Cyprus-Forum.com

[Harry]

Excuse me for the incorrect spelling, he's an ILLEGITIMATE leader. (Talat)

[turkcyp]

deleted by the author...

[MicAtCyp]

Maybe it is but people who want the kidnapping to end often do pay the ransom.

Thanks, but no thanks we will not pay ransom.

The sale of such properties is illegal under RoC law. It is legal under TRNC law. It is not illegal under any other countries laws - for example there is no law in the UK that makes such sales illegal. Maybe there should be but there is not.

You must be joking right? Are you telling me that in the UK anyone can sell someone elses property??? Or perhaps you mean the UK law does not have juristiction outside the UK? If it's the latter then no problem, we have the EU law which superseeds that of UK.....I know it is "legal" under "rnc law" you seem to forget however that " trnc" itself is an illegal occupation regime.

If only this was the way the world worked. If only all illegal (and bad) acts eventualy had to be paid for by the perpetrators. History clearly shows otherwise. This kind of statment is a stament of desire, not a statment of fact or 'truth'.

Erol you must forget about the middle ages.Now we are in the 21st century.The same illegal acts were done in ex East Germany and 70 years later the situation today is reversed. I repeat:
The properties of the GCs WERE-ARE-AND WILL ALWAYS BE THEIRS. And they are returnable upto the last inch.

If direct flights were authorised by the RoC then they could just as qucikly be unautherised by them.

Sorry Erol, we are not that damn to buy the American idiocity.Once those flights are permitted the game is over....

None us can see the future, we only think we can. Howver the above is based on the false premis (imo) that the authorites here have created and promoted and encouraged this latest boom in the North.

I will answer to only the first part as it seems you confused my arguments with those of kifeas. It's not a matter of fortune telling.The economic future of these acts is as foreseeable as is the spending of ones savings without working.Please tell me honestly can’t you see what is going to happen?

If you ignore ownership of the land (just for a moment) then what is happeneing here is no different to what has laready happened and continues to happen in the south and just about anywhere else that is 'attractive' to foreign property buyers.

I agree the same thing is currently happening in the free areas too.But at least they sell their own properties not the properties of someone elses. And whatever consequences that will bring it is upto those villagers who sell their seaside properties to counter, especially when their children will grow up and they will need to buy land to build houses of their own.
However if you mean the economic recession those sales would have to RoC economy once they start declining I would say these sales ARE NOT our primary source of economic activity. So yes they will have an impact but not a catastrophic one.In other words we will not be looking around to find something else to do to ensure our incomes. Howeve as I said, I foresee that the effect in the occupied areas will be catastrophic.

If a TC who lost land in the south after 74 and gained land in the north sells this land to someone else then of course they loose any right to reclaim their porperty in the south. I do not think there is a TC selling land in the north that realy believes thay can do so and claim back their land in the south as well. As far as most TC are concerened they have already lost their property in the south and have moved on

Erol do I have to repeat once again that the TCs left behind area-wise 1/3rd of the property they got, and 1/20th value-wise? It is very easy to assume they got even and they moved on.There will be a time that the accounts will need to be settled and then you will see who will start losing his sleep at night.

What we are asking for is what we were promised - and end to our economic isolation. In the absesne of that we will inevitably and inexorable look for any aveneues we can to grow economicaly. Your view is at odds with the rest of the world current position as I see it. They accept that it is not fair or condusctive to a solution in the future for us to be held economicaly held hostage by the south. I understand you are not happy with this appraoch but it is a direct consequence of your no vote in the referendum - no matter how unfair that might be.

Well I think you already realised that they simply fooled you into beleiving promises that were not upto them to give on the first place.Second you seem to beleive to verbal rhetorics forgeting the previous verbal rhetorics about the Turkish army leaving and the GC refugees returning to their homes the same people were selling to us.

Our political status was in limbo well before the events of 74. Our poltical status being in limbo was not caused by the events of 74, but rather the events of 74 were caused by our polticial status being in limbo.

Today fully your fault, back then partly your fault.So whats your point? I raised this point trying to tell you that you have to advance economically through the legal state, and this will no way affect your already in limbo political status.

I am struggling to try and pin point the exact date when we were free to come and take control of what was rightfully ours under the 1960 consitituion without concession.

You can do this even today.Simply your leadership does not want to.

Cleraly you think I would go on an orgy of wanton spending and in a few years have 'spunked away' all this capital raised and be destitute. I might however decide to take this capital and invest it in a new (or existing) business venture, be they based on property development or any other sector, that if sucsessful would lead to more economic activity and growth.

Oh!!! And I thought those who were actually selling their properties were doing it to satisfy their basic needs. Silly of me, how did I get that impression? So now you are telling me they are doing it to invest in other bussiness? I hope these other bussiness go well otherwise i see those people losing both "the eggs and the basket".

PS. The last one is a Greek proverb.Don't know if it exists in English.

[erolz]

You must be joking right? Are you telling me that in the UK anyone can sell someone elses property???

No what I am telling you is that there is no law in the UK (or the EU for that matter) that says it is illegal under UK law (or EU law for that matter) for a UK citizen (or EU citizen) to buy property in the TRNC.

Erol you must forget about the middle ages.Now we are in the 21st century.The same illegal acts were done in ex East Germany and 70 years later the situation today is reversed. I repeat:
The properties of the GCs WERE-ARE-AND WILL ALWAYS BE THEIRS. And they are returnable upto the last inch.

I am not talking about the middle ages. I am pointing out the reality of all ages which is that justice is not always served. That many times the guilty suffer no penalty and many times the innocent pay unfair prices. This is what I am telling you, no more and no less. I tell you this in response to the continous assertion from GC that the guilty will always eventualy be punished for their crimes as if it is an imutable law of nature like an apple free of any other force will always fall to the ground. It is not an imutable law of nature. I am sorry to have to force you to confront this reality but it seems necessary to me.

Sorry Erol, we are not that damn to buy the American idiocity.Once those flights are permitted the game is over....

It is not just the US that is talking of the need to end the economic isolation of north Cyprus. It is the US, UK, UN, EU etc etc etc. You may beleive that without this economic weapon there is no chance of achieveing a settlement. I do not think this is so and it would seem that in words at least, if not action yet, much of the rest of the wrold agrees. I do admit however that if the desire is to force TC to accept things as a result of 'force' and not consent then it is a valuable 'weapon' and thus it would seem that your objective is just such a forcing of GC will on TC.

I agree the same thing is currently happening in the free areas too.But at least they sell their own properties not the properties of someone elses.

Yes but you said explicitly

Even supposing it was their own land,

and I responded to that.

And whatever consequences that will bring it is upto those villagers who sell their seaside properties to counter, especially when their children will grow up and they will need to buy land to build houses of their own.
However if you mean the economic recession those sales would have to RoC economy once they start declining I would say these sales ARE NOT our primary source of economic activity. So yes they will have an impact but not a catastrophic one.In other words we will not be looking around to find something else to do to ensure our incomes. Howeve as I said, I foresee that the effect in the occupied areas will be catastrophic.

So a property boom in the North will be catastrophic in the North because it is our primary source of income (which it is not at my best guess - it is certainly the largest sector of growth but not the largest single economic sector in the nort I believe) but was not catastrophic in the South because it was not their 'primary' source of ecoomic activity. It's an argument I guess but just not one I find very convincing I have to say if I am being honest.

Erol do I have to repeat once again that the TCs left behind area-wise 1/3rd of the property they got, and 1/20th value-wise? It is very easy to assume they got even and they moved on.There will be a time that the accounts will need to be settled and then you will see who will start losing his sleep at night.

I am talking about a TC indivdual. You seems to think that every TC got three times as much or 20 times as much as they lost and this is simply not the case for the vast majority of TC indivduals

Well I think you already realised that they simply fooled you into beleiving promises that were not upto them to give on the first place.Second you seem to beleive to verbal rhetorics forgeting the previous verbal rhetorics about the Turkish army leaving and the GC refugees returning to their homes the same people were selling to us.

There has yet to be real action to back up the rehtoric, but I would rather have the rehtoric and absense of action than no rehtoric and no action. I think there will be some action if it is percived by others that GC are unrealistic and maximal and uncompromising in their demands.

Today fully your fault, back then partly your fault.So whats your point? I raised this point trying to tell you that you have to advance economically through the legal state, and this will no way affect your already in limbo political status.

and I tell you that there are many ways to progress economicaly without having to be a 'legal state'. Of course it affect our in limboe status if we submit to accepting the only way we can grow ecomonicaly is to accept the RoC as it is today as the sole and legal governbment of all of Cyprus and all Cypriots. We go from a leagl status in limbo to a status on no limbo but with the same political rights as a community that we had prior to the Turkish action in 74 - namely none of the political rights that were laways ous and taken from us.

You can do this even today.Simply your leadership does not want to.

So you claim. I am not sure what your evidence for the first part of this claim is. As for being reluctant in wanting to return to a situation that historicaly after 3 years led to some of the darkest days in the history of the TC community in Cyprus, that to me is quite understandable. It may be a misplaced fear that it could happen again but an understandable one imo.

Oh!!! And I thought those who were actually selling their properties were doing it to satisfy their basic needs.

I do not know where you got this impression if by basic needs you mean food and clothing and shelter. If by basic needs you mean economic growth for their community then yes this is a motive.

Silly of me, how did I get that impression?

I do not know? Maybe you think that pointing out the fact that we have a significantly lower per capita income and wealth than the south (or rest of EU) is the same as saying we are starving and freezing. It is not the same.

So now you are telling me they are doing it to invest in other bussiness? I hope these other bussiness go well otherwise i see those people losing both "the eggs and the basket".

PS. The last one is a Greek proverb.Don't know if it exists in English.

I am telling you that if I sell or mortgage a property I can just as well use the money realised from this to generate more wealth as to spunk this money up against the wall. You seem to think that the only result of selling property in the north is that we will all spend this money raised in a number of years on either survival or frivoulous living and in a few years be even poorer as indivduals and as a community than before we sold. I just do not see this as the inevitable consequence you seem to think it is or would have me believe it is.

[MicAtCyp]

I am not talking about the middle ages. I am pointing out the reality of all ages which is that justice is not always served.

I do admit however that if the desire is to force TC to accept things as a result of 'force' and not consent then it is a valuable 'weapon' and thus it would seem that your objective is just such a forcing of GC will on TC.

Like you said Erol, justice is not always served .. Using your own words sometimes needs to be enforced

[-mikkie2-]

No what I am telling you is that there is no law in the UK (or the EU for that matter) that says it is illegal under UK law (or EU law for that matter) for a UK citizen (or EU citizen) to buy property in the TRNC.

Erol,

The government in the UK advises people wishing to buy property in northern Cyprus to take legal advice before doing so. What does that mean? That is basically saying that it is ok to buy property that is OWNED by a TC in the north since before 1974, ie that the ownership is legal, and that it perhaps is not OK to buy property that is legally owned by a GC.

Do not misrepresent the laws of the UK. There is obviously no such law precluding people in the UK from buying property in the 'trnc' for the pure and simple reason that the 'trnc' is out of the juristiction of the UK. However, the UK government is obliged to warn potential buyers of property in the north to check the legal status of whatever it is they are buying. And that is what the British government is doing. I suggest you quit peddling BS!

[gabaston]

or it could mean they haven't got a clue either, (whats new huh), and they're passing the buck

[erolz]

Erol,

The government in the UK advises people wishing to buy property in northern Cyprus to take legal advice before doing so. What does that mean?

It means that the UK government advises UK citizens thinking of buying property in North Cyprus to seek legal advise. I would personaly offer and take myslef the same advise on the purchase of any property anywhere.

That is basically saying that it is ok to buy property that is OWNED by a TC in the north since before 1974, ie that the ownership is legal, and that it perhaps is not OK to buy property that is legally owned by a GC.

No it is saying what it says - take legal advise. If the advise of the UK government to UK citizens was to only buy TC owned property prior to 74 then this would be the advise they offer to UK citizens.

Do not misrepresent the laws of the UK.

Where have I done this?

There is obviously no such law precluding people in the UK from buying property in the 'trnc'

Which is exactly the point I made and which you seem to think was a misrepresentation of the laws of the UK when I say it and then you say the same thing yourself?

for the pure and simple reason that the 'trnc' is out of the juristiction of the UK.

Whatever the reason the statement is correct - as you yourself admit.

However, the UK government is obliged to warn potential buyers of property in the north to check the legal status of whatever it is they are buying.

They advise UK buyers to seek legal advise when purchasing property in the North. This is advise that the majority of UK purchasers no doubt take. Still many of them buy houses built on former GC owned land prior to 74. If you do seek such legal advise it would be that 1 - there is no law in the UK prohibiting such a sale. 2 - There are such laws prohibting such a sale in the RoC. The RoC does not currently have effective control of the north (and thus jurisdiction). 3- There is undoubtedly greater risk in buying a property built on former GC land vs former TC or foriegn owned land. There may be liabilites assosciated with such land but what these will be and when they may become liable is uncertain and hard to assess. There is a difference in current market price of properties that carry this risk and those that do not. This differences in prices may be sufficent to meet any future liabilites and it may not. Their is a risk of ultimate loss of such property entirely with no compensation for the foreign buyers but this risk is smaller than the risk of cost liabilites or risk of loss of the property with some form of compensation.

And that is what the British government is doing.

What the British Goverment is doing is advising UK citizens seek legal advise before purchasing property in the North.

I suggest you quit peddling BS!

I am not peddling bullshit. I have pointed out the facts that there is no law in the UK preventing UK cicitzens from purchasing property in the North. Fact.

[-mikkie2-]

Erol,

The government is not telling people to take legal advice in the same way as if they are buying property anywhere else.

If I was planning to buy property in the north, would i go and get 'legal' advice from the solicitors in the north? Being resonably intelligent, I would seek proper legal advice from independent sources. In the case of the Orams for example, they pleaded ignorance in that they thought they were buying legitimate property on the waving of a 'trnc' title deed from the 'legal' owner of the property that happened to be a TC to which the land was kindly donated by Denktash and co. However, if they perhaps investigated a little deeper would they have bought the property if they knew the actualy legal title holder was a Greek Cypriot refugee? I wonder how many people actually know the true ownership of the property they are buying after taking 'proper' legal advice from soclicitors in the north!

Please do not insult my intelligence on this. The British government is being very specific when it says people should take independent legal advice on such matters. It is essentially giving people a warning of the huge risks they are taking.

[erolz]

Please do not insult my intelligence on this. The British government is being very specific when it says people should take independent legal advice on such matters. It is essentially giving people a warning of the huge risks they are taking.

Please do not insult the intelligence of all foreign buyers of property in the North either. The UK government makes no warning of huge risks. Certainly there are risks but how large these risks are is impossible to know with any certainty. What is know is the current 'market' assesment of these risks (which may or may not be accurate) - refelcted in the difference in market price between TC property pre 74 and GC property pre 74 (that was granted to TC by TRNC in return for lost TC property in south). The estate agents I have spoken to put this at about 30-40%.