Cyprus-Forum.com

[ChomskyFan]

Talat has on many occassions offered to talk, he has extended his hand but unfortunately for all Cypriots it has not been grasped by your leader.

Annan plan or whatever plan can only be based on BBF, a unitary state will only inflame the TCs allergy of being reduced to a minority status in their own homeland, so I suggest you start to contemplate a solution based on BBF as the support for an alterantive would be very low amongst TCs.

It depends what kind of BBF you are talking about, it is not a permenant solution. There should be a Constitutional Amendment to remove the 'Federal' Status in a number of years, and if it is a Federal Solution, it should be a strong Federation, not a weak disguised partition, with regards to President Papadopoulos, as I said, I do not believe discussions based upon the Annan Plan are the right way.

I was joking about the 25% issue but I agree that discussion might help towards establishing a consensus but my only concern is that it could backfire and increase the evident divide between the 2 comunities we are all very stubborn and still view each other with the other side mentality, trying to get the upper hand.

You misunderstand my meaning of discussion, I basically mean just lots of people getting together and talking about things, nothing official.

The settlers issue can be resolved in my opinion and is lower down on the list of my priorities, property and right to return are the big to and unfortunately I cannot agree with you on full right to return as this it is not as simple and straight forward as you seem to think it is.

Well let me hear about your concerns about Right of Return. If both sides agree to full right of return that neither side has much to fear, after all, it's just simple legality. For example, my family has a house in Kyrenia that is currently occupied by Settlers, I do not want to be in a situation where my father will never be able to get his house back, if you are talking about full right of return, but in a staged timeframe, over a period of years, then I would be willing to compromise, perhaps offering the Right of Return Timeframe for both communities over the same timeframe as the Federal State exists (20 years)?

[Viewpoint]

ChomskyFan

with regards to President Papadopoulos, as I said, I do not believe discussions based upon the Annan Plan are the right way

Then be prepared for many years of stalemate status quo if you are content and happy then I am as well....

You misunderstand my meaning of discussion, I basically mean just lots of people getting together and talking about things, nothing official.

Our communities have been mixing for the last 2 years what difference has it made we are no closer now than we were when the boarders were closed..

Well let me hear about your concerns about Right of Return. If both sides agree to full right of return that neither side has much to fear,

Do you really believe this, Im afraid I dont, I have great reservations and would like to have my own constituent state under a federal umbrella of a united Cyprus...the right to move and settle anywhere in Cyprus but with restrictions on citizenship/voting rights and purchase of property should apply, the door should be left open so that in future if we agree that we can move forward and remove these restrictions then we can do this. I still do not feel GC are sinere and need like many TCs a transitional period to judge whether we can live together peacefully with GCs but there must be tough precautionary measures to ensure that TCs are not reduced to a minority in their own constituent state by GC hidden agendas. The trust element between our communites is non exisistent and a major obsticle for us TCs.

For example, my family has a house in Kyrenia that is currently occupied by Settlers, I do not want to be in a situation where my father will never be able to get his house back,

If the current climate continues then to be honest I dont feel your father or my mother will ever go back... not that my mother wants to....(and before MicAtCyp accuses us about not wanting to go back because we stole 3 times the property we left behind I am talking about her as invidual she has gotten nothing in the north for her property in the south)

As I mentioned before I think there should be a quota on the right to return and reside in the north to be reasessed over time.

[ChomskyFan]

Do you really believe this, Im afraid I dont, I have great reservations and would like to have my own constituent state under a federal umbrella of a united Cyprus...the right to move and settle anywhere in Cyprus but with restrictions on citizenship/voting rights and purchase of property should apply, the door should be left open so that in future if we agree that we can move forward and remove these restrictions then we can do this.

If there is a Federal State, there shouldn't be that many restrictions, because that is just disguised partition. Secondly, as I said I am prepared to compromise, and my compromise is that these restrictions need only be temporary over a time frame that is worked out. A permenant Federal State with these restrictions solves nothing.

If the current climate continues then to be honest I dont feel your father or my mother will ever go back... not that my mother wants to....(and before MicAtCyp accuses us about not wanting to go back because we stole 3 times the property we left behind I am talking about her as invidual she has gotten nothing in the north for her property in the south)

As I mentioned before I think there should be a quota on the right to return and reside in the north to be reasessed over time.

Yes but that is where we hit a snag, if full right of return is not given to GC's, then GC's will say the same thing to TC's. You can't have one community with full right of return and another with limited right of return. The Annan Plan made provisions over a 25 year period, for just 20%. In my view that's unacceptable, as I said, if you have reservations about the time frame, then that's fine, but no GC is going to accept a 20% settlement.

[erolz]

If there is a Federal State, there shouldn't be that many restrictions, because that is just disguised partition. Secondly, as I said I am prepared to compromise, and my compromise is that these restrictions need only be temporary over a time frame that is worked out. A permenant Federal State with these restrictions solves nothing.

Do you have a problem with a federal solutiuon with no restrictions on where anyone can live but some restrictions on which component state you vote in, sperate from which is your primary place of residence, to enbusre that both federal states do not become numericaly dominated by GC?

Yes but that is where we hit a snag, if full right of return is not given to GC's, then GC's will say the same thing to TC's. You can't have one community with full right of return and another with limited right of return. The Annan Plan made provisions over a 25 year period, for just 20%. In my view that's unacceptable, as I said, if you have reservations about the time frame, then that's fine, but no GC is going to accept a 20% settlement.

How many of the GC refugees actualy want to return? If that number is actually only 20% or there abouts, are we not just creating an unessesary burden for ourselves by insiting that 100% have such a right when actualy only 20% wish to exercise this right?

[ChomskyFan]

If there is a Federal State, there shouldn't be that many restrictions, because that is just disguised partition. Secondly, as I said I am prepared to compromise, and my compromise is that these restrictions need only be temporary over a time frame that is worked out. A permenant Federal State with these restrictions solves nothing.

Do you have a problem with a federal solutiuon with no restrictions on where anyone can live but some restrictions on which component state you vote in, sperate from which is your primary place of residence, to enbusre that both federal states do not become numericaly dominated by GC?

No, but as I stated, a Federal Solution should only be temporary. Maximum 30 years until both parts amalgamate.

How many of the GC refugees actualy want to return? If that number is actually only 20% or there abouts, are we not just creating an unessesary burden for ourselves by insiting that 100% have such a right when actualy only 20% wish to exercise this right?

Most of them want to return. Or, among those I've met anyway, I have yet to meet a person from my family's home town who doesn't want to return. As I stated, if there is not full right of return for GC's over a fixed time period, then GC's will simply vote against anything that contains full TC right of return, and rightly so, as full RoR as opposed to 20% is unfair.

[erolz]

No, but as I stated, a Federal Solution should only be temporary. Maximum 30 years until both parts amalgamate.

Why? Or to be more explicit why should the end of a federal model be preset and pre determined and not a matter of choice and mutual consent?

Most of them want to return. Or, among those I've met anyway, I have yet to meet a person from my family's home town who doesn't want to return.

Well we get very mixed messages from GC on this issue.

As I stated, if there is not full right of return for GC's over a fixed time period, then GC's will simply vote against anything that contains full TC right of return, and rightly so, as full RoR as opposed to 20% is unfair.

So if RoR was balanced you would have no issues? No TC and no GC get RoR. 20% of GC and 20% of TC get ror. 50%. 80% - are any or all of these acceptable in your opinion.

Or to put it another way is it the 'fairness' of RoR provisions (with fairness meaning % of TC and % of GC that get RoR being equal) in any proposed settlement that is your issue, or numbers of GC that get ROR or a combination of these two things?

[Viewpoint]

No, but as I stated, a Federal Solution should only be temporary. Maximum 30 years until both parts amalgamate.

Why? Or to be more explicit why should the end of a federal model be preset and pre determined and not a matter of choice and mutual consent?

Most of them want to return. Or, among those I've met anyway, I have yet to meet a person from my family's home town who doesn't want to return.

Well we get very mixed messages from GC on this issue.

As I stated, if there is not full right of return for GC's over a fixed time period, then GC's will simply vote against anything that contains full TC right of return, and rightly so, as full RoR as opposed to 20% is unfair.

So if RoR was balanced you would have no issues? No TC and no GC get RoR. 20% of GC and 20% of TC get ror. 50%. 80% - are any or all of these acceptable in your opinion.

Or to put it another way is it the 'fairness' of RoR provisions (with fairness meaning % of TC and % of GC that get RoR being equal) in any proposed settlement that is your issue, or numbers of GC that get ROR or a combination of these two things?

Surely guys the danger that the GC constituent state decides and urges its people to return to the north what do we have then??? learning from history and comments made on this site I fear that GCs will take this action and pursue the aim of becoming the majority in the TCCS as well as the GCCS then they will go to the EU courts to obtain voting rights which will leave TCs as a minority in their own land, which no TC will ever accept so the issue of full right to return has to have restrictions that will ensure that GCs do not or cannot pursue such policies.

[ChomskyFan]

Because the Federal Model sets in stone something that changes with the sands of time, as I said, a Federal Model for a set period and then a debate. But the Federal Model MUST be a strong Federation and not disguised partition as with the Annan Plan. It must also lay the framework for true unification in the sense that somebody cannot be discriminated against simply because of their race against things such as buying property.

I don't know what your second point is supposed to mean Mr. Erolz, but The Right of Return was one of the biggest clinchers for why GC's rejected the Annan Plan, a Gallup poll shows it as one of the top 3 reasons, so we can assume therefore that most GC's do consider this to be an important issue. I don't understand why anyone could possibly have a problem with people returning to homes that are rightfully theirs. As I have stated many times, my yiayia died 2 years ago without even seeing her own House again. I do not want to be in the same situation with my father, he has the right to return to the property that was his fathers, and no amount of intellectual acrobatics can dissimulate such as basic, fundamental human right.

With regards to your third point, can you rephrase it please? No offence, I just don't really understand your point my friend.

[erolz]

as I said, a Federal Model for a set period and then a debate.

might have been what you meant but what you said originaly was

If there is a Federal State, there shouldn't be that many restrictions, because that is just disguised partition. Secondly, as I said I am prepared to compromise, and my compromise is that these restrictions need only be temporary over a time frame that is worked out. A permenant Federal State with these restrictions solves nothing.

and then

No, but as I stated, a Federal Solution should only be temporary. Maximum 30 years until both parts amalgamate.

No mention of 'debate' that I can see but much implication that there should be a fixed 'deadline' at which point a unitary states / end of federation comes into force.

I don't know what your second point is supposed to mean Mr. Erolz,

Just so you know my first name is erol and my surname is ziya, so call me erol or Mr Ziya but preferably not Mr Erol(z).

but The Right of Return was one of the biggest clinchers for why GC's rejected the Annan Plan, a Gallup poll shows it as one of the top 3 reasons, so we can assume therefore that most GC's do consider this to be an important issue.

There is no doubt it is an important issue for GC. what there seems to be some doubt about is how many GC actualy want to return. You have said that in your opinion and experience "Most of them want to return". Other GC here have said in the past that most would not return if they had the option to do so.

With regards to your third point, can you rephrase it please? No offence, I just don't really understand your point my friend.

Its quite simple really but I will try a third explaination for you. You said

As I stated, if there is not full right of return for GC's over a fixed time period, then GC's will simply vote against anything that contains full TC right of return, and rightly so, as full RoR as opposed to 20% is unfair.

From this quote it would appear that your 'problem' is that GC had a limited right of return and TC had an unlimited RoR. If this is your 'problem' then as long as the RoR allowed for GC is the same as that allowed to TC this problem disapears. Be that no RoR for either , 20% RoR for both, or 80% RoR for both. In all of these senarios there is no difference in the RoR between TC and GC. I suspect however that this is not your 'problem' or not your only 'problem' and this is what I am trying to clarify so I can better understand your position

[ChomskyFan]

No mention of 'debate' that I can see but much implication that there should be a fixed 'deadline' at which point a unitary states / end of federation comes into force.

My point is there should be a Constitutional Amendment that sets a fixed time until certain clauses within the Constitution (regarding limitations on property buying et al) are lifted, it is known as a 'Sunset Clause', in all actuality, this would lead to an all but Unified State and not a Federation (perhaps though, in name only). The specifics of this should be debated, the idea that eventually over a set period of time certain clauses must be lifted however, should not be up for debate.

Just so you know my first name is erol and my surname is ziya, so call me erol or Mr Ziya but preferably not Mr Erol(z).

Ok Mr. Ziya

There is no doubt it is an important issue for GC. what there seems to be some doubt about is how many GC actualy want to return. You have said that in your opinion and experience "Most of them want to return". Other GC here have said in the past that most would not return if they had the option to do so.

In my honest opinion An Online Internet Forum Internet Forum is not as good a way of judging Public Opinion as a large survey carried out by an International Polling Company.

From this quote it would appear that your 'problem' is that GC had a limited right of return and TC had an unlimited RoR. If this is your 'problem' then as long as the RoR allowed for GC is the same as that allowed to TC this problem disapears. Be that no RoR for either , 20% RoR for both, or 80% RoR for both. In all of these senarios there is no difference in the RoR between TC and GC. I suspect however that this is not your 'problem' or not your only 'problem' and this is what I am trying to clarify so I can better understand your position

It is true that if the RoR percentiles were set at the same point, there could be no argument concerning preferential treatment, but from an entirely humanist perspective I believe that full Right of Return for both parties simply a fundamental human right. Regarding the issue of preferential treatment in regards to RoR, you are talking about hypotheticals that will never come into existence, tailored for your own argument, anyone can construct hypotheticals to justify anything from slavery to National Socialism, the Annan Plan however, was very much a reality as was it's preferential treatment regarding RoR between the two parties.