Cyprus-Forum.com

[erolz3]

Erol, the above remark was part of an answer given to VP, who thought of trying to "frighten" the GCs that some TCs will be "double dipping" by taking back their properties in the south (in the present circumstances) as well as selling at the same time GC "exchanged" land to foreigners in the north.

OK but the point I was trying to make is that this is a complex situation and that taking black and white views of it does not really help.

Even the 'double dipping' senrio is far from as simple as it might appear. Certainly if you take a TC who gained exchange land after signing over his rights to their land in the South to the TRNC, sells their 'exchange' land in the North and then goes and tries to reclaim the land in the South they assigned to the TRNC, the moral and ethical issues with that are clear but.

However if you take the issue of a TC with exchange land in the north who signed over their land in the south to the TRNC and still lives in the exchange land. If they were to now believe that the land they exchange in the sotuh with the TRNC was no longer 'safe' and that the exchange deal they had with the TRNC was invalid and were to pursue return or compensation for their sout land and its use from 74 onwards, as a means of hedging against any such claims against them re thier use of land in the North, the ethical and moral implications of such behaviour are much less clear.

Futher if one accepts that a TC in such a situtation could or even should be able to pursue their rights to their land in the south, based on a reality that the exhcange they made with the TRNC is invalid and offers no real protection, then in reality the same should also be true of non cypriots who brought land in the North from TC in such a senario.

Someone somewhere has the rights to TC land in the south (and to rent for its use without their permission), even if the pre 74 TC owner took exchange land in the north and sold it to a non cypriot and it is far from clear who that person is. The TRNC state? The non Cypriot they sold their exchange land to ? The pre 74 TC owner ?

My point remains that the whole issue is not simple, not even black and white in moral or ethical terms, let alone legal in many of its aspects and viewing it or presenting it as such does not in my opinion help us find a fair and balanced settlement.

[erolz3]

Isn't one of the implications of the ECJ decision that the rights of the pre-1974 owners are paramount? Indeed, isn't Christofias compelled to use the ECJ ruling as the basis for discussions of the property issue in talks with Talat? I really don't see a way round this for the Turkish side. If they don't accept it then the talks will certainly fail with all the repercussions for the T/C economy, the threat to Turkish assets throughout Europe and the collapse of Turkey's EU ambitions.

I see no reason why the ECJ ruling about if a RoC ruling under the present conditions that exist relating to property in the North can be enforced by UK courts precludes CYpriots negotiating a comprehensive settlement on any number of basis ?

Certainly I can see how it can be used in 'negotiating' that settlement, along the lines of 'these are the consequences if agreement isnt reached' but I do not really see how it defines in an absolute way what the parameters of such a settlment have to be.

The ruling is not about who's rights are 'paramount' in terms of current users and pre 74 owners as far as I can see and certainly not in the context of a settlement? THe ruling was about enfocment in EU states other than RoC that made orignal ruling.

Certainly with any agreement there will always be the potnetial that any indivdual could challenge the legality of such an agreement after it is made in various courts and those courts may or may not deem the agreement made as valid or not. However this was always the case and always will be as far as I can see and I do not see the ECJ ruling as really changing this in any material way ?

[polis]

My point remains that the whole issue is not simple, not even black and white in moral or ethical terms, let alone legal in many of its aspects and viewing it or presenting it as such does not in my opinion help us find a fair and balanced settlement.

Actually, I thought the point was quite simple. Turkish Cypriots claimed land in the occupied North robbed off the Greek Cypriots, in exchange for land they gave up in the free South, but it didn't quite work out.

[erolz3]

Yes, but there must be some pre-agreed comprehensive rules and guidelines as to how each case will be judged on its merits, otherwise there will be a chaos.

Certainly there should and I have suggested in the past my own thoughts on what the principles of determing what happens in indvdual cases should be and what weights each aspect should have. What I 'oppose' is the starting premise that in all or near all cases pre 74 owners wishes should overide those of current users if and when there is a conflict of wants between the two regardless of any merits of the indivdual case.

[Viewpoint]

The GC side does not propose a comprehensive and direct “piecemeal” approach, because such will indeed create a chaos. The GC side is proposing an indirect “piecemeal” approach, within pre-agreed rules, guidelines and parameters as to which cases the GC (or TC) owner has the first saying /option, and in which cases (and for what amount of land) the user (and which type of user) has the first saying/option; provided there is adequate and pre-agreed compensation to be paid, either directly or via a property exchange fund.

The essential difference between what the GC side maintains and what the TC side does, is that the general rule will be that all properties are returned back to their legal (initial) owners, and the rights of current users (and which users) will be the exception to the rule; whereas the TC side maintains the exact opposite, i.e. that as a rule the users (all users) will keep the properties, and the exception will be the return of land to their legal owners.

Isn't one of the implications of the ECJ decision that the rights of the pre-1974 owners are paramount? Indeed, isn't Christofias compelled to use the ECJ ruling as the basis for discussions of the property issue in talks with Talat? I really don't see a way round this for the Turkish side. If they don't accept it then the talks will certainly fail with all the repercussions for the T/C economy, the threat to Turkish assets throughout Europe and the collapse of Turkey's EU ambitions.

The property issue has now become even more entrenched and being part of the bigger package has now jepardized the whole negotiaitons process....clearly once again showng the goodwill of the GCs.

Whereas by massively cementing GC properties after 2003, you have tried to show your "goodwill" by making the property issue less entrenched and the overall solution more easy!

When you restrict an economy due to embargoes and isolation the growth will take shape in any way it can, insisting on our isolation and lack of a solution has been why development took shape in this manner, you really have to ask yourselves why you will not allow natural economical growth in the north, would be something to do with squeezing us into submission?

[Kikapu]

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch"

Erolz, just out of curiosity, did you vote in the recent elections in the north, or yet still, have you ever voted in any democratic elections.??

If your assumption or implication is that someone who says such a quote or uses it must not beleive in democray at all, then I suggest that you look at WHO the quote is from. Do you think that Benjamin Franklin was 'anti' democracy because he said such ?

I suggest you consider why such a champion of democracy as Benjamin Franklin would say such a thing. What was he getting at in sayiong such ? That democracy is bad ? Or perhaps he was trying to highlight the limits and weaknesses of democracy in its purest form of one person one vote exactly because he was such a believer in it ?

Well, lets step back into Benjamin Franklin's time and look what he meant by the above quote and see if it really relates to today, but you are using the quote all the same, despite I assume, you also take part in a democratic voting system today.

For one thing, the so called Democracy at the time of the formation of the USA by it's founding fathers, which Franklin was one of the four, blacks were still slaves and had no voting rights, some of the founding fathers were in fact slave owners, women could not vote, in fact most men could not vote either no matter what the colour of their skin were. So, who were these so called supporters of Democracy at Franklin's time? Well, non other than white men who were land and property owners, and since slaves were treated as property, their owners also were the voting privileged. So yes, I accept the quote in what Benjamin Franklin said, because it was very fitting at that time, where Democracy was only exercised by white men with land and property. Do you really believe that those same conditions apply today.? You are little bit out of date, aren't you, Erolz.?

[Kifeas]

Yes, but there must be some pre-agreed comprehensive rules and guidelines as to how each case will be judged on its merits, otherwise there will be a chaos.

Certainly there should and I have suggested in the past my own thoughts on what the principles of determing what happens in indvdual cases should be and what weights each aspect should have. What I 'oppose' is the starting premise that in all or near all cases pre 74 owners wishes should overide those of current users if and when there is a conflict of wants between the two regardless of any merits of the indivdual case.

No, this does not reflect what the GC side suggests. There must be guidelines that should define when and where the needs of current users (and which types of current users) will take precedence over the rights of the owners.

[Viewpoint]

The property issue has now become even more entrenched and being part of the bigger package has now jepardized the whole negotiaitons process....clearly once again showng the goodwill of the GCs.

I agree that a settlement is more difficult now - at least on the terms on which the T/Cs wanted. But that was never a realistic option. This latest judgement has reaffirmed the European context in which a proposed solution must operate. Something that is crucial for Greek Cypriots as EU citizens and which the reviled Annan plan conveniently overlooked. Indeed, I don't see how it could be any other way.

TCs accepted and came to terms that they will return property, the Guzelyurt region being the best example of this by voting to return this land although they were to become refugees for the 3rd time but what GCs have not come to terms with is that some will have to accept market value compensation or alternative land options in the south as there will be disputes that can only be resolved in this way.

[erolz3]

Actually, I thought the point was quite simple. Turkish Cypriots claimed land in the occupied North robbed off the Greek Cypriots, in exchange for land they gave up in the free South, but it didn't quite work out.

Well I think you pretty much reinforce the point I was trying to make.

Namely that such simplistic black and white analysis of the situation from a perspective of 'your side is all wrong' and 'our side has done nothing wrong' , do not in reality help us solve what is a highly complex situation where neither side can claim total innocence or guilt for its current existance.

So thank you.

[Kifeas]

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch"

Erolz, just out of curiosity, did you vote in the recent elections in the north, or yet still, have you ever voted in any democratic elections.??

If your assumption or implication is that someone who says such a quote or uses it must not beleive in democray at all, then I suggest that you look at WHO the quote is from. Do you think that Benjamin Franklin was 'anti' democracy because he said such ?

I suggest you consider why such a champion of democracy as Benjamin Franklin would say such a thing. What was he getting at in sayiong such ? That democracy is bad ? Or perhaps he was trying to highlight the limits and weaknesses of democracy in its purest form of one person one vote exactly because he was such a believer in it ?

Well, lets step back into Benjamin Franklin's time and look what he meant by the above quote and see if it really relates to today, but you are using the quote all the same, despite I assume, you also take part in a democratic voting system today.

For one thing, the so called Democracy at the time of the formation of the USA by it's founding fathers, which Franklin was one of the four, blacks were still slaves and had no voting rights, some of the founding fathers were in fact slave owners, women could not vote, in fact most men could not vote either no matter what the colour of their skin were. So, who were these so called supporters of Democracy at Franklin's time? Well, non other than white men who were land and property owners, and since slaves were treated as property, their owners also were the voting privileged. So yes, I accept the quote in what Benjamin Franklin said, because it was very fitting at that time, where Democracy was only exercised by white men with land and property. Do you really believe that those same conditions apply today.? You are little bit out of date, aren't you, Erolz.?

Democracy is what has allowed Obama -a member of a less than 15% Afro-American minority that not too long ago used to be the slaves of the majority, to become the president of the US.