Cyprus-Forum.com

[Sotos]

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.

Who is causing the problems in Cyprus are the Turks. They have been causing problems to the native Cypriot people since the day they came uninvited to our island. As you should know from 2004 the parties are able to direct the vote of only a certain number of people ... 2/3rds of DISY supporters didn't follow the instructions of their party in 2004 and most of those who would have voted "yes" from the other parties voted "yes" anyway. My prediction: 80% there will be no agreement between the leaders and no referendum. 19% there will be a referendum and will be rejected by one or the other side. As it stands there is simply no kind of solution that can be accepted by both sides. For GCs to vote for a solution it needs to be much better for the GC side, but in that case most probably TCs/Settlers will reject it. 1% the referendum will pass with 50.1% for each side... the worst possible outcome guaranteed to cause major conflicts within months.

[Nikitas]

"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"

First of all the proposed legalisation of settlers has not been defined. We do not know it it will be limited to marriage.

Secondly what is clear is that the Eu legal regime is against discriminatory treatment of citizens.

Thrid point, if any settlers who are legalised in any way other than by marriage get property, then yes, the rest of us can claim equal treatment, especially those that do not own any property and did not lose any property in 1974. We too deserve to become stakeholders in the Republic via landholding.

That is precisely what I am saying, and am prepared to pay to test this contention in a court. If Hasan from Adana who was imported to Cyprus post 1974 can receive a house, against a modest sum paid as compensation to its owners, then the rest of us who own no property must be granted the same right, to acquire equal area and quality property for the same sum. That simple. It has nothing to do with being displaced in 1974 etc, it relates to the equality of ctizens.

As Hasan was not displaced, he was imported, at least the rest of us were borne here, we simply did not buy or inherit any property. We want to be put on equal footing with Hasan. And I am talking about ALL citizens, of all communities.

This is not a displaced person thing, it is a property rights issue for all. Expect many such actions post settlement as citizens test the limits of the new settlement. We had such actions in the early 60s, from many people who felt unustly treated under the 1960 agreement. Which is why the constitutional court was the busiest divisional court back then.

This patriotic thing is OK up to a point, and from then on people start to look at their personal and financial interests. The days when a few could exploit situations and silence the many by invoking patriotism are over.

[Sotos]

If Hasan from Adana who was imported to Cyprus post 1974 can receive a house, against a modest sum paid as compensation to its owners, then the rest of us who own no property must be granted the same right

That is right. Not to mention that Hasan will probably not pay a cent and that any compensations will end up be paid by the Cypriot taxpayer. The "current user" might have a "right" not to be kicked out in the street from one day to the next... but no court anywhere can grant to him ownership of the property he is illegally occupying. Even if you legally rent a property that property doesn't become yours even if you lived in it your whole life... even if you parents and grandparents lived in it their whole lives. You have certain "renters rights" and thats about it. If you want the property to becomes yours then (a) the owner should be willing to sell it, (b) you should pay the price that the owner is asking for.

[erolz66]

"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"

First of all the proposed legalisation of settlers has not been defined. We do not know it it will be limited to marriage.

Secondly what is clear is that the Eu legal regime is against discriminatory treatment of citizens.

Thrid point, if any settlers who are legalised in any way other than by marriage get property, then yes, the rest of us can claim equal treatment, especially those that do not own any property and did not lose any property in 1974. We too deserve to become stakeholders in the Republic via landholding.

That is precisely what I am saying, and am prepared to pay to test this contention in a court. If Hasan from Adana who was imported to Cyprus post 1974 can receive a house, against a modest sum paid as compensation to its owners, then the rest of us who own no property must be granted the same right, to acquire equal area and quality property for the same sum. That simple. It has nothing to do with being displaced in 1974 etc, it relates to the equality of ctizens.

As Hasan was not displaced, he was imported, at least the rest of us were borne here, we simply did not buy or inherit any property. We want to be put on equal footing with Hasan. And I am talking about ALL citizens, of all communities.

This is not a displaced person thing, it is a property rights issue for all. Expect many such actions post settlement as citizens test the limits of the new settlement. We had such actions in the early 60s, from many people who felt unustly treated under the 1960 agreement. Which is why the constitutional court was the busiest divisional court back then.

This patriotic thing is OK up to a point, and from then on people start to look at their personal and financial interests. The days when a few could exploit situations and silence the many by invoking patriotism are over.

If Hassan is granted Cypriot citizenship as part of an agreement, he will be a Cypriot Citizen with exactly the same rights as every other Cypriot Citizen. If Hasan is a 'current user' of a pre 74 GC owned property and himself lost no property as a result of the events of 74, then he will have exactly the same rights as such as a Georgios who did not own land in the north pre 74 but was displaced by the events of 74 and now is a 'current user' of a pre 74 TC property in the South. The idea that either Hasan or Georgios will simply be given full title to the property they are 'current users' of at no or next to no cost to them is not one I have seen ANY evidence for in what we know of the talks so far.

[Sotos]

Practically speaking nearly no Settler will afford to pay the real price of the property himself. And even if they could I am pretty sure they wouldn't want to. Most of the Settlers came to Cyprus for the "free" properties and I doubt they will vote for any solution that would require from them to pay or give back the gift that was made to them by Turkey. It is really not possible for one solution to satisfy both the GCs and the TCs/Settlers. If the TCs did not demand 50% power share then maybe we could be convinced to "cut our losses" on the issues of property and territory with the thinking that "something is better than nothing". But when you add the power sharing into the mix then this becomes impossible because we end up losing more than what we gain. Maybe the TCs should also "cut their losses" and accept "something rather than nothing" in terms of power share... then a "win win" solution (compared to the current situation) might be possible.

[repulsewarrior]

Practically speaking nearly no Settler will afford to pay the real price of the property himself. And even if they could I am pretty sure they wouldn't want to. Most of the Settlers came to Cyprus for the "free" properties and I doubt they will vote for any solution that would require from them to pay or give back the gift that was made to them by Turkey. It is really not possible for one solution to satisfy both the GCs and the TCs/Settlers. If the TCs did not demand 50% power share then maybe we could be convinced to "cut our losses" on the issues of property and territory with the thinking that "something is better than nothing". But when you add the power sharing into the mix then this becomes impossible because we end up losing more than what we gain. Maybe the TCs should also "cut their losses" and accept "something rather than nothing" in terms of power share... then a "win win" solution (compared to the current situation) might be possible.

...water, if the pipeline is delivered, Turkey can pay the reparations she has admitted to with the establishment of the IPC.

With Cyprus as an equal, Turkey has a partner toward regional prosperity, the relations once normalised, invites cooperation between all the regional players.

[Nikitas]

We do not know what is being discussed. Today I read that the properties issue includes 24 categories of criteria.

Once again our politicians are pursuing secret talks, complete with leaks to test public opinion. Funny how these leaks are never attributable to anyone, even though the talks involve a very small circle of people. Leaks provoke reactions and in turn they can be denied by all concerned if the reaction is too strong.

This is a bullshit way to negotiate the future of a nation in which the situation has a direct bearing on regional stability. The people have a right to know what is being negotiated. The notion that they can peruse the final agreement before voting in a referendum is equal bullshit, the agreement includes 9000 pages of legalese no one can read and understand it in a few days. More so when each community via that referendum adopts its regional constitution.

The more challenges announced now, before the agreement, the better. It is a process of self defence to warn the politicians of what is and is not acceptable.

The semi hypothetical example re land holding reflects thinking in both communities regarding settler rights. I have heard from several TCs the resentment towards settlers and the favorable treatment they get.

Additionally, the "remedy" to legalising settlers via the granting of a numerical offset to the GC side is peculiar. For every one settler legalised in the north the south will have the right to legalise four people (last weeks press reports). This is verging on madness. We are talking about suddenly getting a total of 300 000 "compatriots" (60 000 plus 60 000 times 4) whose links to Cyprus are tenuous and of doubtful sincerity. We are talking of about a 30 per cent increase in our population inorder to retain some dubious sense of "fairness".

Notice also that neither side has proposed any measure to attract expatatriate Cypriots. Funny that they can talk of naturalisation of foreigners in a constitutional agreement, but have no time for Cypriots. And funnier that some people in here think this agreement is a step forward.

I find the idea of paying to repatriate 60 000 TCs to the north a lot more acceptable, desirable even, than legalising an equal number of Turks. And in the case of TC repatriation there would be no need for counterbalancing mass naturalisations in the south.

I know, I am being funny etc etc

[GreekIslandGirl]

If the British thought it acceptable to offer TCs the trip to Turkey, both in the 1920s and then again in 1964 (for free), I do not see a problem with doing that again, not only for those TCs who do not wish to remain in Cyprus as a democracy but certainly a return trip to all those settlers brought here against all international laws.

[Lordo]

dont you see any reason why they may give the two finger salute my dear.

[Lordo]

We do not know what is being discussed. Today I read that the properties issue includes 24 categories of criteria.

Once again our politicians are pursuing secret talks, complete with leaks to test public opinion. Funny how these leaks are never attributable to anyone, even though the talks involve a very small circle of people. Leaks provoke reactions and in turn they can be denied by all concerned if the reaction is too strong.

This is a bullshit way to negotiate the future of a nation in which the situation has a direct bearing on regional stability. The people have a right to know what is being negotiated. The notion that they can peruse the final agreement before voting in a referendum is equal bullshit, the agreement includes 9000 pages of legalese no one can read and understand it in a few days. More so when each community via that referendum adopts its regional constitution.

The more challenges announced now, before the agreement, the better. It is a process of self defence to warn the politicians of what is and is not acceptable.

The semi hypothetical example re land holding reflects thinking in both communities regarding settler rights. I have heard from several TCs the resentment towards settlers and the favorable treatment they get.

Additionally, the "remedy" to legalising settlers via the granting of a numerical offset to the GC side is peculiar. For every one settler legalised in the north the south will have the right to legalise four people (last weeks press reports). This is verging on madness. We are talking about suddenly getting a total of 300 000 "compatriots" (60 000 plus 60 000 times 4) whose links to Cyprus are tenuous and of doubtful sincerity. We are talking of about a 30 per cent increase in our population inorder to retain some dubious sense of "fairness".

Notice also that neither side has proposed any measure to attract expatatriate Cypriots. Funny that they can talk of naturalisation of foreigners in a constitutional agreement, but have no time for Cypriots. And funnier that some people in here think this agreement is a step forward.

I find the idea of paying to repatriate 60 000 TCs to the north a lot more acceptable, desirable even, than legalising an equal number of Turks. And in the case of TC repatriation there would be no need for counterbalancing mass naturalisations in the south.

I know, I am being funny etc etc