A little more light reading - "The Cyprus Problem"

Al the Badger


Joined: 06/02/2008
Posts: 130

Message Posted:
19/02/2009 18:24

http://www.financialmirror.com/Columnist/COMMENT/262

negativenick


Joined: 10/11/2008
Posts: 6023

Message Posted:
19/02/2009 19:11

don't like to say "told you so", but......





Nick

batgirl


Joined: 04/02/2009
Posts: 676

Message Posted:
19/02/2009 19:31

If land was "sold" by TC,s to ex pat as "exchanged" for their lost property in the south and this is going to be taken from the ex pat then surely then the ex pat has 100% claim on the land in the south previously owned by that TC @ three fold the prices in the north?

cronos


Joined: 26/10/2008
Posts: 2093

Message Posted:
19/02/2009 19:36

Sorry batgirl....a few have proferred that argument.....but as you know common sense does not prevail in Cypriot matters !

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
19/02/2009 21:54

Hi Cronos, re msg 4



How can it be "common sense"



The TC pocketed money for private gain when he sold to an "off islander" - a GC can't sell a "refugee status house - except to another refugee - for peanuts..



The GC STILL owns the land / house.. the ECHR says so.. the "TRNC" / Turkey had no right to allow the land to be sold.. Mr Denktash was warned this would come back on his head sometime..

cronos


Joined: 26/10/2008
Posts: 2093

Message Posted:
19/02/2009 21:59

Hi mmmmm....no ,what I meant was that common sense would tell you that this was the position HAD the idyllic mutual exchange of land espoused by Estate Agents actually taken place !

andre 514


Joined: 31/03/2008
Posts: 1163

Message Posted:
20/02/2009 00:12

advise everyone who is really interested in

an objective view of the current situation

to read ozay mehmet's refreshingly honest article

in the financial mail, at top

LondonCypriot


Joined: 15/12/2008
Posts: 426

Message Posted:
20/02/2009 01:21

How can an minority become an partner of anyfuture state of Cyprus. Turkish Cypriots only owned 18% of land before 1974 according to Greek Cypriot land registry. Turkish Cypriots were idiots as they sold their land dirt cheap to the Greek Cypriots. But often the Greek Orththdox paid money to the Greek Cypriots to buy Turkish Cypriot Land.

rowlo



Joined: 12/10/2008
Posts: 4796

Message Posted:
20/02/2009 01:40

msg 8 why are you asking the same questions on 2 threads???????????

rowlo



Joined: 12/10/2008
Posts: 4796

Message Posted:
20/02/2009 01:57

more gc propoganda , why wont turkey open its ports to greek shipping ? stalemate? lol

vincehugo


Joined: 28/01/2009
Posts: 208

Message Posted:
20/02/2009 15:20

Msg 3 and 5



I think batgirl has a good argument here. As long as we start out with the assumption that the TC owned a plot of land in the South. Say he/she "exchanged" this for a GC plot in the North and then sold the plot on to a non-TC. If the GC is entitled to get his/her land back in a settlement then who now owns the TC plot of land in the South? The TC who sold it on (providing him/her with a double win) or the non-TC he/she sold it to? Logic says it is the non-TC as the TC gave up their rights to this plot when exchanging it.



This logic is entirely consistent with the Annan Plan. And is also pretty good common sense.

Al the Badger


Joined: 06/02/2008
Posts: 130

Message Posted:
21/02/2009 12:05

Well I think the answer lies in the soil !!

andre 514


Joined: 31/03/2008
Posts: 1163

Message Posted:
22/02/2009 10:39

londoncypriot msg 8



everyone says the turkish cypriots are a minority of 18%

but in the limited area of north cyprus they are the majority



north cyprus, like taiwan, is not recognised internationally

nonetheless there is much talk of a bizonal bicommunal federation

of course the south's lately-trumpeted demands in the "re-unification" talks

would make such an idea unworkable in practice

just as the internationally-agreed 1960 power-sharing deal proved to be



when turkey had to step in as guarantor to sort out the resultant mess,

many people from all communities suffered permanent losses

and 1974 and its aftermath has thrown up a host of problems and challenges



but of course it is the only realistic model there is

bleating about this from you-know-where won't change reality on the ground

rather, it is similar to the echoes from the "big bang":

recently discussed, very old and a saddle for every thinker's high horse



andre

clarets



Joined: 08/01/2009
Posts: 752

Message Posted:
22/02/2009 11:15

How can it be "common sense"..........because it is dimetrically opposed to your view mmmmm !

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
22/02/2009 14:31

re msg 6, Cronos.. ok, thx !!!



re msg 7 andre



But the author and many folk think no solution means that the staus quo will continue.. it can't / won't..



whether TR's EU accession stalls/ fails or the CY talks fail, the issue of property - which most concerns folk on here, will remain.



There'll still be GCs who are "daft" to listen to the advice of their govt to "ignore" a ECHR ruling and test out Turkey's seriousness to redress the displacement militarily and other cases ( e.g Orams')

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
22/02/2009 14:37

Dear Bat Girl



re msg 3 -



1/because the price disparity is because of the situation - land is scarce in the more densely populated "south"



2/ land is cheaper in the "north" because of the non recognition - hence legitimacy of the deeds/ title issued by a non recognised "state and its's infrastructure..



There can't and should be any gain through surreality pricing following ethnic cleansing..



THAT is why pricing is based on market value then...not now

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
22/02/2009 14:48

Dear andre, re msg 13



Your version of CY history glosses over the "wrongs" of 200k folk running for their lives in a 4 week period in 74 - ETHNIC CLEANSING - as easily as a GC might "forget" many TCs living in enclaves.



If Turkey and Greece hadn't been arming the respective ethnic groups - and respected their commitment to support the UN troops mandated to keep the peace- there would have been no need to "intervene"..



Did you forget that they have been repeatedly asked to leave - and that the invasion was planned, the Taksimist ( division of Cyprus) agenda - approved by Kissinger ?





re msg 14, Clarets .. "common sense" tells one that when two "laws differ - it pays to adopt that made by Judges from many countries - not the one that "suits".. if you just happen to have a property in Cyprus that is still owned by a displaced Cypriot..