Talk:2004 Cypriot Annan Plan referendums

Anonymous edits

Argyro, are you trying to use multiple IPs in order to instate your version? A new trick? [1] - Snchduer 14:30, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Issue resolved. Argyro is using Asian open proxies to circumvent the block effective against him due to the violation of the WP:3RR rule. - Snchduer 17:43, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Designation of sectors

The so-called referenda were carried out between the Greek Cypriots, Turkish Cypriots and Turkish colonists NOT between any so-called sectors which DO NOT EXIST. The Cyprus government opposed the participation of Turkish colonists in these referenda.--Argyrosargyrou 14:10, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I do know about these things... Why you accuse me of not knowing it is strange... However, there were two referendae: one in the north and one in the south. So people in the north would go in the northern sector (north of the Green Line) to vote, people in the south in the southern sector (south of the Green Line). The fact that in the north live mostly Turkish Cypriots and Turkish settlers, and in the south mostly Greek Cypriots in my opinion is of no concern to the partitioning of the island in two voting sectors for the purpose of the referendum. Disprove me with official sources other than RoC. - Snchduer 14:16, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Edits

Just to explain recent edits in order to not get into another editing war: I tried to reword a bit in order to get a more NPOV formulation. I also edited the table to not mention Turkish settlers etc., and instead added a note about this subject below the table. I did this for two reasons: 1. In any case, the 40% were a pure estimate, not a number based on statistical data; and 2. This was not relevant for the outcome of the referendum, and can only be informative. - Snchduer 19:07, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Table

People, do NOT get into another editing war. Let's discuss it here. Main issue is: Designation of voting sectors in the voting results table. Argyro, it might be possible that your designation is correct by the standards you mentioned, but they might still be offending to some people. "northern/southern sector" however seems - at least to me - offensive to no one and still correct, as you already have the note below the table for information about what you want to include. Another possibility would be "Turkish Cypriot north/Greek Cypriot south" - Snchduer 16:24, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Editing Wars

I want to avoid getting into another editing war. Arygrosargyrou, please note that your edits seem offensive to quite some users here, as does your editing style. For example, what do you want to achieve by putting the ECHR ruling into another section? It is present, in the "reactions" part - the ECHR did not rule about the plan, it was only the Cypriot judge who made the remarks about the incompatibility with human rights etc. And this - in my opinion - justifies it being in the reactions part. - Snchduer 13:28, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Stop vandalising this page like you did with the Cyprus dispute page and turning it into a pro-Turkish rant by removing all the historical facts and reason for rejection. Stay out of affairs you know nothing about.

The ECHR rulled that the Annan plan violated the European Convention of Human Rights. This was the UNANIMOUS verdict of ALL the ECHR Judges. READ IT ! --Argyrosargyrou 13:35, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Reading your quote in the context:

Concerning the latter, the Court notes that the Annan Plan would have been a significant development and break-through in inter-communal negotiations had it come into force. Consequently no change has occurred since the adoption of the above-mentioned judgments by the Court which would justify a departure from its conclusions as to Turkey's jurisdiction. In this connection, the Court points out, firstly, that the fact that the two communities were treated as having equal status in the negotiations leading up to the referendums, does not entail recognition of the “TRNC” or confer statehood thereupon. Secondly, the Court observes that the respondent Government continue to exercise overall military control over northern Cyprus and have not been able to show that there has been any change in this respect. Thirdly, the fact that the Greek-Cypriots rejected the Annan Plan does not have the legal consequence of bringing to an end the continuing violation of the displaced persons' rights for even the adoption of the plan would not have afforded immediate redress.

I ask you again: Do not make me search for your alleged ruling, provide it! I find no mentioning of the European Convention of Human Rights in the ruling of the ECHR. The court ruled that it had to decide assuming that Turkey holds control over the TRNC (if I understand it right), because the Annan plan was not accepted; and that had the plan been accepted, this would not have resolved immediately the properties issue. - Snchduer 13:50, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Quote for this: The main purpose of the plan was to establish a “new state of affairs” by negotiation and agreement. However, this was not accomplished and the plan for all intents and purposes was rendered legally null and void following the referendums. Therefore, it would be anomalous for the Court to take any account of, let alone involve itself in, the political background to the Annan Plan. The plan referred to a political future and not to an existing political and legal state of affairs.

The fact that the Annan plan did not provide immediate redress VIOLATES Article 13 of the European Convention of Human Rights, the right to an effective remedy. READ IT. --Argyrosargyrou 13:59, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That is your opinion. But please provide a quote for the fact that the court ruled that the Annan plan would violate Article 13 of the European Convention of Human Rights. As I understand it, the court did not want to go into this detail because of the political issues. - Snchduer 14:02, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Article 13 of the European Convention of Human Rights:

Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity. [2]

Note that is does not say immediate but effective. Thus, juridically, the ECHR did not rule the Annan plan violating the European Convention of Human Rights. Indeed, IMHO, the issue whether or not the Annan plan provides "effective" remedy is highly debatable. - Snchduer 17:42, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

I have a few questions for the international law buffs out there. If I understand the facts correctly,

• The government of Southern Cyprus has internationally recognized sovereignty over the whole island but is unable to exercise sovereignty over Northern Cyprus
• The government of Northern Cyprus exercises sovereignty over the north of the island, but is not recognized to have sovereignty over this territory by the international community

There is NO SUCH PLACE as Southern Cyprus or Northern Cyprus. Don't use these offensive terms --Argyrosargyrou 13:39, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I understand that there are practical consequences of this. What are they?

I realize that similar situations hold in other places around the world, this is not what my main question is about.

My question really is: now that the (sovereign) people of Southern Cyprus have rejected unification (under the terms of the referendum), are there any implications for the issue of de iure/de facto sovereignty? It can be argued that the South rejected the referendum because its terms were an unacceptable encroachment on their recognized sovereignty over the whole island, but the government was at the negotiation table in Geneva and did accept the holding of the referendum in those terms. The continued separation is by the South's choice but against the will of the North. Will this undermine in any way the South's claim of sovereignty over the whole island? Finally, the outcome of the referendum is that the South will join the EU but not the North. Since every EU member recognizes the sovereignty of the South over the whole island, doesn't it mean that the EU must now consider the inhabitants of the North to be EU citizens under an illegitimate government?

— Miguel 20:08, 2004 Apr 24 (UTC)

From BBC:

Forty thousand Turkish troops are stationed there and they will be technically in occupation of EU territory when the south of the island joins the EU on 1 May.

— Miguel 00:39, 2004 Apr 26 (UTC)

This other BBC page highlights the complexities of the situation:

While President Tassos Papadopoulos said after the referendum results were announced that efforts to reunify the island would continue, the EU and the UN insist that the latest version of the plan was the final one.

While former Presidents Glafcos Clerides and George Vassilliou campaigned for a 'yes' vote, they faced formidable opposition from Mr Papadopoulos and Akel, the powerful and influential Communist party.

In the north, by contrast, the result was much as predicted and followed the pattern that has emerged in Turkish Cypriot politics over recent years - with supporters of reunification and EU membership on one side, and the nationalists, headed by veteran politician Rauf Denktash, on the other.

The likelihood is that Europe will lift the trade embargoes that have been a major factor in the impoverishment of northern Cyprus.

There is also a possibility that some governments will break with their past policies and decide to recognise the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus.

Turkish Cypriot politicians may not encourage the international community to recognise their self-declared state, seeking instead the acceptance of the status of a Cypriot constituent state, as it would have become - alongside the constituent Greek Cypriot state - under the UN's federal plan for Cyprus.

Deciding on the status of a frontier running through a sovereign EU nation and abutting an unrecognised state is just one of the many problems that European politicians must tackle.

— Miguel 00:47, 2004 Apr 26 (UTC)

Astute questions, to which I do not have the answers. Let's wait and see if there are any statements from Brussels over the coming days. I suspect a lot of EU govts are now angry enough with the Greek side to take radical action (remember the accusations from Brussels last week of Papadopoulos having 'deceived' the EU), but any Community move will of course be blocked by the Greek veto. Or, as of next week, the two Greek vetoes. Interesting times... –Hajor 20:33, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It is an interesting situation for Greeks... on the one hand, Greek Cypriots may lose from this, because the Turkish Cypriots are no longer seen as the intransigent bad guys. On the other hand, Greeks will now have effectively two states in the EU, twice as many as any other single nationality. Given that the EU is heavily weighted towards votes being by states rather than by population (or else Germany/UK/France would control everything) this gives Greeks some odd amount of power. --Delirium 00:20, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)

The referendum certainly changes the political chemistry of the Cyprus issue, but it doesn't alter the legal facts: the Republic of Cyprus is a sovereign state whose territory comprises the whole island of Cyprus. Turkey is in illegal occupation of the northern third of the island, and the purported state it has created there has no legal validity. The majority of the people of Cyprus are quite within their rights to reject a proposal to cede part of their sovereign rights. Whether they were politically wise to do so is another matter. Adam 00:50, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

what gets in my gut is the feeling the Greeks will bully the Turks to get what they want - vetoing Turkish membership of the EU until they give in over Cyprus. 1974 still burns in their hearts - and i'm sure a few still cling to the Hellenic dreamworld of enosis

Under the proposed European constitution there will be no more veto power. — Miguel 13:49, 2004 Apr 26 (UTC)

Why should 1974 not burn in their hearts? A third of their country has been occupied by a foreign power for 30 years. And why should they not support enosis if they want to? They are Greeks, after all. Cyprus has been Greek for nearly 3000 years, and would have become part of Greece 50 years ago were it not for fear of war with Turkey. Adam 05:46, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Which only goes to show what good dictatorships are. The case of Cyprus reminds me of Argentina and the Falklands, another attempt by a floundering dictatorship to bolster their domestic popularity by trying to reclaim some lost territory by force which backfired and ended the dictatorship. — Miguel 05:53, 2004 Apr 27 (UTC)

That does not address the substance of my previous post. Cyprus has been part of the Greek world since ancient times and the majority of its population is and always has been Greek. There is no reason why Cyprus should not be united with Greece if that is what the majority of the population want. (In fact, though, what they want is for the Turkish occupation to end). I don't excuse the 1974 coup, but 30 years of foreign occupation is a high price to pay for the actions of a handful of extremists. Adam 06:00, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I gather that the Greek Cypriots weren't nice to the Turkish ones even before '74 though 211.28.122.253 08:32, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Possibly, but that is a matter for the people of Cyprus to resolve by democratic and legal means. It cannot be used as a pretext for a Turkish invasion and 30 years of occupation. Adam 09:01, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hello everybody. It must also be said that most western media, especially British and U.S.A. ones were heavily biased against the Greek Cypriot side, and they immediately sought to condemn them. Most of them (if not ALL of them) failed to mention that Turkey (NOT Turkish Cypriots) has rejected 5 or 6 U.N. reunifications plans during the last 30 years. So I don't see why should Cyprus be so heavily condemned NOW.

In addition to that,the Annan plan was perceived as heavily injust and pro-Turkish both in Cyprus and Greece (expect from some exponents and supporters of some major Greek political party) and in large measure it was: in fact the "reunited Cyprus" citizens would have no right of appealing to any International Court for example, and the Turkish troops were to be "reduced" to a mere 30000 (from the 40000 now present) not to leave until TURKEY itself was admitted in the European Union just to name a few.

Last but not least,do not forget that the so-called "Turkish Republic Of Northern Cyprus" is NOT a globally recognized state, and as such HOW can it have a designated "president" or even "diplomacy" and "foreign policies"? How could it be accepted as the "fourth party" in the Swiss negotiations? This "insignificant" detail was widely perceived as a half-legalization of the invasion. EpiVictor 17:05, 27 Apr 2004 (GMT+2)

Of course had Turkey not invaded in '74 some things could have been worse - for a start, those extremists might have achieved enosis and the Regime of the Colonels would not have fallen. Also it is hard to imagine Greeks regarding any deal that doesn't give them everything major they want as acceptable rather then heavilly unjust and pro-Turkish. 211.28.122.253 14:33, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

EpiVictor, could you elaborate on the "no right of appeal to international courts", please? For property disputes, or human rights issues, or what? And, wrt troop numbers, my understanding was that they would be reduced to 6000 Greek and 6000 Turkish until 2011, 3000 + 3000 until 2018, and 950 + 650 (more Gks than Tks) after that, with a view to eventual total withdrawal. [3] –Hajor 14:46, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Of course,here goes: the denial of the right to appeal to international courts would be "frozen" for a long time,allowing only a special court organized by guaranteeing forces to be used. This involves ALL kinds of claims,both property AND humanitarian in nature.It also creates another problem: what happens with those (many) claims ALREADY PRESENTED to and UNDER PROCESS by Int.Courts? Regarding the troops,the numbers mentionel by Hajor are correct, but the condition is that Turkey must first enter the EU and THEN she will start reducing its troops.And Turkey could be admitted way past 2011,as all things indicate. For everyone to know,I AM aware that Cypriots AND Greeks did their own part in creating that situation,back then.That's not a reason to forcibly accept a highly compromising solution for one (or even both) of the parts. Turkish Cypriots had (apparently) nothing to lose by saying "Yes".On the opposite,it seemed their chance for a better life. But Greek Cypriots..well...a popular joke going around Cyprus these days says it all: "One Greek Cypriot says to another: -So what's so wrong with Annan's plan? -Nothing really,it's pretty cool actually. -Really ?! -Yes,there will even be an unified football (soccer) championship on the island,with teams from both communities.Greek teams will play with only 8 men (vs 11) and the score will start from 2-0 for the Turkish teams."

Why accept an island united and controlled by non-EU forces (Turkey,USA...) with limited or abolished EU conquest and rights when reunion can be achieved in a much more profitable way for both sides through a 100% EU solution? It's about time that EU assumes its resposabilities,just this once. Had Cyprus been united by the 1st May of 2004 by means of the Annan plan, it would lead to a diplomatically and politically complex situation,where the much prized "European Conquest" would simply vanish. User:EpiVictor 19:14 27 Apr 2004 (GMT+2)

Can you elaborate on "a 100% EU solution"? — Miguel 17:56, 2004 Apr 28 (UTC)

Very briefly, I mean a solution involving only EU (and Turkish of course)procedures, with no USA intervention, and in FULL respect of the European conquests (human right, property disputes, no unilateral weapon embargo imposed on ANY EU member) and of course trying to work out an EU assistance and embargo removal (embargo should be pointless by then) programs for the Turkish Cypriots. Again, all of this should be done because Cyprus (in the "unified" meaning) will be a full EU member, with no "But"'s and "If"'s, and not because some major international force said "Do it like this because I say so".

EpiVictor 14:57, 29 April 2004 (GMT+2)

My understanding was that the final version of the plan (see de Soto's press conference of 31.3.04) provided for an immediate reduction to 6000 + 6000, irrespective of Turkish EU accession (which is not going to happen for a long time, I don't think). But perhaps all this speaks of nothing more than the UN's inability to get its message across. All academic now, of course. –Hajor 17:19, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I read the article,but I doubt that the declarations were "final" or even sincere. Mr. De Soto even spoke of "over a Hundred Thousand" Greek Cypriots being able to return back to their homes (but no time reference to that), while the Annan plan was about a depressing 18% at most immediately,and the rest only when "the life level of Turkish Cypriots matches that of Greek Cypriots", which is another VERY long term condition, IMHO. Then there were other compromising points such as weapon embargo for Greek Cyprus (valid even BEFORE a single turkish troop left the island).

To give some more food for thought, some Greek journalists even claimed that the Annan plan wasn't an UN plan at all, but it was conceived and redacted in a major Attorney office of New York and that such office had a strong connection to the actual leader of some major Greek political party...this leader is George Papandreou (Junior), who was raised and studied in the USA and who has recently suffered a rather humiliating electoral defeat here in Greece. Please notice that it was HIM who represented Greece in the recent New York negotiations about Cyprus (before the Lucerne negotiations) as he was just the Ministry of Foreign Policies back then,and became leader of his party only after another much disputed "public referendum" just before the Greek elections of 7/3/2004. Anyway, because of these facts and the fact that his party's exponents were among the few Greeks who "barked" and aggressively pressured and threatened Greek Cypriots into voting yes (much like a certain part of the international community), the feeling in Greece is that Mr.Papandreou and his party had already "sold out" the Cyprus dispute back in New York, but the recent electoral defeat of his party just made the whole setup crumble shamelessly, like a clay giant. EpiVictor 17:02 28 Apr 2004 (GMT+2)

Oh, well. Fwiw, I've just started a "Reasons for the rejection of the plan" on the Annan Plan page. –Hajor 15:33, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Cool.I happened to see the "Annan Plan" page first today and the last section

looked somehow familiar :-) . Anyway, there are deeper reasons for the rejection of the Annan plan by Greek Cypriots and the "insistence" by part of the USA, the UK and (to lesser extent) the E.U. and the aforementioned Greek party (OK, OK, it's the PASOK party :-). Most importantly, the enormous geopolitical and geostrategical importance of the island of Cyprus, often referred to as "a very big and UNSINKABLE aircraft carrier". This of course interests all major military powers operating in the Middle East, most notably the UK (which already has bases on Cyprus) and the USA. If the Annan referendum had been accepted, it would surely ease up the path of these great powers, as the dispute would have been "over" and the island would no longer have an "unclear" status. As for the people living there... well, Turkish Cypriots surely had nothing to lose by voting yes,quite the opposite. Greek Cypriots had a lot to lose on the other hand, namely most rights which are considered elementary by E.U. citizens (and I don't mean that they are not important to the Turkish people, see below). Closing,I would like to ask/know one thing: from a Turkish point of view,why some people like Rauf Denktash and the "Grey Wolves" tried to persuade (each in their own manner) Turkish Cypriots to vote "No" ? Besides over 30% of Turkish Cypriots voted "No", if I'm not wrong. Epivictor 14:08 29 April 2004 (GMT+2)

Sigh,yet another "POV" edit revert... There is a very good Turkish proverb for describing the "official" point of view of the Turkish government and most "major powers" over the Cyprus dispute:

"Atilan top, sikelen gyot, geri doymaz" or something like that :-)

It more or less means "A cannonball that has been shot and an a** that has been f****d do not return/come back". EpiVictor 09:47, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Questionable assertions

I find this assertion in the article a bit questionable:

"On top of this the finalised plan had not been made public until 24 hours before the referendum was due to take place so everyone on both sides was voting on something they had not even seen and whose consequences could not be fully analysed."

My understanding was that the Annan Plan was published on 1 April, 3 weeks before the referendum. Can anyone substantiate the assertion above? -- ChrisO 18:24, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I remember -from the news- that some points were still in discussion and open to modifications up to minus 24 hours before the vote, and they were quite crucial points, too. Anyway, there was quite a lag between official presentation and public disclosure (people of both sides were only informed by hearsay and speculations, up to 24hours before the vote). EpiVictor 12:06, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

removed ECHR case quote

I removed the quote from the ECHR case because the statement was not an official statement or decision on the referendum, it was a statement made during the admissability of a case against Turkey - not against the referendum itself. --E.A 16:33, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Aristov.

Why change this title suddenly after so many years? This was not just any referendum as the title would imply, it was a referendum on reunification. Lets make that perfectly clear. --A.Garnet 14:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Garnet, thats what the referendum was. It was a referendum on the settlement plan known as "the annan plan". "reunification" is a relative term. The peoples of cyprus were not asked whether they want to reunify or not Cyprus. They were asked whether they "approve or not the settlement plan". [4] Aristovoul0s 10:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussion chez administrateur Khoikhoi avec moi, Garnet et Aristovoul0s pour le titre

Moved from User talk:Khoikhoi#Hi!

Khoi could you please have a look at this articles title 2004 Cypriot reunification referendum. The specific referendum was held to approve a comprehensive settlement of the Cyprus problem known as the annan plan, it was not a "reunification referendum". People were not asked whether they want to reunify or not Cyprus. [5] [6]. Since it was a referendum on a comprehensive plan to settle the Cyprus dispute, reunification would be a consequence. Garnet however is clearly POV pushing to make a statement. He led the article's title in peace for almost a month, now its all over again. I dont want an edit war, I thought that he may listen to you being his friend but also impartial. Thanks Aristovoul0s 19:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

You have some cheek my friend. This article was entitled reunification referendum for well over a year before you appeared on the scene. You are trying to push the usual pov that Greek Cypriots did not reject reunification, but rather a plan. That is your own interpretation. It is common terminology when speaking of the Cyprus problem to talk of "reunifying" or "reunification" or "Cyprus reunification talks/negotiations". Just look at the press coverage of the Annan plan on BBC News: "European press coverage of the rejection of the UN reunification plan for Cyprus by the island's Greek community...", ""several senior UN officials have openly aired their anger at the Greek Cypriot opposition to reunification".", ""Greek Cypriots prevent reunification", declares the Sueddeutsche Zeitung.", "disappointment that citizens in the south of the island did not take advantage of the great opportunity for reunification".", "The reunification of Cyprus and thus the EU accession of both halves of the island on 1 May has failed as a result of the overwhelming resistance of the Greek Cypriots," reports Der Kurier."

Others: New Scostman, "Turks' anger as Greek Cypriots vote down reunification", Financial Times: "EU hit by Greek Cypriot blow to UN reunification plan for Cyprus." These are just a few sources, but you see the pattern.

Sources:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3657273.stm

http://search.ft.com/ftArticle?queryText=Cyprus+reunification&y=0&aje=true&x=0&id=040402001019

http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=778&id=468722004 --A.Garnet 01:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Speaking about "cheek", maybe we should turn the other cheek to Mr.Garnet's POV:

• Google: Annan plan Cyprus -wikipedia: 500,000 hits
• Reunification plan Cyprus -wikipedia: 200,000 hits.

Not to mention that there have been numerous reunification attempts in the past, so the title is ambiguous. Garnet refuses to accept that a plan allowing only Turkish Cypriots to settle the South, while preventing Greek Cypriots from settling the North in densities of more than 6% (!!) is not just a "reunification" plan. There were many other issues of course for rejecting a "reunification" + "disproportionate migration" + "disproportionate governance" plan, but Garnet chooses only the first title that suits his POV... For more information, refer to the Greek reasons for rejecting here. NikoSilver 11:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I dont care much for your little analysis of the Annan plan. I did not create that title, so it is not my pov, but Aristov is clearly determined to remove any insinuation that Greek Cypriots were responsible for rejecting reunification. Your google count is also misleading, "Annan plan Cyprus" is so genereal that it can refer to anything dealing with Cypriot politics. To illustrate (using quoted search):

• "Cyprus reunification" -wikipedia 10,700 hits
• "Annan Plan Cyprus" -wikipedia 85 hits --A.Garnet 17:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Just who are you trying to mock again? "Cyprus reunification" could refer to 1000 things apart from the plan in question, while Annan plan could refer to only the particular one, with the particular exact phrasing (even adding Cyprus!? -is there another?) You want quotes? Then add the word "plan" to both searches (not only to the one you want to limit):

• "Cyprus reunification plan" -wikipedia: 858 hits
• "Annan plan" -wikipedia: 161,000 hits

NikoSilver 21:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I was using it to make a point how irrelevant the Google search is. What is clear, is that if you find any source on the Annan plan it will without doubt always refer to it in the context of reunification. The pov being pushed by you and Aristov is that held by the GC's i.e. it was not a plan of reunification but one of disguised partition. As shown above, we have enough sources to counter that assertion and the commonly held belief is that the Annan plan was indeed a plan for reunification. --A.Garnet 21:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the title, I had to use French! I'd have moved it back to the original after seeing Khoi's message in my talk, but I was occupied with other malakies. I think that I've said what there's to say. Yes, it is a reunification plan, but not only. It's other things too, which are not reflected by the present restricting title. It would be POV to say that "Greek Cypriots rejected reunification", because they rejected what they felt was unfair for their property and their freedom. Plus, it's not the most frequent appellation (as undoubtably proven by Google above), plus it's vague because there have been other 'reunification' attempts in the past. NikoSilver 22:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Greek Cypriots don't oppose reunification, that is evident from the attitude of everyone involved over there (why not recognize the "TRNC"), what Greek Cypriots oppose is reunification on the specific terms of the Annan Plan. This is the problem with this title, namely that it restricts the scope of the Annan Plan to reunification without letting the Plan bask in its own glory (under the same logic for maintaining the title here, the title could be 2004 Cypriot referendum for allowing the Turkish Cypriots to return to their homes but barring the Greek Cypriots from doing the same, that is also one of the effects of the Plan). The Plan should be treated as a whole, and the current title is unfair to the Greek Cypriots as it implies that they just rejected reunification, which is precisely what Turkish nationalists wish to stress. For all we know (and these are coming from their own words), what was on their minds when they voted against it was "I don't want Turkish troops to remain on Cyprus", or "I don't want to be denied the possibility of ever returning to my family home".--Domitius 22:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Your description of the Annan plan is your own interpretation. The UN, EU, US, UK, Turkey and Greece all accepted the Annan plan as means of reunification. The title is not vague, there was only ever one referendum in Cyprus on reunification, the rest were rejected by politicians. --A.Garnet 00:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

It is a means of reunification; it's a lot more than that though, it had particular terms.--Domitius 00:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Question

Does anyone know what question was asked during the referendum?--Domitius 00:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you Approve the Foundation Agreement with all its Annexes, as well as the constitution of the Greek Cypriot/Turkish Cypriot State and the provisions as to the law to be in force to bring into being a new state of affairs in which Cyprus joins the European Union united? http://www.pcr.uu.se/publications/other_pub/Jakobsson_hatay_Oxi%20and%20Evet2_040505.pdf --A.Garnet 00:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

That's hardly a generic mention of "union", they're not only asking them "do you want union" which is what the current title implies. It's union within the meaning of the Annan Plan which is what they are being asked; there are many possible versions of a "United Cyprus", the Annan Plan was just one of them.--Domitius 00:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The question is clear "Do you Approve the Foundation Agreement with all its Annexes, as well as the constitution of the Greek Cypriot/Turkish Cypriot State and the provisions as to the law to be in force" and the consequences ... "to bring into being a new state of affairs" and the consequence of "the new state of affairs" ..."in which Cyprus joins the European Union united?" Hardly a "reunification referendum" but a referendum on a comprehensive plan aimed to resolve the Cyprus dispute, a new state of affairs. The United nations never stated that they would have a reunification referendum, but the final revision of the plan would be put into a referendum. That is a "Referendum on the UN plan". Sure an objective of the ongoing dispute is to bring an end to the de facto partition of the Republic of Cyprus, but the referendum was on the specific plan asking whether Cypriots accept or not the speciific plan, as a means to do that, not whether Cypriots want reunification in general as the current title implies. Aristovoul0s 19:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Aristov

This page was protected due to move warring. Discuss the title change. --A.Garnet 15:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Garnet the reasoning for the title change: It was a referendum on the final revision of the settlement plan. The UN did not call it "reunification referendum". Calling it "reunification referendum" is misleading the audience. As for the question itself, see above Aristovoul0s 15:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Title

It's perfectly fine as it currently is. The current title is clearly neutral and meets the usual format for election articles. —Nightstallion 22:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

TRNC

Does it really matter whether it has diplomatic relations with Members of the UN or not? The Cyprus dispute is between the Greek and Turkish communities on the island. It seems that both communities sometimes argue like they want to have their cake and eat it. For example, Turkey does not recognize the Republic of Cyprus, and yet insists that whenever oil is found, half of the proceeds belong to the Turkish community, under the terms of the 1960 Zurich agreement. Greek Cypriots claim their government represents all Cypriots, and yet are not prepared to use that 1960 constitution which is supposedly in place. E.g. when the Supreme Court rules that a TC is NOT entitled to their property. The truth is that there is not a working Republic of Cyprus. Interestingly actually Azarbaijan does also recognize the sovereignty of the KKTC, and at one point so did Pakistan and Bangladesh, although the reasons for their withdrawal are not clear. The recognition by 56 UN Members of Kosovo as a sovereign entity, against Serbian law, is an indication that you never know what could happen in future, and there is that possibility this could happen with the KKTC, unless there are in the immediate years compelling and extraordinary reasons why this should not happen. If the Greek Cypriots really want to show that the Turkish community would be better off coming back into the Republic, I would suggest they should focus on the following : 1) Insisting that half of the six MEPs are from the Turkish community, wherever they are based; 2) Insisting that Turkish be made an official language of the EU, and used more extensively in official documents/websites; 3) Allowing TCs to play sports for the national team, wherever they are based; 4) Insisting that TCs can get their property back, whether this appears to be entirely fair or not; 5) Allowing TCs to take up their reserved seats in parliament, wherever they are based. This will do much to undermine the raison d'etre of the KKTC. I may add that strictly speaking, the Republic is already in violation of the constitution by aceding to the EU anyway, due to the fact she cannot acede to IOs without first Greece AND Turkey having done so. I am simply trying to illustrate how, from a GC perspective, I actually don't care whether you call the KKTC legal or not; I care about the quality of negotiations in the dispute resolution, and of course the settlement we all dream about. Eugene-elgato (talk) 16:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

the biggest sin

After rejection of this referandum, accession of Cyprus to the EU in 2004 was the biggest mistake ever made of the EU because Greek Cypriots had no motivation, courage and most importantly necessity to say Yes knowing that they would be a member of the EU months later. And EU had no regret or consideration for the consequences in letting CY as de facto partitioned country into the Europe and it is not fair to say Turkey invaded EU territory.I guess Hristophias could resist the pressures and show the will to unify two communities, based on who experience an unfair divide for 33 years.

As this situation goes on, time keeps going for the disadvantage of Greek Cypriots. Day by day, eventually Turkey moves towards the European Union membership, this dispute will be the major stuckpoint and world community will not be able to close their eyes and not see the situation of an isolated community. I hope a two community based solution could be settled, guaranteeing the rights od both communities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ncdvc (talk • contribs) 15:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

De facto TRNC- NPOV tag

Dear User "Number 57", please stop adding TRNC templates in this article. You are pushing your personal POV, which contradicts provided references and sources. There was no referendum organised by the legaly invalid TRNC. The UN hosted a referendum for the citizens of the Republic of Cyprus both Turkish and Greek Cypriots. There is no mention of TRNC anywhere in any document of the UN, regarding the referendum as your entry into the article insinuates.You are pushing an extreame POV. Please stop. If you have an impartial reference supporting your view please by all means provide a link. Thank you very much! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.207.162.51 (talk) 09:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The article needs to be reviewed. I will not change a letter until it is an agreed change. But i ask that editors are involved so that to find a settlement to this issue.

1. TRNC's de facto existance has nothing to do with the referendum. The referendum was done under the auspices of UN Secretary-General, for the two major communities of the Republic of Cyprus (a UN member) as defined by the Republic's constitution. There is no single supportive evidence for the addition of TRNC template as number57 continues to add, threatening at the same time.
2. The part of the article descibing the reasons for "yes" vote by the Turkish Cypriots, has been without a source since its creation. Editors/Admins feel free to go back in the articles history and investigate it.
3. The article is a mess.

Since User:number57 wants to be involved (he/she thinks that his edits are impartial but they are not as he/she has no reference to support his opinion) i ask him kindly to help me out with references so that we may write a better article. An inclusion in the article needs to be supported by references, thats wikipedia right?

Referendum Results Tables

Dear Number 57 I do not think your changes to my referendum results tables are an improvement. This is an article specifically about the referendum, so it seems to me important that detailed results be given in a format that can be easily understood. Your changes do not include all of the information I included, and so I have undone them. If you can come up with a better table format which includes all of the information in my charts, I’d be happy to see it.--Nychtopouli (talk) 16:19, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello Nychtopouli. Unfortunately your table is very awkward. The common method of displaying results is in the format I changed it to. I have reverted to the prefered version, but added in the number of registered voters, which gives the complete set as far as your results are concerned (I have not shown total valid votes, as it is better/more common to show the number of invalid votes rather than the total valid and total alone). Hope this is ok.

Also, my edit changed several other things, and you performed a blind revert, removing all the others as well - please be more careful in future. Cheers, Number 57 19:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

To be honest I like my tables, but I will accept your modifications in the interests of peace. :) "Aftermath" is good for a title, but I'm not so keen on "Participation" because that section is just about one aspect. Perhaps an added comment on high turnout would fix that. I'm now wondering why we have three sections which overlap: Reasons for approval rejection, yes and no.--Nychtopouli (talk) 00:18, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I changed the Participation heading because I felt that the "The participation of the Turkish settlers" was an NPOV violation. As for the last few sections, I think it was a bit of petty editing from some nationalist Greek and Turkish editors (particularly the former) who insisted on putting in loads of stuff about why they felt the referendum wasn't valid and settling a few scores. Number 57 08:49, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I think there is some confusion over what NPOV means. As I see it, it should mean presenting the facts in a neutral way. Some facts seem to favour one side or the other, but if they are facts then they should be presented. Suppressing them is not being neutral--quite the converse, it is disinformation. I'm committed to a neutral point of view favouring neither GCs nor TCs, but giving a clear and detailed account of what can be ascertained and verified. If you agree we can work together. --Nychtopouli (talk) 19:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Of course, it should be made clear in the text, but just the way the section heading was phrased made it look like a dig at the Turkish side (after extensive involvement in Israeli articles, I'm used to seeing this kind of stuff). Number 57 20:12, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Number57 unilateral changes

The UN never made a statement saying that a "referendum was held in the Republic of Cyprus and the breakaway Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus..[]The two communities were asked whether they approved of the fifth revision of the United Nations proposal for reuniting the island".. as you insist of adding. It wasnt the republic of Cyprus or the TRNC that were asked, but the peoples of Cyprus. The purpose of the plan was not to "reunite the island", the UN do not state that. The plan was to aimed to settle the Cyprus dispute. Whether the island was be united with this plan is a different story. Threats by the way are not appreciated. As it is now, the article has a simple summary, then the question of the referendum the results, reasons by TC and GC and the background at the end. It flows nicely and tells the story to the reader.23x2 (talk) 17:18, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

To respond to your claims:

1. You are making the changes to the article, not me.
2. The text does not say that the Republic of Cyprus or TRNC were asked, it says that the referendum was held in them
3. The island would have been reunified as part of the plan ("UN plan to reunite Cyprus" from the BBC)
4. The "threats" were required to get you to respond.
5. The article is not to "tell a story". It should be in chronological order - i.e. background, campaign, results, aftermath.

Per WP:BRD and your false claims of POV (only one of us has a history solely of pro-Greek Cypriot/anti-Turkish edits, I merely watchlisted this article after spotting it was a magnet for that kind of behaviour), I have reverted your changes again. I suggest you request a WP:Third opinion on whether your edits are an improvement if you wish to proceed. Number 57 23:19, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, no need to bother, I have done it myself. To whoever comes from WP:3O, the issue is whether the introduction and/or running order of this or this version of the article is preferable (see the discussion above for the debate). Thanks, Number 57 23:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually you had changed the article here 23x2 (talk) 12:54, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but you did not revert back to that version, you created a new version. Number 57 13:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The phrase "UN plan to reunite Cyprus" is the newspapers opinion. The plan has been published and its title is "Basis for a Comprehensive settlement of the Cyprus problem" 23x2 (talk) 13:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cypriot Annan Plan referendums, 2004. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101210081344/http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/turkish_cypriot_community/index_en.htm to http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/turkish_cypriot_community/index_en.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:38, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cypriot Annan Plan referendums, 2004. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050210171448/http://www.ktto.net/english/protocolno10.doc to http://www.ktto.net/english/protocolno10.doc

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:52, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Reasons for Rejection of Refendum - Come from only two questionable sources

All of those points are cited from either a letter written by the president of the republic at the time (who was against the referendum from the start), or from a book written by Van Coufoudakis on behalf of the Pro-Greek Cypriot Lobby for Cyprus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.144.91.194 (talk) 11:34, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, and it reads like a manifesto, to be a little blunt. While a wiki is a good place to relate verifiable information about a topic, I'm not sure it's a good idea at all to try to address why hundreds of thousands of people voted the way they did. Feels speculative. 91.74.45.74 (talk) 11:22, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Title almost identical to another page: Annan Plan for Cyprus

The title of this page is very similar to one: Annan Plan for Cyprus. Is there a reason for this? How does one differentiate between the two, and how can the focus of each article be made clear in the titles? Nargothronde (talk) 09:14, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Coat of arms of Cyprus (2023).png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:37, 6 May 2023 (UTC)