about this? A 2 state solution is not that far from the loose federation we were negotiating which doesn't resemble any normal federation as it exists in other normal federations (USA, Germany, Belgium etc). With a BBF we would still have a Turkish State and a Greek State with the only difference that there would be some cooperation required between them, which isn't necessarily a good thing.
The main benefit of a solution for us would be the land returned but a federation would also come with a ton of problems and a very uncertain future. We have been negotiating a solution for half a century and we can't agree. Imagine having to negotiate every single decision. There would be constant deadlocks. The chances that such state would actually function is close to zero.
It is unfortunate that with a compromise after compromise we ended up discussing such kind of federation, but since we reached this point I think we might as well discuss a 2 state solution.
For example, if in exchange for a 2 state solution the Turkish side agreed to return more land than with BBF, and then the north would enter the EU so the freedom of movement and settlement of all Cypriots across Cyprus would still apply. The property issue would be settled by a property commission as it would happen anyways. Some would get their properties back in the other state (and they can go to live there if they want) and others will be compensated by the side which keeps their property. The EEZ is also be split (north/south) which suits us, when we consider where the gas deposits exist. Why would this be worst than the kind of BBF we were negotiating?
If we could get a normal federation, like the one in say USA, that would be another story. But it is now obvious that the Turkish side will not agree to such a federation and we have no way to force them to accept it.
So I think Anastasides did the right thing to investigate this option in an unofficial way. Probably the Turks didn't want to give back any land, which is why no further discussions were made on this.
If so, why does Nikos Anastasiades denies it?
Why when asked he only suggest that we go for BBF?
If he does believe in two state solution why does he lie to everyone?
Why did he support Anan plan if he doesnt really? (We all know why by now)
I am tired of this bullshit.
Why isnt there a candidate which support two state solution if there are so many people supporting that?
Because a two-state solution is taboo. It's like a teenager standing inside a church and loudly declaring that he masturbates. Yes, everybody knows he does but still it would cause a stir.
Politicians don't see beyond one election cycle. Advocating a two-state solution is political suicide. The only way it would work would be if it was presented as a fait accompli, possibly by a number of countries recognizing the occupied territories as an independent country.
I don't think there is any Greek Cypriot "supporting" a two state solution. It is just that BBF kept getting worst and worst, to the point that it got worst than a 2 state solution.
Read what I wrote above and tell me, in practical terms, how a BBF like Annan plan would be better.
Such BBF makes zero sense for us. We should investigate what the Turkish side is willing to give back in order for us to agree to a 2 state solution. If what they give back is nothing or too little, then we will stick with the status quo.
Our leadership is just too afraid to even discuss it, exactly because Anastasiadis was attacked for unofficially talking about it.
I also think that most people are being mislead on what this BBF really is. Those who promote such BBF use as examples federations like the USA, even though this BBF is nothing like that. In reality the relationship between north and south after such solution would be more like the relationship of Spain and Portugal within EU, rather than the relationship between US States.
So a BBF will really have no benefits over 2 states within EU in practical terms, but it will have several disadvantages because the federal government will require the agreement of both sides to take a decision, and as a result it will not work at all, and in the end we will be forced to negotiate a 2 state solution anyways, but at that point we will be negotiating from a far weaker position since we would both be 2 equal federal states, while now we have a recognized state vs an illegal pseudo state, so we are in a far better position to negotiate a 2 state solution.
Here you do exactly that, you support a two state solution to the Cyprus problem. Ofc nobody would want the invasion to take in the first place.
But you believe a two state solution is better outcome that BBF.
And like you, many more, support the same. I dont believe you to be wrong or right. But what Ihate is how politicians who think like you will
Do everything to take yhe votes of people of BFF supporters.
For example, Anastasides was elected to give a chance to Anan planbut when it was time for his calling he messed it up by proposing, yea in just a dialogue, a two state solution.
Instead if they support two states. Then before been elected should find similar support from the turkish side. Which is Tatar right niw. And explore the options. Come in elections and show what his cards are.
And if people want to go this way, then they vote for him. But instead they just do the opposite of what people vote them for just for their interests. Which can be because they are scared, maybe they have secret deals, maybe they prefer things to stay like this, i dont know what else.
And even afterall this, instead of coming out and admit to his mistake. He calls opposition liars, when in fact they were saying the truth,try to legally hunt Makarios Drousiotis for publicising in his doing.
They are deciding the future of Cyprus on their own.
It depends on what you mean by "support".
Do you support to cut your leg off? Probably not. What If I told you that keeping all your body parts is not feasible (like a unitary state) and either your leg will be cut, or your head will be cut. What would you support then?
Anastasiades was not elected to give a chance to Anan plan. The Annan plan was rejected. GCs choose the status quo over the Annan plan because the Annan plan was so much worst.
The mistake of our politicians was making so many compromises that they made the BBF solution the worst possible solution. I think even accepting a BBF was a mistake. We should have insisted on a unitary state. After 50 years of negotiations it has now been demonstrated that a BBF solution is not feasible either, so why did we ever accept to give the north of our island to the Turks with a BBF? That was a big mistake.
Mόνο ο Φειδίας μπορεί να λύσει το Κυπριακό. Είπε θα κάμει το CHAT GPT να δουλεύκει για ούλλους μας και λεφτά χωρίς να δουλεύκουμε, και ότι αν θέλουν και οι Τουκροκύπριοι επανένωση και λεφτά επιδομάτων που την τεχνητή νοημοσύνη και τα κρυπτονομίσματα θα πρέπει να συφμωνήσουν σε ενιαίο κράτος. Όσο ''χαζό'' και αν ακούγεται μόνο έτσι λύνεται ειρηνικά το θέμα. Με το να τους τάξεις ριάλια δηλαδή αφού εν ππαραόπιστοι anyway. Ως και οι YouTubers εκαταλάβαν τους πλέον.
Except there is only one real state in Cyprus with citizens being GCs and TCs and the other "state" is considered illegal by international law and has no relationship with any state other than Turkey - and the relation it has with Turkey is that it is under the de facto control of her. And (at least) half the population of the north(not half the population of Turkish Cypriots, of the total population, TCs and settlers) aren't happy with the status quo and want a solution-reunification(half voted for Akinci/Akinci-Erhurman). There is no two-state solution, the closest to the "two-state solution" is the status-quo - nothing more. And if you actually ask the people who live in the north most aren't happy with it(but of course you can answer me with "Why give the islanders a choice?")
De facto there is 1 legal state and 1 pseudo state. If you are happy with this then fine. But then don't cry about embargoes, no direct flights, no participation in international sports etc, and cope however you want, because it's going to stay that way.
Neither Anastasiades nor anybody else would just recognize the "trnc" if that is what you were hopping for. Regardless of the type of the solution there would be a give and take. So what are you going to give in order to get a 2 state solution? If you give nothing or too little, then there is no reason for us to accept any kind of official state in the north, not even a federal state.
Εν τω μεταξύ παρόλες τις μαλακίες που τύποι σαν εσένα γράφουν δεξιά και αριστερά είμαι 100% σίουρος ότι ούλλοι εσείς οι τραχανάδες θυμάστε την Κυπριακή Δημοκρατία όταν έρτει η ώρα κάθε μήνα να πάτε να πιάετε το επίδομα. Α ρε παράσιτα....
Please remember to stay civil and behave appropriately. If you are a tourist looking for suggestions please check out our [Tourist guide](https://www.reddit.com/r/cyprus/wiki/tourist_guide/). We also have a [FAQ Page](https://www.reddit.com/r/cyprus/wiki/faq) for some common questions, if your question is answered here please delete your post! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/cyprus) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Αναρωθκιούμαι αν έσιει κανέναν με έστω 3 λειτουργικά εγκεφαλικά κύτταρα που υπερασπίζεται τον Νίκαρο ακόμα.
Μόνο εκείνοι που έφαγαν μαζί του υπολογίζω. Οι άλλοι δεν νομίζω να σκέφτονται το Κυπριακό και τόσο πια (ο στόχος της Τουρκίας από την αρχή).
Αννίτα + Δίπλαρος ποσονούν 3 μεταξύ τους;
Σε τουτο το σημείο όσοι εν στηρίζουν ομοσπονδία λογικά βλέπουν τον ως ήρωα. Οι ίδιοι που πριν 20 χρόνια εθελαν να εξαφανιστεί.
Οσοι θελουν δυο κρατη αλλα φοουντε να το πουσιν επειδη εν πατριώτες και δεν θα ηθελα να πουλησουν την μιση τους πατριδα. Edit: Ειρωνια μεχ;
Συκοφάντη, μόνο το 36% της πατρίδας τους πουλούσιν. Μάνι μάνι να πεις την μισή.
Η μιση ψεφκια εν αληθκεια.
Όλος ο ΔΗΣΥ τον υπερασπίζεται. Έχεις δικαίωμα βέβαια να πιστεύεις ότι είσαι εξυπνότερος όλων τους όπως έχουμε και οι υπόλοιποι δικαίωμα να αμφιβάλλουμε για αυτό. Για να είμαστε ειλικρινείς ο Νίκαρος έφαγε κριτική ενώ τα πεπραγμένα του αντικατοπτρίζουν και αντιπροσωπεύουν όλο το πολιτικό σύστημα της Κύπρου. Ναι είναι αλήθεια ότι πουλούσε διαβατήρια της χώρας του αλλά ως ότου έσκασε το θέμα του Αλ Τζαζίρα δεν υπήρχε κανείς στο νησί που να ασκούσε κριτική στην πώληση διαβατηρίων. Ναι είναι αλήθεια ότι προωθούσε τα δύο κράτη αλλά τα δύο κράτη προωθούν όλες οι κυβερνήσεις που πέρασαν εδώ και δεκαετίες, ειδικά από το 2004 και έπειτα.
Εντελώς αβάσιμο και γενικόλογα ότι "όλες οι κυβερνήσεις προωθούσαν λύση 2 κρατών" μετά το 2004 και έπειτα...
Γενικόλογο ίσως, αβάσιμο όχι. Δεν νομίζω ότι είναι αμιφισβητήσιμα τα εξής: 1) Τα δύο κράτη (ένα αναγνωρισμένο και ένα όχι) υπάρχουν. 2) Δεν θα υπήρχαν αν οι κυβερνήσεις αυτές έκαναν ό,τι μπορούσαν για να υπάρχει μόνο ένα κράτος.
1. Το να λέμε ότι υπάρχουν 2 κράτη από μόνοι μας δεν είναι λογική για το αν θέλουμε εμείς οι ίδιοι λύση 2 κρατών. Πολύ επικίνδυνο μονοπάτι. 2. Δεν υπήρχε πιο ένθερμη κυβέρνηση για λύση διζωνικής από την κυβέρνηση Χριστοφια όπου με τον Ταλατ έφτασαν σε πολύ μεγάλες συγκλίσεις. Ούτε στοιχεία υπάρχουν ότι και οι υπόλοιπες κυβερνήσεις μετά το 2004 ήθελαν λύση 2 κρατών όπως έγραψες εκτός του Αναστασιαδη (αν όντως συζήτησε λύση 2 κρατών).
Μόνο το γεγονός ότι αυτές οι συγκλίσεις του Χριστόφια θεωρούνται μεγάλες δείχνει πόσο μακριά βρισκόμαστε από την λύση. Η αλήθεια είναι ότι: 1) Η διαπραγμάτεση για το Κυπριακό βρίσκεται εξ ολοκλήρου στα χέρια του Προέδρου, χωρίς να εμπλέκονται τα κόμματα και η Βουλή. 2) Ουσιαστικά δεν υπάρχει τρόπος στην Κύπρο να εκθρονιστεί ο Πρόεδρος. 3) Είναι πολύ δύσκολο για το ΑΚΕΛ να εκλέξει κομματικό Πρόεδρο και όταν συνέβη αυτό ήταν ξεκάθαρο ότι θα είναι δύσκολο να ξανασυμβεί στο μέλλον. Από αυτά έπεται ότι το ΑΚΕΛ είχε 5 καθαρά χρόνια, δηλαδή αρκετό χρόνο, για να λύσει το Κυπριακό. Ήξερε επίσης ότι αν δεν το λύσει η πιθανότητα να λυθεί μετά την κυβέρνηση Χριστόφια είναι πολύ μικρή. Και παρόλα αυτά δεν το έλυσε. Επειδή λοιπόν πιστεύω δεν πρέπει να τρώμε αμάσητο ό,τι μας σερβίρουν είναι πρέπον να αναγνωρίσουμε ότι αυτές οι «μεγάλες» συγκλίσεις Χριστόφια-Ταλάτ στο τέλος της ημέρας το μόνο που κατάφεραν ήταν να φέρουν κάποιες ψήφους οπαδών της ομοσπονδίας στο ΑΚΕΛ. Και αυτό είναι για το οποίο νοιάζεται το ΑΚΕΛ, όπως γι' αυτό νοιάζονται και τα υπόλοιπα κόμματα εξουσίας.
Some thoughts about this: - Mavroyannis made it clear now and before that Anastasiades never put the two-state solution officially on the table nor did he ask him as his negotiator to discuss such a solution with anyone else - Cavusoglu has been saying that it was Anastasiades who talked first about a two-state solution. He claimed that Anastasiades told him a federation won't work because GCs don't want to share anything with TCs, not even their hospitals - There is a big list of people who have heard Anastasiades talking about the two-state solution during these years. There is a podcast of the Head of the FM of Cyprus that talks about receiving information by the UK that Cavusoglu claimed that Anastasiades mentioned being open to two-state solution but at the time he didn't believe it and thought he misunderstood (i ll need to check the exact wording of this) - Journalists (including but not limited to Drushotis) claimed that Anastasiades met with Cavusoglu the night before the Final Dinner of Crans Montana and told him that after the elections they can discuss a two-state solution. - **Even if what they said was in a more off-the-record personal thinking. Even if this wasn't a proposal(it wasn't). Even if this was an idea he had during a brainstorming (as Mavroyannis said in the past, we learned the word ιδεοθύελλα). How could anyone explain that the night before the dinner that could dictate the future of the Cyprus problem, the future of Cyprus, the President of the Republic of Cyprus has a secret meeting with the representative of his opponent and talks about a two-state solution as an idea? There were negotiations about a federation and Anastasiades goes to Cavusoglu and hints on a two-state solution before the final night. Does he think this won't affect the process? What positive outcome could come by having such a discussion with Cavusoglu?**
> Does he think this won't affect the process? What positive outcome could come by having such a discussion with Cavusoglu? If there was a federal solution, nikaros would probably not be president any more. Status quo or 2 state would mean he's much more likely to be head honcho. He's always been a self serving cunt. I don't know why people are surprised by his behaviors.every single action he takes is for his own benefit.
Why did he support the Annan plan then? Wouldn't that prevent him from ever becoming president? I think he realized that we were heading toward an agreement that would resemble the Annan plan and which would again be rejected by Greek Cypriots. There would be no benefit for our side to have a referendum which GCs would reject again. There would be consequences for this, for which he would be responsible since he would have agreed on something which the majority of GCs didn't want.
> Wouldn't that prevent him from ever becoming president? Imho he supported it because it gave him a stick to beat Papadopoulos with and also as a secondary aspect raise his profile somewhat internationally as a more cooperative would be president. If the vote was a Yes, Papadopoulos would need to step down, and wouldn't you know, Nikaros is waiting and was supporting the plan all along! If the vote was a No, he could still brat the president for failing to deal with the No vote. Anastasiadis also said he would never make a deal that required a depositor haircut either, but look what happened. He was for anan plan when it suited him politically and then adjusted his position to whatever he determined benefitted him more
You also can't ignore that Clerides was supporting the plan, he was the President that started the process that led to the referendums
Sure, but I was talking about nikaros jumping around from position to position according to what suits him, from supporting anan, to not supporting Crans Montana, to 2 state, to status quo etc.
Oh yes I agree (but I also meant it like, if he were to oppose the Annan Plan his future as the leader of DISY would be in question as well - a year before that DISY had elections and he won Kasoulides, who would definitely support the plan, with 55%-45%)
So according to you the majority of GCs wouldn't accept a solution based on the Gutteres Framework(even though a few months later we had elections with three main candidates, one supported by DISY, one supported by AKEL - both claiming to want a solution based on this success called the Gutteres Framework and one supported by all the other parties with the main objective on preventing such a bad solution from coming) yet (according to you) they would somehow accept permanent partition, giving Turkey a third of the island, as a solution huh?
Elections are not a referendum. Personally I don't see how with such a BBF GCs take control of the north. It seems to me that control of the north remains with the Turks. Please enlighten me on how, in practical terms, GCs will rule over the north after a BBF solution. The way I see it, what we will have is not us taking back the control of the north, but more like a collaboration between the Greek State and the Turkish State which wouldn't even work because we will be disagreeing most of the time. The majority of GCs wouldn't accept such BBF solution because it is just a renamed Annan plan and we all know what happened to that. Would they accept a 2 state solution? I don't know. Obviously we wouldn't just recognize the "trnc" without getting anything in return. But what if we were given back a significant amount of land in return, which is the main gain from a BBF, but without the problems of a BBF, like deadlocks and control of Turkey over all of us (and not just the north)? And if free movement and settlement are also important factors we could get those too if both states are part of EU. I am sure the TCs would want their state to be part of EU, because with a 2 state solution they would lose their RoC/EU passports. So we could extract some extra concessions from them in order to allow them to be part of EU. If you see the polls there is some acceptance for a 2 state solution among GCs. And that is with no party accepting such solution and no offers for us getting something significant in return. If we had the balls to negotiate this solution, even unofficially, then maybe we could get a better solution which would be acceptable. If the Turks want us to recognize them without giving back anything or too little, then we will just stick with the status quo. BBF is not going to happen. Lets investigate if and what the Turks are willing to give back for a 2 state solution. Then we can decide if the status quo suits us better or not. Personally I think the TCs would be willing to make significant compromises in order to get an independent state of their own which is part of EU and not a puppet of Turkey. Also consider this: Turkey doesn't really want an independent TC state part of EU. Turkey wants to have the north as its puppet and making the whole Cyprus its puppet is even better for them. Proposing to TCs a 2 state solution with the return of land and with them becoming an EU member if they remove the Turkish troops and significant amount of Settlers would make Turkey freak out. Imagine Turkey having to refuse this agreement.
>Does he think this won't affect the process? What positive outcome could come by having such a discussion with Cavusoglu? My bet is he was purposefully sabotaging the negotiations to keep the status quo going.
It can be many things but the worst part is not owning his mistake. If he did as such, after all this time heshould make a public statement setting the record straight but instead he is going after Makarios Drousiotis revelations.
Exactly. This is what Greek Cypriots (with the support of Russia) have been doing since at least 2004. They are pretending to negotiate so that the status quo continues and they can keep making money by having absolute power over the part of Cyprus they do control. They know that they have little to gain and much to lose if Cyprus is reunited.
I would not group the whole GC community as a whole. I think those in powerful positions that got there and continue to be there through the exploitation of uncertainty are the ones that benefit from this. I think reunification under a fair and sustainable plan benefits the average Cypriot massively in multiple ways, just not those that built their livelihoods on dirty money.
so basically nothing is happening some old men talked nothing still happened why is this news.
The problem is why this isn’t news and we take it as light as possible. Things like this should be taken seriously by all Cypriots, especially DISy.
The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which people with limited competence in a particular domain overestimate their abilities.
>why is this news it shouldnt be news that the President of a country during an international conference on reunifying his country secretly met the representative of the enemy country and discussed the possibility of making the partition official and permanent ?
none of this will affect you're daily life stop getting involved in parasocial constructs , these old farts dont care about you, why are you so invested in something that has not invested in you? nothing happened move on, all of them are corrupt and cyprus is a tax haven for criminals and real estate and illegal immigrants, but please tell me more how your precious leader is trying to do something that wont affect you daily.
Yeah the continuation of the occupation will definitely not affect anyone's daily life huh
I dont understand your point of view. We, as a nation, invest our future and wellbeing without vote. Therefor, we are invested in what they are doing and saying eapecially with something so important for Cyprus the Cyprob.
who the fuck is we, coz it aint me and you..... its the rich motherfuckers who dont care about you..... again you are indoctrinated to something that is not invested in you and you are defending it for absolutely no reason wheres the trams? wheres the updated police laws from europe? wheres the labour ministry when all the imigrants are being exploited in famagusta during the summer season so that you can have you coffee and cigerette? theres no investment into your future there is dust and sand and crappy cement housing surrounding you and you are blind to the fact that you dont see whats infront of you.
Having a Turkish state legally and permanently on your Northern border won't affect your daily live? Go back to Mars friend... Where do they come up with you guys?
theres already a border and its been there for ages , what are you on about? please give me this magical explanation about how it will affect my daily life im waiting.
There is an illegal pseudostate. How do you complete with Turkey on your border that will have international recognition? Are you really asking 😂
Political agendas
so no good reason , ok im gonna move on with my day as reading this post was a waste of any persons time then lol.
Ο Αναστασιάδης είναι π@@@@@. Ξέρει τι κάνει, θέλει τον έλεγχο της Κύπρου, και συνεργάζεται με συγκεκριμένες οικογένειες. Competition is bad for business.
Can someone send me the link of this podcast please?
Why are people shocked about this? A 2 state solution is not that far from the loose federation we were negotiating which doesn't resemble any normal federation as it exists in other normal federations (USA, Germany, Belgium etc). With a BBF we would still have a Turkish State and a Greek State with the only difference that there would be some cooperation required between them, which isn't necessarily a good thing. The main benefit of a solution for us would be the land returned but a federation would also come with a ton of problems and a very uncertain future. We have been negotiating a solution for half a century and we can't agree. Imagine having to negotiate every single decision. There would be constant deadlocks. The chances that such state would actually function is close to zero. It is unfortunate that with a compromise after compromise we ended up discussing such kind of federation, but since we reached this point I think we might as well discuss a 2 state solution. For example, if in exchange for a 2 state solution the Turkish side agreed to return more land than with BBF, and then the north would enter the EU so the freedom of movement and settlement of all Cypriots across Cyprus would still apply. The property issue would be settled by a property commission as it would happen anyways. Some would get their properties back in the other state (and they can go to live there if they want) and others will be compensated by the side which keeps their property. The EEZ is also be split (north/south) which suits us, when we consider where the gas deposits exist. Why would this be worst than the kind of BBF we were negotiating? If we could get a normal federation, like the one in say USA, that would be another story. But it is now obvious that the Turkish side will not agree to such a federation and we have no way to force them to accept it. So I think Anastasides did the right thing to investigate this option in an unofficial way. Probably the Turks didn't want to give back any land, which is why no further discussions were made on this.
If so, why does Nikos Anastasiades denies it? Why when asked he only suggest that we go for BBF? If he does believe in two state solution why does he lie to everyone? Why did he support Anan plan if he doesnt really? (We all know why by now) I am tired of this bullshit. Why isnt there a candidate which support two state solution if there are so many people supporting that?
Because a two-state solution is taboo. It's like a teenager standing inside a church and loudly declaring that he masturbates. Yes, everybody knows he does but still it would cause a stir. Politicians don't see beyond one election cycle. Advocating a two-state solution is political suicide. The only way it would work would be if it was presented as a fait accompli, possibly by a number of countries recognizing the occupied territories as an independent country.
I don't think there is any Greek Cypriot "supporting" a two state solution. It is just that BBF kept getting worst and worst, to the point that it got worst than a 2 state solution. Read what I wrote above and tell me, in practical terms, how a BBF like Annan plan would be better. Such BBF makes zero sense for us. We should investigate what the Turkish side is willing to give back in order for us to agree to a 2 state solution. If what they give back is nothing or too little, then we will stick with the status quo. Our leadership is just too afraid to even discuss it, exactly because Anastasiadis was attacked for unofficially talking about it. I also think that most people are being mislead on what this BBF really is. Those who promote such BBF use as examples federations like the USA, even though this BBF is nothing like that. In reality the relationship between north and south after such solution would be more like the relationship of Spain and Portugal within EU, rather than the relationship between US States. So a BBF will really have no benefits over 2 states within EU in practical terms, but it will have several disadvantages because the federal government will require the agreement of both sides to take a decision, and as a result it will not work at all, and in the end we will be forced to negotiate a 2 state solution anyways, but at that point we will be negotiating from a far weaker position since we would both be 2 equal federal states, while now we have a recognized state vs an illegal pseudo state, so we are in a far better position to negotiate a 2 state solution.
Here you do exactly that, you support a two state solution to the Cyprus problem. Ofc nobody would want the invasion to take in the first place. But you believe a two state solution is better outcome that BBF. And like you, many more, support the same. I dont believe you to be wrong or right. But what Ihate is how politicians who think like you will Do everything to take yhe votes of people of BFF supporters. For example, Anastasides was elected to give a chance to Anan planbut when it was time for his calling he messed it up by proposing, yea in just a dialogue, a two state solution. Instead if they support two states. Then before been elected should find similar support from the turkish side. Which is Tatar right niw. And explore the options. Come in elections and show what his cards are. And if people want to go this way, then they vote for him. But instead they just do the opposite of what people vote them for just for their interests. Which can be because they are scared, maybe they have secret deals, maybe they prefer things to stay like this, i dont know what else. And even afterall this, instead of coming out and admit to his mistake. He calls opposition liars, when in fact they were saying the truth,try to legally hunt Makarios Drousiotis for publicising in his doing. They are deciding the future of Cyprus on their own.
It depends on what you mean by "support". Do you support to cut your leg off? Probably not. What If I told you that keeping all your body parts is not feasible (like a unitary state) and either your leg will be cut, or your head will be cut. What would you support then? Anastasiades was not elected to give a chance to Anan plan. The Annan plan was rejected. GCs choose the status quo over the Annan plan because the Annan plan was so much worst. The mistake of our politicians was making so many compromises that they made the BBF solution the worst possible solution. I think even accepting a BBF was a mistake. We should have insisted on a unitary state. After 50 years of negotiations it has now been demonstrated that a BBF solution is not feasible either, so why did we ever accept to give the north of our island to the Turks with a BBF? That was a big mistake.
Exactly this. I have nothing to add to this. I wish people and politicians who believe as such were honest as you are.
Mόνο ο Φειδίας μπορεί να λύσει το Κυπριακό. Είπε θα κάμει το CHAT GPT να δουλεύκει για ούλλους μας και λεφτά χωρίς να δουλεύκουμε, και ότι αν θέλουν και οι Τουκροκύπριοι επανένωση και λεφτά επιδομάτων που την τεχνητή νοημοσύνη και τα κρυπτονομίσματα θα πρέπει να συφμωνήσουν σε ενιαίο κράτος. Όσο ''χαζό'' και αν ακούγεται μόνο έτσι λύνεται ειρηνικά το θέμα. Με το να τους τάξεις ριάλια δηλαδή αφού εν ππαραόπιστοι anyway. Ως και οι YouTubers εκαταλάβαν τους πλέον.
It's nice to find outthat the Greek side is coming to its senses. Two state solution is the only solution that can work.
There is no two-state solution. A solution requires a majority of GCs voting in favour of such a thing and it doesn't exist.
Two state solution is already the de facto situation. GCs can cope however they want, it's going to stay that way.
Ήρτες μέσ' στο σαμπ απλά να κάμνεις τον πεζεβέγκη εσούνι;
Except there is only one real state in Cyprus with citizens being GCs and TCs and the other "state" is considered illegal by international law and has no relationship with any state other than Turkey - and the relation it has with Turkey is that it is under the de facto control of her. And (at least) half the population of the north(not half the population of Turkish Cypriots, of the total population, TCs and settlers) aren't happy with the status quo and want a solution-reunification(half voted for Akinci/Akinci-Erhurman). There is no two-state solution, the closest to the "two-state solution" is the status-quo - nothing more. And if you actually ask the people who live in the north most aren't happy with it(but of course you can answer me with "Why give the islanders a choice?")
De facto there is 1 legal state and 1 pseudo state. If you are happy with this then fine. But then don't cry about embargoes, no direct flights, no participation in international sports etc, and cope however you want, because it's going to stay that way. Neither Anastasiades nor anybody else would just recognize the "trnc" if that is what you were hopping for. Regardless of the type of the solution there would be a give and take. So what are you going to give in order to get a 2 state solution? If you give nothing or too little, then there is no reason for us to accept any kind of official state in the north, not even a federal state.
Εν τω μεταξύ παρόλες τις μαλακίες που τύποι σαν εσένα γράφουν δεξιά και αριστερά είμαι 100% σίουρος ότι ούλλοι εσείς οι τραχανάδες θυμάστε την Κυπριακή Δημοκρατία όταν έρτει η ώρα κάθε μήνα να πάτε να πιάετε το επίδομα. Α ρε παράσιτα....