Cyprus-Forum.com

[Nikitas]

"So you think that it would be alright to force the TCs back into small cantons in their own state"

Asbolutey not. What I am looking for is a simple, straighforward explanation of how things are going to be like under BBF, what precise divergence there will be from EU rules and for how long.

Obviously the EU will insist that nationals from other EU nations will enjoy the same rights they have elsewhere- residence, establishment, movement, and the right to vote in local and Europarliament elections if they reside in Cyprus. Some instances, like the one presented above about the right to elect and be elected will present ironic situations, like a Polish mayoral or EuroParliament candidate for Lefkoniko or Geroskipou for instance, where the only thing we will be able to say is it is OK because he is not a GC/Tc as the case maybe.

[zan]

"So you think that it would be alright to force the TCs back into small cantons in their own state"

Asbolutey not. What I am looking for is a simple, straighforward explanation of how things are going to be like under BBF, what precise divergence there will be from EU rules and for how long.

Obviously the EU will insist that nationals from other EU nations will enjoy the same rights they have elsewhere- residence, establishment, movement, and the right to vote in local and Europarliament elections if they reside in Cyprus. Some instances, like the one presented above about the right to elect and be elected will present ironic situations, like a Polish mayoral or EuroParliament candidate for Lefkoniko or Geroskipou for instance, where the only thing we will be able to say is it is OK because he is not a GC/Tc as the case maybe.

I believe it is all made clear in the Denktas/Chlerides accords and the subsequent AP

[Kikapu]

Zan, they can call it Abracadabra, and as long as what I see is what I am going to get, it will be OK with me.

It is these long drawn out talks/negotiations/contacts/proximity talks etc that piss me off.

The only time I heard a straight talk on the matter was when Mesut Yilmaz visited Greece officially when he was PM and Mitsotakis said openly that if we are talking federation the territory issue is not primary, but if we are talking partition then "we are not going to do you any favors on territory".

Mitsotakis has a horrible reputation among the majority of Greeks, but he could talk straight on that point and was understandable by all regardless of sophistication and education status. That was 20 years ago, and we are still waiting to hear something equally simple and understandable.

Does he make it any clearer than that as to maybe taking over some territory and the rest in compensation

I don't think so, Zan. If partition means losing part of your country, what good is it to receive compensation for it. They want to keep the land. On the other hand, why would you need more land than entitled to based on previous ownership plus state land based on population of each community, since your main concern is security supposedly and self determination.??

the state has been doing quite well without this territory so is it right to hold thousands of people at refugee status who might well want to sell their property and get on with their lives......I am sure that a nice new sports car would appeal to the grandchildren of the deceased refugees rather than them being told that they have no rights as second generation Children of Refugees

One can also argue and say, why do you need so much land, since you have not done very much with what you have now. Send the settlers back and you will have far more than you need. After all, you have 70+ million unrestricted market in Turkey, and yet the north ONLY exported £35 million US dollars worth last year. That's about 50 cents per person buying from the north. Why not take just enough land what you can handle and let others do as they want with their land in their own southern state.?? Once again, your main concerns we are made to believe is about security of the TCs from the GCs and not about holding onto their land. So which is it, Zan.??

If those GC refugees were interested in getting a sports car for their grand kids by receiving compensation for their properties in the north, why haven't they gone to the IPC to get compensation for their land.?? That should tell you where their priorities lie, and it seem it is not with the sport car for the grandchildren.!

[zan]

Zan, they can call it Abracadabra, and as long as what I see is what I am going to get, it will be OK with me.

It is these long drawn out talks/negotiations/contacts/proximity talks etc that piss me off.

The only time I heard a straight talk on the matter was when Mesut Yilmaz visited Greece officially when he was PM and Mitsotakis said openly that if we are talking federation the territory issue is not primary, but if we are talking partition then "we are not going to do you any favors on territory".

Mitsotakis has a horrible reputation among the majority of Greeks, but he could talk straight on that point and was understandable by all regardless of sophistication and education status. That was 20 years ago, and we are still waiting to hear something equally simple and understandable.

Does he make it any clearer than that as to maybe taking over some territory and the rest in compensation

I don't think so, Zan. If partition means losing part of your country, what good is it to receive compensation for it. They want to keep the land. On the other hand, why would you need more land than entitled to based on previous ownership plus state land based on population of each community, since your main concern is security supposedly and self determination.??

the state has been doing quite well without this territory so is it right to hold thousands of people at refugee status who might well want to sell their property and get on with their lives......I am sure that a nice new sports car would appeal to the grandchildren of the deceased refugees rather than them being told that they have no rights as second generation Children of Refugees

One can also argue and say, why do you need so much land, since you have not done very much with what you have now. Send the settlers back and you will have far more than you need. After all, you have 70+ million unrestricted market in Turkey, and yet the north ONLY exported £35 million US dollars worth last year. That's about 50 cents per person buying from the north. Why not take just enough land what you can handle and let others do as they want with their land in their own southern state.?? Once again, your main concerns we are made to believe is about security of the TCs from the GCs and not about holding onto their land. So which is it, Zan.??

If those GC refugees were interested in getting a sports car for their grand kids by receiving compensation for their properties in the north, why haven't they gone to the IPC to get compensation for their land.?? That should tell you where their priorities lie, and it seem it is not with the sport car for the grandchildren.!

Now you tell me what is the right amount of land that we can handle/need. Please remember that we are not as greedy as the Americans or as modest as the Mormans..


As for the IPC........400 cases was the last count....Against their governments decision.

[Nikitas]

"Denktas/Chlerides accords and the subsequent AP "

There is a radical difference between then and now. CYprus is now a full member of the EU, which might sound like not much, but as the influx of EU residents has proven, it is a factor that must be taken into account.

The example of the Czechoslovakia is often mentioned, but we forget that in that case there are no restrictions on property and movement after what amounts to full partition, yet in Cyprus we sought stricter regulation of rights even though we are talking about federation and not partition. These are the inanities that confuse some of us.

[Kikapu]

Zan, they can call it Abracadabra, and as long as what I see is what I am going to get, it will be OK with me.

It is these long drawn out talks/negotiations/contacts/proximity talks etc that piss me off.

The only time I heard a straight talk on the matter was when Mesut Yilmaz visited Greece officially when he was PM and Mitsotakis said openly that if we are talking federation the territory issue is not primary, but if we are talking partition then "we are not going to do you any favors on territory".

Mitsotakis has a horrible reputation among the majority of Greeks, but he could talk straight on that point and was understandable by all regardless of sophistication and education status. That was 20 years ago, and we are still waiting to hear something equally simple and understandable.

Does he make it any clearer than that as to maybe taking over some territory and the rest in compensation

I don't think so, Zan. If partition means losing part of your country, what good is it to receive compensation for it. They want to keep the land. On the other hand, why would you need more land than entitled to based on previous ownership plus state land based on population of each community, since your main concern is security supposedly and self determination.??

the state has been doing quite well without this territory so is it right to hold thousands of people at refugee status who might well want to sell their property and get on with their lives......I am sure that a nice new sports car would appeal to the grandchildren of the deceased refugees rather than them being told that they have no rights as second generation Children of Refugees

One can also argue and say, why do you need so much land, since you have not done very much with what you have now. Send the settlers back and you will have far more than you need. After all, you have 70+ million unrestricted market in Turkey, and yet the north ONLY exported £35 million US dollars worth last year. That's about 50 cents per person buying from the north. Why not take just enough land what you can handle and let others do as they want with their land in their own southern state.?? Once again, your main concerns we are made to believe is about security of the TCs from the GCs and not about holding onto their land. So which is it, Zan.??

If those GC refugees were interested in getting a sports car for their grand kids by receiving compensation for their properties in the north, why haven't they gone to the IPC to get compensation for their land.?? That should tell you where their priorities lie, and it seem it is not with the sport car for the grandchildren.!

Now you tell me what is the right amount of land that we can handle/need. Please remember that we are not as greedy as the Americans or as modest as the Mormans..

You are the one who wants partition, therefore you need to decide how much that partition means to you and what it's worth. Once you have the answer, land size shouldn't be a factor any longer. You are after all saving your lives from the GCs. Surely no amount of land is worth keeping it, if it means you are saved by giving back what ever is necessary.!:wink:

As for the IPC........400 cases was the last count....Against their governments decision.

That's nice, Zan. Now tell us how many cases has been resolved.??

[zan]

"Denktas/Chlerides accords and the subsequent AP "

There is a radical difference between then and now. CYprus is now a full member of the EU, which might sound like not much, but as the influx of EU residents has proven, it is a factor that must be taken into account.

The example of the Czechoslovakia is often mentioned, but we forget that in that case there are no restrictions on property and movement after what amounts to full partition, yet in Cyprus we sought stricter regulation of rights even though we are talking about federation and not partition. These are the inanities that confuse some of us.

Nikitas...What is the point of signing an agreement that can be sidelined the minute it comes into play by the simple equation of the South being richer than the North. It does not make sense in any scenario you care to mention. You make sure that the contract you sign is as tight as you can get it before signing. The danger exists so it is a concern and must be dealt with.

[Bananiot]

Another exellent article by Loucas Charalambous in todays Mail and Politis:

I WENT to Famagusta the Saturday before last and took with me a childhood friend who lives in Athens. It was the first time he had seen Famagusta in 40 years. From the edge of the beach at Faliro we surveyed the coast with its abandoned hotels and other buildings.

My friend was close to tears. “They were giving you back this whole town and you refused to take it?” he asked, not really expecting an answer. “We have Christofias to thank for this,” I said.

“You are insane,” he concluded and I agreed with him. “If we were not insane we would not be in such a colossal mess,” I said.

Returning to Nicosia we heard about the president’s speech at the annual event held by Famagustans in Dherynia. He started his speech in the following way: “Every year, for 36 years now, from this place we gaze at the silent and deserted town of Famagusta.”

Later on in his speech, he advertised to his audience his proposal for the return of part of the town, in exchange for the unhindered opening of chapters in Turkey’s accession negotiations with the EU and for the use of the town’s port by the Turkish Cypriots.

I could not help but admire the boundless, political audacity of our president. The main party guilty of Famagusta remaining “silent and deserted” is Christofias and the rest of the AKEL leadership, who killed every opportunity for the return of the town to us.

There had been three such opportunities that were spurned by the AKEL top brass. On July 20, 1978 Rauf Denktash proposed the return of Famagusta and the return of 35,000 inhabitants, immediately after the start of peace talks. On the night of that day, speaking at Elftheria Square, the then president Spyros Kyprianou, with the then leader of AKEL Ezekias Papaioannou, who had elected him, by his side, turned down the proposal, dismissing it as a “Denktash soap-bubble”. In November of the same year Kyprianou and the AKEL leadership spurned another opportunity when they rejected the American-British-Canadian plan which envisaged the return of Famagusta on the resumption of negotiations. AKEL rejected the plan on the instructions of Moscow, despite the strong pleas by the Greek government to accept it. In both cases, the town would have been returned to us regardless of the outcome of the subsequent peace talks.

In 2004, the AKEL leadership, with Christofias in charge, killed off the third opportunity to have Famagusta returned, by voting against the Annan plan. The plan envisaged not just the return of the fenced off part of the town but the entire Greek part.

Three times Christofias and the leadership of AKEL have committed the same crime, condemning Famagusta to remain in Turkish hands. And today he has the nerve to beg for the return of a part of the town, offering big concessions in exchange.

It should be noted that in 1978 only four years had elapsed since the invasion. Back then, Famagustans would have returned to the town, carried out a cleaning operation and within a few weeks the town would have been buzzing with life. Today, even if they do return they would return to a town that would have to be demolished and re-built.

So if today, 36 years later, Christofias “gazes at the silent and deserted town”, he should consider his party’s and his own responsibility for this tragedy. And instead of peddling heroic slogans and crocodile tears to Famagustans he should be asking for their forgiveness.

[Get Real!]

Another exellent article by Loucas Charalambous in todays Mail and Politis:

You and Lucas seem to have always had premature ejaculations over “opportunities missed” that would’ve ALWAYS led to a complex undemocratic political arrangement of some sort benefiting anyone but Cypriots!

Your xenomania is no less sickening as that of Greek nationalists in the 70s trying to impose the “Greek way” on the people of Cyprus.

[humanist]

Nikitas

One more time I ask:

Exactlly how is BBF with or without the Annan plan different from partition?

It is obvious since 1977 when we officially accepted the principle of BBF that we accept partition. Bizonality equals partition. Bicommunality equals apartheid, Federation equals partnership of the north in the south, but the guarantees part stops the reverse from applying.

So why the lament by Charalambous and others like him?

So partition it has been since 1974 and partition it will be from now on, where is the alternative? Anyone ever suggested it and I missed it?

Am with you on this one. All points put forth above are partition, apartheid and discrimination. Positive discrimination will lead to further problems down the track.

Chrostofias needs to leave the TC's behind and out of the negotiations and should concentrate instead on the UN and its failure to apply its own resolutions to the problem. The Cyprus problem can half be solved if the UN put pressure on Turkey to accept and adhere to all resolutions in relation to the Cyprus problem. We need a different tact. That will avoid issues such as backward proposals put forth by the TC leadership which I may ad is doing the right thing by the TC's he wants to achieve maximum for his community and you can't blame him for that. However, if the long term affects are better for the TC community that is up to them to make that decision or they could direct their leadership to a meaningful compromise and accepting some of the offers put forth by Christofias. The first one being Famagusta.