Cyprus-Forum.com

[zan]

Is our Chris getting worried that a solution might be just around the corner? Why else would he try to link two issues together just like they have done with Turkeys EU talks, linking it with Cyprus. Is this anyway to show that you are willing to genuinely talk of a solution...I don't think so!

IF TURKEY and the Turkish Cypriots really want a solution by the end of the year, they should be the ones wanting to link the issues of property and territory in the talks, said President Demetris Christofias yesterday.
Speaking after a meeting with Turkish Cypriot leader Dervis Eroglu, Christofias said the two leaders had made a “small step forward” but that “we cannot say progress has been achieved”.
During yesterday’s three hour meeting, Christofias reiterated his proposal for a discussion of the chapters on property and territory in tandem, stressing this would simplify and accelerate talks on property.
“My view is that such a proposal would help clear our minds to see the real prospects of a settlement of this complex and difficult issue of property,” he said.
He argued that the larger the territory to be returned to Greek Cypriots in a federal solution, the easier it would be to settle the property issue, particularly for properties to come under Turkish Cypriot administration.
“It’s one thing to know so many areas will be returned under Greek Cypriot administration and along with that, properties also returned to their owners. The larger the territory (to be returned) the less complicated becomes the issue of properties that come under the Turkish Cypriot administration,” he said.
However, the two sides appear to be sticking to their positions, he noted. “Both sides continually submit positions and views in an effort to find a common language, which, I must say, has not been found yet,” he said, adding, “The Turkish Cypriot side has its own positions, we have ours, both sides insist on this issue.”
The two sides have made headway in categorising the types of property under discussion, but appear to have reached a deadlock on how to deal with those properties. The Greek Cypriot negotiating team insists that the original owners should have first say over what to do with their properties, that is, whether to return, exchange or receive compensation. The Turkish Cypriot team says that the current occupant should have a greater say. Both sides point to judgements from the European Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Justice to strengthen their arguments.
Christofias pointed out that if Turkey and the Turkish Cypriot side want a solution by the end of the year as they say they do, “they should be the ones seeking to link these two issues”.
On his return to the north, Eroglu was reported saying that he had put a new proposal on the table in response to Christofias’ proposal. Regarding the call by DISY leader Nicos Anastassiades for the Turkish Cypriot side to show more flexibility on property, Eroglu said: “We are not at the give-and-take stage yet.”
UN Special Adviser Alexander Downer said the two leaders’ representatives will meet next Thursday, while the two leaders will meet again on July 22 and 28, and on August 4, 10 and 31, noting that the UN welcomed the fact that they were going to hold so many meetings during the summer months.

http://www.cyprus-mail.com/cyprus/prope ... e/20100710

[Nikitas]

Linking territory (the property of the state) and property (individual ownership) is logic in action. The more territory is returned the less individual ownership there is left to deal with. Of course Eroglu and Turkey have no intention of returning any occupied territory and that has been stated under the guise of "avoiding dislocation".

As for the give and take stage, you do not let an issue as important as territory to be dealt at the give and take stage.

[zan]

Linking territory (the property of the state) and property (individual ownership) is logic in action. The more territory is returned the less individual ownership there is left to deal with. Of course Eroglu and Turkey have no intention of returning any occupied territory and that has been stated under the guise of "avoiding dislocation".

As for the give and take stage, you do not let an issue as important as territory to be dealt at the give and take stage.

I think the word above should have been "Inevitable" Niktas and therefore unnecessary to argue. But dear old Chris is soooooo scared of having all else solved and find himself with only personal property to deal with and use as a smoke screen.

[Nikitas]

If it is inevitable then why not publish a map showing the return of Morphou, Famagusta and major villages of Mesaoria, while also announcing a generous compensation package for remaining individual properties and get Christofias and all GC politicians running for cover from their own voters? It would be unilateral declaration of intent, but a very effective means of influencing the GC public, shortcircuiting the politicians.

The compensation would cost nothing since an equal or greater sum would have to be paid for TC properties by the RoC.

Obviously there is no such inevitable linkage in the minds of the Turkish negotiators. They are just as good as Mr C at wasting time.

[zan]

If it is inevitable then why not publish a map showing the return of Morphou, Famagusta and major villages of Mesaoria, while also announcing a generous compensation package for remaining individual properties and get Christofias and all GC politicians running for cover from their own voters? It would be unilateral declaration of intent, but a very effective means of influencing the GC public, shortcircuiting the politicians.

The compensation would cost nothing since an equal or greater sum would have to be paid for TC properties by the RoC.

Obviously there is no such inevitable linkage in the minds of the Turkish negotiators. They are just as good as Mr C at wasting time.

Let me get this straight You do not want a discussion of "Give and take" but want just the give to....sway the vote I have no doubt in my mind (With reservations about the areas you quoted) that if such a scenario were possible it would have been done, with all the political toing and throwing. What we would get is the likes of Piratis pinning a conspiracy against us and that we were playing tricks again and in the process losing a few aces up our sleeve because we would have to start any other process with a few cards down. Please don't accuse me of admitting to game play. We are all adults here( I wished)


Anyway, Isn't this all discussed in the talks.......Trying to outplay and outwit the talks would be totally the wrong thing to do wouldn't it? It would be treasonous. Aren't we all in favour?

[Acikgoz]

I liked the concept, link them, but then had a thought, would you change the principles of rights dependent upon the proportion of land that is handed over to be administered by the south? If 5% is handed over then you say original owners have principal rights, if 10% is handed over you say existing owners have principal rights? (or whatever the figures)
If the rights are going to be flexible then yes discuss it, if not then please let us now not waste time and make this an issue to debate if it is to become one.....