Cyprus-Forum.com

[erolz66]

The point I am making is that property rights cannot be limited to illegal settlers while Cypriots (and I epxressly include all communities here) who are non property owners are ignored because they happen to fall into none of the categories. This is the kind of injustice that the EU court is there to deal with.

Those settlers that are granted Cypriot citizenship under the terms of a settlement will NOT be 'illegal settlers' they will be Cypriot citizens no different from any other. The argument that those who did not loose property as a result of the events of 74 have to receive the same 'benefits' as those that did is so bogus that I am shocked it can be put forward by someone for whom law is supposedly their profession. Are you saying that the CURRENT RoC laws that provide 'benefits' to those GC that were displaced as a result of 74 and that does NOT grant the same to EVERY RoC citizen is "kind of injustice that the EU court is there to deal with" ?

[Sotos]

Today in Cyprus we have a democratic state that functions reasonably well. The occupation creates problems but we got used to those a problems. Something called a "solution" should be something that solves our problems and doesn't create new bigger ones. With a federation new problems will be created... we already talked about the problems of dysfunctional Bosnia and with Turkey behind the TCs the new problems created in Cyprus will be even greater. And then at the same time the Turkish side wants most Settlers to stay, they want the "users" to have precedence over the owners etc ... so our current problems will be solved only partially. So after you add and subtract, such "solution" will end up be a bigger problem for us... before even we start thinking about the possible conflicts that can be created out of it.

[erolz66]

Today in Cyprus we have a democratic state that functions reasonably well. The occupation creates problems but we got used to those a problems. Something called a "solution" should be something that solves our problems and doesn't create new bigger ones. With a federation new problems will be created... we already talked about the problems of dysfunctional Bosnia and with Turkey behind the TCs the new problems created in Cyprus will be even greater. And then at the same time the Turkish side wants most Settlers to stay, they want the "users" to have precedence over the owners etc ... so our current problems will be solved only partially. So after you add and subtract, such "solution" will end up be a bigger problem for us... before even we start thinking about the possible conflicts that can be created out of it.

Well a much less, imo, hysteronic response that some we have seen here so far. I do not see anyone saying that 'current users' will have precedence over owners. I see them saying that both groups rights need to be considered - as the ECHR has also already said. If you decide that based on what the plan actually says that it does not represent a solution with more positives or potential positives for yourself or Cypriots in general then so be it, I respect that and will respect it. However judging from what has been said here in this thread by some about the Annan plan my fear is that judgement may not be made based on what the plan ACTUALLY says but based on fictions about what it says.

[Sotos]

My point is that the TC side doesn't seem to realize that the power sharing arrangement we are willing to accept is already a big loss for the GCs (compared to what we currently have). To entice GCs to accept such power sharing arrangement then issues such as property rights, territory, settlers, guarantees etc should not be very far from what our side can consider as ideal. If the Turkish side is not ready to make big compromises on those issues then it should make a compromise on the power sharing arrangement. Otherwise I really can't see a result that will be voted by the majority of GCs.

[Oceanside50]

When did the EU say exactly the opposite?

It is just a historical fact that the EU endorsed the Annan plan. I will not waste my time arguing with you about this.

Was it when it endorsed a plan that segregates and legalizes racial profiling and discrimination...?... Does the EU endorse apartheid or mechanisms that create apartheid being made legal?

This is how YOU choose to characterise the Annan plan. It is NOT how Kofi Annan characterised it, you know that man that was Secretary General of the UN, you know that body whose resolutions you laud and respect when they suit your narrative, the same organaisation you claim first brokered and then endorsed a plan that would have created 'apartheid' in Cyprus had it been accepted.

Was it when the EU's own courts declared that land taken through ethnic cleansing was illegal in the Louizidou case and that her property still belongs to her?

The ECHR is not an organ of the EU. It is an organ of the Council of Europe. That you can not even get basic facts right does not bode well. That ECHR ruling made no reference to 'ethnic cleansing' or declared what happened in 74 as 'illegal' - mainly because it had and has no jurisdiction to make such judgements. What it ruled was that depriving Louizidou of access to and use of her property in the North, without any mechanism by which she could seek redress, was a violation of her human rights by Turkey. I suggest you actually READ what the ECHR ruling said rather than just make up what you would have liked it to have said. While you are at it you might also read what it has said in subsequent rulings re the mechanism Turkey needed to put in place to stop similar violations of human rights .

When did the EU or the international community say and endorse the Annan Plan?

That you can even ask this question just shows how divorced from reality you actually are. Let's start with the easy one shall we. Do you claim the UN did NOT endorse the Annan plan ?

I don't care how Kofi Annan characterized the plan, when all he wanted was accolades for bringing a plan through arbitration and not UN resolutions....The plan is riddled with segregation, denying of peoples rights to property, due process, religion, language etc...90% of the property in occupied Cyprus is Greek owned, the plan never referred to that, but in every other UN resolution it does. For the sake of argument the plan was a complete joke..the demands the TC/Turkey have been making are all a joke. A waste of time and resources based on the sophomoric demands of a minority of 15 %. No right minded Western man will ever allow himself to be put into slavery or apartheid or segregation or lose his rights, for the sake of a perverted solution put out by Kofi Annan. There are plenty of points in the Annan plan that prove the TC are not serious about a solution and what their intentions have been all along, to segregate themselves from the rest of Cyprus.. The best the TC can ever hope for is a pick up truck in front of the GC house they illegally occupy to take them and their belongings back to their villages in Paphos, Larnaca, etc...

[Lordo]

My point is that the TC side doesn't seem to realize that the power sharing arrangement we are willing to accept is already a big loss for the GCs (compared to what we currently have). To entice GCs to accept such power sharing arrangement then issues such as property rights, territory, settlers, guarantees etc should not be very far from what our side can consider as ideal. If the Turkish side is not ready to make big compromises on those issues then it should make a compromise on the power sharing arrangement. Otherwise I really can't see a result that will be voted by the majority of GCs.

may i take this opportunity to remind you that in 1963 tcs shared that power by having a veto and you forced the tcs into enclaves and stole it power from them you piece of little shit. if you dont want to give back what you stole declare udi and form your own county. groc is what you deserve.

[Lordo]

When did the EU say exactly the opposite?

It is just a historical fact that the EU endorsed the Annan plan. I will not waste my time arguing with you about this.

Was it when it endorsed a plan that segregates and legalizes racial profiling and discrimination...?... Does the EU endorse apartheid or mechanisms that create apartheid being made legal?

This is how YOU choose to characterise the Annan plan. It is NOT how Kofi Annan characterised it, you know that man that was Secretary General of the UN, you know that body whose resolutions you laud and respect when they suit your narrative, the same organaisation you claim first brokered and then endorsed a plan that would have created 'apartheid' in Cyprus had it been accepted.

Was it when the EU's own courts declared that land taken through ethnic cleansing was illegal in the Louizidou case and that her property still belongs to her?

The ECHR is not an organ of the EU. It is an organ of the Council of Europe. That you can not even get basic facts right does not bode well. That ECHR ruling made no reference to 'ethnic cleansing' or declared what happened in 74 as 'illegal' - mainly because it had and has no jurisdiction to make such judgements. What it ruled was that depriving Louizidou of access to and use of her property in the North, without any mechanism by which she could seek redress, was a violation of her human rights by Turkey. I suggest you actually READ what the ECHR ruling said rather than just make up what you would have liked it to have said. While you are at it you might also read what it has said in subsequent rulings re the mechanism Turkey needed to put in place to stop similar violations of human rights .

When did the EU or the international community say and endorse the Annan Plan?

That you can even ask this question just shows how divorced from reality you actually are. Let's start with the easy one shall we. Do you claim the UN did NOT endorse the Annan plan ?

I don't care how Kofi Annan characterized the plan, when all he wanted was accolades for bringing a plan through arbitration and not UN resolutions....The plan is riddled with segregation, denying of peoples rights to property, due process, religion, language etc...90% of the property in occupied Cyprus is Greek owned, the plan never referred to that, but in every other UN resolution it does. For the sake of argument the plan was a complete joke..the demands the TC/Turkey have been making are all a joke. A waste of time and resources based on the sophomoric demands of a minority of 15 %. No right minded Western man will ever allow himself to be put into slavery or apartheid or segregation or lose his rights, for the sake of a perverted solution put out by Kofi Annan. There are plenty of points in the Annan plan that prove the TC are not serious about a solution and what their intentions have been all along, to segregate themselves from the rest of Cyprus.. The best the TC can ever hope for is a pick up truck in front of the GC house they illegally occupy to take them and their belongings back to their villages in Paphos, Larnaca, etc...

my my thats some venom boy, spit it out.

since when did you have 90% of the property and since when have tcs dropped to 15%. i got news for you. tcs number 300,000 that is 50% of gcs not counting foreigners in the south. as to proerty tcs have more in the value in the south then gcs have in the north. so sling your hook over across the pond idiot.

[Sotos]

My point is that the TC side doesn't seem to realize that the power sharing arrangement we are willing to accept is already a big loss for the GCs (compared to what we currently have). To entice GCs to accept such power sharing arrangement then issues such as property rights, territory, settlers, guarantees etc should not be very far from what our side can consider as ideal. If the Turkish side is not ready to make big compromises on those issues then it should make a compromise on the power sharing arrangement. Otherwise I really can't see a result that will be voted by the majority of GCs.

may i take this opportunity to remind you that in 1963 tcs shared that power by having a veto and you forced the tcs into enclaves and stole it power from them you piece of little shit. if you dont want to give back what you stole declare udi and form your own county. groc is what you deserve.

The TCs got that power in 1960 by collaborating with the Colonialists... they never deserved such powers to begin with. In any case you lost any legal right to even have such demands in 1974. The only way you can make such demands is if you demand a return to the 1960 agreements. Otherwise you can suck my cock.. you keep 37% of land illegally and we keep the 100% of power share in RoC legally. We have no need for any "udi" and RoC is GRoC by default. If you want this changed you need to make compromises that will make a solution acceptable to us.

[cypriotnado]

Well according to many Cypriot papers today the two main rejectionist parties Edek and Diko are in total disarray. Both are unable even to get there membership to support the rejectionist line. Greek Cypriots are waking up to the prospect of a deal.Forget the nonsense and self serving fantasy of the hard line rejectionists. These are the same people who caused the mess in the first place with those fruitless demands for Enosis.

And Nikitas please show me the sources for a French or italian base in Cyprus.

[Get Real!]

Well according to many Cypriot papers today the two main rejectionist parties Edek and Diko are in total disarray. Both are unable even to get there membership to support the rejectionist line.

You mean according to the CM only!

Greek Cypriots are waking up to the prospect of a deal.

What "deal" is that? To legitimize the Turkish invader/occupier? Sorry, no deal!

Forget the nonsense and self serving fantasy of the hard line rejectionists. These are the same people who caused the mess in the first place with those fruitless demands for Enosis.

The demands for enosis were predominantly coming from people who later became DISY supporters like the current president!

It goes to show how much you know or understand Cyprus... but then again if your source of information is the misleading Turkey-sponsored CM it's no wonder.