Cyprus-Forum.com

[DTA]

The A plan was an absolute disgrace - Any settlement which does not give (with certain very limited exceptions) the return of property based upon pre 74 legal ownership or at the option of tht owner, compensation, whether Greek Speaking Cypriot or Turkish speaking Cypriot, (and that includes the return of property abandoned even before 1974) should not be accepted.

Fair point but how would that work in realty - the 70,000 TCs that were forced to move in 74 would now be forced to move again?

It cuts both ways - there are a number of Greek Speaking Cypriots who were forced to move in 1974 and who may not want to move again, but who might be obliged to do so....

I understand this but from a personal point of view the GC living in my family's property in the south have a life built there, they have work, kids etc etc how can we even as the legal owner of the property morally ask them to move out?

Morally that would be wrong after so many years surely? because it would not sit well with me forcing them to move, it would be better (in my humble opinion) for both parties the people in our home and my family if the ROC gave us market value for the property and land plus rent+ interest, for its use and gave them ownership pending them doing the same with their land in the north.

[kurupetos]

The UN's so-called Annan Plan, for resolution of the Cyprus problem, evolved through five different texts. Up to Annan III the proposal was subject to negotiations with the Cypriote: it was generally acceptable to the Greek Cypriots but rejected by Denktash and his army supporters in Turkey. The final proposal, Annan V, radically changed to satisfy the wishes of the Turkish army, was not made subject to Greek Cypriot or Turkish Cypriot negotiation Its apparent objective was to secure a deal, of any sort, in advance of Cypriot accession to the EU, in such formula as would help to decriminalize Turkey's position in Cyprus and ease Turkey's path to EU accession.
Clare Palley was a legal advisor to the UN process. It has been written that no one reading her exhaustive documentation of events and statements relating to Annan V could fail to be convinced "that the rush to force a settlement on the Greek and Turkish Cypriots in 2004 was motivated and executed with deceit, stupidity and flagrant disregard for the sovereignty and freedom of peoples."

Ok fair point but I was looking at specifics, areas that could be changed and acceptable to both side, I can see how the points that I have pointed out above are not acceptable in any terms and should be removed.

Why does an EU country need BBF? Have you ever thought about that?

[DTA]

the day before tcs take to the streets in their tens of housands to protest against turkey's clutches, DTA asks why people free from turkey's clutches voted against a plan fully endorsed by turkey.

a senior turkish diplomat taking part in the negotiations stated at the time that the turks had obtained "everything they wanted" and "it's the best possible conclusion for us."

http://www.bakutoday.net/turks-happy-greeks-gloomy.html

was looking for specifics zoc - purhaps he said this to make TCs vote yes, I doubt less then 2% on either side read the entire document and therefore were as in most cases in politics lead by their leaders (whether rightly or wrongly)

[DTA]

The UN's so-called Annan Plan, for resolution of the Cyprus problem, evolved through five different texts. Up to Annan III the proposal was subject to negotiations with the Cypriote: it was generally acceptable to the Greek Cypriots but rejected by Denktash and his army supporters in Turkey. The final proposal, Annan V, radically changed to satisfy the wishes of the Turkish army, was not made subject to Greek Cypriot or Turkish Cypriot negotiation Its apparent objective was to secure a deal, of any sort, in advance of Cypriot accession to the EU, in such formula as would help to decriminalize Turkey's position in Cyprus and ease Turkey's path to EU accession.
Clare Palley was a legal advisor to the UN process. It has been written that no one reading her exhaustive documentation of events and statements relating to Annan V could fail to be convinced "that the rush to force a settlement on the Greek and Turkish Cypriots in 2004 was motivated and executed with deceit, stupidity and flagrant disregard for the sovereignty and freedom of peoples."

Ok fair point but I was looking at specifics, areas that could be changed and acceptable to both side, I can see how the points that I have pointed out above are not acceptable in any terms and should be removed.

Why does an EU country need BBF? Have you ever thought about that?

We have been negociating a bff since the 70s if you are hoping for anything else then it is as realistic as partition or maybe even less so

[kurupetos]

The UN's so-called Annan Plan, for resolution of the Cyprus problem, evolved through five different texts. Up to Annan III the proposal was subject to negotiations with the Cypriote: it was generally acceptable to the Greek Cypriots but rejected by Denktash and his army supporters in Turkey. The final proposal, Annan V, radically changed to satisfy the wishes of the Turkish army, was not made subject to Greek Cypriot or Turkish Cypriot negotiation Its apparent objective was to secure a deal, of any sort, in advance of Cypriot accession to the EU, in such formula as would help to decriminalize Turkey's position in Cyprus and ease Turkey's path to EU accession.
Clare Palley was a legal advisor to the UN process. It has been written that no one reading her exhaustive documentation of events and statements relating to Annan V could fail to be convinced "that the rush to force a settlement on the Greek and Turkish Cypriots in 2004 was motivated and executed with deceit, stupidity and flagrant disregard for the sovereignty and freedom of peoples."

Ok fair point but I was looking at specifics, areas that could be changed and acceptable to both side, I can see how the points that I have pointed out above are not acceptable in any terms and should be removed.

Why does an EU country need BBF? Have you ever thought about that?

We have been negociating a bff since the 70s

Obviously not successfully. Let's try something else.

[quattro]

The A plan was an absolute disgrace - Any settlement which does not give (with certain very limited exceptions) the return of property based upon pre 74 legal ownership or at the option of tht owner, compensation, whether Greek Speaking Cypriot or Turkish speaking Cypriot, (and that includes the return of property abandoned even before 1974) should not be accepted.

Fair point but how would that work in realty - the 70,000 TCs that were forced to move in 74 would now be forced to move again?

It cuts both ways - there are a number of Greek Speaking Cypriots who were forced to move in 1974 and who may not want to move again, but who might be obliged to do so....

I understand this but from a personal point of view the GC living in my family's property in the south have a life built there, they have work, kids etc etc how can we even as the legal owner of the property morally ask them to move out?

Morally that would be wrong after so many years surely? because it would not sit well with me forcing them to move, it would be better (in my humble opinion) for both parties the people in our home and my family if the ROC gave us market value for the property and land plus rent+ interest, for its use and gave them ownership pending them doing the same with their land in the north.

DTA lets redused the cost a bit forget rent +interest market value in these days is fair enough

[DTA]

The UN's so-called Annan Plan, for resolution of the Cyprus problem, evolved through five different texts. Up to Annan III the proposal was subject to negotiations with the Cypriote: it was generally acceptable to the Greek Cypriots but rejected by Denktash and his army supporters in Turkey. The final proposal, Annan V, radically changed to satisfy the wishes of the Turkish army, was not made subject to Greek Cypriot or Turkish Cypriot negotiation Its apparent objective was to secure a deal, of any sort, in advance of Cypriot accession to the EU, in such formula as would help to decriminalize Turkey's position in Cyprus and ease Turkey's path to EU accession.
Clare Palley was a legal advisor to the UN process. It has been written that no one reading her exhaustive documentation of events and statements relating to Annan V could fail to be convinced "that the rush to force a settlement on the Greek and Turkish Cypriots in 2004 was motivated and executed with deceit, stupidity and flagrant disregard for the sovereignty and freedom of peoples."

Ok fair point but I was looking at specifics, areas that could be changed and acceptable to both side, I can see how the points that I have pointed out above are not acceptable in any terms and should be removed.

Why does an EU country need BBF? Have you ever thought about that?

We have been negociating a bbf since the 70s

Obviously not successfully. Let's try something else.

ok that was funny but I think bbf would be a compromise by both sides and is the only thing we both sets of cypriots would ever say yes to (maybe)

[kurupetos]

The UN's so-called Annan Plan, for resolution of the Cyprus problem, evolved through five different texts. Up to Annan III the proposal was subject to negotiations with the Cypriote: it was generally acceptable to the Greek Cypriots but rejected by Denktash and his army supporters in Turkey. The final proposal, Annan V, radically changed to satisfy the wishes of the Turkish army, was not made subject to Greek Cypriot or Turkish Cypriot negotiation Its apparent objective was to secure a deal, of any sort, in advance of Cypriot accession to the EU, in such formula as would help to decriminalize Turkey's position in Cyprus and ease Turkey's path to EU accession.
Clare Palley was a legal advisor to the UN process. It has been written that no one reading her exhaustive documentation of events and statements relating to Annan V could fail to be convinced "that the rush to force a settlement on the Greek and Turkish Cypriots in 2004 was motivated and executed with deceit, stupidity and flagrant disregard for the sovereignty and freedom of peoples."

Ok fair point but I was looking at specifics, areas that could be changed and acceptable to both side, I can see how the points that I have pointed out above are not acceptable in any terms and should be removed.

Why does an EU country need BBF? Have you ever thought about that?

We have been negociating a bbf since the 70s

Obviously not successfully. Let's try something else.

ok that was funny but I think bbf would be a compromise by both sides and is the only thing we both sets of cypriots would ever say yes to (maybe)

We already said no. Why didn't we negotiate BBF in 1959 then?

[ZoC]

the day before tcs take to the streets in their tens of housands to protest against turkey's clutches, DTA asks why people free from turkey's clutches voted against a plan fully endorsed by turkey.

a senior turkish diplomat taking part in the negotiations stated at the time that the turks had obtained "everything they wanted" and "it's the best possible conclusion for us."

http://www.bakutoday.net/turks-happy-greeks-gloomy.html

was looking for specifics zoc - purhaps he said this to make TCs vote yes, I doubt less then 2% on either side read the entire document and therefore were as in most cases in politics lead by their leaders (whether rightly or wrongly)

that is a specific. u can be sure the diplomant read the entire document and if he concluded turkey obtained everything she wanted u can be sure the plan was not in the interests of cypriots.

[ZoC]

The UN's so-called Annan Plan, for resolution of the Cyprus problem, evolved through five different texts. Up to Annan III the proposal was subject to negotiations with the Cypriote: it was generally acceptable to the Greek Cypriots but rejected by Denktash and his army supporters in Turkey. The final proposal, Annan V, radically changed to satisfy the wishes of the Turkish army, was not made subject to Greek Cypriot or Turkish Cypriot negotiation Its apparent objective was to secure a deal, of any sort, in advance of Cypriot accession to the EU, in such formula as would help to decriminalize Turkey's position in Cyprus and ease Turkey's path to EU accession.
Clare Palley was a legal advisor to the UN process. It has been written that no one reading her exhaustive documentation of events and statements relating to Annan V could fail to be convinced "that the rush to force a settlement on the Greek and Turkish Cypriots in 2004 was motivated and executed with deceit, stupidity and flagrant disregard for the sovereignty and freedom of peoples."

Ok fair point but I was looking at specifics, areas that could be changed and acceptable to both side, I can see how the points that I have pointed out above are not acceptable in any terms and should be removed.

Why does an EU country need BBF? Have you ever thought about that?

We have been negociating a bbf since the 70s

Obviously not successfully. Let's try something else.

ok that was funny but I think bbf would be a compromise by both sides and is the only thing we both sets of cypriots would ever say yes to (maybe)

cypriots free from turkey's clutches neither need to nor are in the mood for compromise.