Cyprus-Forum.com

[repulsewarrior]

thank-you.

...and Kikapu, I am still waiting for your comments, as well.

Sorry........!!

I did read your manifesto last week as a matter of fact and like some others who commented, having enclaves or what ever you want to call it will never materialise. We are having a hard time trying to convince the TC's to form a Federation in the north where most TC's can live if they choose to, to find safety in numbers if it's a problem for some. Personally I can live in a village being only GC's and it would not bother me in the least, but that's me and I cannot expect other TC's to do the same or live in enclaves, which has a very negative connotation with that word anyway.

Methods of governance can be anything as long as it is democratic, so the problem that we are having to sort out, in how to convince the "minority" to trust in democracy as equal citizens and not be concerned about being second class citizen, because that's how the TC's are equating being in the "numerically minority" as being unequal citizen. The rest of the developed world seem to have managed to get by with this question, but in Cyprus we are having trouble convincing people, then again, some do not need convincing, because they are happy with the present situation.

...somehow, i get the impression that you think that enclaves will have as a population, exclusively Greek or Turkish populations. This is not what is described. It is not at all about keeping people apart. it is a question of self representation as persons. It allows each community, as a majority, to recognise that they can provide for the needs of the minorities that live amongst them. Furthermore, even with the present day demographics, Turkish Cypriots will have to sustain themseves a National Assembly, even if its constituency represents for them a "numerical minority" (in a worst case scenario), Turkish and the society which revolves around this language will be promoted. Even if the number of "non-Turks" is greater than the "Turks", Turcophonie would be the element for which they would rally to improve.

...as in the National Assembly which would have its Jurisdiction as Grecophones.

Most importantly, Cyprus the State would be free from the bias of numbers to defend us as Individuals, and equals, within the wider context of a Family of Man.

[repulsewarrior]

...and I would like to add, with a population four, or ten times larger, people will choose to live as Turcophones or Grecophones, regardless of their ethnic origins (or the demographics of the time) for the service which will be provided to them by these governing bodies.

[Viewpoint]

You obviously don't have a clue of the TCs planning on returning once the problem is resolved.

One more thing. I don't know of any TCs here in the UK that don't already have a home in the TRNC as an investment/retirement home. Our numbers will drastically increase as soon as Christofias signs on the dotted line.

The only problem is, the majority of the TC's who has or are still building homes in the north, so that one day they will move back to Cyprus, are built on GC land because the land was bought on the cheap, because it was a "hot property". These will be the first people who stands to lose their investments and their dream retirement in the sun once a settlement is reached. Even if the GC's will not move back to their land, and are willing to sell it to the TC's or the British for that matter, are going to ask the full market rate and not the few hundred ££££££'s that was paid for on the "black market". Most wont be able to pay the market price for the GC land that their dream house was built on, and there goes their investments.

You may ask, that the TC's will sell their land in the south and pay the GC's in the north for the land that their dream home is now sitting on. That's fine if the GC owner is willing to part with his land, and secondly, most of the TC land in the south belonged to our grandparents, and if in the last 40+ years upon our grandparents dying, their land had not gone through probate or distributed to the children through a Will, it is going to take a very long time to sort out that mess considering most TC's have gotten "exchanged" land for theirs in the north. All the probate and Will proceedings needed to go through the RoC courts, and considering the north was closed off until 2003, I suspect not much has been done to pass on the TC properties to the heirs. The GC's on the other hand, have kept up with their land distribution and all the legal paper work necessary, even long after their grandparents have died. Their land has been passed on to their children and grand children.

No such luck for the TC's I'm afraid. Good luck in trying to get all the second and third generation of TC's to agree on how to distribute their land in the south amongst themselves. Therefore, I disagree with you, that many TC's will not move back once a solution is reached. If that was the case, they would have been already back. Those that will go back are the ones who are not holding any GC land at all or are willing to pay the market price, which will be worh more than the house they built on it.

What the Annan Plan 2004 had one of it's conditions, was that the price of GC land in the north was to be paid at the 1974 market rate. That would have saved the day for anyone who built their dream homes on GC land in the north at the expense of the GC owners. Somehow I do not believe the same will happen this time around. It is going to be full today's market rate or the GC owner will just retain their land.

Please everyone read this post, noway can this style or level of argument be put forward by a TC, its not possible this is from the mouth of a hardliner GC, the post reeks hate and a sick happiness that TCs will suffer in a solution due to the fact that they have built on GC land.

Well listen up Mr Doom and Gloom if that's what a solution orders and we agree to it, that's what will happen but never forget that we to have the right to reject anything that we feel we cannot accept, you cannot force us to do anything against our will.

The part I have highlighted is your imagination how will they loose their investment? do you think TCs will accept a solution where TCs will suffer by loosing their investments, the TRNC who will be linked into a united Cyprus will have to cough up if such an agreement is reached as they are the ones who issued these deeds and that indirectly will effect GCs negatively in a united Cyprus. So feel free to shoot yourselves in the foot if you think TCs will ever vote for a solution where they will loose their property build on deeds given to them by the TRNC. All these just like in other examples will be settled via the current occupant having the right to purchase at a fixed price just like it was in the AP.

[Bananiot]

Here is how Racit Perdev saw last week's meeting.

I am not satisfied because the Turkish Cypriot side will not be a partner in a new democracy but a partner in the RoC, which will simply change name.

A Bananiot of the other side, Izet Iztzan (Secretary General of the United Cyprus party) said

I am very satisfied with the declarations for a United Federal Cyprus

Denktash also spoke on the occasion. He was a guest speaker at the military museum in Istanbul. He said:

The Greek Cypriot side has not gone back one mm. If Talat is allowed to carry on, Turkey will lose her guarantor rights.

[Magnus]

Please everyone read this post, noway can this style or level of argument be put forward by a TC, its not possible this is from the mouth of a hardliner GC, the post reeks hate and a sick happiness that TCs will suffer in a solution due to the fact that they have built on GC land.

Well listen up Mr Doom and Gloom if that's what a solution orders and we agree to it, that's what will happen but never forget that we to have the right to reject anything that we feel we cannot accept, you cannot force us to do anything against our will.

The part I have highlighted is your imagination how will they loose their investment? do you think TCs will accept a solution where TCs will suffer by loosing their investments, the TRNC who will be linked into a united Cyprus will have to cough up if such an agreement is reached as they are the ones who issued these deeds and that indirectly will effect GCs negatively in a united Cyprus. So feel free to shoot yourselves in the foot if you think TCs will ever vote for a solution where they will loose their property build on deeds given to them by the TRNC. All these just like in other examples will be settled via the current occupant having the right to purchase at a fixed price just like it was in the AP.

I don't claim to have the knowledge of the Cyprus Problem that some of you have but I thought that Kikapu's post made sense and I certainly didn't pick up on any 'sick happiness' as you put it.

The problem with living in an illegal regime is that any of that regime's titles are essentially worthless. When the original titles deeds are recognised then they override any new ones distributed by your 'TRNC'. Plus, seeing as your 'TRNC' will be reborn as the 'Turkish Constituent State' you've got no chance of holding your TRNC leaders accountable as they wont officially be in charge anymore and the new government wont be responsible for their actions. Again, that's because your current regime is illegal.

Even if the 'current occupiers' are given the right to purchase the land, then who says the original occupier has to sell? Even if they would sell, why would they sell it to the 'current occupier' at a discount?

As for TCs refusing to agree to it and pull out of the talks, then it is the TC side who will have scuppered the negotiations and judging by most of the posts in this forum, most GCs wont mind if this plan doesn't go through.

That's just my opinion though, i'll let you big guys fight it out.

[Kikapu]

You obviously don't have a clue of the TCs planning on returning once the problem is resolved.

One more thing. I don't know of any TCs here in the UK that don't already have a home in the TRNC as an investment/retirement home. Our numbers will drastically increase as soon as Christofias signs on the dotted line.

The only problem is, the majority of the TC's who has or are still building homes in the north, so that one day they will move back to Cyprus, are built on GC land because the land was bought on the cheap, because it was a "hot property". These will be the first people who stands to lose their investments and their dream retirement in the sun once a settlement is reached. Even if the GC's will not move back to their land, and are willing to sell it to the TC's or the British for that matter, are going to ask the full market rate and not the few hundred ££££££'s that was paid for on the "black market". Most wont be able to pay the market price for the GC land that their dream house was built on, and there goes their investments.

You may ask, that the TC's will sell their land in the south and pay the GC's in the north for the land that their dream home is now sitting on. That's fine if the GC owner is willing to part with his land, and secondly, most of the TC land in the south belonged to our grandparents, and if in the last 40+ years upon our grandparents dying, their land had not gone through probate or distributed to the children through a Will, it is going to take a very long time to sort out that mess considering most TC's have gotten "exchanged" land for theirs in the north. All the probate and Will proceedings needed to go through the RoC courts, and considering the north was closed off until 2003, I suspect not much has been done to pass on the TC properties to the heirs. The GC's on the other hand, have kept up with their land distribution and all the legal paper work necessary, even long after their grandparents have died. Their land has been passed on to their children and grand children.

No such luck for the TC's I'm afraid. Good luck in trying to get all the second and third generation of TC's to agree on how to distribute their land in the south amongst themselves. Therefore, I disagree with you, that many TC's will not move back once a solution is reached. If that was the case, they would have been already back. Those that will go back are the ones who are not holding any GC land at all or are willing to pay the market price, which will be worh more than the house they built on it.

What the Annan Plan 2004 had one of it's conditions, was that the price of GC land in the north was to be paid at the 1974 market rate. That would have saved the day for anyone who built their dream homes on GC land in the north at the expense of the GC owners. Somehow I do not believe the same will happen this time around. It is going to be full today's market rate or the GC owner will just retain their land.

Please everyone read this post, noway can this style or level of argument be put forward by a TC, its not possible this is from the mouth of a hardliner GC, the post reeks hate and a sick happiness that TCs will suffer in a solution due to the fact that they have built on GC land.

Well listen up Mr Doom and Gloom if that's what a solution orders and we agree to it, that's what will happen but never forget that we to have the right to reject anything that we feel we cannot accept, you cannot force us to do anything against our will.

The part I have highlighted is your imagination how will they loose their investment? do you think TCs will accept a solution where TCs will suffer by loosing their investments, the TRNC who will be linked into a united Cyprus will have to cough up if such an agreement is reached as they are the ones who issued these deeds and that indirectly will effect GCs negatively in a united Cyprus. So feel free to shoot yourselves in the foot if you think TCs will ever vote for a solution where they will loose their property build on deeds given to them by the TRNC. All these just like in other examples will be settled via the current occupant having the right to purchase at a fixed price just like it was in the AP.

First I'm a GC, then a TC "traitor" and now a GC hardliner.

I don't know which one to choose.!!

Come on VP, why do you think the property issue is a very tough one to overcome, is because the "TRNC" fucked up big time by allowing them to be sold in the first place. Those who got GC land as an "exchanged" should never been given permits to build on them. It should have been only a temporary lodging until solution was found. At the end of the day, the GC owners of those properties will not care who is ultimately responsible and who pays the "investors" and who loses out, as long as it is not them. It was no fault of their own, that bad judgement by the "TRNC" should constitute loss on their part.

Just because you jump to conclusions as for my happiness that these "investors" will lose their money, I have family members who did the same and will face the same outcome. They knew the risks before going into it, but the temptation was too high to ignore. As the saying goes, "if it's too good to be true, more than likely, it is". When dealing in dishonest selling and buying, don't blame me if they lose their shirts.

In any case, I'm talking about those who live abroad and invested in "hot properties" in the north. Those TC's who have land in the south, will sell theirs, and buy the ones in the north from the original owners if they are willing to sell, so they should not be loosing anything, if all goes well. The only problem will be to sort out land owned by the TC's in the south amongst their own families, because it is going to be a bloody mess after 40+ years when original owners has been long dead and Wills and probates has not been carried out.

Sure you have the right to say NO to any solution, but over "hot properties".??

How would that look in front of the international community.??

[Viewpoint]

Kikapu

First I'm a GC, then a TC "traitor" and now a GC hardliner.

I don't know which one to choose.!!

Feel free to have all of them as they all fit.

Come on VP, why do you think the property issue is a very tough one to overcome, is because the "TRNC" fucked up big time by allowing them to be sold in the first place. Those who got GC land as an "exchanged" should never been given permits to build on them. It should have been only a temporary lodging until solution was found. At the end of the day, the GC owners of those properties will not care who is ultimately responsible and who pays the "investors" and who loses out, as long as it is not them. It was no fault of their own, that bad judgement by the "TRNC" should constitute loss on their part.

Life goes on and people need homes to live in so they develop land this happens all over the world. Those TCs who had land in the south exchanged it for land given to them by a TRNC government we recognize and any solution will have to incorporate this issue, if the solution found is unacceptable just as it was for the GCs you can be assured that we will reject it. Financial comprensation will be the key to solving this problem with a combination of land surrendered by TCs in the south and return of avaiilable property in the north made availbale to GCs who will not have the option to take back what they lost in 1974.

The TCs have shown goodwill by agreeing to become refugees for the 3rd time by moving out of property in 8% of land now under the control of the TRNC and returning this to GC control.

Just because you jump to conclusions as for my happiness that these "investors" will lose their money, I have family members who did the same and will face the same outcome. They knew the risks before going into it, but the temptation was too high to ignore. As the saying goes, "if it's too good to be true, more than likely, it is". When dealing in dishonest selling and buying, don't blame me if they lose their shirts.

Your post says it all and no amount of explaining will conceal your exstatic happiness in believing that people who have purchased property in the TRNC will lose out, the AP is a clear sign of things to come and the only viable solution is that previous occupants will be financially compensated or given options in the south.

In any case, I'm talking about those who live abroad and invested in "hot properties" in the north. Those TC's who have land in the south, will sell theirs, and buy the ones in the north from the original owners if they are willing to sell, so they should not be loosing anything, if all goes well. The only problem will be to sort out land owned by the TC's in the south amongst their own families, because it is going to be a bloody mess after 40+ years when original owners has been long dead and Wills and probates has not been carried out.

If the above is adopted as a solution then obviously you wish to create mayhem and disputes otherwise to avoid this you pay financial compensation to people whos land has been utilized and return those that have not. The two sides will have to work close to prevent double dipping and find ways to streamline matters like probate.

Sure you have the right to say NO to any solution, but over "hot properties".??

How would that look in front of the international community.??

We will reject any solution just like the GCs where we feel uncomfortable or it is unjust.

[Piratis]

Here is how Racit Perdev saw last week's meeting.

I am not satisfied because the Turkish Cypriot side will not be a partner in a new democracy but a partner in the RoC, which will simply change name.

A Bananiot of the other side, Izet Iztzan (Secretary General of the United Cyprus party) said

I am very satisfied with the declarations for a United Federal Cyprus

Denktash also spoke on the occasion. He was a guest speaker at the military museum in Istanbul. He said:

The Greek Cypriot side has not gone back one mm. If Talat is allowed to carry on, Turkey will lose her guarantor rights.

Why is Izet Iztzan a "Bananiot" of the other side? Did he agree that the human rights of his community should be violated? Did he agree that his side will get less than what proportionately belongs to them and less than what was given to them with the 1960 agreements?

I have seen no TC that would accept for their own human rights to be compromised for the sake of a solution (and they shouldn't), but I also have seen very few TCs that would accept for their side to get anything less than what was given to them with the 1960 agreements (which was already too much). So there are really no "Bananiots" on the other side.

[repulsewarrior]

...here in this issue, enclaves as I describe them, will serve your needs vp as well as the GCs. Even if it is not your intention to move to an enclave, many who would be displaced will have a choice which, without it, would have no choice but a very large disruption in the quality of their lives.

clear deliniations of Jurisdiction, with enclaves, allows the population already in them to take a course of action which can be planned. Unlike without enclaves where all the population, particularly Cypriots presently living in the north will have no idea who amongst them will become displaced, or how their communities will be disrupted because of the return of the original owners to their properties.

[Kikapu]

VP,

It is very obvious that one cannot have a serious discussion with you, because anything said that you don't like, you start your petty accusation and read stuff in my post that was never written or intended to lead you to think that way, but you will do anything to defend the most indefensible acts just to protect your interest, even if it means to violate others Human and Democratic Rights. If a solution is going to come, you better get ready for hard and painful compromises to be made and much more in the north than in the south, only because large majority of the land in the north belongs to the GC's. 2004 AP was designed to overcome these problems for the TC's and settlers at the expense of the rightful owners, but as you may have heard, that plan failed 4 years ago and the new negotiations will discuss all the problems we have in Cyprus, from security, land distribution, property rights, freedom of movement, return of settlers and so on.

Again, the 2004 AP took care of all these "little" problems for one community and tried to screwed the other, and if this is your idea of what a settlement is all about, than you better call Talat to end them tomorrow, because they will fail in the end anyway. We are not going to have long lasting peace if only very little is going to change on the ground. But that is a foolish thing for me to say when it comes to you VP, because just like Denktash, you really do not want anything to change on the ground, and if it wasn't for the fact that Cyprus is in the EU, there wouldn't even be any crossings open today or that we would be trying to find a solution. All you will be waiting for, would be for a recognition to come. You might get your BBF, but it is going to cost you plenty. Peace is a two way street and each community will need to their part to make it happen and stay that way. The bigger question is VP, are you ready to make the compromises that are needed for peace. My gut feelings tells me, that you are not yet ready. What do you say.??