Cyprus-Forum.com

[CBBB]

Purely on the property issue, if a referendum was held now with only refugees on all sides voting, what would be the percentages for each of these options?

1. Return to live in the property they left behind.

2. Return of property, not returning to live there.

3. Exchange of their property with property from the other community.

4. Reasonable monetary compensation.

Your estimates should be broken down by community.

[Gasman]

You aren't going to get much response from the few on here are you? Or not a very 'representative of the whole GC population' response. And you don't mention 'land' as well as property - how about those who owned land with no 'ancestral home' on it?

Your first question:

Return to live in the property they left behind.

I've met hardly any GCs who actually DID live in the property they now own in the North. Some have inherited it but never been there. Lots of them tell me they were not living in Cyprus in 1974, that they'd left years before that to live abroad.

Not long ago I read that the results of a poll (purely GC refugees, no TC) showed that the overwhelming majority want their property back but do not want to move to the North and live in it - that most said they'd keep it for a holiday home - I think this poll was just about property in Varosha.

[Piratis]

There are only GC refugees. The TCs moved to the occupied north voluntarily in order to achieve their aim of partition and it is very clear that partition is still what they want. (I am talking about the majority of TCs. There are always exceptions)

What most GC refugees want is the return of their properties with the right to return if they wish. So 1 and 2 combined.

Point 3 is not even possible, since there are not enough TC properties in the free areas to be exchanged with GC properties in the occupied areas.

Point 4 begs the questions "Who will pay the compensation?" The TCs can't afford to even maintain themselves. And also "Who will determine what is 'reasonable' compensation".

Furthermore this is a human rights issue, and human rights can not be abolished by referenda. Even if more than 50% voted for option 3 or 4, nobody has the right to abolish the human right of the people that want their own properties back.

Therefore the refugees should be given their own properties back and it should be up to each one individually to decide if they want to return to them or not, if they want to exchange them or not, or if they want to sell them and get money instead (at a selling price that they determine themselves).

[Piratis]

I've met hardly any GCs who actually DID live in the property they now own in the North. Some have inherited it but never been there. Lots of them tell me they were not living in Cyprus in 1974, that they'd left years before that to live abroad.

Obviously this is due to the kind of people you associate with and has nothing to do with the general Cypriot population. Most refugees live in the free areas of Cyprus, and even from those that live abroad the majority of them moved abroad after the Turkish invasion. It is apparent that it is the people you associate with that are not representative of the whole GC population.

Also, the number of refugees that would want to return to their homeland will have a lot to do with the status under which they will return and the condition of their cities/villages. Obviously very few will want to return to live under Turkish occupation even if they have the right to do so, and if their villages/cities are in a bad condition they would not return to live there until they are properly reconstructed.

[CBBB]

There are only GC refugees. The TCs moved to the occupied north voluntarily in order to achieve their aim of partition and it is very clear that partition is still what they want. (I am talking about the majority of TCs. There are always exceptions)

What most GC refugees want is the return of their properties with the right to return if they wish. So 1 and 2 combined.

Point 3 is not even possible, since there are not enough TC properties in the free areas to be exchanged with GC properties in the occupied areas.

Point 4 begs the questions "Who will pay the compensation?" The TCs can't afford to even maintain themselves. And also "Who will determine what is 'reasonable' compensation".

Furthermore this is a human rights issue, and human rights can not be abolished by referenda. Even if more than 50% voted for option 3 or 4, nobody has the right to abolish the human right of the people that want their own properties back.

Therefore the refugees should be given their own properties back and it should be up to each one individually to decide if they want to return to them or not, if they want to exchange them or not, or if they want to sell them and get money instead (at a selling price that they determine themselves).

If the percentage that wanted to return to their properties was less than the percentage that Eroglu is will to accept back, wouldn't that make for a solution?

[Piratis]

There are only GC refugees. The TCs moved to the occupied north voluntarily in order to achieve their aim of partition and it is very clear that partition is still what they want. (I am talking about the majority of TCs. There are always exceptions)

What most GC refugees want is the return of their properties with the right to return if they wish. So 1 and 2 combined.

Point 3 is not even possible, since there are not enough TC properties in the free areas to be exchanged with GC properties in the occupied areas.

Point 4 begs the questions "Who will pay the compensation?" The TCs can't afford to even maintain themselves. And also "Who will determine what is 'reasonable' compensation".

Furthermore this is a human rights issue, and human rights can not be abolished by referenda. Even if more than 50% voted for option 3 or 4, nobody has the right to abolish the human right of the people that want their own properties back.

Therefore the refugees should be given their own properties back and it should be up to each one individually to decide if they want to return to them or not, if they want to exchange them or not, or if they want to sell them and get money instead (at a selling price that they determine themselves).

If the percentage that wanted to return to their properties was less than the percentage that Eroglu is will to accept back, wouldn't that make for a solution?

No. All citizens of a country (not just refugees) should have the right to settle wherever they want within their own country with full rights. Nobody has the right to apply restrictions based on ethnicity. This is simply racist.

If the Turks think that not many GCs will want to return then why put the limit in the first place? Just let people settle wherever they wish, and if it is true that only a small number of GCs will want to return then TCs will get what they want without the need to impose such racist discriminations.

[Gasman]

No. All citizens of a country (not just refugees) should have the right to settle wherever they want within their own country with full rights.

I agree with that regarding 'citizens'. However, even in the UK, that is not the case for all citizens.

There are towns and villages in the West Country where it is stipulated that anyone buying a property there must have lived in that town for 3 yrs beforehand. To stop the disintegration of towns and local communities with them turning into 'ghost towns' where most property sits empty most of the year round, owned by people who live in London (or elsewhere) and just want the west country property for a 'holiday' or 'weekend' home.

Because when that happens to places - eventually they lose their local shops and post offices and even schools because not enough 'locals' populate them. And they also run schemes to provide 'affordable housing' to encourage younger locals to remain in situ too (the housing stock having been priced out of the market by incomers from wealthier areas). Where the housing is only available for purchase by people who can prove they've lived there all their lives and who work there and contribute to the society there.

I am just saying it is not unheard of for restrictions to be placed on 'citizens' of a country (regarding their right to buy and or live 'anywhere they want') within that country.

[Oracle]

No. All citizens of a country (not just refugees) should have the right to settle wherever they want within their own country with full rights.

I agree with that regarding 'citizens'. However, even in the UK, that is not the case for all citizens.

There are towns and villages in the West Country where it is stipulated that anyone buying a property there must have lived in that town for 3 yrs beforehand.

The GCs already own their properties in the occupied region.

Despite my not having heard of such a "3-year-law", there are no similar restrictions on people settling in towns and villages -- otherwise how can they live there for 3 years before they buy?

As usual, it's more important to you to find a loophole to justify and excuse the criminal, racist apartheid laws of the Turks than to say anything sensible.

[Get Real!]

I've met hardly any GCs who actually DID live in the property they now own in the North. Some have inherited it but never been there. Lots of them tell me they were not living in Cyprus in 1974, that they'd left years before that to live abroad.

All refugees who are greater or equal to 36 years old were living in their now illegally occupied properties.

As for the younger ones, they have EVERY RIGHT of inheritance of their parents’ land and/or homes period, and what they decide to do with their rightful property is entirely THEIR decision.

[B25]

No. All citizens of a country (not just refugees) should have the right to settle wherever they want within their own country with full rights.

I agree with that regarding 'citizens'. However, even in the UK, that is not the case for all citizens.

There are towns and villages in the West Country where it is stipulated that anyone buying a property there must have lived in that town for 3 yrs beforehand. To stop the disintegration of towns and local communities with them turning into 'ghost towns' where most property sits empty most of the year round, owned by people who live in London (or elsewhere) and just want the west country property for a 'holiday' or 'weekend' home.

Because when that happens to places - eventually they lose their local shops and post offices and even schools because not enough 'locals' populate them. And they also run schemes to provide 'affordable housing' to encourage younger locals to remain in situ too (the housing stock having been priced out of the market by incomers from wealthier areas). Where the housing is only available for purchase by people who can prove they've lived there all their lives and who work there and contribute to the society there.

I am just saying it is not unheard of for restrictions to be placed on 'citizens' of a country (regarding their right to buy and or live 'anywhere they want') within that country.

You are confusing the right to buy vs Already owning a property.

It is a universal human right, endorsed by the EJC that the original owners remain as so. Why are you looking for short-circuits to this in am attempt to prevent them taking possession of what is rightfully theirs? The only reason they haven't already done so, is because of the Turkish military machine illegally stationed here. Why are you not writing about this and other Turkish attrocities in stead of bashing the poor GC refugee?

Asto diavolo.