Eurasia wrote:insan wrote:Eurasia wrote:Very clinical...I see you made no mention of 3rd party nationals in your scheme.It may be funny to you but for many it is not funny or simple.Lands that belong to families for generations are not parted with in such a simple way.
I note that Briton sent an armada to the Falkland to take back a piece of land that had more sheep on it than people.Why?
PEOPLE HAVE A RIGHT to keep what is there's if they have no wish to sell it .THE EUROPEAN COURT MADE THIS CLEAR.
In above case, that i just gave it for an example. Meletis has the right to reject the demand of TC refugee. What's wrong with it? Perhaps some part of properties issue could have been solved through such a properties board for the benefit of refugees in the last 35 years. Wouldn't it be good?
If it is a TC And a GC fine.But the line has to be drawn there.How would you solve the problem if the land belonged to a GC but a settler sold it on?
In an ideal world it would be nice to settle such matters in a just agreed world, but...and it's a big but...This is not the way things are.
If it was a settler that legally gained citizenship of TRNC, the relevant TRNC authorities should negotiate issue with the legal owner. In such a case, a piece of land under possession of Evkaf(State land share of TCs) could be offered to legal owner for exchange. Still the legal owner has the right to accept or reject this offer or demand any other piece of TC land located in South.