Cyprus-Forum.com

[Kikapu]

"stop this nonsensical idea that that because the TC people are 18% that is all they deserve"

which automatically raises the question of what ALL the other communities that make up the 82 per cent deserve and why should they be limited to 82 per cent.

Istanbul is a city and hosts 14 million people with plenty of industry and economic activity to support them and much of the economy. Two hundred thousand people can easily fit in the 18 per cent of Cyprus and have room to spare. That many lived there before 1974 and were getting on just fine.

Kifeas puts forth a simple and intelligent proposal, that the area is first proportional to population, and secondly it limits the number of GCs that will have a legitimate reason to live there without resorting to artifical limitations. It is a way to avoid most if not all of the properties issue.

Does it tackle all the farming issues?? How about Tourism??

This is not just about living space but of commercial space. We are not a race of Billionaires to have a playground for the rich like Monaco for example. We do not want to be just a reserve where the tourist come to buy our locally produced arts and crafts...We need to be commercially viable not just rent an apartment from you in our own country.

This is all the reason to have a open and free True Federation where the size of the north can pretty much remain as it is now, but you cannot exclude the GC's from living and exercising their democratic, political and Human Rights from having the same rights as the TC's there. The same in the south of course. Anything else, then you will run up against the EU's "Wall of Laws" as well an OXI from the GC's. But the 18% with fewer GC's might get the OK from the GC's and there will be too few GC's to even make a dent politically in the north, so that the EU's laws are not violated. Of course, this too will be based on a True Federation and a strong central government, and no Confederation what so ever. If Confederation is going to be "order of the day", then once again, partition on 82%-18% will be more desirable than further problems of conflict down the road, because you know it will be coming, so waste time and blood.

[zan]

"stop this nonsensical idea that that because the TC people are 18% that is all they deserve"

which automatically raises the question of what ALL the other communities that make up the 82 per cent deserve and why should they be limited to 82 per cent.

Istanbul is a city and hosts 14 million people with plenty of industry and economic activity to support them and much of the economy. Two hundred thousand people can easily fit in the 18 per cent of Cyprus and have room to spare. That many lived there before 1974 and were getting on just fine.

Kifeas puts forth a simple and intelligent proposal, that the area is first proportional to population, and secondly it limits the number of GCs that will have a legitimate reason to live there without resorting to artifical limitations. It is a way to avoid most if not all of the properties issue.

Does it tackle all the farming issues?? How about Tourism??

This is not just about living space but of commercial space. We are not a race of Billionaires to have a playground for the rich like Monaco for example. We do not want to be just a reserve where the tourist come to buy our locally produced arts and crafts...We need to be commercially viable not just rent an apartment from you in our own country.

This is all the reason to have a open and free True Federation where the size of the north can pretty much remain as it is now, but you cannot exclude the GC's from living and exercising their democratic, political and Human Rights from having the same rights as the TC's there. The same in the south of course. Anything else, then you will run up against the EU's "Wall of Laws" as well an OXI from the GC's. But the 18% with fewer GC's might get the OK from the GC's and there will be too few GC's to even make a dent politically in the north, so that the EU's laws are not violated. Of course, this too will be based on a True Federation and a strong central government, and no Confederation what so ever. If Confederation is going to be "order of the day", then once again, partition on 82%-18% will be more desirable than further problems of conflict down the road, because you know it will be coming, so waste time and blood.

The EU seem to be doing fine with the Veto and the non voting rights of settlers so why not in Cyprus.


What do you mean by desirable??? 18% is desirable only to GCs and not to common sense and commercial viability.

Conflict will come only from those that are only after the oppression of TCs. Nothing to do with what is achievable with common sense. You seem to be happy with oppression rather than common sense.

[Kifeas]

"stop this nonsensical idea that that because the TC people are 18% that is all they deserve"

which automatically raises the question of what ALL the other communities that make up the 82 per cent deserve and why should they be limited to 82 per cent.

Istanbul is a city and hosts 14 million people with plenty of industry and economic activity to support them and much of the economy. Two hundred thousand people can easily fit in the 18 per cent of Cyprus and have room to spare. That many lived there before 1974 and were getting on just fine.

Kifeas puts forth a simple and intelligent proposal, that the area is first proportional to population, and secondly it limits the number of GCs that will have a legitimate reason to live there without resorting to artifical limitations. It is a way to avoid most if not all of the properties issue.

Does it tackle all the farming issues?? How about Tourism??

This is not just about living space but of commercial space. We are not a race of Billionaires to have a playground for the rich like Monaco for example. We do not want to be just a reserve where the tourist come to buy our locally produced arts and crafts...We need to be commercially viable not just rent an apartment from you in our own country.

Zan, Malta, the homeland of 400,000 Maltese, has an area equal to less than 4% of Cyprus territory, yet it is a viable and sustainable country with a per capita GDP almost equal to that of the RoC.

With an area percentage equal to that of the TC population's percentage, the TCs will have exactly the same number of citizens per square kilometre of land, for both tourism and farming development, as the GCs will have! What you should be looking at, is the number of people per square kilometre!

[zan]

"stop this nonsensical idea that that because the TC people are 18% that is all they deserve"

which automatically raises the question of what ALL the other communities that make up the 82 per cent deserve and why should they be limited to 82 per cent.

Istanbul is a city and hosts 14 million people with plenty of industry and economic activity to support them and much of the economy. Two hundred thousand people can easily fit in the 18 per cent of Cyprus and have room to spare. That many lived there before 1974 and were getting on just fine.

Kifeas puts forth a simple and intelligent proposal, that the area is first proportional to population, and secondly it limits the number of GCs that will have a legitimate reason to live there without resorting to artifical limitations. It is a way to avoid most if not all of the properties issue.

Does it tackle all the farming issues?? How about Tourism??

This is not just about living space but of commercial space. We are not a race of Billionaires to have a playground for the rich like Monaco for example. We do not want to be just a reserve where the tourist come to buy our locally produced arts and crafts...We need to be commercially viable not just rent an apartment from you in our own country.

Zan, Malta, the homeland of 400,000 Maltese, has an area equal to less than 4% of Cyprus territory, yet it is a viable and sustainable country with a per capita GDP almost equal to that of the RoC.

With an area percentage equal to that of the TC population's percentage, the TCs will have exactly the same number of citizens per square kilometre of land, for both tourism and farming development, as the GCs will have! What you should be looking at, is the number of people per square kilometre!

Which still begs the question of why you should want such a large portion of it. Malta is ONE country..Cyprus would be two with the TCs marginalised and forgotten in 18% of not so good beaches.

[Kikapu]

"stop this nonsensical idea that that because the TC people are 18% that is all they deserve"

which automatically raises the question of what ALL the other communities that make up the 82 per cent deserve and why should they be limited to 82 per cent.

Istanbul is a city and hosts 14 million people with plenty of industry and economic activity to support them and much of the economy. Two hundred thousand people can easily fit in the 18 per cent of Cyprus and have room to spare. That many lived there before 1974 and were getting on just fine.

Kifeas puts forth a simple and intelligent proposal, that the area is first proportional to population, and secondly it limits the number of GCs that will have a legitimate reason to live there without resorting to artifical limitations. It is a way to avoid most if not all of the properties issue.

Does it tackle all the farming issues?? How about Tourism??

This is not just about living space but of commercial space. We are not a race of Billionaires to have a playground for the rich like Monaco for example. We do not want to be just a reserve where the tourist come to buy our locally produced arts and crafts...We need to be commercially viable not just rent an apartment from you in our own country.

This is all the reason to have a open and free True Federation where the size of the north can pretty much remain as it is now, but you cannot exclude the GC's from living and exercising their democratic, political and Human Rights from having the same rights as the TC's there. The same in the south of course. Anything else, then you will run up against the EU's "Wall of Laws" as well an OXI from the GC's. But the 18% with fewer GC's might get the OK from the GC's and there will be too few GC's to even make a dent politically in the north, so that the EU's laws are not violated. Of course, this too will be based on a True Federation and a strong central government, and no Confederation what so ever. If Confederation is going to be "order of the day", then once again, partition on 82%-18% will be more desirable than further problems of conflict down the road, because you know it will be coming, so waste time and blood.

The EU seem to be doing fine with the Veto and the non voting rights of settlers so why not in Cyprus.


What do you mean by desirable??? 18% is desirable only to GCs and not to common sense and commercial viability.

Conflict will come only from those that are only after the oppression of TCs. Nothing to do with what is achievable with common sense. You seem to be happy with oppression rather than common sense.

Well Zan, what did you think it was going to happen after a Unitary state ended, that the "virgin birth" was going to establish two new states with the lines drawn from 1974 and all the "goodies" provided for the TC's in the Annan Plan.? Actually, that was a rhetorical question. There wouldn't even be any discussions taking place for a settlement now, if it wasn't for the fact that Cyprus is in the EU and that's where Turkey wants to go. There even be any crossings open. The idea that the Cyprus problem was solved in 1974, is no longer the case. I know we had 30+ years of "make believes" that the north was ours to keep from then on, but the rules have changed since 2004 I'm afraid. It is time for a more realistic "make believes" to take place, because the old one has not gotten us anywhere. We are not going to be allowed to prosper on others land at the expense of others. I can't make it any simpler than that.

[Kikapu]

"stop this nonsensical idea that that because the TC people are 18% that is all they deserve"

which automatically raises the question of what ALL the other communities that make up the 82 per cent deserve and why should they be limited to 82 per cent.

Istanbul is a city and hosts 14 million people with plenty of industry and economic activity to support them and much of the economy. Two hundred thousand people can easily fit in the 18 per cent of Cyprus and have room to spare. That many lived there before 1974 and were getting on just fine.

Kifeas puts forth a simple and intelligent proposal, that the area is first proportional to population, and secondly it limits the number of GCs that will have a legitimate reason to live there without resorting to artifical limitations. It is a way to avoid most if not all of the properties issue.

Does it tackle all the farming issues?? How about Tourism??

This is not just about living space but of commercial space. We are not a race of Billionaires to have a playground for the rich like Monaco for example. We do not want to be just a reserve where the tourist come to buy our locally produced arts and crafts...We need to be commercially viable not just rent an apartment from you in our own country.

Zan, Malta, the homeland of 400,000 Maltese, has an area equal to less than 4% of Cyprus territory, yet it is a viable and sustainable country with a per capita GDP almost equal to that of the RoC.

With an area percentage equal to that of the TC population's percentage, the TCs will have exactly the same number of citizens per square kilometre of land, for both tourism and farming development, as the GCs will have! What you should be looking at, is the number of people per square kilometre!

Which still begs the question of why you should want such a large portion of it. Malta is ONE country..Cyprus would be two with the TCs marginalised and forgotten in 18% of not so good beaches.

California has more land, more people and bigger economy than Vermont. So what.? Vermont citizens are not poor and does not have a lower standards of living. In fact, they might even have it better than us in California.

Size is not the determining factor, but what it is that you do with what you have.!!

Actually, someone said that to me very recently.!

[zan]

"stop this nonsensical idea that that because the TC people are 18% that is all they deserve"

which automatically raises the question of what ALL the other communities that make up the 82 per cent deserve and why should they be limited to 82 per cent.

Istanbul is a city and hosts 14 million people with plenty of industry and economic activity to support them and much of the economy. Two hundred thousand people can easily fit in the 18 per cent of Cyprus and have room to spare. That many lived there before 1974 and were getting on just fine.

Kifeas puts forth a simple and intelligent proposal, that the area is first proportional to population, and secondly it limits the number of GCs that will have a legitimate reason to live there without resorting to artifical limitations. It is a way to avoid most if not all of the properties issue.

Does it tackle all the farming issues?? How about Tourism??

This is not just about living space but of commercial space. We are not a race of Billionaires to have a playground for the rich like Monaco for example. We do not want to be just a reserve where the tourist come to buy our locally produced arts and crafts...We need to be commercially viable not just rent an apartment from you in our own country.

This is all the reason to have a open and free True Federation where the size of the north can pretty much remain as it is now, but you cannot exclude the GC's from living and exercising their democratic, political and Human Rights from having the same rights as the TC's there. The same in the south of course. Anything else, then you will run up against the EU's "Wall of Laws" as well an OXI from the GC's. But the 18% with fewer GC's might get the OK from the GC's and there will be too few GC's to even make a dent politically in the north, so that the EU's laws are not violated. Of course, this too will be based on a True Federation and a strong central government, and no Confederation what so ever. If Confederation is going to be "order of the day", then once again, partition on 82%-18% will be more desirable than further problems of conflict down the road, because you know it will be coming, so waste time and blood.

The EU seem to be doing fine with the Veto and the non voting rights of settlers so why not in Cyprus.


What do you mean by desirable??? 18% is desirable only to GCs and not to common sense and commercial viability.

Conflict will come only from those that are only after the oppression of TCs. Nothing to do with what is achievable with common sense. You seem to be happy with oppression rather than common sense.

Well Zan, what did you think it was going to happen after a Unitary state ended, that the "virgin birth" was going to establish two new states with the lines drawn from 1974 and all the "goodies" provided for the TC's in the Annan Plan.? Actually, that was a rhetorical question. There wouldn't even be any discussions taking place for a settlement now, if it wasn't for the fact that Cyprus is in the EU and that's where Turkey wants to go. There even be any crossings open. The idea that the Cyprus problem was solved in 1974, is no longer the case. I know we had 30+ years of "make believes" that the north was ours to keep from then on, but the rules have changed since 2004 I'm afraid. It is time for a more realistic "make believes" to take place, because the old one has not gotten us anywhere. We are not going to be allowed to prosper on others land at the expense of others. I can't make it any simpler than that.

That cuts both way and is not accurate...which would mean a return to the question of how many TCs would have left the island if things would have been different. We need a more realistic approach than just he numbers of today....Simple!!!

[Kifeas]

Kifeas,

We are the only case where federation was defined a priori to be Bizonal and Bicommunal, implying separation along geographic and ethnic lines. The duality is absent from other federations. It was clear to me from day one of this idea, back in the 70s that it would be nothing more than a way of introducing a civilised form of partition. The Annan plan with its controlled residence proportions and property settlement confirmed it.

Now if we are talking American style federation, that is a whole different thing. So is the Swiss system and others. The similarities are very few between those and BBF.

I neither like nor approve of BBF. I just state its nature as they are serving it to us. There are people, in the media and on this forum, who are letting the naive suppose that BBF is something like the American system. To quote a Greek proverb, "alli mou deixes kai alli mou mpixes" the one you showed me is not the one you stuck me with, it seems to fit the situation.

Nikitas, you are wrong in your above claims! There has never been an "a priori" assumption that a BBF implies separation along geographic and ethnic lines! This is the TC and Turkish claim, which has never been accepted, neither by us, nor the UN in their resolutions! What has been accepted by us and the UN /international community, is that the two zones must have a population majority from each of the two communities respectively. The respective running of each of the states by each of the communities will be assumed by virtue of majority population, and not by virtue of separate and exclusively ethnic ownership of the state's territory. If that would have been the case, then there would be no reason to mention the need to have alternating community based majorities in the two sates. The question that therefore needs be addressed is how one achieves or secures population majority of each community in "their" respective zones, and not whether the members of one community should or should not have political rights within the zone which the other community will be running because of majority presence. Furthermore, the next question that needs to be addressed is by how much (by what percentage) this majority should be sufficient.

The critical test in all the above is what percentage of territory each state should have, including what percentage of the most expensive and viable area of Cyprus -the coastlines- each state will extent to. If for example the TCs demand that "their" state will cover 30% of Cyprus, that percentage is more than 1.5 times their population ratio, therefore they should be prepared to accept that at least 1/3 or 33% of the Cypriot citizens and permanent residents of the state (with full civil /political rights) may naturally come from the GC community. Furthermore, if the TC state will run along 50% of the coastline, thus increasing its territorial value to a much higher rate than the mere 30% of its territory in square kilometres, then the proportion of GCs that should potentially have the right to become permanent residents of the (“TC”) state should increase further up and come close to 40% of the total population of that state.

If on the other hand, the TCs can only “afford” or “accept” that no more than 20% of “their” state’s population may originate from the GC community, then they should realise that such a state’s territory cannot be larger than 23-24% of the island’s territory, including a coastline extension below 30% of the total coastline of Cyprus.

In all cases, any (Cypriot national) permanent resident in anyone of the two states, should enjoy full human, cultural and civil rights, including the right to suffrage, from within the state of his /her permanent residence, irrespective of his ethnic or cultural origin or background.

[zan]

"stop this nonsensical idea that that because the TC people are 18% that is all they deserve"

which automatically raises the question of what ALL the other communities that make up the 82 per cent deserve and why should they be limited to 82 per cent.

Istanbul is a city and hosts 14 million people with plenty of industry and economic activity to support them and much of the economy. Two hundred thousand people can easily fit in the 18 per cent of Cyprus and have room to spare. That many lived there before 1974 and were getting on just fine.

Kifeas puts forth a simple and intelligent proposal, that the area is first proportional to population, and secondly it limits the number of GCs that will have a legitimate reason to live there without resorting to artifical limitations. It is a way to avoid most if not all of the properties issue.

Does it tackle all the farming issues?? How about Tourism??

This is not just about living space but of commercial space. We are not a race of Billionaires to have a playground for the rich like Monaco for example. We do not want to be just a reserve where the tourist come to buy our locally produced arts and crafts...We need to be commercially viable not just rent an apartment from you in our own country.

Zan, Malta, the homeland of 400,000 Maltese, has an area equal to less than 4% of Cyprus territory, yet it is a viable and sustainable country with a per capita GDP almost equal to that of the RoC.

With an area percentage equal to that of the TC population's percentage, the TCs will have exactly the same number of citizens per square kilometre of land, for both tourism and farming development, as the GCs will have! What you should be looking at, is the number of people per square kilometre!

Which still begs the question of why you should want such a large portion of it. Malta is ONE country..Cyprus would be two with the TCs marginalised and forgotten in 18% of not so good beaches.

California has more land, more people and bigger economy than Vermont. So what.? Vermont citizens are not poor and does not have a lower standards of living. In fact, they might even have it better than us in California.

Size is not the determining factor, but what it is that you do with what you have.!!

Actually, someone said that to me very recently.!

See!!! I told you your wee easily lead!!!

[bill cobbett]

Kifeas,

We are the only case where federation was defined a priori to be Bizonal and Bicommunal, implying separation along geographic and ethnic lines. The duality is absent from other federations. It was clear to me from day one of this idea, back in the 70s that it would be nothing more than a way of introducing a civilised form of partition. The Annan plan with its controlled residence proportions and property settlement confirmed it.

Now if we are talking American style federation, that is a whole different thing. So is the Swiss system and others. The similarities are very few between those and BBF.

I neither like nor approve of BBF. I just state its nature as they are serving it to us. There are people, in the media and on this forum, who are letting the naive suppose that BBF is something like the American system. To quote a Greek proverb, "alli mou deixes kai alli mou mpixes" the one you showed me is not the one you stuck me with, it seems to fit the situation.

Nikitas, you are wrong in your above claims! There has never been an "a priori" assumption that a BBF implies separation along geographic and ethnic lines! This is the TC and Turkish claim, which has never been accepted, neither by us, nor the UN in their resolutions! What has been accepted by us and the UN /international community, is that the two zones must have a population majority from each of the two communities respectively. The respective running of each of the states by each of the communities will be assumed by virtue of majority population, and not by virtue of separate and exclusively ethnic ownership of the state's territory. If that would have been the case, then there would be no reason to mention the need to have alternating community based majorities in the two sates. The question that therefore needs be addressed is how one achieves or secures population majority of each community in "their" respective zones, and not whether the members of one community should or should not have political rights within the zone which the other community will be running because of majority presence. Furthermore, the next question that needs to be addressed is by how much (by what percentage) this majority should be sufficient.

The critical test in all the above is what percentage of territory each state should have, including what percentage of the most expensive and viable area of Cyprus -the coastlines- each state will extent to. If for example the TCs demand that "their" state will cover 30% of Cyprus, that percentage is more than 1.5 times their population ratio, therefore they should be prepared to accept that at least 1/3 or 33% of the Cypriot citizens and permanent residents of the state (with full civil /political rights) may naturally come from the GC community. Furthermore, if the TC state will run along 50% of the coastline, thus increasing its territorial value to a much higher rate than the mere 30% of its territory in square kilometres, then the proportion of GCs that should potentially have the right to become permanent residents of the (“TC”) state should increase further up and come close to 40% of the total population of that state.

If on the other hand, the TCs can only “afford” or “accept” that no more than 20% of “their” state’s population may originate from the GC community, then they should realise that such a state’s territory cannot be larger than 23-24% of the island’s territory, including a coastline extension below 30% of the total coastline of Cyprus.

In all cases, any (Cypriot national) permanent resident in anyone of the two states, should enjoy full human, cultural and civil rights, including the right to suffrage, from within the state of his /her permanent residence, irrespective of his ethnic or cultural origin or background.

Yes, just gone through some UN resolutions and the Kali "plan" Overall Framework Agreement on Cyprus (1992) and oh boy have I got a headache! I cannot find references to populations seperated along ethnic lines in these documents.

All EU citizens, irrespective of nationality or citizenship, resident in CY has and would continue to have the same rights as CY citizens including the vote. We're all Europeans now, well almost all of us, whether we like the idea or not.