Cyprus-Forum.com

[Kikapu]

Isn't this a strange list?

Ap Andreas, Ap Barnabas and Salamina? Hardly great centres of population.

sentimental and religious value for the GC's.

Fair enough mate but would have been nice to see Lapithos, Morphou etc etc in this list.

This is from page one on this thread.

The areas included in the return amongst others are Salamina, Apostolos Andreas and Apostolos Barnabas.

[bill cobbett]

The numbers are important cos the totals are made up of individuals, each and every single one with individual property and other rights.

The numbers only matter on how much land comes with them into the south state. For instance, all of the 180,000 GC refugees are in the south now but ZERO of their properties are in the south state. This is the point I was trying to make.

Pres X mate/matess, what was it you were telling us a few weeks ago? Wasn't it that the property rights of all would be respected?

I don't think Christofias has backed away from that statement, Bill. What he said was, if I understood him correctly, that 110,000 GC's would be in the south state (with their land presumably) while the remaining 70,000 GC's will remain in the north state, again, with their land presumably. The 70,000 GC can of course remain in the south state, but their land will remain in the north. It does not mean however that they will lose their land in the north, since they will maintain ownership of their land where ever possible no matter if they choose to live in the north or the south. The same will apply to the TC’s also, of course.!

Mr Pres, do you also remember what the EU has said? Didn't it say No Derogations? That applies to you as well as to our tissy friend Talat.

Again, I don't think Christofias has backed away from his commitment on the EU derogations, other than what he accepted in the past, that there will be some derogations made on certain issues during the transitional period, how ever long that may be, because we don't know yet.

Hi K

Yes I know that the list, that didn't include the names of some villages, was one that only included the symbolic sites listed.

As to the matter above. I can see that it is a way (perhaps the only way) to square the circle within the northern zone ( I hate this word "state") and my thanks for clearing this up but your interpretation and presumably Pres X's interpretation does leave open a situation where 70,000 gricys could not only live within the northern zone but could form the majority population.

I assume a tissy population of 50-60,000 (?) in this simple calculation and assume that they all stay but must confess am uncertain as to the current tissy population, is anyone? Presumably the illegal "settlers" will make up the numbers to overcome the grissy vote in the northern zone and to have an effectively casting vote? If this is right it's something many would be uncomfortable with and certainly not a match made in heaven.

[Viewpoint]

The numbers are important cos the totals are made up of individuals, each and every single one with individual property and other rights.

The numbers only matter on how much land comes with them into the south state. For instance, all of the 180,000 GC refugees are in the south now but ZERO of their properties are in the south state. This is the point I was trying to make.

Pres X mate/matess, what was it you were telling us a few weeks ago? Wasn't it that the property rights of all would be respected?

I don't think Christofias has backed away from that statement, Bill. What he said was, if I understood him correctly, that 110,000 GC's would be in the south state (with their land presumably) while the remaining 70,000 GC's will remain in the north state, again, with their land presumably. The 70,000 GC can of course remain in the south state, but their land will remain in the north. It does not mean however that they will lose their land in the north, since they will maintain ownership of their land where ever possible no matter if they choose to live in the north or the south. The same will apply to the TC’s also, of course.!

Mr Pres, do you also remember what the EU has said? Didn't it say No Derogations? That applies to you as well as to our tissy friend Talat.

Again, I don't think Christofias has backed away from his commitment on the EU derogations, other than what he accepted in the past, that there will be some derogations made on certain issues during the transitional period, how ever long that may be, because we don't know yet.

Hi K

Yes I know that the list, that didn't include the names of some villages, was one that only included the symbolic sites listed.

As to the matter above. I can see that it is a way (perhaps the only way) to square the circle within the northern zone ( I hate this word "state") and my thanks for clearing this up but your interpretation and presumably Pres X's interpretation does leave open a situation where 70,000 gricys could not only live within the northern zone but could form the majority population.

I assume a tissy population of 50-60,000 (?) in this simple calculation and assume that they all stay but must confess am uncertain as to the current tissy population, is anyone? Presumably the illegal "settlers" will make up the numbers to overcome the grissy vote in the northern zone and to have an effectively casting vote? If this is right it's something many would be uncomfortable with and certainly not a match made in heaven.

Why do you hate the word state?

[bill cobbett]

Why do you hate the word state?

Hi VP

I don't like the idea of a state within a state. A little open to misinterpretation by the mischievous trouble-makers, wouldn't you agree?

Are you uncomfortable with my preference .... "Zone" ?

It is, after all, the one used in the UN Resolutions that refer to bi-ZONAL

Shouldn't we both stick to the agreement - bi-ZONAL?

[Viewpoint]

Why do you hate the word state?

Hi VP

I don't like the idea of a state within a state. A little open to misinterpretation by the mischievous trouble-makers, wouldn't you agree?

Are you uncomfortable with my preference .... "Zone" ?

It is, after all, the one used in the UN Resolutions that refer to bi-ZONAL


Shouldn't we both stick to the agreement - bi-ZONAL?

If you refer back to the declaration by Tay-Brook Zerihoun last September to which the 2 leaders placed their names, it state quite clearly 2 founding states under a BB federal structure.
Shouldnt we stick to this principle and not continually try to deviate?

[bill cobbett]

Why do you hate the word state?

Hi VP

I don't like the idea of a state within a state. A little open to misinterpretation by the mischievous trouble-makers, wouldn't you agree?

Are you uncomfortable with my preference .... "Zone" ?

It is, after all, the one used in the UN Resolutions that refer to bi-ZONAL


Shouldn't we both stick to the agreement - bi-ZONAL?

If you refer back to the declaration by Tay-Brook Zerihoun last September to which the 2 leaders placed their names, it state quite clearly 2 founding states under a BB federal structure.
Shouldnt we stick to this principle and not continually try to deviate?

The talks are bound by the UN parameters. The UN uses the phrase bi-zonal, two ZONES!

Two zones under a single Federation so Zones is expected by the UN, Two Zones it must be and two Zones it will be.

You see VP ... state can so easily become State don't you think? Oh of course, you knew this. What was I thinking?

Zones on the other hand will always be Zones. Mind you there's a lot tone said for titles such as Areas or perhaps Districts? Canton is a nice word I think sometimes but no, The Rest of the World expects Zones and who are we to argue?

[Viewpoint]

Why do you hate the word state?

Hi VP

I don't like the idea of a state within a state. A little open to misinterpretation by the mischievous trouble-makers, wouldn't you agree?

Are you uncomfortable with my preference .... "Zone" ?

It is, after all, the one used in the UN Resolutions that refer to bi-ZONAL


Shouldn't we both stick to the agreement - bi-ZONAL?

If you refer back to the declaration by Tay-Brook Zerihoun last September to which the 2 leaders placed their names, it state quite clearly 2 founding states under a BB federal structure.
Shouldnt we stick to this principle and not continually try to deviate?

The talks are bound by the UN parameters. The UN uses the phrase bi-zonal, two ZONES!

Two zones under a single Federation so Zones is expected by the UN, Two Zones it must be and two Zones it will be.

You see VP ... state can so easily become State don't you think? Oh of course, you knew this. What was I thinking?

Zones on the other hand will always be Zones. Mind you there's a lot tone said for titles such as Areas or perhaps Districts? Canton is a nice word I think sometimes but no, The Rest of the World expects Zones and who are we to argue?

Going by the previous UN plans states have always been put forward and was reconfirmed by Tay Brooke at the outset of these talks, anything less will be rejected by the TCs.

[ARMENIAN CYPRIOT]

Why do you hate the word state?

Hi VP

I don't like the idea of a state within a state. A little open to misinterpretation by the mischievous trouble-makers, wouldn't you agree?

Are you uncomfortable with my preference .... "Zone" ?

It is, after all, the one used in the UN Resolutions that refer to bi-ZONAL


Shouldn't we both stick to the agreement - bi-ZONAL?

If you refer back to the declaration by Tay-Brook Zerihoun last September to which the 2 leaders placed their names, it state quite clearly 2 founding states under a BB federal structure.
Shouldnt we stick to this principle and not continually try to deviate?

The talks are bound by the UN parameters. The UN uses the phrase bi-zonal, two ZONES!

Two zones under a single Federation so Zones is expected by the UN, Two Zones it must be and two Zones it will be.

You see VP ... state can so easily become State don't you think? Oh of course, you knew this. What was I thinking?

Zones on the other hand will always be Zones. Mind you there's a lot tone said for titles such as Areas or perhaps Districts? Canton is a nice word I think sometimes but no, The Rest of the World expects Zones and who are we to argue?

Going by the previous UN plans states have always been put forward and was reconfirmed by Tay Brooke at the outset of these talks, anything less will be rejected by the TCs.

Yes and anything more then 20 percent of land for the TCs will be rejected by the people of the ROC.

[bill cobbett]

Why do you hate the word state?

Hi VP

I don't like the idea of a state within a state. A little open to misinterpretation by the mischievous trouble-makers, wouldn't you agree?

Are you uncomfortable with my preference .... "Zone" ?

It is, after all, the one used in the UN Resolutions that refer to bi-ZONAL


Shouldn't we both stick to the agreement - bi-ZONAL?

If you refer back to the declaration by Tay-Brook Zerihoun last September to which the 2 leaders placed their names, it state quite clearly 2 founding states under a BB federal structure.
Shouldnt we stick to this principle and not continually try to deviate?

The talks are bound by the UN parameters. The UN uses the phrase bi-zonal, two ZONES!

Two zones under a single Federation so Zones is expected by the UN, Two Zones it must be and two Zones it will be.

You see VP ... state can so easily become State don't you think? Oh of course, you knew this. What was I thinking?

Zones on the other hand will always be Zones. Mind you there's a lot tone said for titles such as Areas or perhaps Districts? Canton is a nice word I think sometimes but no, The Rest of the World expects Zones and who are we to argue?

Going by the previous UN plans states have always been put forward and was reconfirmed by Tay Brooke at the outset of these talks, anything less will be rejected by the TCs.

To this let me say that very few would care about what is or isn't acceptable to the Majority Illegal Settlers in any "vote" in the Occupied Zone.

It is also worth bearing in mind that, when in a negotiation, it is the final wording that is important. The final agreement is the only thing that matters. The path to that settlement, the fine speeches, the press reports, the stories in the media of progress or otherwise are not terribly relevent and without the wording in a final agreement nothing that transpired or was revealed before means anything.

So it's zones, and if some partitionists see the danger of this small, uncapitalised word as destroying their wet-dreams of the past some fifty years.... All that remains to be said is ... Tough!

[Viewpoint]

Why do you hate the word state?

Hi VP

I don't like the idea of a state within a state. A little open to misinterpretation by the mischievous trouble-makers, wouldn't you agree?

Are you uncomfortable with my preference .... "Zone" ?

It is, after all, the one used in the UN Resolutions that refer to bi-ZONAL


Shouldn't we both stick to the agreement - bi-ZONAL?

If you refer back to the declaration by Tay-Brook Zerihoun last September to which the 2 leaders placed their names, it state quite clearly 2 founding states under a BB federal structure.
Shouldnt we stick to this principle and not continually try to deviate?

The talks are bound by the UN parameters. The UN uses the phrase bi-zonal, two ZONES!

Two zones under a single Federation so Zones is expected by the UN, Two Zones it must be and two Zones it will be.

You see VP ... state can so easily become State don't you think? Oh of course, you knew this. What was I thinking?

Zones on the other hand will always be Zones. Mind you there's a lot tone said for titles such as Areas or perhaps Districts? Canton is a nice word I think sometimes but no, The Rest of the World expects Zones and who are we to argue?

Going by the previous UN plans states have always been put forward and was reconfirmed by Tay Brooke at the outset of these talks, anything less will be rejected by the TCs.

To this let me say that very few would care about what is or isn't acceptable to the Majority Illegal Settlers in any "vote" in the Occupied Zone.

It is also worth bearing in mind that, when in a negotiation, it is the final wording that is important. The final agreement is the only thing that matters. The path to that settlement, the fine speeches, the press reports, the stories in the media of progress or otherwise are not terribly relevent and without the wording in a final agreement nothing that transpired or was revealed before means anything.

So it's zones, and if some partitionists see the danger of this small, uncapitalised word as destroying their wet-dreams of the past some fifty years.... All that remains to be said is ... Tough!

You conveniently forget that we represent 50% of the say in any new agreement and without our backing you have no deal...so you should review your attitude as we to not only the GCs have to be persuaded to back a new plan and with the omission of 2 states you will not get the TC backing without which you are back to sqaure one. You belittle and underestimate the TCs but you did the same in 1963 to 1974 and look what happened there.