Cyprus-Forum.com

[Bananiot]

Nikitas, what you have described is not just a theoretical excercise but a vein (perhaps frustrating) effort to explain why Charalampous is correct in his assessment. You merely tried to explain, albeit in an irrational manner, that there are solid underlining factors that explain the expected behaviour of the Greek Cypriot refugees, who would have walked on their knees to go back to their places, if they had the opportunity in the first years after the calamity that struck them.

[Tony-4497]

Charalambous is talking out of his ar*e, as usual. The question is not how many will choose to move their permanent residence back to the north.

The question is from how many the PRIVATE and INDIVIDUAL human right of property ownership will be taken away by force, and by their OWN government (in case of an Annan-type solution).

Christofias has the right to negotiate property rights for ONLY his own houses or land in Kellaki and elsewhere plus state-owned property.

As the leader of the GC side he can also negotiate any political issues (e.g. from rotating presidencies to territory and security) that affect the "state", but he has absolutely no authority to negotiate rights to private property.

No solution that does not offer GC owners the first option on their properties in the north can pass a GC referendum. GCs who do not understand this and build it in their calculations are living in a world of illusion and are highly dangerous for the RoC if they are also decision-makers.

[Bananiot]

Any agreement has to be ratified through a referendum. I remain optimist when the rejectionists are fearful of a pending solution.

[YFred]

Charalambous is talking out of his ar*e, as usual. The question is not how many will choose to move their permanent residence back to the north.

The question is from how many the PRIVATE and INDIVIDUAL human right of property ownership will be taken away by force, and by their OWN government (in case of an Annan-type solution).

Christofias has the right to negotiate property rights for ONLY his own houses or land in Kellaki and elsewhere plus state-owned property.

As the leader of the GC side he can also negotiate any political issues (e.g. from rotating presidencies to territory and security) that affect the "state", but he has absolutely no authority to negotiate rights to private property.

Goodness gracious me, why bother sending the President to the negotiations then. I think you'll find that you are slightly out of step with the EU on this one old boy. So UN and the EU and every other country that supports these negotiations (including the property issue) are wrong then. Why has nobody said, hang on there old boy, you have no right to discuss property.

[Tony-4497]

Any agreement has to be ratified through a referendum. I remain optimist when the rejectionists are fearful of a pending solution.

What if a referendum was put forward saying that all properties in the Pafos district would be taken from their owners and then given to people living in the other districts? If 51% voted yes, would that make it legal?

In the highly unlikely event of an Annan-type solution passing a referendum, all the ECHR claims against Turkey would just be transferred to be against the United RoC.

As for rejectionists being fearful etc.. While I am not a rejectionist (my wish is for a plan to be found that will have a decent chance of passing in both sides), don't open the champagne just yet...

[Tony-4497]

Charalambous is talking out of his ar*e, as usual. The question is not how many will choose to move their permanent residence back to the north.

The question is from how many the PRIVATE and INDIVIDUAL human right of property ownership will be taken away by force, and by their OWN government (in case of an Annan-type solution).

Christofias has the right to negotiate property rights for ONLY his own houses or land in Kellaki and elsewhere plus state-owned property.

As the leader of the GC side he can also negotiate any political issues (e.g. from rotating presidencies to territory and security) that affect the "state", but he has absolutely no authority to negotiate rights to private property.

Goodness gracious me, why bother sending the President to the negotiations then. I think you'll find that you are slightly out of step with the EU on this one old boy. So UN and the EU and every other country that supports these negotiations (including the property issue) are wrong then. Why has nobody said, hang on there old boy, you have no right to discuss property.

As mentioned above, the President has been sent by the public to discuss all of the other issues. In his CONTRACT with the people who voted him he stated clearly that he will not negotiate this issue and that GC owners will indeed have first option on their properties.

I understand this is still his stated position, although the whole "criteria" discussion is creating doubts. If he has decided that he will CHEAT those who voted for him, that is his problem and he will receive the GCs response at referendum (which will unfortunately also have a substantial adverse effect on the RoC - for which he will be held fully responsible).

This matter is not for the POLITICIANS at the EU or the UN to decide on - this is a private human right and is covered by EU and international COURTS. Those courts have spoken loud and clear. IF GCs want to commit suicide, then EU politicians will not stop them of course (on the contrary, they will supply the rope i.e. incorporate the hanging process in the EU acquis).