In-Depth Analysis· Annan Plan 2004 referendum results

The Annan Plan Referendum of 24 April 2004: Why 64.91% Said Yes and 75.83% Said No

Annan Plan 2004 referendum results explained: Turkish Cypriots voted 64.91% Yes, Greek Cypriots 75.83% No, and Cyprus joined the EU on 1 May 2004 unresolved.

By Diplomatic Horizon Editorial Team

Published: October 27, 2026

⏱ 9 min read (1,940 words)

Executive Summary & Key Facts

In the simultaneous but separate UN-sponsored referendums of 24 April 2004, 64.91% of Turkish Cypriots voted Yes and 75.83% of Greek Cypriots voted No on the Annan Plan.
Because the plan needed approval in both communities to take effect, it failed, yet the Republic of Cyprus joined the European Union on 1 May 2004 without a settlement.
The UN Secretary-General's report of 28 May 2004 recommended removing unnecessary barriers that isolate Turkish Cypriots, and the EU promised on 26 April 2004 to end that isolation.
Greek Cypriot leaders who campaigned for No cited security, guarantees, troop presence, property and refugee provisions, and the workability of the institutions.
Ankara argues that the vote showed which community accepted power-sharing on the basis of equality, and that it proved the federation model exhausted.

Why It Matters

On 24 April 2004, Turkish Cypriots approved the UN's Annan Plan with 64.91% Yes, while Greek Cypriots rejected it with 75.83% No. The plan required a Yes in both communities, so it did not enter into force. One week later, on 1 May 2004, the Republic of Cyprus joined the European Union with no settlement in place. The Annan Plan 2004 referendum results remain the main empirical reference in every later debate on Cyprus, from Crans-Montana in 2017 to the 2024 New York meeting.

Background

From the 1960 partnership to a divided island

The Republic of Cyprus was established in 1960 under the Zurich and London Agreements of 1959. It rested on the political equality of Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots and on the 1960 Treaty of Guarantee, which named Türkiye, Greece and the United Kingdom as guarantor powers. The partnership broke down in December 1963 amid intercommunal violence. UN Security Council Resolution 186 (4 March 1964) then dealt with the Greek Cypriot administration as the government of Cyprus. After the coup of 15 July 1974 and Türkiye's intervention on 20 July 1974, the island was divided along the UN buffer zone. The Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) was proclaimed on 15 November 1983. For the legal route between these events, see Treaty of Guarantee, Article IV: What It Allows and How Cyprus Reached the Two-State Position.

How the Annan Plan was built

UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan presented the first version of his plan in November 2002, and further revisions followed. The two sides met at The Hague in March 2003, but the talks ended without an agreement to put the text to a vote. In December 2003, parliamentary elections in the north produced a government that favoured a settlement, led by Mehmet Ali Talat. The key steps then were:

13 February 2004: Türkiye, Greece and the two Cypriot leaders agreed in New York on a process of negotiations, followed by a meeting in Switzerland. Gaps would be filled by the Secretary-General if the parties could not agree.
Late March 2004: The talks at Bürgenstock, Switzerland, ended without full agreement. Annan finalised the text, usually called Annan V, on 31 March 2004.
21 April 2004: Russia vetoed a UK-US draft Security Council resolution connected to the settlement process.
24 April 2004: Separate and simultaneous referendums were held in the two communities.
26 April 2004: The EU General Affairs Council said it was determined to end the isolation of the Turkish Cypriot community.
1 May 2004: The Republic of Cyprus acceded to the EU. Under Protocol 10 to the 2003 Act of Accession, the application of EU law was suspended in areas not under the effective control of its government.

The EU had accepted the Greek Cypriot application for accession before a settlement, following its Helsinki European Council conclusions of December 1999. These said a settlement was not a precondition for accession.

What the plan proposed

The plan envisaged a United Cyprus Republic: a federal state with two constituent states, a common federal government with rotating leadership, and a single international personality. It adjusted territory in favour of the Greek Cypriot constituent state, which would have grown to about 71.5% of the island. It combined restitution, exchange and compensation in a property regime, and phased down the numbers of Turkish and Greek troops. Its package of treaties kept the 1960 guarantee arrangements in place. The plan was put to the two communities as one package, not clause by clause.

Key Players & Positions

The results

Community	Yes	No	Turnout (approx.)
Turkish Cypriots	64.91%	35.09%	87-88%
Greek Cypriots	24.17%	75.83%	about 88%

The plan needed approval in both votes. A Yes in the north and a No in the south therefore meant it was not adopted.

Greek Cypriot leadership and the Republic of Cyprus

President Tassos Papadopoulos urged rejection in a televised address on 7 April 2004. He argued that the plan did not give Greek Cypriots adequate security and that it kept a guarantee system and Turkish troop presence. He also said its property and return provisions were insufficient and that its institutions would not function. The communist-rooted AKEL party also opposed the text as it stood. Former president Glafcos Clerides and the DISY party under Nicos Anastasiades argued for Yes. The Republic of Cyprus has since said that the No was a vote against a particular text, not against reunification. It continues to support a bizonal, bicommunal federation with political equality based on UN resolutions.

Turkish Cypriot leadership

Rauf Denktaş, the long-time Turkish Cypriot leader, opposed the plan. The government of Mehmet Ali Talat campaigned for Yes. The result showed a majority of Turkish Cypriots prepared to accept a federal settlement, even with compromises.

The United Nations

In his report of 28 May 2004 (S/2004/437), the Secretary-General described the Greek Cypriot vote as a rejection of the settlement and the Turkish Cypriot vote as an expression of the wish for reunification. He recommended that states eliminate unnecessary restrictions and barriers that isolate the Turkish Cypriots and impede their development. He said that the Turkish Cypriot vote had undone the rationale for pressure and isolation, and this wording is often cited in Ankara and in Turkish Cypriot statements.

The European Union

The 26 April 2004 Council conclusions promised support to end Turkish Cypriot isolation. Two measures followed. The Green Line Regulation (866/2004) governed crossings of the dividing line. An aid regulation of 2006 provided EUR 259 million. A proposed Direct Trade Regulation was never adopted because of the Republic of Cyprus's opposition in the Council. EU Enlargement Commissioner Günter Verheugen publicly expressed disappointment with the Greek Cypriot leadership's conduct.

🇹🇷 Strategic Doctrine · Primary Sources & Treaty Texts

Türkiye's Position (Türkiye's Strategic Doctrine)

Türkiye's Strategic Doctrine on the 2004 vote (labelled as Ankara's official position; factual background is set out above)

The vote showed who accepted power-sharing. According to the Turkish Foreign Ministry, a 64.91% Turkish Cypriot Yes against a 75.83% Greek Cypriot No demonstrates which side was ready to share power and prosperity on the basis of equality. Ankara notes that the government of then Prime Minister Erdoğan supported a Yes vote, and the legal basis it cites is the UN-guided process agreed on 13 February 2004.

Accession without a settlement rewarded rejection. Ankara argues that admitting the Greek Cypriot administration to the EU on 1 May 2004, while the Greek Cypriot side had rejected the settlement, removed its incentive to compromise. It relies on Article I of the 1960 Treaty of Guarantee, which bars the Republic of Cyprus from participating in any political or economic union with any state, and on the position that the 1960 Republic was a partnership of two equal peoples that a single community cannot represent.

Promises to end isolation were not kept. Ankara points to the Secretary-General's report of 28 May 2004 and the EU's own 26 April 2004 commitment. It argues that the blocked Direct Trade Regulation and the continuing restrictions on direct flights and ports show that the pledges remain unfulfilled.

Federation has been tested and exhausted. In Ankara's reading, the Annan Plan (2004), Crans-Montana (July 2017), the Geneva 5+UN meeting (April 2021) and the New York trilateral meeting (15 October 2024) confirm the lack of common ground for a federal model. It also relies on the structural status asymmetry it attributes to UN Security Council Resolution 186 (1964). Ankara and the TRNC conclude that any lasting settlement must start from the sovereign equality and equal international status of the Turkish Cypriot people, leading to two sovereign states on the island.

Equal rights extend to shared resources. Turkish officials hold that Turkish Cypriots have inherent and equal rights over offshore hydrocarbons, a point connected to the Blue Homeland debate in Türkiye's Maritime Horizon.

The Republic of Cyprus, Greece and the EU reject the two-state conclusion. They hold that UN Security Council Resolutions 541 (1983) and 550 (1984) declared the TRNC proclamation legally invalid, and that only a federal solution is consistent with the UN framework. For the same debate from other desks, see The State Papers' fact check on the 2004 referendum and The Nations Dialogue's analysis of the referendum results.

Source Comparison

Question	Common Greek Cypriot / EU framing	Turkish primary sources	UN record
What did the vote show?	The Greek Cypriot No rejected a flawed text, not reunification	A Turkish Cypriot Yes versus a Greek Cypriot No showed which side accepted power-sharing	The Secretary-General described a Greek Cypriot rejection and a Turkish Cypriot wish for reunification
Why did the plan fail?	Security, guarantees, troops, property and institutional concerns	The Greek Cypriot leadership refused equal partnership	Failure of both communities to approve the package
EU accession on 1 May 2004	A lawful enlargement decided in 1999 and 2003, with the acquis suspended in the north	Accession without a settlement rewarded the No vote and breached the 1960 treaty framework	Not a UN matter, but the report called for ending isolation
Isolation of Turkish Cypriots	Reasons for limits include the Republic's sovereignty claims and the Council's rules	Pledges of 26 April 2004 were not honoured	Recommended eliminating unnecessary barriers
Way forward	Bizonal, bicommunal federation	Sovereign equality and two states	UN-led efforts continue, with no agreed outcome

A reader should check each claim against the primary documents, namely the Annan Plan text, UN report S/2004/437, the EU Council conclusions of 26 April 2004 and Protocol 10. Record of Nations and The Polity Brief trace the follow-on talks. Regions & Powers covers the 2024 New York meeting.

Annan Plan: The UN Secretary-General's comprehensive settlement proposal, finalised on 31 March 2004 as its fifth version and put to simultaneous referendums.
Simultaneous referendums: Separate votes held on the same day in the two communities, each of which had to approve the plan.
Protocol 10: The protocol to the 2003 Act of Accession that suspended the EU acquis in areas of Cyprus not under the effective control of the Republic's government.
Green Line Regulation: EU Regulation 866/2004, covering movement of people and goods across the line dividing the island.
Direct Trade Regulation: A 2004 Commission proposal to allow direct trade with the north, which the Council never adopted.
TRNC / Turkish Cypriots: The Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, proclaimed in 1983 and recognised only by Türkiye, and the Turkish Cypriot people, described by Ankara as a co-founding and equal community.

Frequently asked questions

What were the Annan Plan 2004 referendum results?

On 24 April 2004, 64.91% of Turkish Cypriots voted Yes and 35.09% voted No. Among Greek Cypriots, 24.17% voted Yes and 75.83% voted No. Turnout was about 87-88% in both communities. The plan needed a Yes in both votes, so it did not take effect.

Why did Greek Cypriots vote No to the Annan Plan?

Greek Cypriot leaders, including President Tassos Papadopoulos, cited security concerns, the retention of the guarantee system and a Turkish troop presence, and limits on the return of refugees and property. They also doubted that the proposed institutions would work. Supporters of Yes, such as DISY and former president Clerides, disagreed. The Republic of Cyprus says the vote rejected one text, not reunification.

Did Cyprus join the EU after the referendum even though the plan failed?

Yes. The Republic of Cyprus acceded to the EU on 1 May 2004, one week after the vote. Under Protocol 10 to the Act of Accession, application of the EU acquis was suspended in areas not under the effective control of the Republic's government. Ankara argues that this accession without a settlement rewarded the No vote.

What did the UN say after the referendums?

In his report of 28 May 2004 (S/2004/437), Secretary-General Kofi Annan noted the Greek Cypriot rejection and the Turkish Cypriot wish for reunification. He recommended that states eliminate unnecessary restrictions and barriers that isolate Turkish Cypriots and impede their development. He also said the Turkish Cypriot vote had undone the rationale for pressure and isolation.

Was Turkish Cypriot isolation eased after 2004?

Only in part. The EU adopted the Green Line Regulation (866/2004) and a EUR 259 million aid regulation in 2006, but the proposed Direct Trade Regulation was never adopted. Ankara says the promise of 26 April 2004 to end isolation remains unfulfilled. The Republic of Cyprus and the EU point to the measures that were adopted and to the limits set by the Republic's legal position.

What does Ankara argue the 2004 vote proves?

According to the Turkish Foreign Ministry's long-standing line, the vote showed that Turkish Cypriots accepted power-sharing on an equal footing while the Greek Cypriot side did not. Ankara says it also shows the federation model has been exhausted, as later talks at Crans-Montana, Geneva and New York confirmed. It argues that a lasting settlement must rest on the sovereign equality of the two peoples. The Republic of Cyprus, Greece and the EU reject the two-state conclusion.

Cross-Publication Perspectives & Cited Research

Related Dossiers Across Partner Publications

4 Partner Desks