Cyprus-Forum.com

[humanist]

Deniz thank you for your answer,

I do not see the settlers for most part of it a problem. Some obviuosly through good reasons will end up getting citizenship and staying on. However I would not be supportive of these people getting assistance for example from the church to receive accommodation regardless of them \currentlyy living in refugee accommodaiton. They can settle anywhere on the island where they can afford accommodation it may be they need to move south.

As this topic is about the church offering to build accommodation for TC refugees from the south now living in the north. I guess that is my support and questions. Should the church wait till there is a solution or should the building of accommodation for these people be the beginning stage of a solution. For example the church builds accommodation for TC refugees and as they vacate GC refugee property, theose GC refugees are allowed to move back to their homes?

[Kikapu]

VP said:

"In the early stages of unification there is no trust whatsoever and a structure to accommodate concerns from both sides should be put in place to ensure no side reneges on an agreement, "

True, and that is why GCs do not want to let go of the ROC.

Deniz you have a point about the ability to choose your place of residence. Christofias was pressed by three interviewers plus the station anchor to give details of his interpretation of these aspects.

He insisted that it is possible to have a biregional arrangement that will allow freedom of establishment and still retain ethnic majorities both in the north and in the south. And that is what a true federation is all about anyway, otherwise it is partition.

Like Deniz who knows the south, I know the north, actually the north east of the island and if I ever return I would want to live there.

As this was part of Christofias' election campaign and details made public, a referendum would not be necessary. But if the referendum contains drastic changes, like the dissolution of the RoC, then it needs direct approval and legitimisation directly from the people.
The settlers who become Cypriots by marriage are not a problem. The rest can be given generous compensation to leave. Generous in this case means an amount that would allow them to return to Turkey and set themselves up nicely.

The RoC, as formed in 1960 or the current RoC. I just thought that the 1960 RoC was not by public approval, but imposed on us, TCs and GCs? Is that the case?

Deniz the GCs object to the 1960 constitution and people like Piratis also claim it was forced upon them, how long do you think it would be before they came up with a modern day version of the Akritas plan? Why not scrap something that did not work in the past and create something that will work now and in the future when we have the opportunity to do so. Psychologically TCs will never be able to return to the 1960 agreements as it would mean that the last 34 years were all in vain.

Right. Thats my point, just put more eloquently. Thanks

Still expect a reply from Nikitas.

Deniz,

With a True Federation, there won't be a need for the RoC to exist anymore. But I got a feeling, the GC's will only accept to give up the RoC for a True Federation, if all the Guarantors are "fired" from the new constitution. Piratis always talked about the GC's making this "concession" for peace. Are the TC's willing to let Turkey go for a True Federation, or keep all the Guarantors, but under the 1960 Constitution. I vote for a True Federation, since peaceful Cyprus will be a Big Plus for Turkey's EU chances, and once a EU member, then we will all be one BIG Happy Family again with Greece, Turkey, and the UK under the EU roof.

[denizaksulu]

Deniz thank you for your answer,

I do not see the settlers for most part of it a problem. Some obviuosly through good reasons will end up getting citizenship and staying on. However I would not be supportive of these people getting assistance for example from the church to receive accommodation regardless of them \currentlyy living in refugee accommodaiton. They can settle anywhere on the island where they can afford accommodation it may be they need to move south.
As this topic is about the church offering to build accommodation for TC refugees from the south now living in the north. I guess that is my support and questions. Should the church wait till there is a solution or should the building of accommodation for these people be the beginning stage of a solution. For example the church builds accommodation for TC refugees and as they vacate GC refugee property, theose GC refugees are allowed to move back to their homes?

I have not given this aspect of the situation much thought. Howvever it is a valid point.

For the 'settlers' need to move south', are you envisaging 'partition' of the island? Are you talking about 'south' of a 'border'? Sorry to answer with a question, but the variables do crop up.

I understand the 'noble' gesture by the church and agree that the 'new homes' be given to TC refugees only. If I were you I would not suggest the settlers move 'south'. I am worrying about their 'birth rate'.
I will have to ponder a bit more on the subject.

[denizaksulu]

VP said:

"In the early stages of unification there is no trust whatsoever and a structure to accommodate concerns from both sides should be put in place to ensure no side reneges on an agreement, "

True, and that is why GCs do not want to let go of the ROC.

Deniz you have a point about the ability to choose your place of residence. Christofias was pressed by three interviewers plus the station anchor to give details of his interpretation of these aspects.

He insisted that it is possible to have a biregional arrangement that will allow freedom of establishment and still retain ethnic majorities both in the north and in the south. And that is what a true federation is all about anyway, otherwise it is partition.

Like Deniz who knows the south, I know the north, actually the north east of the island and if I ever return I would want to live there.

As this was part of Christofias' election campaign and details made public, a referendum would not be necessary. But if the referendum contains drastic changes, like the dissolution of the RoC, then it needs direct approval and legitimisation directly from the people.
The settlers who become Cypriots by marriage are not a problem. The rest can be given generous compensation to leave. Generous in this case means an amount that would allow them to return to Turkey and set themselves up nicely.

The RoC, as formed in 1960 or the current RoC. I just thought that the 1960 RoC was not by public approval, but imposed on us, TCs and GCs? Is that the case?

Deniz the GCs object to the 1960 constitution and people like Piratis also claim it was forced upon them, how long do you think it would be before they came up with a modern day version of the Akritas plan? Why not scrap something that did not work in the past and create something that will work now and in the future when we have the opportunity to do so. Psychologically TCs will never be able to return to the 1960 agreements as it would mean that the last 34 years were all in vain.

Right. Thats my point, just put more eloquently. Thanks

Still expect a reply from Nikitas.

Deniz,

With a True Federation, there won't be a need for the RoC to exist anymore. But I got a feeling, the GC's will only accept to give up the RoC for a True Federation, if all the Guarantors are "fired" from the new constitution. Piratis always talked about the GC's making this "concession" for peace. Are the TC's willing to let Turkey go for a True Federation, or keep all the Guarantors, but under the 1960 Constitution. I vote for a True Federation, since peaceful Cyprus will be a Big Plus for Turkey's EU chances, and once a EU member, then we will all be one BIG Happy Family again with Greece, Turkey, and the UK under the EU roof.

I hear what you are saying. 'Piratis'' talking of 'concessions, makes me think ok of ' beware the Gree...' and all that. But seriously we need to see the frame work for this True Federation ' and analyse it. Have the politicians at the top ever sat down and draw up plans for a framework? . Whats to stop them or us 'renegging' at a later date? We will end up with 'majority rule' situations. We need the guarantees, what form they take, is anybodies guess. Maybe EU will take an interest.

[humanist]

Deniz

I have not given this aspect of the situation much thought. Howvever it is a valid point.

For the 'settlers' need to move south', are you envisaging 'partition' of the island? Are you talking about 'south' of a 'border'? Sorry to answer with a question, but the variables do crop up.

I understand the 'noble' gesture by the church and agree that the 'new homes' be given to TC refugees only. If I were you I would not suggest the settlers move 'south'. I am worrying about their 'birth rate'.
I will have to ponder a bit more on the subject.

Deniz once again thanks for responding to my coments, I am really enjoying a good conversation as it gets more achieved than negativism. Thank you.


I was not looking at partition, because if I was envisaging at such action I doubt very much the Church would be offering to build TC refugee homes. Rightly so. However I am using south as the predominantly Greek speaking State in a BBF solution.

I am making the assumption from the article that the Church will back down from its proposed action to take Turkey to the ECHR in relation to loss of property and rights to restore buildings and practice mass in its properties. I am further assuming that it would be looking at unification and thus offering to rehouse those TC refugees who do not wish to move south to their ancestral properties (Tochni widows would be good example to use here).

about the settlers moving south I meant in the to the predominantly Greek speaking state, if there was no land for them to purchase in the predominantly Turkish speaking state, though lets face it a lot of Greek speaking refugees will probably be selling off their land in the north if they do not pass it onto their children, but because the curreent north is predomonantly Greek speaking Cyp land there may not be enough for the number of settlers who stay behind to live there.

I imagine that the number od settlers who stay behind would be quite low, as I would imagine only those with strong family ties, ie someone marying into a TC family ( for example a young man from Turkey maries a Turkish Cyp woman - he gets to stay perhaps if he is an only son his parents stay also).

The problem gets to those families that are from Turkey but their children were born in the current trnc. What are those children? Cypriot or not Cypriot? I believe that in some countries children born to foreigners do not necessarily acquire the rights to sty in that country along with their parents.

I look forward to your response and that of anyone else.

[denizaksulu]

Deniz

I have not given this aspect of the situation much thought. Howvever it is a valid point.

For the 'settlers' need to move south', are you envisaging 'partition' of the island? Are you talking about 'south' of a 'border'? Sorry to answer with a question, but the variables do crop up.

I understand the 'noble' gesture by the church and agree that the 'new homes' be given to TC refugees only. If I were you I would not suggest the settlers move 'south'. I am worrying about their 'birth rate'.
I will have to ponder a bit more on the subject.

Deniz once again thanks for responding to my coments, I am really enjoying a good conversation as it gets more achieved than negativism. Thank you.


I was not looking at partition, because if I was envisaging at such action I doubt very much the Church would be offering to build TC refugee homes. Rightly so. However I am using south as the predominantly Greek speaking State in a BBF solution.

I am making the assumption from the article that the Church will back down from its proposed action to take Turkey to the ECHR in relation to loss of property and rights to restore buildings and practice mass in its properties. I am further assuming that it would be looking at unification and thus offering to rehouse those TC refugees who do not wish to move south to their ancestral properties (Tochni widows would be good example to use here).

about the settlers moving south I meant in the to the predominantly Greek speaking state, if there was no land for them to purchase in the predominantly Turkish speaking state, though lets face it a lot of Greek speaking refugees will probably be selling off their land in the north if they do not pass it onto their children, but because the curreent north is predomonantly Greek speaking Cyp land there may not be enough for the number of settlers who stay behind to live there.

I imagine that the number od settlers who stay behind would be quite low, as I would imagine only those with strong family ties, ie someone marying into a TC family ( for example a young man from Turkey maries a Turkish Cyp woman - he gets to stay perhaps if he is an only son his parents stay also).

The problem gets to those families that are from Turkey but their children were born in the current trnc. What are those children? Cypriot or not Cypriot? I believe that in some countries children born to foreigners do not necessarily acquire the rights to sty in that country along with their parents.

I look forward to your response and that of anyone else.

Thanks Humanist for clearing a point. I will reply in due course. I have just began to read Nikitas' solution for commenting upon, it will take the whole weekend to reply I hope, depending what my wife has planned for me. Take care.

[Nikitas]

Deniz,

FOr GCs the RoC structure and the international recognition it affords are the only defence against being swallowed up by Greece in the same way the TRNC is swallowed up by Turkey.

The internal arrangements of the RoC are not the important point, the vital part of this survival tool which is the RoC. The external legal personality is the important part. Letting this legal personality dissolve, immediately raises the question of what is there to give the GCs entity, and the answer is their Greek origin, hence their attachment to Greece and from there on the progression is easy to predict.

Most people here are too stuck to their own side's problems and fail to notice that the other side may have internal issues which often require delicate handling. Without the RoC the Green line would be a confrontation line between the Greek army and the Turkish forces and the situation would be much different, some would say hopeless, than it is today. In such an event any tension along the Green line would automatically raise the alarm from Famagusta to the Evros river and all along the Aegean. If we want that we can have it very easily, we dissolve the RoC.

It is very easy to fall into the trap that the "other side" can be lumped together in one easy category.