Tony-4497 wrote:No they didnt, TCs would only get 1/3rd of their property in the south back, just like GCs would only get 1/3rd of their property in the north.
I may have been thinking about the previous version with respect to their actual properties - but I am pretty sure that based on the population quotas in the final plan ALL TCs could have returned to the GC component state if they wanted to... and certainly not vice-versa.
Ah, you are talking about residence rights, that is a slightly different issue from property rights. And yes, in terms of residence rights all TCs would in practice have the right to live in the south, while this same right might be denied to GCs wanting to live in the north.
Property is a different issue however, and not necessarily related. TCs don't care so much about the right to residence in the south - they wouldn't want to live under GC administration - as they do about their right to OWN their original property. It is this right that was denied to them in the Annan Plan, where each individual would be allowed to keep 1/3rd of his property - i.e. if he had 12 donums he would be allowed to keep 4 donums.
This should not be confused with the 1/3 rd restriction to
residence rights, whereby if the TC constituent state had 120,000 TC residents then the maximum number of GCs that could live there would be 60,000. This, as you correctly point out, is in practice restrictive to GCs but not to TCs.
Tony-4497 wrote:If GCs are allowed to get title deeds for TC properties they are using (mostly speaking here about refugee housing built on TC land), shouldn't the same right be granted to TCs using GC properties in the north? I believe this reality will eventually sink in, that we cannot have it both ways ..
That's not what I was talking about. In fact, if you check out today's announcements by the Goverment, you will see that titles will be given for all properties which do not affect TC property rights whereas those using TC property will be given alternative compensation.
This, combined with the Arif case, guarantees that TCs will be able to get their properties back and that your idea of exchanges is unlikely to be accepted by the government - and certainly not by the people.
As for having your cake and eating it.. are you saying, for example, that refugees who were given £6k as a contribution for buying a house or who received a shabby flat or tiny house in a nasty refugee camp in the middle of nowhere should give up any property they have in the occupied areas in return?
You are entitled to your views, but please try to understand that the basic right of ownership and full return to the stolen land is not negotiable for the vast majority of Cypriots - it is misleading to suggest otherwise here.
Thank you, I was not aware that this was so regarding the title deeds. Does this "not giving deeds for TC property" also cover Refugee houses built over TC land - in Germasogeia for instance - or just GCs living in pre-1974 TC houses? Please clarify this for me, if you happen to know the answer.
As for the cake ..
- yes, I am saying that they should be willing to give up EQUIVALENT property to the one they have been given, not by any means ALL their property, since almost by definition refugees have received much less than what they lost. This should especially apply if the house they have been given a deed to was built over TC land. If not, then I agree that the two matters - what you have been given and what you had before 1974 - are not necessarily related.
As for what might and what might not be negotiable, I think that the government - not just this but all GC leaderships so far - are prepared to consider a reasonable compromise on the issue of property rights, so long as "restitution of property is the rule rather than the exception". The people's response to my "option D" in the survey indicates that the wider public is not necessarily alien to such a notion of a compromise solution to the property issue - but more detailed research is required ..
