Cyprus-Forum.com

[erolz]

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.

I think I understand your position a little better. From a TC perspective anything that mandates a unitary state (in all but name) on a fixed timetable and irrespective of how the two communites behave in the 'transitional' period is of concern. We would prefer 'consent' being the basis for reducing federalism and increasing 'unitaryness' rather than imposition of a unitary cyprus , possibly against our consent even if the imposition is some time in the future.

Ok Mr. Ziya

Thank you

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.

If you know of such a poll that asked only GC settlers the question 'if you had RoR would you actual wish to exercise it or not' I would be most interested to see it and know the results. As I understand it the poll you refered to was asking all GC how important they though the issue of RoR was - which is somewhat different.

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.

Thank you for the clarification. I think I understand your position better now. Any unequal ror is a 'problem' from your perspective and anything less than total ror is also a 'problem' from your persepctive.

[ChomskyFan]

I think I understand your position a little better. From a TC perspective anything that mandates a unitary state (in all but name) on a fixed timetable and irrespective of how the two communites behave in the 'transitional' period is of concern. We would prefer 'consent' being the basis for reducing federalism and increasing 'unitaryness' rather than imposition of a unitary cyprus , possibly against our consent even if the imposition is some time in the future.

You are right in this case actually, certain things require consent based on how the Period of Federalism has been. However, Federalism cannot be an excuse for disguised partition, and there must be a fixed timetable for a combination of debate and referenda on the issues.

If you know of such a poll that asked only GC settlers the question 'if you had RoR would you actual wish to exercise it or not' I would be most interested to see it and know the results. As I understand it the poll you refered to was asking all GC how important they though the issue of RoR was - which is somewhat different.

You are right, it is somewhat different, but it's the closest thing we have, as I have yet seen a poll any major International Polling Company regarding that specific question. As stated before, your own perceptions on what the views of members of these forums are is no excuse for denying basic human rights concerning RoR. It is as simple as this, properties that don't belong to certain people should be returned to their rightful owners, no matter how much faux-justification is used.

Thank you for the clarification. I think I understand your position better now. Any unequal ror is a 'problem' from your perspective and anything less than total ror is also a 'problem' from your persepctive.

Ergo, Full Right of Return for both sides is not a problem, what is the problem is finding a consensus based on the time frame of return for both sides, which of course, should also be equal.

[erolz]

You are right in this case actually, certain things require consent based on how the Period of Federalism has been. However, Federalism cannot be an excuse for disguised partition, and there must be a fixed timetable for a combination of debate and referenda on the issues.

As long as there is no 'forcing' of such things on a TC community without their consent I am 'happy'. I have no problem with and indeed welcome the idea of a timetable to discuss and seek such mutual consent at set periods along the road.

You are right, it is somewhat different, but it's the closest thing we have, as I have yet seen a poll any major International Polling Company regarding that specific question. As stated before, your own perceptions on what the views of members of these forums are is no excuse for denying basic human rights concerning RoR. It is as simple as this, properties that don't belong to certain people should be returned to their rightful owners, no matter how much faux-justification is used.

This difference is the core of my point. I understand the 'emotional' response that it is just 'unfair' and 'unjust' that there should be full RoR and nothing less than this (and the moral arguments that support this 'emotional' response). However it seems to me in purely practical terms with such a difficult and contentious issue (the idea that someone should be able to return to their lands if they wish is not contentious - its the idea that someone else must be forced out of homes they have invested in emotionaly and financialy for over 30 years now and have done so not through any direct 'free choice' of theirs but with little other realistic option - to allow this (full return of GC) that is contentious) if the reality is that only 30% or 70% actualy wish to return then would it not be better to negotiate on this basis? Certainly a 'point of principle' is 'sacraficed' (and we can all inisit on points of principle) but in reality iff it means an agreement can be more esaliy readhed and that every GC refugee that WANTS to return can return, should we not at least consider this appraoch?

Ergo, Full Right of Return for both sides is not a problem, what is the problem is finding a consensus based on the time frame of return for both sides, which of course, should also be equal.

If full RoR is something that GC must have but is something that most TC do not want or care about, then the idea that 'all that needs to be done is deciding a time frame' is to me a piece of false logic. I think a closer assement of the reality is that full RoR is very important to GC and not being forced from their current homes (and for some being made a refugee for the 2nd or 3rd time) is as important to TC. This is why this is not a simple issue of 'parity' of RoR and why the property issue remains so complex imo

[Alexios]

The trouble with the president is that he treats the Cyprus problem as if it was a fraud case in his law office.The cyprus problem is deeply political,social,economic,caltural and even psychological.The president fails to see the problem in his right parameters.

[Bananiot]

That is correct, he sees everything from the legalistic point of view. All his political assessments regarding the Cyprob were wrong. He even rejected the London-Zurich agreements back in 1959 and in 1999 he accused Simitis of litterary selling Cyprus when the then Prime Minister of Greece opened the door for the accession of Cyprus to the EU, in a masterly move whose vital importance Papadopoulos failed to grasp ...

[Agios Amvrosios]

I have to disagree Bananiot & Alexios

If human rights law and international law is not the basis of assessment upon which we can evaluate proposed solutions then what basis do you suggest? We have waited too long now to say OK F*ck it, let just sign on ousting all our human rights.

The Cyprus problem could be solved in 15 minutes if a proposal firmly based on international law ,respect of the refugees human rights to restitution to their towns and villages and democracy.

Cypriots should not be used as guinea pigs for untested propsals which are in flagrant breach of human rights laws and international law like the now dead Annan plan was.

[Alexandros Lordos]

If human rights law and international law is not the basis of assessment upon which we can evaluate proposed solutions then what basis do you suggest?

Human rights, international law, AND agreements already made in 1977 - 1979.

Or are you proposing that we should not honour our signature?