www.talkcyprus.org

[Leon]

On CyBC's official website you can watch the bilingual programme Biz/Emis ('Us') and starting from today it is featuring all of the candidates for the Cypriot 2008 Presidency. The series kicked off with Marios Matsakis and the interview can be seen here. The interview starts at around 10 mins. 55 secs.

I personally like his style and enjoyed the different views he has to say on the Cyprus Problem. He is categorically against a bizonal, bizommunal Cyprus and explains why. Well worth watching. Tomorrow is Kostas Themistokleous.

I'd like to hear your views on this guy. You must be able to understand either Greek or Turkish.

Leon.

[Bananiot]

He is Marios Matsakis, not Yiannis. Some choose to call him Madsakis, for obvious reasons. He prefers to go back to the 1959 London-Zurich agreements but if this is not possible (sic) the second best solution is partition (two states united in Europe, so he says). These are probably the views of Papadopoulos too, but he is not that fool to think aloud.

[stavrizatz]

Personally I like him a lot but I think he is not suitable for the role of a president, however certainly better than Tpap. Christofias and Kassoulides are not bad however they are genuine politicians, they are not the most appropriate for social change as their main aim is to stay in power. They will not take risks and they will promise a lot of things and they will do very little.

I think Matsakis is a more genuine guy, a little crazy with great ideas but again he does not satisfy 100%. I think he better suited for the role of a European MP.

He probably won my vote for first round.

[Kifeas]

Bananiot wrote: He is Marios Matsakis, not Yiannis. Some choose to call him Madsakis, for obvious reasons. He prefers to go back to the 1959 London-Zurich agreements but if this is not possible (sic) the second best solution is partition (two states united in Europe, so he says). These are probably the views of Papadopoulos too, but he is not that fool to think aloud.

Listen Bananiot! You may think you are clever, but you are none of the kind at all! At least Matsakis is advocating partition on the basis of 1974 Greek Cypriot /Turkish Cypriot demographic ratio! This is way better than the 70:30 partition you have already accepted, 4 years ago, when you voted for the Anan plan!

[Bananiot]

You have really hit rock bottom Kifeas. You have come out clean, eventually (bloodshed or partition) and now you have discovered a comrade-in-arms in Matsakis.

You were nothing but a partition advocate all along and all you needed were the right excuses to come out clean. Let me tell you something though. It is not Kemelism that has made you a fervent supporter of partition. It is something entirely different and you should dig deep to discover the real reasons.

[Leon]

Bananiot wrote: He is Marios Matsakis, not Yiannis.

Bloody hell! My silly mistake. I don't know why I had 'Yannis' in mind. Marios, Yannis... same old common stuff :lol:

[Kifeas]

Bananiot wrote: You have really hit rock bottom Kifeas. You have come out clean, eventually (bloodshed or partition) and now you have discovered a comrade-in-arms in Matsakis.

You were nothing but a partition advocate all along and all you needed were the right excuses to come out clean. Let me tell you something though. It is not Kemelism that has made you a fervent supporter of partition. It is something entirely different and you should dig deep to discover the real reasons.

Rock bottom was already hit by people like you, long time ago, for having aimed at gifting 30% of your country and 50% of its coastlines to the Turkish nation, and on top of this you have aimed at placing the whole of Cyprus under the suzerainty of Turkey by accepting to become 50:50 partners with the mainland Turkish settlers in our own country! At least I am trying to save something out of all that you have gifted away, when you have accepted the monstrosity product of homosexual Alvaro De Soto!

You are right, it is not kemalism my problem! It is the Turkish ruling elites inferiority nationalist complexes, megalomania and illusions of granter; products of which are the Kemalist ideology, the enslavement of the Kurdish people, the brainwashing of the Turkish Cypriots and the illegal occupation of my country!

[boomerang]

Bananiot wrote: You have really hit rock bottom Kifeas. You have come out clean, eventually (bloodshed or partition) and now you have discovered a comrade-in-arms in Matsakis.

You were nothing but a partition advocate all along and all you needed were the right excuses to come out clean. Let me tell you something though. It is not Kemelism that has made you a fervent supporter of partition. It is something entirely different and you should dig deep to discover the real reasons.

Bannaniot, I always wanted to ask you...

What do you think will happen to Turkish Cypriots if the Republic of Cyprus
1...Returned to the 1960 agreements
2...A unitary state

I say the above provided the majority in the nth will remain Turkish Cypriots and bolstering their numbers to say 30%-35%, with the help of the settlers and Turkey pays for any initial compensation for relocation, let us say for say the first 3 years...

My way of thinking is, by bolstering the numbers you are insuring the majority will remain in the nth, and you are then not restricting freedom of movement for all Cypriots...

[Bananiot]

Kifeas, as far as I know, Alvaro de Soto's girlfriend in Paphos, was female. But, if you are insinuating that a homosexual mediator is more likely to favour Turkey, I would ask you to provide concrete proof and perhaps you could include your sociopsychololigal reasoning behind your assertion for the sake of big time testosterone produces from inherited ottoman genes. Please do not confuse the above with your suzerainty theory which of course will not apply, when we are partitioned on the 80% to 20% basis and which will be no disguised partition but a transparent one.

[Bananiot]

Boomerang, a return to the London - Zurich agreements is not possible. I wish it were, but it is simply not on. Both sides did wonders in their endeavours to bury them, with our side being the main culprit. Had we been serious and staunch supporters of the agreements no one could have touched them.

A unitary state is also out of question. Again, I wish it was possible. Since 1977 we have agreed on the nature of the new Cyprus that would be born out of negotiations with Turkish Cypriots. Any attempt to go back on our signature will no doubt cement partition which was always the objective of Turkish nationalists.

Thus, we should be aiming at avoiding partition at all costs and agreeing with the Turkish Cypriots on sharing this island as two politically equal communities within one single undivided country. I understand the difficulties involved but it is still (just) possible to do it if we win over the Turkish Cypriots with genuine and honests moves from our part. In such an environement Turkey can only follow suit since the European aspirations of Turkey will be seriously damaged if it were to be seen going against the expressed wishes of the Turkish Cypriot community.

[Bananiot]

Now, I cannot really see how Cyprus will be unitary when we have guaranteed majorities in the two zones, if I understood correctly what you wrote. Freedom of movement is one thing and freedom of settlement in any part of the country is another. Matsakis thinks that Cyprus will be united within the EU but agrees that freedom of settlement will be restricted. He proposes two independent states and eventually he comes to terms with what Denktash has been saying all along. I think Papadopoulos believes in the same thing but he will not spell it out loud and clear as Matsakis did. He is weary of the political cost and he has a n election to worry about.

[boomerang]

Bananiot wrote: Boomerang, a return to the London - Zurich agreements is not possible. I wish it were, but it is simply not on. Both sides did wonders in their endeavours to bury them, with our side being the main culprit. Had we been serious and staunch supporters of the agreements no one could have touched them.

A unitary state is also out of question. Again, I wish it was possible. Since 1977 we have agreed on the nature of the new Cyprus that would be born out of negotiations with Turkish Cypriots. Any attempt to go back on our signature will no doubt cement partition which was always the objective of Turkish nationalists.

Thus, we should be aiming at avoiding partition at all costs and agreeing with the Turkish Cypriots on sharing this island as two politically equal communities within one single undivided country. I understand the difficulties involved but it is still (just) possible to do it if we win over the Turkish Cypriots with genuine and honests moves from our part. In such an environement Turkey can only follow suit since the European aspirations of Turkey will be seriously damaged if it were to be seen going against the expressed wishes of the Turkish Cypriot community.

Bananiot, while I appreciate your responce, it's not what I was asking...

The main concern, of the Turkish Cypriots is security and enough representation...by bolstering their numbers you are achieving both...This way democracy rather than apartheid prevails for all Cypriots...

Bananiot we both, along with Kifeas do not want partition, but what we have now is stalemate...

[boomerang]

Bananiot wrote: Now, I cannot really see how Cyprus will be unitary when we have guaranteed majorities in the two zones, if I understood correctly what you wrote. Freedom of movement is one thing and freedom of settlement in any part of the country is another. Matsakis thinks that Cyprus will be united within the EU but agrees that freedom of settlement will be restricted. He proposes two independent states and eventually he comes to terms with what Denktash has been saying all along. I think Papadopoulos believes in the same thing but he will not spell it out loud and clear as Matsakis did. He is weary of the political cost and he has a n election to worry about.

Unitary state and freedom of movement are 2 different things...Read my post again...I am quoting numbers...think about the numbers...If 30%-35% of the population remains in the Nth , it means they will have a big say in the nth...To change the balance in the nth would require 40% of all the Greek Cypriots to move in the nth...you seriously see this happening?

In this scenario you could have
a true democratic federation
or
unitary state

come on man start think of other ways of getting on

[repulsewarrior]

If you want a Republic of Cyprus and Government where the ethnic majorities Turkish and Greek have self representation then you must consider the proposal that i have made for a truly Bicommunal State with the introduction of a "Greek" Assembly and the recognition of a "Turkish" Assembly, with the Jurisdiction of a geographic territory which is more complex than the island divided in two (Bizonal). No solution will aptly provide for Justice without witnessing the displacement of some body of people. Our hearts and minds should be focused on what will be best futuristicly for the island, and its dwellers. The cost in terms of the sacrafice must be weighed against the fact that nothing of any worth is ever obtained without an effort that has an equal value.

A two State soluton is not feasable for many reasons, security being on the top of that list.