The Best Cyprus Community

Skip to content


29% TC State how was it Calculated?

How can we solve it? (keep it civilized)

Postby boomerang » Sat May 02, 2009 12:28 pm

YFred wrote:
boomerang wrote:
YFred wrote:
boomerang wrote:
YFred wrote:
boomerang wrote:
YFred wrote:
Kikapu wrote:
Viewpoint wrote:
Kikapu wrote:
Viewpoint wrote:No deal' this maybe viable if total seperation were being negotiated by if a 2 state BBF solution then no chance.


I'm only going by with your own reasoning, and as soon as your reasoning is shown to have gone out to lunch somewhere, you resort to "blackmailing", because you know very well, that 40% of the GC's refugees will not be coming to the north to live with you when they can have their land to be part of the south state. If there were offers made to have a 2-state partition solution, I doubt the GC’s will offer you more than 10% of total land and that’s with NO TC’s wanting to live in the south as a EU member country, but remain in the north and be part of Asia..! If many TC’s want to remain in the south, your share will be down to 5%.!


Rejected, you dont know what the hell you are talking about and are just pulling numbers out of your arse.


And you get your figures from a "horses mouth" who claimed to have been on the AP negotiations, as if that carries any prestige with me.! :lol:

Are you sure it was his mouth you were getting your figures from and not the other end under his tail.! :lol:

Why am I even asking you this question, as if you can even tell the difference between the two ends, specially of someone who claims to have worked on the AP negotiations. Didn't the fool (horses mouth) realise, that such figures would help get a OXI vote from the GC's. Perhaps he thought no body would notice if he added 2+2 = 5.! :lol:

Kiks, have you any idea how much Christofias has offered in these talks?


You don't get it do you knucklehead?

This ruling has changed the "might is right" policy...

A new dawn for a new era...is what this ruling set knucklehead... :lol:

You see I knew you were kiks all along. You just forgot to switch your user name:lol: :lol: :lol:


might be but you will always be the knucklehead regardless what sign you use... :lol:

There is no might its only in the ter


ok who the hell put a stop to knucklehead's reality check...who?... huh?...... :lol:

Do I have to explain? don't you get it? ol chap


yes knucklehead please go ahead and remind me what your cavity was spewing out prior to the ECJ desicion...please go ahead... :lol:
User avatar
boomerang
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 7337
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 5:56 am

Postby YFred » Sat May 02, 2009 12:31 pm

boomerang wrote:
YFred wrote:
boomerang wrote:
YFred wrote:
boomerang wrote:
YFred wrote:
boomerang wrote:
YFred wrote:
Kikapu wrote:
Viewpoint wrote:
Kikapu wrote:
Viewpoint wrote:No deal' this maybe viable if total seperation were being negotiated by if a 2 state BBF solution then no chance.


I'm only going by with your own reasoning, and as soon as your reasoning is shown to have gone out to lunch somewhere, you resort to "blackmailing", because you know very well, that 40% of the GC's refugees will not be coming to the north to live with you when they can have their land to be part of the south state. If there were offers made to have a 2-state partition solution, I doubt the GC’s will offer you more than 10% of total land and that’s with NO TC’s wanting to live in the south as a EU member country, but remain in the north and be part of Asia..! If many TC’s want to remain in the south, your share will be down to 5%.!


Rejected, you dont know what the hell you are talking about and are just pulling numbers out of your arse.


And you get your figures from a "horses mouth" who claimed to have been on the AP negotiations, as if that carries any prestige with me.! :lol:

Are you sure it was his mouth you were getting your figures from and not the other end under his tail.! :lol:

Why am I even asking you this question, as if you can even tell the difference between the two ends, specially of someone who claims to have worked on the AP negotiations. Didn't the fool (horses mouth) realise, that such figures would help get a OXI vote from the GC's. Perhaps he thought no body would notice if he added 2+2 = 5.! :lol:

Kiks, have you any idea how much Christofias has offered in these talks?


You don't get it do you knucklehead?

This ruling has changed the "might is right" policy...

A new dawn for a new era...is what this ruling set knucklehead... :lol:

You see I knew you were kiks all along. You just forgot to switch your user name:lol: :lol: :lol:


might be but you will always be the knucklehead regardless what sign you use... :lol:

There is no might its only in the ter


ok who the hell put a stop to knucklehead's reality check...who?... huh?...... :lol:

Do I have to explain? don't you get it? ol chap


yes knucklehead please go ahead and remind me what your cavity was spewing out prior to the ECJ desicion...please go ahead... :lol:

%?
User avatar
YFred
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 12100
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2009 1:22 am
Location: Lurucina-Upon-Thames

Postby Nikitas » Sat May 02, 2009 12:34 pm

What perverse understanding of the principle of political equality decress that land and resources are shared on a 50-50 basis?

Can you name ONE instanceof a federal system where this has been tried before? If it had then the little state of Maryland in the USA would have the same size as Wyoming or Texas.

This is pure Turkish land grab. It wont work. Not only must land be apportioned fairly, but so must the coastline.

The one deviation would be if there is a clear understanding, signed by ALL parties that the British bases are on GC territory and when they leave the land will revert in its ENTIRETY to the GC side. Only in this case can the apportionment veer from the 18 per cent since it would be 18 per cent of the island and not the RoC.

As for the comparative value etc, when Turkey invaded land in the north was clearly more valuable than land in the south. The change in value is a direct reflection of the quality of management on each side. Trying to wangle the values is equivalent to punishing one side for being good managers. That wont work either.

And one poster above said that the TCs had no right to sell their land when they emigrated prior to 1960 to anyone but EVKAF. This is total bollocks. Go peddle to to some ignorant people who do not know the legal system of Cyprus under the British. Anyone could sell to anyone. So stop lying!
Nikitas
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 7420
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2007 2:49 pm

Postby YFred » Sat May 02, 2009 12:37 pm

So, you don't know then?
User avatar
YFred
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 12100
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2009 1:22 am
Location: Lurucina-Upon-Thames

Previous

Return to Cyprus Problem

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest