Cyprus-Forum.com

[Piratis]

For this kind of solution the ground is not a technicality or a minor issue, it is THE issue, and it is definitely a political decision since no court can decide that a country should brake up into parts or how it should brake.
As I said the superprivilages and those 30% things that you got in 1960 were part of the whole package, which included a unitary state. In any case the 30% didn't apply to land.

If I could accept partition and the amount of land was not an issue then I would simply support the recognition of "TRNC". But as I said the amount of land (and which land) is the only issue here. So if we don't agree on this, we agreed on nothing.

TCs owned less than 18% of land from 1960 until 74, so by proposing that they should keep 18% I am not trying to screw them, quite the opposite.
If you stop trying to screw us too, then you would agree that 18% is fair.

http://agrino.org/humrights/proposals/77prpsal.html

In some other post you admitted that those 30% things in RoC were unfair, and as I said they didn't apply to land anyways.

So maybe you simply don't want to agree on something like this and thats why you ask for that 30%. (you remind me of my boss. Whenever he doesn't want to sell something to somebody he quotes him almost double the price)

[turkcyp]

For this kind of solution the ground is not a technicality or a minor issue, it is THE issue, and it is definitely a political decision since no court can decide that a country should brake up into parts or how it should brake.
As I said the superprivilages and those 30% things that you got in 1960 were part of the whole package, which included a unitary state. In any case the 30% didn't apply to land.

Again you misunderstood me I guess,

When I was saying its is technicality I was meaning that it is a matter of technical survey. Or in other words it can be calculated. I did not mean that it was a trivia issue.

How much % of state owned land belongs to TCs is a legal issue of course. And if we can not agree on how much land belongs to TCs from RoC share then I guess we will have to settle in the courts. The other two options I do not like. War or politics. Politics will take ages, and as for war I am not even making a comment.

If I could accept partition and the amount of land was not an issue then I would simply support the recognition of "TRNC". But as I said the amount of land (and which land) is the only issue here. So if we don't agree on this, we agreed on nothing.

Here again I agree with you. That is the two most fundamental issue if we decide to ever settle for second best (partition). The difference between you and me is that I tend to see the answer to these two questions as very easy to achieve. For me they are technical and legal in nature. For you however they are political in nature.

TCs owned less than 18% of land from 1960 until 74, so by proposing that they should keep 18% I am not trying to screw them, quite the opposite.
If you stop trying to screw us too, then you would agree that 18% is fair.

IF TCs owned less than %18 than why are you settling for more. I think it would not be fair to you guys if we own less than %18 and get %18 as you suggest. That is why I suggest that we get exactly what we owned in term of economical value. And I have basically suggested to ways of achieving this. Comment on these two way. (Do not worry about the %30, which is only a number it can be substituted easily if you can make the courts believe that you own more of the state land. I am asking your comments on the methodology.)

http://agrino.org/humrights/proposals/77prpsal.html

Any more of these web sites. They make quite a good laughing material.

By the way I advise you to read the web site better. In a quick look it says that TC own 16.7 of the private land + and ad these to state land that is TCs share (and for god’s sake lets you’re your percentages not mine. %18 x 26.3%(state land was shown to be 26.3%) then the total comes to 21.% plus)

In some other post you admitted that those 30% things in RoC were unfair, and as I said they didn't apply to land anyways.

So maybe you simply don't want to agree on something like this and thats why you ask for that 30%. (you remind me of my boss. Whenever he doesn't want to sell something to somebody he quotes him almost double the price)

Hey I still admit that in the framework of RoC 30% given to TCs as a representation in state is too high and not fair. But that is not fair if we keep this marriage together. If we are getting divorced, I would like to stick to the already signed pre-nups (RoC constitution). And I believe in this case our pre-nup says that I am entitled to 30% and you believe that it does not say that. So I guess it is up to courts to decide what the pre-nup says.

I know the analogy is not the best but it serves the purpose to explain my view. At this point if we are divorcing, (partitioning) then I do not care if the previous agreement stuck between you and me is fair or not. It entitles me to something so I want it. However if in the court you can prove that it do4es not entitle me %30, I have already said that I will accepts the decision.

Anyway, the point is you and I know that TCs were more concentrated in the cities compared to their total population ratio. Total population ratio may be 18/82 % but if you look at the cities in the TC population in cities is much higher than %18 which inherently means more of the TC population used to live in the cities where land values are higher.

Also according to my knowledge most of the TC villages most of the times were on the farmable land which gives them higher economical value. These are the reasons I do not simply accepts the %18 of the land you are giving me.

So as you can see I am being quite frank and open with you and even telling you my rationale of why I am not accepting your %18. Even the web site you have given shows that I am at least entitled to %21.34 (an this is by calculating state land with %18 not 30% as I suggest. If I calculate by using %30 the percentage goes up to 24.5%)

Anyway it has been another long post I guess,

Take care and have a great day,

[Alexandros Lordos]

http://agrino.org/humrights/proposals/77prpsal.html

Any more of these web sites. They make quite a good laughing material.

Actually, I found this website extremely interesting ... it talks about how the Greek Cypriots interpreted the high level agreement of 1977, and what sort of avenues for a solution they thought the agreement opened up ... In fact, I thought it was a very realistic, positive and constructive document.

I suggest you read it more carefully, Turkcyp, and then we could discuss it in detail, to see if in fact the approach suggested in this document could be the basis for a solution ...

This way, we will also escape this idle chatter about how the land will be split in a ... hypothetical agreed partition.

[Piratis]

First of all, you use the numbers in the website I gave you in a completely wrong way.

If I use the same faulty maths, it means that GCs have the 82.7% of private land + 82% of the 26 = 21.3% and the total is 104% for GCs.

If you noticed the row that talks about 16.7% of TC land and 82.7% of GC land doesn't include state land.

In the row that includes the state land, TCs are shown with 12.3% and GCs with 60.9. If you do your maths with this column (as it should be) you will see that TCs take about 17% (12.3%+ 18%x26.3) and GCs around 82.5% using the same kind of calculation.

There was nothing like "prenup" because the case of "divorce" was simply not an option and actually something illegal.

What you want is to agree for divorce, and therefore legalize what currently is illegal, and after that agree on the "details".

Such thing is obviously something we can not do. Many GCs, probably the majority, would be willing to consider a scenario of two separate states IF TCs keep around 18%. However until you agree for this, nothing will be agreed and this scenario will be out of the question for us.

[brother]

Maybe we just keep 36% or whatever the figure is and wait for the GC to vote 'oxi' again and i am sure recognition would be most forth coming especially from many middle eastern countries.

What do you think of that scenario?

[Piratis]

We will never vote "oxi" again simply because no plan would be put to a referendum again if an agreement is not reached.

Everything that you were going to get from your "yes" vote you got already.

[brother]

Never say never, heard that expression.

[uzan]

We will never vote "oxi" again simply because no plan would be put to a referendum again if an agreement is not reached.

Everything that you were going to get from your "yes" vote you got already.

IT is not everythink my friend,be carefully TC have plans
DONT LOOSE YOUR SLEEP TONIGHT
GOODNIGHT SWEET DREAM MY DEAR