Cyprus-Forum.com

[Get Real!]

Piratis, all I said is that the property issue, unlike what we think, touches both communities. You should really give up with the stupid % issue you bring up in all your posts. Here we are talking about the tackling of the properties issue within the framework of an agreement for the solution of the Cyprus issue. When you negotiate for an agreed solution you do not foolishly accuse the other side of stealing your land. Especially if you are the minnow in the equation. And more especially if you are really interested in a solution (compromise solution) that will end the occupation of the country and stem the influx of settlers.

As Markides pointed out, we cannot be dogmatic on this because if we keep repeating what Piratis comes up with every ten minutes, we can whistle good bye to solution. Of course, Piratis is not really interested in solution and, as he has stated on numerous occasions, he would rather we stay as we are and wait until the balance of power tilts to our side and then of course we can enforce the solution we want.

Even political infants can see that this is a sure prescription to disaster but Piratis and his likes would rather see Cyprus destroyed for good than share this island with our Turkish Cypriot compatriots.

Bananiot

You really don't get, do you?

He's not paid to get it...

[observer]

It’s a strange set of priorities when GCs seem quite happy to have land compulsory taken in exchange for payment for a road so that they can get to work 5 minutes earlier, but not to end 50 years of conflict.

[Bananiot]

Whereas, GR is paid not to get it, bloody moron!

Tony, you ended with a FULL STOP. I suppose this means you do not want to know, but I will make a last ditch effort to talk to you. Our problem is a political one, not an economic or legal one. We are embarking in negotiations to find a compromise solution, as directed by the UN. All aspects of the problem will be tackled with the necessary compromising attitude in order to reach an agreement. We should and cannot allow any single issue to get in the way of solution.

Regarding the properties issue, we cannot certainly demand for our view to sail through unchallenged and place an ultimatum on the other side of the kind "accept our suggestion or end of the negotiations and let solution go to hell". Hence, categorising different cases, may be a wise way forward, unless we want to lose sight of the forest and concentrate on the tree.

Probably, Tony, you do not see either, what partition will mean for Cyprus, otherwise you would show more understanding to strategic moves that aim at bypassing stalemate. Hopefull, people that think like this on the other side, will move on in this spirit, for the sake of all of us.

It is also unacceptable, as far as I am concerned, to throw abuse at the other side, while we talk for solution. This is childish, immature and possibly orchestrated by those that do not want solution.

[Tim Drayton]

The Cyprus Energy Centre, near the Vasiliko Power Station is such a case Tim. GC lawyers who represent TC's in RoC courts reckon there are many such case.

This is a serious matter, in that case. The point remains that remedies are available in Cyprus law, which in principle recognises these property rights.

[Tony-4497]

Whereas, GR is paid not to get it, bloody moron!

Tony, you ended with a FULL STOP. I suppose this means you do not want to know, but I will make a last ditch effort to talk to you. Our problem is a political one, not an economic or legal one. We are embarking in negotiations to find a compromise solution, as directed by the UN. All aspects of the problem will be tackled with the necessary compromising attitude in order to reach an agreement. We should and cannot allow any single issue to get in the way of solution.

Regarding the properties issue, we cannot certainly demand for our view to sail through unchallenged and place an ultimatum on the other side of the kind "accept our suggestion or end of the negotiations and let solution go to hell". Hence, categorising different cases, may be a wise way forward, unless we want to lose sight of the forest and concentrate on the tree.

Probably, Tony, you do not see either, what partition will mean for Cyprus, otherwise you would show more understanding to strategic moves that aim at bypassing stalemate. Hopefull, people that think like this on the other side, will move on in this spirit, for the sake of all of us.

It is also unacceptable, as far as I am concerned, to throw abuse at the other side, while we talk for solution. This is childish, immature and possibly orchestrated by those that do not want solution.

Our problem is primarily political, and politicians have every right to negotiate the political aspects - even the ownership of state-owned property. However, the individual rights to property goes beyond the concept of the state and cannot be negotiated by anyone without the prior express authorisation of the owner.

The Lisbon treaty has made this even clearer (hopefully you accept that this is "political" as well as legal). It is also vital that any solution will not fall apart before EU courts - hopefully you agree that in such a case we will find ourselves in a chaotic and dangerous situation.

Accordingly, I feel strongly that unless the owner will have "first option" on his property, this "single issue" will "get in the way of a solution". There are no two ways about it.

In any case, please try to be practical and realistic. Following Christofias's "generous offers" in various areas, the ONLY chapter that can help swing the GC vote towards a borderline Yes is properties.

Unless this is dealt with in the way that Christofias is currently supporting, the final plan will be near-identical to the Annan Plan. Last week's polls showed that GCs still reject this with an 85% majority!! Is this what you want - another failed attempt??

Re "abuse": if by this you mean calling those who handle stolen property "Thieves", then I do not think you understand the meaning of the word "abuse"

[Sotos]

It’s a strange set of priorities when GCs seem quite happy to have land compulsory taken in exchange for payment for a road so that they can get to work 5 minutes earlier, but not to end 50 years of conflict.

To end the conflict by giving to you our properties? That would mean your reason of starting the conflict was achieved and you won. Forget about it. The only way to end the conflict is if you give back what you stole. We will not let you win this war.

[Tony-4497]

It’s a strange set of priorities when GCs seem quite happy to have land compulsory taken in exchange for payment for a road so that they can get to work 5 minutes earlier, but not to end 50 years of conflict.

To end the conflict by giving to you our properties? That would mean your reason of starting the conflict was achieved and you won. Forget about it. The only way to end the conflict is if you give back what you stole. We will not let you win this war.

..not to mention that even in such a case, there is no way in hell that Turkey can actually pay market rates compensation, as this amounts to many tens of billions (even after considering TC properties in the south).. and international donors cannot provide more than a few hundred million..

accordingly, any compensation would be a ridiculously low, nominal levels.. as per Annan (i.e. based on 1974 prices..)

[observer]

It’s a strange set of priorities when GCs seem quite happy to have land compulsory taken in exchange for payment for a road so that they can get to work 5 minutes earlier, but not to end 50 years of conflict.

To end the conflict by giving to you our properties? That would mean your reason of starting the conflict was achieved and you won. Forget about it. The only way to end the conflict is if you give back what you stole. We will not let you win this war.

To get to work 5 minutes faster by giving (nearer to selling) you our properties.
To end the conflict by giving (nearer to selling) you our properties.

Sounds pretty much the same to me. The only real difference is that after years of looking down on Turks and TCs, GCs can't stand the fact that they were beaten, so what is really being talked about is revenge. Not a recipe for a good outcome.

[Tony-4497]

This is not about revenge. It's about thinking logically.

By "ending the conflict", you mean accepting the legalisation of the theft of our land and homes in the north, recognising a near-sovereign component state on our stolen land, having a Turk as our president, sharing our central bank reserves and fully financing TCs indefinitely etc etc

Why the f*ck would we do this?? Just to take back 6% of land in a number of years' time?? (and that's IF Turkey actually feels like giving it back).. how stupid do you think we are??

Much better to keep suing at European Courts and start blocking ANY progress in EU-Turkey until the influx of settlers AND development of stolen land stops completely - while clearly stating that Turkey will not ultimately join the club unless the problem is solved in an acceptable manner (that respects human rights etc)

[observer]

Almost every country in the EU had border changes in the last century, most of them because of conflict. I imagine that many people lost out. All seem to have been settled - well maybe not Kosova, although that's not in the EU (yet?). I, along with an increasing number of Turkish people, sincerely hope that you continue to block Turkey's entrance into a EU which now seems well past its sell-by date.