by Acikgoz » Fri Mar 26, 2010 2:05 pm
Yourdaddy,
You have hit upon a crucial change in direction that no one on this forum actually is able or willing to discuss - the reprecussions are significant for both sides.
By agreeing to go via the courts instead of a comprehensive settlement, both side are now going to have to compensate for decades of obstruction of use. The eventual burden now will be borne by the respective governments and therefore, in one way or another, the people.
For those that have been displaced there will be monetary considerations for the displacement and as yet no consideration for the accommodation that was provided.
For those that were not displaced, they will be providing for that compensation for the other party.
The "fairness" consideration is certainly not well tested nor thought out.
The biggest winner throughout this process will be and is likely to be the lawyers.
Is it better than the Annan plan? Well, the answer will depend upon whether you have been displaced or not, if yes then better, if not then worse.
As things currently stand.
