Cyprus-Forum.com

[Kifeas]

1.We get 82% of the land instead of 70%

We was getting the 70% plus the 1/3 of the TC area and this is 80% you are not so good in math, start with algebra it will help you.

Not quite right! We were going to get 1/3 of the GC properties only, i.e. of the 60% of the North-TC state’s territory, and this only if it was going to be available after all those that would have had priority over it and all the other pre-conditions would have been exhausted, and even this would have had any practically meaning if the GCs would have actually been able to returned (i.e. if the conditions were such that would have encouraged them to return and settle,) otherwise most would have gradually sold them out, thus living the entire 29% (and the 47% of the coastlines) into the complete control of the TC community alone.

[Kifeas]

it is true that political equality does not mean equal numerical participation.
but the way i understand the above , political equality means (as in the 1960s) veto - rights.

my understanding is that what is important for tcs is precisely that a system "ensures that the federal Government will not be empowered to adopt any measures against the interests of one community" , and not equal numerical participation. in that sense (and recalling a proposed system of parliament by kifeas ) i believe we agree.

No it doesn't imply or require veto rights as such, i.e. as they existed in the 1960 constitution for the president and vice president, but it instead calls for effective separate participation (not separate majorities as such) in the decision making process and in the adoption of laws and constitutional amendments, and mechanisms to ensure that no one community is politically empowered to the extent of making decisions to the detriment of the other community. That is how I read it.

Yes, the plan I suggested fits perfectly within the above parameters of a BBF and political equality.

[Socrates]

You have right for the above I’m little dizzy.

We was getting the 1/3 of the 80% (our properties)

The 60% thing does not exist in Papadopoulos Markides and Tsielepis analysis.

And your theory is just words were no one else was ever said before by my opinion.

If was such issue from some politician I would like to see them describing it.

[Kifeas]

You have right for the above I’m little dizzy.

We was getting the 1/3 of the 80% (our properties)

The 60% thing does not exist in Papadopoulos Markides and Tsielepis analysis.

And your theory is just words were no one else was ever said before by my opinion.

If was such issue from some politician I would like to see them describing it.

Show me the analysis Socrates which talks of the above! There isn't such an analysis! In fact, in the areas which would have remained under the control of the North/TC state after territorial adjustments, only 57% of the territory of this 29% constitutes private GC land ownership. Now, in the entire areas under occupation (i.e. the 37%) only 61% of the territory constitutes private GC land ownership. The 80% (which is actually 84%,) constitutes GC land ownership, plus state owned land -forests, roads , rivers, etc, and the 16% of the territory constitutes TC private land.

Private= non state owned, including companies, associations, church, etc.

[Socrates]

Markidis

Α) Όσοι έχουν περιουσία στην περιοχή, που θα ανήκει στην Ελληνοκυπριακή Πολιτεία, την παίρνουν.
Β) Όσοι έχουν περιουσία στην περιοχή, που θα ανήκει στην Τουρκοκυπριακή Πολιτεία, παίρνουν:
α) Κατά κανόνα το 1/3 της περιουσίας.
β) Πλήρη αποζημίωση για τα υπόλοιπα 2/3, ή για ολόκληρη την περιουσία.
Στην πραγματικότητα οι Ελληνοκύπριοι θα ανακτήσουν κατοχή του 75% περίπου των περιουσιών τους και αποζημίωση για το υπόλοιπο.

Tsielepis:

Eίναι πλέον 1/3 για τον καθένα που είχε περιουσία απ' εκεί. Παίρνει πίσω το 1/3 της περιουσίας του, το 1/3 το παίρνει σε ομόλογα και τα 1/3 σε μετοχές. Δεν θα υπεισέλθω σε πολύπλοκους υπολογισμούς γιατί δεν είμαι και σε θέση κιόλας ούτε οικονομολόγος είμαι ούτε άλλη παρόμοια ειδικότητα έχω, λέω ότι αυτή είναι η πρόνοια.

Eίναι εφαρμόσιμη η πρόνοια αυτή κύριε Tσιελεπή;
- Kοιτάξτε αν είναι σπίτι για παράδειγμα που θα πάρεις, το σπίτι δεν μπορεί να μοιραστεί στο 1/3, γι' αυτό και υπάρχουν κάποιες μίνιμουμ διασφαλίσεις, το σπίτι θα το πάρεις. Kαι δικαιούσαι αν είχες γη γύρω από το σπίτι μέχρι μια σκάλα ανεξαρτήτως αν το συνολικό ποσοστό που δικαιούσαι είναι κάτω του 1/3. Bεβαίως, εκεί είναι δύσκολοι οι υπολογισμοί κύριε Παυλίδη διότι ενώ εκ πρώτης όψεως το 1/3 φαίνεται αντί 10% να είναι 33%, βεβαίως δεν είναι έτσι. Γιατί το 10% ήταν επί του συνολικού εδάφους, επί συνολικού εμβαδού της γης, το 1/3 είναι μόνο για τις ιδιωτικές περιουσίες που σημαίνει πέφτει κάπως. Aπ' εκεί και πέρα γίνεται και εδώ δυσκολεύουν οι υπολογισμοί ένας συνδυασμός 1/3 περιουσίας και 1/3 της αξίας που δεν ξέρεις πώς θα λειτουργήσει

Here you have some right in the above but this things are details.

- Πότε αρχίζει η εφαρμογή αυτής της πρόνοιας. Δηλαδή ένας ο οποίος θα πάρει το 1/3 της περιουσίας του στην Tουρκοκυπριακή πολιτεία και να το τονίζουμε πάντα αυτό. Πότε θα δικαιούται αυτό το ένα τρίτο;
- Yπάρχουν πρόνοιες στο σχέδιο. Ότι στα 2 χρόνια είναι οι Kαρπασίτες, οι 65άρηδες και όσοι συμπληρώνουν 65 χρόνια. Aπ' εκεί και πέρα το μορατόριουμ άρχιζε από τον 6ο χρόνο για τους υπόλοιπους τώρα αρχίζει από τον 5ο. Aλλά αν η περιουσία είναι κενή αρχίζει από το 3ο χρόνο. Aυτά είναι λεπτομέρειες νομίζω κύριε Παυλίδη, ας μην μπούμε μέσα. Λέω ότι αυτό πρέπει να αναλύσουμε τι σημαίνει στην πράξη. Aπ' εκεί και πέρα, τώρα, μπαίνει το θέμα συνολικά του δικαιώματος να αποκτήσεις απ' εκεί περιουσία χωρίς να είσαι πρόσφυγας, δεν έχεις απ' εκεί περιουσία, μπορώ να αποκτήσω απ' εκεί περιουσία; Yπήρχε ένας μόνιμος περιορισμός, ο οποίος έλεγε ότι για να μπορέσει κάποιος να αποκτήσει περιουσία απ' εκεί, να αγοράσω για παράδειγμα ένα οικόπεδο να κτίσω. Έπρεπε να είμαι 3 χρόνια μόνιμος κάτοικος απ' εκεί. Tώρα, αυτός ο περιορισμός που ήταν μόνιμος έχει γίνει προσωρινός. Aυτή η πρόνοια θα ισχύει για 15 χρόνια. Στα 15 χρόνια, φεύγει ο περιορισμός του ότι πρέπει να είμαι εκεί μόνιμος κάτοικος 3 χρόνια, μπορώ να αγοράσω αμέσως περιουσία. Kαι εδώ υπάρχει μια διαφορετική ερμηνεία και θέλω να είμαι έντιμος με τους ακροατές μας, θέλω να την ακούσουν και ας κρίνουν οι ίδιοι ποιος έχει δίκαιο. Eπειδή έχω ακούσει και από τις τηλεοράσεις ότι και από τα 15 χρόνια και μετά, εκείνοι θα σου επιτρέπουν. Γιατί η αμέσως επόμενη παράγραφος, που λέει ότι στα 15 χρόνια ή με την ένταξη της Tουρκίας ή όταν θα αποκτήσουν το 85% του κατά κεφαλήν Aκαθάριστου Eθνικού Προϊόντος ή πώς το λέμε. Eμείς εκτιμούμε ότι πρώτα θα έρθουν τα 15 χρόνια, τέλος πάντων, υπάρχει μια πρόνοια, αμέσως παρακάτω, η οποία λέει ότι για να σου απαγορεύσει να αγοράσεις μια περιουσία αυτό πρέπει να το κάνει χωρίς διάκριση, δηλαδή πρέπει να αφορά όχι μόνο Eλληνοκύπριους αλλά και όλους τους άλλους Eυρωπαίους πολίτες άρα θα πρέπει να δεχθεί ότι δεν θα υπάρχουν εκεί τέτοιου είδους επενδύσεις που δεν ξέρω πώς θα το δεχθεί η λογική της αγοράς εκεί πέρα αυτό το πράγμα. Λέει όμως, ότι πρέπει να στηρίζεται σε διαφανή αντικειμενικά κριτήρια κλπ. H ερμηνεία ότι αυτό σημαίνει ότι και μετά τα 15 χρόνια θα υπάρχει ο περιορισμός είναι εντελώς λανθασμένη. Aυτό το σημείο μπήκε, για να λέει ότι κατά τη διάρκεια αυτών των 15 χρόνων που υπάρχει ο περιορισμός, πρέπει ο ίδιος να εξηγήσει γιατί δεν σε αφήνει να αποκτήσεις περιουσία.

We was getting the a percentage close to 80% and we had the right after 15 years to mix the population and create a common future.

The mathematics is good for our side in this plan. As the above theory I’m very curious about it because I’ve never heard about something like that before.

[Socrates]

please give some links about your BBF theory

[cypezokyli]

it is true that political equality does not mean equal numerical participation.
but the way i understand the above , political equality means (as in the 1960s) veto - rights.

my understanding is that what is important for tcs is precisely that a system "ensures that the federal Government will not be empowered to adopt any measures against the interests of one community" , and not equal numerical participation. in that sense (and recalling a proposed system of parliament by kifeas ) i believe we agree.

No it doesn't imply or require veto rights as such, i.e. as they existed in the 1960 constitution for the president and vice president, but it instead calls for effective separate participation (not separate majorities as such) in the decision making process and in the adoption of laws and constitutional amendments, and mechanisms to ensure that no one community is politically empowered to the extent of making decisions to the detriment of the other community. That is how I read it.

Yes, the plan I suggested fits perfectly within the above parameters of a BBF and political equality.

how is it possible to make sure "that the federal Government will not be empowered to adopt any measures against the interests of one community" , without veto-right or separate majorities ?

separate majority was in practise part of your proposal , if i am not mistaken. parhaps we shouldnt disagree in theory, when we agree in practise

[Kifeas]

it is true that political equality does not mean equal numerical participation.
but the way i understand the above , political equality means (as in the 1960s) veto - rights.

my understanding is that what is important for tcs is precisely that a system "ensures that the federal Government will not be empowered to adopt any measures against the interests of one community" , and not equal numerical participation. in that sense (and recalling a proposed system of parliament by kifeas ) i believe we agree.

No it doesn't imply or require veto rights as such, i.e. as they existed in the 1960 constitution for the president and vice president, but it instead calls for effective separate participation (not separate majorities as such) in the decision making process and in the adoption of laws and constitutional amendments, and mechanisms to ensure that no one community is politically empowered to the extent of making decisions to the detriment of the other community. That is how I read it.

Yes, the plan I suggested fits perfectly within the above parameters of a BBF and political equality.

how is it possible to make sure "that the federal Government will not be empowered to adopt any measures against the interests of one community" , without veto-right or separate majorities ?

separate majority was in practise part of your proposal , if i am not mistaken. parhaps we shouldnt disagree in theory, when we agree in practise

Separate majority was only on some critical issues. On all the rest it was a certain minimum participation from each community, i.e. 1/5, 2/5 or 3/5 from each side.

[Kifeas]

Markidis

Α) Όσοι έχουν περιουσία στην περιοχή, που θα ανήκει στην Ελληνοκυπριακή Πολιτεία, την παίρνουν.
Β) Όσοι έχουν περιουσία στην περιοχή, που θα ανήκει στην Τουρκοκυπριακή Πολιτεία, παίρνουν:
α) Κατά κανόνα το 1/3 της περιουσίας.
β) Πλήρη αποζημίωση για τα υπόλοιπα 2/3, ή για ολόκληρη την περιουσία.
Στην πραγματικότητα οι Ελληνοκύπριοι θα ανακτήσουν κατοχή του 75% περίπου των περιουσιών τους και αποζημίωση για το υπόλοιπο.

We was getting the a percentage close to 80% and we had the right after 15 years to mix the population and create a common future.

The mathematics is good for our side in this plan. As the above theory I’m very curious about it because I’ve never heard about something like that before.

The above by Markides are just wrong, totally wrong! In fact they are just RUBBISH! Completely rubbish!

Here are the real facts!
The areas (7%) of the currently occupied north which were going to be returned under GC state control represent only 25% of the total area of the GC currently occupied properties. In terms of value they represent only 10-12% of the total value of occupied GC properties. Add to this the 1/3 (33%) of the ones that were going to remain under TC state control, i.e. the 75% of the total area of GC properties (or the 88% of the total value of currently occupied GC properties,) and you have what?

Area wise:
33% of the 75% equals 25% of the total of the currently occupied areas. (0.333 x 0.75 = 0.25) Add to this the 25% of the properties that were going to be returned under GC state control and you have what? 25% + 25% = 50%. Therefore, in terms of area the GCs were getting only 50% of the total area of their currently occupied properties.

However, value wise?
The value of properties that were going to be returned under GC control is equal to only 12% of the total value of currently occupied properties. Add to this the 25% of value from the properties that were going to be returned from those to be in the TC state control and you have what?
12% plus 25% equals 37%.
Therefore, in terms of real estate value the GCs were getting only 37% of the total value of their currently occupied properties.

[Iran Forever]

[quote="Kifeas"][quote="Socrates"]Markidis

[quote]Α) Όσοι έχουν περιουσία στην περιοχή, που θα ανήκει στην Ελληνοκυπριακή Πολιτεία, την παίρνουν.
Β) Όσοι έχουν περιουσία στην περιοχή, που θα ανήκει στην Τουρκοκυπριακή Πολιτεία, παίρνουν:
α) Κατά κανόνα το 1/3 της περιουσίας.
β) Πλήρη αποζημίωση για τα υπόλοιπα 2/3, ή για ολόκληρη την περιουσία.
Στην πραγματικότητα οι Ελληνοκύπριοι θα ανακτήσουν κατοχή του 75% περίπου των περιουσιών τους και αποζημίωση για το υπόλοιπο. [/quote]


We was getting the a percentage close to 80% and we had the right after 15 years to mix the population and create a common future.

The mathematics is good for our side in this plan. As the above theory I’m very curious about it because I’ve never heard about something like that before.[/quote]

The above by Markides are just wrong, totally wrong! In fact they are just RUBBISH! Completely rubbish!

[u]Here are the real facts![/u]
The areas (7%) of the currently occupied north which were going to be returned under GC state control represent only 25% of the total area of the GC currently occupied properties. In terms of value they represent only 10-12% of the total value of occupied GC properties. Add to this the 1/3 (33%) of the ones that were going to remain under TC state control, i.e. the 75% of the total area of GC properties (or the 88% of the total value of currently occupied GC properties,) and you have what?

[u]Area wise:[/u]
33% of the 75% equals 25% of the 100% of the currently occupied areas. (0.333 x 0.75 = 0.25) Add to this the 25% of the properties that were going to be returned under GC state control and you have what? 25% + 25% = 50%. [b]Therefore, in terms of area the GCs were getting only 50% of the total area of their currently occupied properties.[/b]

[u]However, value wise?[/u]
The value of properties that were going to be returned under GC control is equal to only 12% of the total value of currently occupied properties. Add to this the 25% of value from the properties that were going to be returned from those to be in the TC state control and you have what?
12% plus 25% equals 37%.
[b]Therefore, in terms of real estate value the GCs were getting only 37% of the total value of their currently occupied properties.[/b][/quote]
I agree with you Piratis.