Cyprus-Forum.com

[Piratis]

On condition that it is 1960 not after 1964, and also everything you have done during our absence since 1964 should be corrected in compliance with that 1960 agreements.

After 74 your absence is not our fault but yours. Therefore I accept your argument regarding things that have been done between 63-74, but not after 74. Maybe you don't recognize the after 74 RoC and you put it at the same level as the illegal "TRNC", but the fact remains that RoC is a legal state and the "TRNC" is not. You can not equate the two.

Fair share of land is very simple, all TC land + all Efkaf land + our share of government land

Do not tell me after this that I am not being fair.

It depends on how much you will claim your share of government land is. The fair one is 18%, anything above that is not fair. In conclusion, anything bellow 82% of land for GCs is unfair and will not be accepted. The agreement will be 18%-82%, not "lets play a math game where I put my numbers and the result is X%-Y%, and you put your numbers and the result is Z%-J%). In other words first comes the agreement on 18%-82% and then any other kind of discussion regarding this matter.

[Kifeas]

I did not say cancell it, I have said "should be corrected in compliance with that 1960 agreements". I have said if it is in compliance with the constituion decided by the Supreme Court composed of one GC, one TC, and a foreign judge, and if it is also accepted by TCs then they can stay.

So therefore, if it cannot be cancelled or corrected, then it remains up to the TCs whether they accept them or not. If they cannot accepted them then subsequently they do not accept to return to the RoCy.

But you need to get the constitutuionality and approval of TCs for the laws that you have enacted in the last 40 years. IF TCs agree that the laws are OK, including the EU accesion, (which actually required TC VP) approval then they can stay.

Actually, this is a wrong assumption that you are making. All laws and treaties, including E.U., have been accommodated under the so-called law or justice of “necessity.” Otherwise, if they were unconstitutional (therefore illegal,) E.U. wouldn’t have proceeded to our accession, nor we would have been a U.N. member or a recognised state.

Then I suppose what you are suggesting will simply have a ceremonial significance.

[turkcyp]

Dear Piratis and Kifeas,

It seems that we have huge understanding differences between what I mean turning back to 1960 constituional rights, and what you mean by it. There is no way majority of TCs would have accepted some of the laws you have passed in the last 30 years, may be including EU accesion the way you have accesed. So let's cut the crap and concentrate on partition. (because I guess your understanding of turning back to 1960 agreements will not be accepted by TCs, and my guess is our understanding of turning back to 1960 agreements will not be accepted by GCs)

What is wrong with what I have proposed,

Why is “TC land + Efkaf land + share of TC in government land calculated in terms of economic value” not agreeable for you? (See above proposal)

I mean, I think at one point I remember Piratis calculating the above to be 15.6%.

And in order to avoid the x% and y% arguments that Piratis has mentioned, we can find an external third party expert on property valuation to calculate these, and even if you like their way of calculating may be under the supervision of ECHR. How does this sound?

Also, let me be open with you about why I ask for this method. I have strong belief that TCs will be getting screwed by 18%. Apparently, I believe in terms of economic value back in 1960 TC had hold more than %18. And if I turned out to be wrong I am willing to accept whatever the result is.

Isn’t it more fair to base the percentage of land on previous land ownership rather than the population percentages?

[Kifeas]

It seems that we have huge understanding differences between what I mean turning back to 1960 constituional rights, and what you mean by it. There is no way majority of TCs would have accepted some of the laws you have passed in the last 30 years, may be including EU accesion the way you have accesed. So let's cut the crap and concentrate on partition. (because I guess your understanding of turning back to 1960 agreements will not be accepted by TCs, and my guess is our understanding of turning back to 1960 agreements will not be accepted by GCs)

What is wrong with what I have proposed,

Why is “TC land + Efkaf land + share of TC in government land calculated in terms of economic value” not agreeable for you? (See above proposal)

I mean, I think at one point I remember Piratis calculating the above to be 15.6%.

And in order to avoid the x% and y% arguments that Piratis has mentioned, we can find an external third party expert on property valuation to calculate these, and even if you like their way of calculating may be under the supervision of ECHR. How does this sound?

Also, let me be open with you about why I ask for this method. I have strong belief that TCs will be getting screwed by 18%. Apparently, I believe in terms of economic value back in 1960 TC had hold more than %18. And if I turned out to be wrong I am willing to accept whatever the result is.

Isn’t it more fair to base the percentage of land on previous land ownership rather than the population percentages?

So what do you suggest then?
What figures do you have in mind?
What percentage you want to claim and how do you justify it?

What percentage the TCs had in 1960?
From what I know historically it was roughly about the same as the population percentage, on private land?
What if they sold the land and emigrated?

The Private TC land plus EVKAF land was only 12.3%.
In terms of value of this land to not get into this discussion because you will loose.
In no way TCs had private land or properties spread along even 12% of the coastline. It was on about 8% if I am not mistaken. And you know that the most expensive land is the one that is situated on the coastline, which you will be getting up to 20%.
The total public land (government land, roads, forests etc) was about 30%.
Your share of this 30% is 5.4% (30% x 18% = 5.4%)

Therefore 12.3% (private & EVKAF) plus 5.4% (share of public land) equals 17.7%
I round it up for you to 18%. Is there a problem?

[turkcyp]

So what do you suggest then?
What figures do you have in mind?
What percentage you want to claim and how do you justify it?

What percentage the TCs had in 1960?
From what I know historically it was roughly about the same as the population percentage, on private land?
What if they sold the land and emigrated?

The Private TC land plus EVKAF land was only 12.3%.
In terms of value of this land to not get into this discussion because you will loose.
In no way TCs had private land or properties spread along even 12% of the coastline. It was on about 8% if I am not mistaken. And you know that the most expensive land is the one that is situated on the coastline, which you will be getting up to 20%.
The total public land (government land, roads, forests etc) was about 30%.
Your share of this 30% is 5.4% (30% x 18% = 5.4%)

Therefore 12.3% (private & EVKAF) plus 5.4% (share of public land) equals 17.7%
I round it up for you to 18%. Is there a problem?

Then it's a deal. We call on to EU, ECHR, and UN to appoint a third party property valuation expert to calculate the way I have proposed and if we end up getting less than %18 then I am ready to accept.

Other than that I am not going to get into the whole way of calculating land value with you. Apparently we differ otherwise I should be stupid not to accept your proposal of 18%. And we are not going to convince each other here. So let's see what the experts say.

After we have found this figure then we start talking which portions you want it to be returned back.

Pity we could not live on a small island together.

[Piratis]

Kifeas, the problem is that TC have learned to expect that GCs should always give more than what they have to. If you notice several discussions in here, it seems perfectly normal for them if GCs will have to compromise many of their rights, even their human rights, while it is totally unacceptable for them to sacrifice a single right of their own. A typical remark from TC: "What???? But this is worst than what we had in 1960!!"

This is the exact same thing here. If the calculations are in their favor (say it comes out to be 19.5%), then they will not accept bellow that, if it turns to be bellow 18% (say 16.5%), I would bet 1000000 pounds that not even 5% of TCs would accept it in a referendum.

Another point is that all this legal situations are complex. One authority says one thing, another says another no agreement will ever be found. The result: The "TRNC" gets recognized, while some areas (if not all) remain disputed (like India/Pakistan in Kashmir), and guess who will have control over those areas.

So the TCs should do their own research and come back and tell us if they accept 18% or not, because we are not discussing for less than 82%.

[turkcyp]

Kifeas, the problem is that TC have learned to expect that GCs should always give more than what they have to. If you notice several discussions in here, it seems perfectly normal for them if GCs will have to compromise many of their rights, even their human rights, while it is totally unacceptable for them to sacrifice a single right of their own. A typical remark from TC: "What???? But this is worst than what we had in 1960!!"

This is the exact same thing here. If the calculations are in their favor (say it comes out to be 19.5%), then they will not accept bellow that, if it turns to be bellow 18% (say 16.5%), I would bet 1000000 pounds that not even 5% of TCs would accept it in a referendum.

Another point is that all this legal situations are complex. One authority says one thing, another says another no agreement will ever be found. The result: The "TRNC" gets recognized, while some areas (if not all) remain disputed (like India/Pakistan in Kashmir), and guess who will have control over those areas.

So the TCs should do their own research and come back and tell us if they accept 18% or not, because we are not discussing for less than 82%.

Full of words but not full of meaningful content,

Only accusations as usual. Just tell me why dont you accept such a third party calculation. About TCs not accepting anything less than %18. how about we make the referandum before calculation and both of us declare that whatever the commision says we will accept. Does that satisfy you?

And as I have said it earlier, I am even ready to accept %18 just to shut your grumbling. Just trying to be fairer. I mean I do not want to take 18-16.5=1.5% of your land extra.

[Piratis]

Just tell me why do not you accept such a third party calculation.

"Third" party, something like what brought to us the Annan plan you mean right? I think it is quite obvious why we do not accept it.

Things like ECHR, where laws are followed to the letter, are acceptable. However such thing is not something that the ECHR would do.

In the "new order" world any kind of committee will not be truly third party, and as the annan plan demonstrated it will favor the powerful one.

This is why such thing is not acceptable.

[insan]

At the end of the 1980s, the total area of the "TRNC" was measured at 2,496,370 hectares. Of this area, 56.7 percent was agricultural land, 19.5 percent forest, 4.96 percent uncultivated, 10.68 percent occupied by towns, villages, and roads, and 8.16 percent unusable. In 1975, of the agricultural land, 50 percent was cultivated; by 1987, some 68.7 percent was cultivated.

The "TRNC" recognized three categories of land ownership: private, state, and communal. The greatest amount of land was privately owned. Unrestricted legal ownership of private land in Cyprus dated only from 1946, when the British administration enacted a new land law, the Immovable Property (Tenure, Registration, and Valuation) Law, which superseded the land code in effect under the Ottomans. Under the Ottoman code, all land belonged to the state, and those who worked the land were in effect hereditary tenants whose right to the land was usufructuary. Land could be transmitted from father to son, but could not otherwise be disposed of without official permission. The 1946 British law ended this tradition, stipulating that all state land properly acquired by individuals became their private property. Communal land remained as before, but all unoccupied and vacant land not lawfully held became the property of the state. As a result, virtually all forests become state property.

The Muslim religious foundation Evkaf Idaresi (Turkish Religious Trust, usually known as Evkaf) was the largest private owner of property in the "TRNC." Before the events of 1974, Evkaf owned 1 to 2 percent of the island's total farmland. These holdings dated back to Ottoman times and were mainly donations in perpetuity from members of the Turkish Cypriot community. Much of Evkaf's land was located in parts of the island that remained under the control of the Republic of Cyprus.

Data as of January 1991

http://www.country-data.com/cgi-bin/query/r-3549.html


Is there any similar info available concerning the land in South?

[turkcyp]

"Third" party, something like what brought to us the Annan plan you mean right? I think it is quite obvious why we do not accept it.

Things like ECHR, where laws are followed to the letter, are acceptable. However such thing is not something that the ECHR would do.

In the "new order" world any kind of committee will not be truly third party, and as the annan plan demonstrated it will favor the powerful one.

This is why such thing is not acceptable.

So classical "the whole world against GC rhetoric" hugh?

Anyway, this is getting too long. As I have said %18 is acceptable for me just to not let this drag for long.

So which portions of north Cyprus you want. I assume a major portion includes Karpasia?

Do you guys accept cantonal arrangements or should it be only two regions seperated like Kifeas said with Berlin Wall?

This is the only thing we have in common with Piratis, (and it turns out with Kifeas too), we agree always on second best, We agree that we can not agree on firts best. As Metallica once said "Sad but True"...

****

http://www.country-data.com/cgi-bin/query/r-3549.html


Is there any similar info available concerning the land in South?

In the same site...

http://www.country-data.com/cgi-bin/query/r-3526.html