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.

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

I think if the Gcs who have land in the north are getting compensation (which I think they should) as well as market value, for loss of use of their lands in the TRNC then the same should apply to us as well as it is only fair, dont you? If it meant that both parties GC and TCs would have to give up the idea of compensation and just receive market value in order for unification under whatever form to be financially viable then I think you are right.

[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)

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

so you are against any kind of BBF then?

[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)

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

Well we tried Unitary state - that definately didnt work so it is BBf or nothing

[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?

Well we tried Unitary state - that definately didnt work so it is BBf or nothing

We have never tried a unitary state. Have you ever read the 1960 constitution?

[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.

so you are against any kind of BBF then?

yep. i'm after complete, unconditional surrender. and then i promise to be magnanamus.

[DTA]

Nah

[kurupetos]

Nah

Then log out and start reading.

[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)

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

Well we tried Unitary state - that definately didnt work so it is BBf or nothing

We have never tried a unitary state. Have you ever read the 1960 constitution?

Some not all, in isolation I would agree but because of what has happened on our island it is closer to a unitary state then we are ever likely to see.

[DTA]

Nah

Then log out and start reading.

Sorry that was meant for Zoc

[boulio]

from annnan 3 to annan 5 there were major shifts:

1)karpasia not included
2)annan plan would be primary eu law derogations included.
3)permanent stationing of turkish troops.

that alone should suffice dta.

papadopoulos had stated that he would negotiate on annan 3 when they got to switzerland things changed dramaitcally with undersecraterys ozug 11 points inserted into the plan to form annan 5