Forget about Refunication as it will never happen

LondonCypriot


Joined: 15/12/2008
Posts: 426

Message Posted:
20/02/2009 01:15

Reunification of Cyprus will never be possible as the Cyprus Turks only according to the land registry of the Greek Cypriots - Republic of Cyprus, total amount of land accountable to Turkish Cypriots only amounted to 18%.



So how on earth will the Greek Cypriots accept an favourable plan to the Turkish Cypriots. I am sorry but its not going to work.



The sooner we accept reunification is impossible, the better.

LondonCypriot


Joined: 15/12/2008
Posts: 426

Message Posted:
20/02/2009 01:16

Turkish Cypriots only amounted to 18%........ before 1974.

rowlo



Joined: 12/10/2008
Posts: 4796

Message Posted:
20/02/2009 01:20

what about 1963 % ?

LondonCypriot


Joined: 15/12/2008
Posts: 426

Message Posted:
20/02/2009 01:24

I am talking about the total amount of land Turkish Cypriots owned before 1974.



1963 was about fighting as Markarious wanted to change the 1960 Cyprus consitution. Markarious said that Turkish Cypriots should have never been granted partnership status. They should have been given no special status, and be respected like all other minorities.

rowlo



Joined: 12/10/2008
Posts: 4796

Message Posted:
20/02/2009 01:35

excuse me 1963 wasnt about fighting ? it was about a greek military junta trying to make a statement on a small med island? cyprus ? they were prepared to murder and ethnicly cleanse ,but turkey sent its forces in to stop more attrocaties ?

phylray



Joined: 21/09/2007
Posts: 1727

Message Posted:
20/02/2009 02:45

Yes, and after 11 years of suffering.

negativenick


Joined: 10/11/2008
Posts: 6023

Message Posted:
20/02/2009 06:12

i've been saying this for years !



mmmmmmmm will be along in a bit to tell you how it is..





Nick

Macha


Joined: 18/01/2009
Posts: 650

Message Posted:
20/02/2009 17:40

rowlo: "excuse me 1963 wasnt about fighting ? it was about a greek military junta trying to make a statement on a small med island?"



Are you sure you don't mean 1974? What did the Greek junta do in 1963, exactly? Was it even around back then?



A lot of people confuse thinking they know about the Cyprus problem with the sad reality.

breezyboy


Joined: 14/05/2007
Posts: 1179

Message Posted:
20/02/2009 18:24

Dont worry about particular dates. What was the % difference before and after your Greek mates tried to ethnically cleanse the island of Turkish speaking cypriots?

breezyboy


Joined: 14/05/2007
Posts: 1179

Message Posted:
20/02/2009 18:28

LC is quite right there isnt going to be any reunification in my life time or that of most people on this forum. Keep the talks going guys and collect £200 every time you pass GO!

andysue


Joined: 12/11/2007
Posts: 891

Message Posted:
20/02/2009 18:56

ive got to the piont were i dont take much notice of these " posts on reunification etc" anymore , come to the conclusion it aint going happen in my life time so why should i give a s--t ?



long live the kktc

Tiggy


Joined: 25/07/2007
Posts: 1994

Message Posted:
20/02/2009 19:09

Imagine if the TC's agreed to accept 18% of the land to live on in Cyprus with the same % of a share of government. Even then the GC's would still find something to claim from them. So much for the dove of peace and the olive branch, me thinks not.

clarets



Joined: 08/01/2009
Posts: 752

Message Posted:
20/02/2009 19:16

Macha,..........your injection staring to wear off again? You really do need to keep up compliance with that anti-delusional medication!

juliet


Joined: 11/01/2009
Posts: 612

Message Posted:
20/02/2009 20:36

Can someone please tell me why you are all so against reunification???



looks like no one really cares about the tcs future of there homeland...as i`m sure the tcs would agree if they read most of your posts...

rowlo



Joined: 12/10/2008
Posts: 4796

Message Posted:
20/02/2009 20:43

you posted their was no such thing as a tc juliet ,only cypriots ,whats changed has that horses mouth lost its tounge ??

ilovecyprus


Joined: 08/05/2007
Posts: 2880

Message Posted:
20/02/2009 20:43

msge 14



The TC's deserve far better and merging with the GC's should not be the only solution offered to them. They should be given the right to choose whther or not they should self govern.

rowlo



Joined: 12/10/2008
Posts: 4796

Message Posted:
20/02/2009 20:55

i luv cyp , thats the one thing they will never offer me thinks ? but heres hoping eh ////

negativenick


Joined: 10/11/2008
Posts: 6023

Message Posted:
20/02/2009 21:05

i think mmmmmm is having a "night in" with that Rusky misus of his....



Nick

ilovecyprus


Joined: 08/05/2007
Posts: 2880

Message Posted:
20/02/2009 22:01

msge 17



unfortunately so rowlo

juliet


Joined: 11/01/2009
Posts: 612

Message Posted:
20/02/2009 22:26

so why are you against reunification????

andysue


Joined: 12/11/2007
Posts: 891

Message Posted:
20/02/2009 22:31

message 21. . i think its something to do with having a place to holliday outside the dreaded euro lol

andy

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
20/02/2009 22:37

Juliet who is against reunification ?



I want unification but one that addresses all the wrongs of the past.



The GC community stole the TC communites legal rights in 63. The TC community and Turkey stole land from the GC community in 74. Both were wrong and both need rectifying either by return or compensation. I support any settlement that does this. However a settlement that seeks to only rectify one of those wrongs is not acceptable to me. Are you against a unification that rectifies both these wrongs ?

ilovecyprus


Joined: 08/05/2007
Posts: 2880

Message Posted:
20/02/2009 22:44

msge 20



If Cypriots decide to reunify, no problem, I have no issue with this whatsoever. Cypriots have to decide their own future.



Personally, I believe that reunification is not the ideal option for the TC's. What they have no say in, is whether they can create their own country free from the influence of Turkey and the GC's. If they were given the freedom to trade freely with their neighbours, given aid and support then they could create the wealth necessary to sustain them and for them to propser. This would ensure that they were never dominated by the GC's, but alas this would never work as the GC's would do whatever they could to ensure this never happened, and as such would not become have the opportunity to become good neighbours.

andre 514


Joined: 31/03/2008
Posts: 1163

Message Posted:
20/02/2009 22:58

can I defend some of those who talk up re-unification?



it is their belief this will be happier for th...I mean cyprus

it can be, with eu legal eagles and moral rectitude on their side

but how to achieve this fusion of opposites?

well, pinnochio's dad tried wishing on a star



and afterwards we will all be in festung eur... together in europe,

pals again and don't mention the '74 war, apart from those guilty ones

who stole a dream, and all the "foreigners" sent packing on the next boat



not quite



the person formerly calling himself pike posted he was "90% sure"

there will be a re-unification deal this june, is he still so "confident"?

was he ever really?



juliet believes that (through some mystical process she does not reveal)

her children will someday reclaim their lost land



while mark, sad sack, reaches into his anorak for a copy

of the latest eu pronouncement to puff



nah, I'll still vote for peaceful north cyprus and long may it not buzz



andre

WAZ-24-7



Joined: 18/10/2008
Posts: 695

Message Posted:
20/02/2009 23:08

msg 25 Andre.

very well put



Re-unification. I do not think so. Settlement...I very much hope.



TRNC released from its enclave and its shackles removed.

ROC acceptance of the de-facto situation and recognition of the TRNC.

Cypriot acceptance that much has changed since the dark 1970s and grasp the opportunity to move into a new and prosperous era.

juliet


Joined: 11/01/2009
Posts: 612

Message Posted:
20/02/2009 23:21

ok andre, what if!!!! (according to you) there won`t be reunification, what shall we do? hummm! maybe we will sell our land to the isrealies or the russians, collect our millions (believe me thats what our land is worth now!) let them build you all a huge disneyland theme park, lots of hotels full to the brim of holiday makers & sit back enjoy our wealth while you enjoy the new buzz of the north in your holiday home, that is if the gc owner dosnt sell his land, you know the one you built your house on!!! is that what you would prefer?



wake up andre Cyprus will be reunited in the not so distant future, & ALL cypriots will live as one & prosper, so start saving your euros...

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
20/02/2009 23:32

re msg 7 NN



Hi Nick, I'm going to surprise you.. ! I think the bi-zonal, federated soln. is effectively permanent partition, anyway..



Again, I wish to point out that CY politics is all semantics.



Effectively, the TCs would be running their own show. The country is unlikely to start "mixing" ethnicities in this or the next generation - but I hope like Ireland the "differences" will be "tolerated.



"Re-unification" is a bit of a misnomer..



Whatever happens the property issue - won't go away unless there is an agreed formula.

andysue


Joined: 12/11/2007
Posts: 891

Message Posted:
20/02/2009 23:35

juliet you are living in disney land if you believe that shite you just posted

andre 514


Joined: 31/03/2008
Posts: 1163

Message Posted:
20/02/2009 23:37

a sprited reply juliet!



yes I would like to save some euros but at present

cannot even afford to buy any trousers for a pocket to put them in

so brown pounds and lira it will have to remain



andre

ilovecyprus


Joined: 08/05/2007
Posts: 2880

Message Posted:
20/02/2009 23:45

msge 28



"Whatever happens the property issue - won't go away unless there is an agreed formula. "



Agree



"I think the bi-zonal, federated soln. is effectively permanent partition, anyway..

Again, I wish to point out that CY politics is all semantics. "



Yes that's very true. The proposal is to have a single identity and voice in International matters This is different from their being two states, however even as two states those two voices will need to sing a similar song if they are to survive and coexist on such a small island.

Tiggy


Joined: 25/07/2007
Posts: 1994

Message Posted:
20/02/2009 23:55

I can not get used to the name juliet, can we not go back to your old name Suzzane ?



We already know your NC spy friend has come back as a sanatation worker!

I will say goodbye to you and the other little itch, as usual your stay on the board is coming to an end.



Why the rest of the sensible forum users engage in this merry go round is beside me. Nothing will change.

andre 514


Joined: 31/03/2008
Posts: 1163

Message Posted:
21/02/2009 00:06

I agree with mark, it was in very poor taste nick

and you should withdraw such a remark

or be horsewhipped if you know what's good for you sir

and drummed out of the club

to spend your free time being forced to listen to russel and wossy tapes

well perhaps not, that would be a "cruel and unusual" punishment

andysue


Joined: 12/11/2007
Posts: 891

Message Posted:
21/02/2009 00:06

tiggy blame the moderators they must see them as amusing? all i know is if someone like me uses industrial lingo we get a caution, yet we are people with a vested interest in north cyprus but these scam posters from the other side can say and slag the north of as much as they like with nothing said from our beloved mods



andy

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
21/02/2009 00:29

Dear Andre re msg 514



"while mark, sad sack, reaches into his anorak for a copy



of the latest eu pronouncement to puff "



Don't you mean EU, ECHR, UN, UK.. etc.,



Goodnight, from the "sad sack" ;) !

Macha


Joined: 18/01/2009
Posts: 650

Message Posted:
21/02/2009 00:33

andysue msg 33,



Aye, it's called freedom of speech so you better get used to it. Either that or read up a lot more about Cyprus so you can engage in civilised debate rather than get all frustrated and angry.



"Bailiffs at one o'clock..."

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
21/02/2009 00:50

Dear Macha re 35



"Bailiffs at one o'clock...;) "



Think you might be lowering yourself to the very level you so detest...? :(

AlsancakJack



Joined: 14/08/2008
Posts: 5762

Message Posted:
21/02/2009 00:53

Andy

Ref your message 33



'tiggy blame the moderators they must see them as amusing? all i know is if someone like me uses industrial lingo we get a caution, yet we are people with a vested interest in north cyprus but these scam posters from the other side can say and slag the north of as much as they like with nothing said from our beloved mods'



First of all if you have a problem with moderation on this board then take it off board with any of the Board Admin staff or directly with Izzet.

Secondly if you feel any of the board rules have been broken then again contact as above.

If you have any problems with this posting then please contact me now via e-mail.

AJ

LondonCypriot


Joined: 15/12/2008
Posts: 426

Message Posted:
21/02/2009 01:51

The problem with any solution is that Greek Cypriots demand to return to their land. They are not interested in money. They have lots of money, they are Europeans.



I think the TRNC could be intergrated with Turkey, if Turkey does not manage to enter the European Union. Like the province of Hatay.

Bradus


Joined: 25/02/2007
Posts: 2641

Message Posted:
21/02/2009 12:53

Please do not ask moderators to remove threads on the basis that they do not agree with your own ideals and opinions.



What a sad board Cyprus44 would be if we all buried our heads in the sand and pretended everything is absolutely fine buying in the TRNC!



I realise that this is a mental defense mechanism, because the truth does hurt but through discussion one gains knowledge and begins to look at the situation in a different light. This can only be good for those wondering what the future holds?

clarets



Joined: 08/01/2009
Posts: 752

Message Posted:
21/02/2009 13:23

I agree with mmmmm for once.There is certainly merit in bizonal federetaion of 2 separate states.It would strengthen fiscal and legal policies in the TRNC part of the island and both sides of the line would benefit from increased trade and tourism.Infrastructure spending would become more homogenous.

It would also allow autonomy in many of the areas that "the other sides" find unpalatable,and would continue to do so.

clarets



Joined: 08/01/2009
Posts: 752

Message Posted:
21/02/2009 13:36

Msg 38,a majority of people on this form,who obviously identify very strongly with GC's,post as if they represent each and every one of them.This cannot palpably be the truth or even close to it! When these posters say ALL GC's just want "their land " back and are not bothered about compensation,it says more about their own view and not necessarily anyone else's.

There are ,of course,some GC's who may want their parents' or grandparents' land back,and there will be an awful lot who will settle for financial compensation.There are many reasons for both views,and ANYONE who thinks they ALL want "their land" back,really has a problem with their grasp on reality.

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
21/02/2009 13:48

Clarets one of the big problems hindering negotiations is that there has never been a comprehensive survey to establish what the prefered 'first choice' solution would be for Cypriots in a settlement re property. IE how many would want return and only return, if that means return of or return to and how many would prefer compensation or some other solution (like retained ownership with long terms lease to current occupants).



The reason why such a survey has never been done are quite obvious but the lack of it makes agreeing a settlement much harder.

redtom


Joined: 30/12/2008
Posts: 116

Message Posted:
21/02/2009 13:57

ok andre, what if!!!! (according to you) there won`t be reunification, what shall we do? hummm! maybe we will sell our land to the isrealies or the russians, collect our millions (believe me thats what our land is worth now!) let them build you all a huge disneyland theme park, lots of hotels full to the brim of holiday makers & sit back enjoy our wealth while you enjoy the new buzz of the north in your holiday home, that is if the gc owner dosnt sell his land, you know the one you built your house on!!! is that what you would prefer? Juliet I for one think your Idea is a perfect one Tomm "

clarets



Joined: 08/01/2009
Posts: 752

Message Posted:
21/02/2009 14:18

Msg 42,its not just the opinions and their diversity about what is wanted in such a survey,its also about the 35 years that have passed since '74.Young people in '74 re now likely to elderly and infirm or even deceased.Their off spring are not likely to want to relocate en masse to an area their ancestors lived in.A small minority may however.When migrants from the Indian sub-continent came to the UK because of adverse economic conditions,in the 50's and 60's,they did not return when things changed in their ancestors "homeland".They develope a life and cultural infrastructure in their "new country" and many adopted it as their home.This situation is no different,only the distances are not as great,and there is "history" between the two ethnic groups in Cyprus.This really makes people from the south ls likely to want to return to areas where they are unfamiliar and where they will be viewed as outsiders.

cronos


Joined: 26/10/2008
Posts: 2093

Message Posted:
21/02/2009 14:25

Clarets....I understand your argument,but you may inadvertently ruffle a few feathers on here considering the age demographic.



"Young people in '74 re now likely to elderly and infirm or even deceased."



Let's say a young person was,say,20 years old in 1974......they would only be 55 now !!

Are you "withdrawing treatment" already ??

MotoMoto


Joined: 15/02/2009
Posts: 152

Message Posted:
21/02/2009 14:37

msg 44 as you say - to much history. Re-unification is just not practical

GC's would abuse position and TC's would suffer

Turkey will hopefully tell EU where to go due to not being wanted by racist Greek, French and Austrians

USA will suck up to Turkey as want airbases

UK want seperate states as still want there military bases intact/operational

Seperate independant TRNC state would flourish due to inward investment from Israel, Russia and Emerates

GC compemsation for Land/property only feasible if handled by Property commission, not interfering morally bankrupt EU busybodies

Thats my thoughts anyway...

Bradus


Joined: 25/02/2007
Posts: 2641

Message Posted:
21/02/2009 14:42

The option to claim compensation for lost land has been an available option for a few years now via the Immovable Property Commission. I can understand why there was very little uptake during Popa's reign, as I am aware he made things very uncomfortable for those that even considered taking this route.



However I still do not see huge numbers of GC's flocking to the IPC to claim their compensation and settle their land dispute. What is very evident is that this is a matter of principle and even though the GC's do not want to return to their old homes and land, they want to be in control and decide what happens to the land they own. They want to be the ones that sell it, not the TRNC. They want to be the leaseholder, not the TRNC.



This has always been the stumbling block and the longer the dispute goes on, the stronger these principles become.

clarets



Joined: 08/01/2009
Posts: 752

Message Posted:
21/02/2009 14:54

Cronos, I am not ageist,but a person old enough to be likely to own property in '74, is likely to be elderly especially in this country(Cyprus).The average 20 year old is not usually in a position to own property and land in the UK,never mind Cyprus.There may be some but will they still want to uproot after 35 years of living in,what is in effect,a different culture ?

clarets



Joined: 08/01/2009
Posts: 752

Message Posted:
21/02/2009 15:01

Msg 47,as time passes waters become more cloudy and principles become less of an issue if anything.Thats not to say that the Luddites in the GC population will not want "their land " back......they probably will ! The problem would be that they probably wouldnt want to live where they are not wanted.

juliet


Joined: 11/01/2009
Posts: 612

Message Posted:
21/02/2009 16:08

msg 47



well said bradus



clarets

you would be surprised how many young gcs are now taking turkish lessons, the 30s to 40s age group desperatly want reunification as do the tcs who come to work on the south, you should take a drive over here & see with your own eyes how many tcs are in employment & how many attend the hospital etc.

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
21/02/2009 16:17

Juliet how many TC working in the South are employed in anything other than manual labour ? When we have TC who reside in the North working as executive officers (CEOs, CFOs etc) in companies in the South then this may be an avenue to rapproachement. Whilst all we have is TC working in the South as replacement low skilled low paid foreign manual labour, this is much a part of the problem as a solution to it.

ilovecyprus


Joined: 08/05/2007
Posts: 2880

Message Posted:
21/02/2009 16:22

msge 50



Trouble is you just make things up as you go along. You live a life of fantasy and I just can't take any of your comments seriously.



Please please tell me specifically how many GC's are taking Turkish lessons. Three or four people isn't very significant, but if there are large numbers then this is a momentus step forward.

juliet


Joined: 11/01/2009
Posts: 612

Message Posted:
21/02/2009 16:27

erolz



so why don`t these so called (CEOs, CFOs etc) help there own people & give them better employment? in every country in the world there are manual labourers, even gcs do manual work who also work along side the tcs, they don`t have a problem with it so why do you?

ilovecyprus


Joined: 08/05/2007
Posts: 2880

Message Posted:
21/02/2009 16:29

msge 51



That's a very interesting and important point Erolz. TC's doing manual jobs will only highlight the lowly perception of their status.

No1Doyen


Joined: 04/07/2008
Posts: 16617

Message Posted:
21/02/2009 16:32

erolz. Message 51. Good post. Spot on with your analogy.

juliet


Joined: 11/01/2009
Posts: 612

Message Posted:
21/02/2009 16:32

msg 52



well may i suggest next time you are on your hols over here you come see for your self, plenty of afternoon schools you could visit! even take a trip to the local hospital out patients dept between 7am & 10.30am. i`m sure my so called fantasy will be come your reality.

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
21/02/2009 16:36

Juliet



"so why don`t these so called (CEOs, CFOs etc) help there own people & give them better employment?"



I have no idea what you are saying or mean with the above? Nor who 'own people' referes to for that matter.



The point I am trying to make is the idea that TC working in the RoC is an indication of a general desire on the part of TCs for unifaction is undermined by the reality that these people are essentialy economic migrants (all be it on a daily basis). They are working in the South because they have little other choice economicaly and not because they desire or support unification per se. Some may some may not but it is not connected to their working there. You seem to suggest that the mere fact of their working in the South is proof that they support unification - which I do not think is true personaly.

ilovecyprus


Joined: 08/05/2007
Posts: 2880

Message Posted:
21/02/2009 16:37

msge 54 - correction



perception of their lowly status

ilovecyprus


Joined: 08/05/2007
Posts: 2880

Message Posted:
21/02/2009 16:45

The question is 'Are the TC's treated as equals in matters of employment?'



If they don't enjoy the same employment opportunities as GC's then you create a 'them' and 'us' which doesn't facilitate parity and trust. If Tc's are treated as equals with the same opportnunities for promotion and status as the GC's then this feeling of equality will relate to more trust and support the unifying process.

juliet


Joined: 11/01/2009
Posts: 612

Message Posted:
21/02/2009 16:48

msg 59

did you not read msg 53?

ilovecyprus


Joined: 08/05/2007
Posts: 2880

Message Posted:
21/02/2009 17:03

msge 60



I did but there are not the same opportunies in the North as their are in the South. Why not? Well because the GC's and International community have kept the TC's in isolation. Not much chance of them taking advantage of a globalised market, if they are excluded from the game.

WAZ-24-7



Joined: 18/10/2008
Posts: 695

Message Posted:
21/02/2009 17:04

I rather take the stance of Erolz.

It is by necesity that TRNC worker pass south on a daily basis in order to find day rate employment. It is not because of any support for re-unification.



Juliet may well support re-unification. I fear that her motives are purely based upon the desire to re-claim suposed GC property and to satisfy nationalistic aspirations.

I have no knowledge or indeed seen evidence of signuficant numbers of ROC citizens to learn Turkish. By the same token I know of no TRNC citizens learning Greek.

There is plenty of evidence to support the comment that TRNC workers are deemed only as migrant low value labour.

A level economic and trading field between N and S of the Island would lead to a demise of this unfair status. Buisness and commerce would prosper for both communities.

Unfortunately it is the ROC that frustrate this possibility. However the ability of the ROC to inflict subversive damage upon the TRNC diminishes with time and time and history advances.

ilovecyprus


Joined: 08/05/2007
Posts: 2880

Message Posted:
21/02/2009 17:06

msge 63



"A level economic and trading field between N and S of the Island would lead to a demise of this unfair status. Buisness and commerce would prosper for both communities. "







Spot on Warren

clarets



Joined: 08/01/2009
Posts: 752

Message Posted:
21/02/2009 18:16

Juliet is THE classical example of a person who thinks that everyone has exactly the same thought process as herself! Unfortunately......back in reality land, this is not the case.Some of us can think for ourselves, and some of us have been and stayed and lived in many parts of the world.....and know that Juliet's is not the only opinion that counts.

Message 62 reinforces some of what I said earlier,and I tend to agree with the rest of it.Juliet.....you are going to have to realise that there are much more widely travelled and superiorly educated people on this forum than yourself! Get over it and keep your bigotted parochial views to yourself.

Aussie


Joined: 17/06/2007
Posts: 657

Message Posted:
21/02/2009 19:12

Í think its fair to say that support for reunification and the degree of flexibility in accepting and voting for a reunification proposal is very divided on both sides.



To get a vote up a much stronger consensus in favour of a fair result for both sides is needed than has ever been demonstrated to date.



Given that integration efforts such as the English School in Nicosia have exposed how difficult is to get genuine integration and mixing of GC/ TC children (even in a supportive atmosphere using a third language English). This must say something about the wider views of a large segment of the GC community which have also influenced the opinions of younger GC's through the education system media etc. blaming the TC community for the current division etc in an unbalanced fashion.



Aussie

karakum5c



Joined: 18/03/2008
Posts: 1021

Message Posted:
21/02/2009 20:04

Who is going to pay for reunification?



When east & west Germany unified the bill almost broke the German economy one of the strongest in the world.



While north Cyprus may be in a better state than east Germany the bill would still be staggering.



The world is experiencing one of the worst recessions in living memory so dont expect a rush of world leaders with open cheque books.

Macha


Joined: 18/01/2009
Posts: 650

Message Posted:
21/02/2009 21:00

LondBoy:



"I think the TRNC could be intergrated with Turkey, if Turkey does not manage to enter the European Union. Like the province of Hatay."



And what do you think the Turkish Cypriots would think about that?

juliet


Joined: 11/01/2009
Posts: 612

Message Posted:
21/02/2009 21:11

clarets



why are you so rude? you don`t know the first thing about me, uneducated i am not.....



enjoy your life in the so called trnc as you obviously enjoy it more than the other countries you have visited! why is that i wonder.....

andre 514


Joined: 31/03/2008
Posts: 1163

Message Posted:
21/02/2009 22:23

dear juliet,





I for one do not think you uneducated, I am sure you are well-educated



but I fear you are a number of other "un" things:





unrealistic about getting back north cyprus



unsophisticated if hoping to persuade anyone, with your pick n' mix morals



unfettered in your jaunts to the north in order to tell us what's what



untenable if your version of re-unification is ever put to the other side



unhistorical if you cannot appreciate why the 1960 power-sharing deal failed





am I being unfair?





andre

rowlo



Joined: 12/10/2008
Posts: 4796

Message Posted:
21/02/2009 22:30

nice andre, dont think youre being unfair att all//

andre 514


Joined: 31/03/2008
Posts: 1163

Message Posted:
21/02/2009 22:38

msg 67 macha



it does seem LondonCypriot has gone over the top a bit



but y'know it seems to me your greatest fear is exactly that:

you posted earlier you'd like to "send all the foreigners packing"

were'nt you only referring to mainland turks in that post?



'coz if they stay, there isn't ever going to be a re-unified cyprus is there?



andre

clarets



Joined: 08/01/2009
Posts: 752

Message Posted:
22/02/2009 00:54

Juliet.....if you think I'm rude,you really need to get out more! Again.....you appear more educated ...in your own head,than the facts actually manifest.Please do not mistake rudeness with someone having the contra view to yourself.....only a small point,but the subtlety is wasted on you.

LondonCypriot


Joined: 15/12/2008
Posts: 426

Message Posted:
22/02/2009 01:12

The truth is that Turkish Cypriots would be the biggest losers under an European Union solution to the Cyprus issue. They would be left virtually nothing. It would be very difficult to get derrogations from European law.



Greek Cypriots up until now say that Turkish Cypriots just owned 18% of land on the whole island of Cyprus as the stupid Turkish Cypriots were selling the land to the Greeks for peanuts. Turkish Cypriots were not very bright, just money orientated.



Greek Cypriots also insist that Turkish nationals who arrived on the island after 1974, must go back. They also want to withdraw Turkey's gurantorship, again another probem. They want an single airspace code, which again the Turkish side rejects. Any solution must cater the Turkish military's requirements as well.

clarets



Joined: 08/01/2009
Posts: 752

Message Posted:
22/02/2009 10:29

"The truth is that Turkish Cypriots would be the biggest losers under an European Union solution to the Cyprus issue".........the truth????????.Under EU law ethnic minorities(which TC's certainly would be as well as ex-pats)are actually dealt with on a preferentail basis if anything.hey are certainly NOT prejudiced against!

TRNCVaughan


Joined: 27/04/2008
Posts: 4578

Message Posted:
22/02/2009 11:06

The question about whether the GCs want their land back or compensation misses the point.

The GCs want pay-back, revenge - call it what you want. They want the people who took their land, bought/sold their land, built on their land chucked out on the streets, just as they were in 1974. The history of 63 to 74 where they nearly had the whole island and even Enosis so close, only to see it blow up in their faces rankles to this day and they will not be happy until they turn the clock back. They know most TCs live abroad and are unlikely to return - once they get rid of all the settlers and solidiers and the ex-pats they'll have the place to themselves.

They are a very bitter bunch of people who will bear the grudge for ever. One only needs to look at refugee status in Roc, where it was once passed on to male children now being passed to female children as well to expand the agony and prolong the memory. There will soon, if not already, be more refugees than there were in 1974.

clarets



Joined: 08/01/2009
Posts: 752

Message Posted:
22/02/2009 12:25

TRNCV well put,but even the bitterest of GC's no need to abide by the rules of the EU club!

ilovecyprus


Joined: 08/05/2007
Posts: 2880

Message Posted:
22/02/2009 12:29

msge 75 "The GCs want pay-back, revenge"



Very true

Bradus


Joined: 25/02/2007
Posts: 2641

Message Posted:
22/02/2009 12:34

For some its revenge, for others its simply to move on.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6177505.stm

juliet


Joined: 11/01/2009
Posts: 612

Message Posted:
22/02/2009 13:43

good link bradus!



the future of all cypriots on this island is what counts.

Bradus


Joined: 25/02/2007
Posts: 2641

Message Posted:
22/02/2009 14:04

I agree entirely that the GC's want "revenge" but I ask is this not an entirely expected and understandable response? Just as the TC's wants revenge for their treatment in the early 60's and current isolation?



If there is to be a lasting settlement then they must be offered a solution that meets this need. Any solution that failed to do this would simply be stirring up trouble for the future. That is why the negotiations will concentrate on the needs of "Cypriots" and why the interests of the foreign buyer will remain secondary or even totally irrelevant.

MUSIN M


Joined: 26/06/2008
Posts: 1352

Message Posted:
22/02/2009 14:25

msg 78



bradus you state for some it,s revenge and for some just to move on ,



move on from what ,the slow continuous eradication of the turkish cypriots from this beautiful island which they and only they wish to control and run as they see fit ,we don,t have too travel to far into the history books do we now.



we tc,s want to be left in peace and have some kind of recognition ,however small.

the gc,s talk a good talk ,live and let live and all that ,however the truth is staring us all in face ,some of us just choose to ignore it.



have a nice sunday.



musin

long live the kktc.

Bradus


Joined: 25/02/2007
Posts: 2641

Message Posted:
22/02/2009 14:43

.........and so you should have recognition Musin. Like many I would like to see a "new" North Cyprus that has its own government, laws and is free from all trade embargoes and political isolation. One that will encourage TC's to return to their homeland and offer their families a decent standard of living and an enhanced quality of life.



However for this to happen there has to be a solution based on compromise. Whether we like it or not we have to settle this need for "revenge" The North cannot move forward in its current state. The thriving building boom has gone, people can no longer live off their high interest rates, the cost of living gets higher with every passing year and there is still not sufficient tourist to increase the job market and bring in much needed revenue.



I am simply saying there has to be settlement one way or another. Both sides have lost and continue to lose. A settlement should bring the peace you desire and deserve.

jay76


Joined: 17/07/2008
Posts: 532

Message Posted:
22/02/2009 14:48

macha/pikey/juliet/suzane does not like the fact that he paid well over the odds for his property, little bitter i think.

clarets



Joined: 08/01/2009
Posts: 752

Message Posted:
22/02/2009 15:47

Bradus msg 80,that is certainly one view,but not one that hold much water in the real world.ANY EU decision about the Island will ALWAYS involve foreigners,because of the of the club to which it now belongs.That IS FACT.The other very important point to which only lip service has been paid is the economy.The economy of the whole island is so dependent on tourism that anything which isolates it(by marginalising the prerequisites of the ex-patriots)the ex-pats,Russians,Germans and TC,s for that matter,will damage the island irrevocably. In short,NOBODY can do without foreigners on this island,land issues especially included!

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
22/02/2009 16:43

Dear "TRNC" Vaughan re msg 79



I would have expected this from some of the "expert" re GCs on this forum - you know the one's with property on GC land - but they haven't got a CLUE about their motivations - but certainly not you !!



Most GCs want a solution allowing them to "go back" ( but they wouldn't) - the right.. freedom of movement.



It's got BOG all to do with "revenge"... they have been brought up to think the "wrongs" started in 74 and they will mostly say _ I don't have a problem with TCs, I want Turkey to leave - I want the right to go back to my village..



They KNOW that Turkey could whoop their ass militarily. They hoped the EU would make TR "go" .



It is ironic that the EU are deemed to have "failed" GCs, too !



I'm not sure "bitter" is the correct adjective...I think *I's* be bitter if I'd been shoved outta my place - especially if I got on well with my neighbours..

ilovecyprus


Joined: 08/05/2007
Posts: 2880

Message Posted:
22/02/2009 20:11

msge 84 "In short,NOBODY can do without foreigners on this island,land issues especially included! "



Very true Clarets. The Cypriots won't like it, but you are right they need foreigners. Pragmatism and expediency will have to ultimately rule.

Bradus


Joined: 25/02/2007
Posts: 2641

Message Posted:
22/02/2009 20:12

Clarets, Would that be the club that advised people not to buy disputed land in the TRNC?

The club that warned of the risk of losing your property should there be a settlement?

The club that supported ROC laws making it illegal to purchase such land?



In this "real world" that you live in do you seriously believe that the EU will look after the interests of Brits with holiday homes who chose to ignore advice or those that had no choice but to leave their homes and flee for their lives? (TC and GC)



Any solution will be based on the TC and GC needs for solution. Your interests and my interests will always be secondary to this and way down that list of priorities.

WAZ-24-7



Joined: 18/10/2008
Posts: 695

Message Posted:
22/02/2009 20:19

mmmmmmm

Msg 85



I think that your stance regarding wishes of GCs is somewhat out of date.

This is possibly because you left the Island some years ago and the political and social lanscape has moved on. I fear that you have been left behind.



The vast majority of ROC citizens have little contact with the TRNC. Their interest in the TRNC and anything Turkish diminishes as time passes. Their memories of ancestoral villages also diminishes and will fade even more with time. Most people in both N and S are more intent with getting on with life.



It is true that a minority are intent upon nationalistic revenge. Thankfully this faction will also fade and dissapear with time.



Your assumption that Turkey is the arch enemy to ROC may well have had substance some 10 years ago. The EU are not particularly interested in nationalistic bickerrings between N and S.

Now, the path to tollerance and co-operation is likely to be far more productive.

The EU,UN and USA support this route.

juliet


Joined: 11/01/2009
Posts: 612

Message Posted:
22/02/2009 20:20

well said msg 87

ilovecyprus


Joined: 08/05/2007
Posts: 2880

Message Posted:
22/02/2009 20:25

msge 89



You have made another friend Juliet. You are building them up

Bradus


Joined: 25/02/2007
Posts: 2641

Message Posted:
22/02/2009 20:35

Mark,

You are right at present the island needs foreigners and tourists but have you thought about what would happen if there was a settlement? Money would fly into the island for the regeneration of places like Varosha. This is what will give the island a new lease of life.

Tradesmen, Architects, planners, laborers and so on. Residential housing, hotels and improved infrastructure will be what gives Cyprus its future. A few Brits will make little difference in comparison to this sort of massive large scale development.



This is why Varosha has always been the TC's weapon at all negotiations.

juliet


Joined: 11/01/2009
Posts: 612

Message Posted:
22/02/2009 20:59

msg 88

wrong.. the ROc never forget the so called trnc or what Turkey are doing on the north of the island.. we have updates on every news channel every evening. as for our memories fading wrong again! how can you say "ancestoral" villages are diminishing when the real owners of land on the north visit quite frequently & are alive & kicking.....do you not realise all cypriots on this island are in the EU but it`s Turkeys occupation that is stopping the tcs from benefitting the full use of the EU.

ilovecyprus


Joined: 08/05/2007
Posts: 2880

Message Posted:
22/02/2009 21:05

msge 91



Hi Sue



You make a good point Sue. The Cypriots may dispense with the present foreign inhabitants to solve their own issue i.e making sure all Cypriots are looked after, and to focus on the potential longer term bigger pie.



Prio estimated that reunification would cost about 7.2 billion. Cypriot banks and public money Taxpayers money) would account for the majority of this but they would have a shortfall requiring international donor funding of 250 million pounds over the first five years after a settlement. Reunification is going to hurt financially for a while, a bit like it cost Germany.

ilovecyprus


Joined: 08/05/2007
Posts: 2880

Message Posted:
22/02/2009 21:07

msge 93



correction



250 million pounds per year

Macha


Joined: 18/01/2009
Posts: 650

Message Posted:
22/02/2009 21:18

Waz: "The vast majority of ROC citizens have little contact with the TRNC. Their interest in the TRNC and anything Turkish diminishes as time passes. Their memories of ancestoral villages also diminishes..."



I don't have the figures but have to point out that it seems to me many GCs have regular contact with the north, and their memories have not diminished. Last weekend I spent a day out with GCs revisiting their poperties on the north coast and they remembered every building and field of their youth. And judging from the number plates quite a few others were up from the south as well.



MMMMMM was quite right when he said most GCs have no problem with the TCs. They want the Turkish army to pull out most troops and resent having to show their passports and being told where they can or can't go in their own country.



I think anyone serious about living in or visiting north Cyprus should get to know some Greek Cypriots. They would benefit hugely from the contact and insight.

Macha


Joined: 18/01/2009
Posts: 650

Message Posted:
22/02/2009 21:22

MUSIN: "we tc,s want to be left in peace and have some kind of recognition"



What, in North London?

ilovecyprus


Joined: 08/05/2007
Posts: 2880

Message Posted:
22/02/2009 21:23

msge 94



further correction



figures are in Euros and relate only to the building of property and infrastructure



property compensation would amount to 15 billion

WAZ-24-7



Joined: 18/10/2008
Posts: 695

Message Posted:
22/02/2009 21:48

Macha msg 95

Thank you for your comment.

I beg to differ on this view.

Of Course some ROC citizens will travel North. They will However travel back south to their new lives and families many of which were born in and only remember their Southern homes. I too have travelled to my Welsh ancestral home.

New ROC visitors to the North will see the development, social structure and experience the total Turkish influence. The vast majority will not even speak the local Language.

The Turkish presence cannot now be extinguished. It is omnipresent and it is a fact that at this moment the GC presence in the North is and is likely to remain History. The two factions upon the Island would do far more good to concede, negotiate and settle.

jay76


Joined: 17/07/2008
Posts: 532

Message Posted:
22/02/2009 22:01

macha/juliet/pikey



your on the wrong forum all your info is the same old story, bore someone else, surely you must have something better to do ie a relationship/job/hobby, you can get help.

rowlo



Joined: 12/10/2008
Posts: 4796

Message Posted:
22/02/2009 22:06

try the samaratines , they will listen ????

clarets



Joined: 08/01/2009
Posts: 752

Message Posted:
22/02/2009 23:27

Juliet msg 92.....its was Turkey's intervention in 1974 that stopped total ethnic genocide of TC's. You have updates every evening do you? How bloody sad,that you have updates about who walked around their disused/abandoned properties in villages that they no longer recognise;about people who listen to what has been built on some scrub with a lemon tree on it.You have really missed so many simple points,it beggars belief that you have ANY education AT ALL. DONT LIVE IN THE PAST.........BLOODY WELL LEARN FROM THE MISTAKES YOUR ANCESTORS MADE AND GET OVER IT. If the Jews took he same attitude with Germany,they'd own every single brick of it.Grow up!

Turtle


Joined: 28/05/2007
Posts: 2669

Message Posted:
22/02/2009 23:31

rowlo, msg100 they have now gone ex directory !!

clarets



Joined: 08/01/2009
Posts: 752

Message Posted:
22/02/2009 23:32

Macha msg 95......mmmmmm wasn't even right about who his parents were,never mind anything else.You are really going to have to take those dark glasses off when sitting in rooms with no windows!

clarets



Joined: 08/01/2009
Posts: 752

Message Posted:
22/02/2009 23:41

Bradus,msg 91...."a few Brits?".An economy the size of what the entire of what Cyprus may become,would be myopic indeed to turn down the significant sums of money invested here in property and infrastructure and in banks already owned by these few Brits. Marginalising such huge income streams would be financial suicide.......only a "..anker",could make such a mistake in the current climate!

Tiggy


Joined: 25/07/2007
Posts: 1994

Message Posted:
22/02/2009 23:53

msy 99 and 100. sums it up really.



If the late Pike and Suzzane were removed from the forum, how comes they have reincarnated as turd....ooops macha (sorry slip of the fingers on the keyboard) and juliet. Is this not against the rules of the forum? as Mr macha has different members information this time.



The samaritans do a worthwhile job.....but I doubt they could help this pair. nuff said.

clarets



Joined: 08/01/2009
Posts: 752

Message Posted:
22/02/2009 23:58

Bradus ,msg 87.......where do I start here ? There is so much you have written,that is so wrong,from so many points of view. The club has always been interested in Brits,whether home or abroad.Pray tell which EU commissioner advises us not to buy property in TRNC ? You may be confused with some old web-sites based in Westminster! That was the same club that took us into record levels of national debt,searching for WMD in Iraq (none to date found)and back up to 2 million officially unemployed (we all know the real figure is much higher) !Cyprus can only live with Brits(especially) and other foreigners bringing money into the country.They would be stupid indeed to ignore such sums of money.It would also be ILLEGAL for the EU to differentiate between any groups in terms of any compensatory mechanisms.....those are the rules of the club,produced by the club and apply to ALL members of the club!

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
23/02/2009 00:26

Dear Waz, re msg 88



"I think that your stance regarding wishes of GCs is somewhat out of date.

This is possibly because you left the Island some years ago and the political and social lanscape has moved on. I fear that you have been left behind. "



Waz, you just proved you don't pay attention - I left CY as a RESIDENT in Sept 08 .. I still have biz there.. I still go there, I talk to folk in CY most days !



FYI over 50% of GCs have been to the "north" - but not many go back.. They have seen their homes and their curiosity is satisfied.

It is true that they have too little contact, but Mr D wanted his "Taksim".. and until Dr An came along and forced Turkey's hand - this might have still been the case.



"Your assumption that Turkey is the arch enemy to ROC may well have had substance some 10 years ago. "

to a GC it still IS.. they occupy their country and prevent freedom of movement.. most of the 50% that haven't crossed won't go as they refuse to show id ..

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
23/02/2009 00:42

Dear Clarets re msg 103



"mmmmmm wasn't even right about who his parents were,never mind anything else.You are really going to have to take those dark glasses off when sitting in rooms with no windows!"



Forgive me, but how is this STUPID and factually incorrect in every way post contributing anything to the debate other than saying something negative about you?



Please point out a factual error of mine - and I'll "fess up"..

clarets



Joined: 08/01/2009
Posts: 752

Message Posted:
23/02/2009 01:06

mmmmm, if you dont know......I aint going to point it out to you! Just about everything you say is contestable by someone with a brain.......you just dont ACCEPT that reunification is unlikely and dont want to think of it i anything other than GC terms! About time for the "fess up" methinks!

clarets



Joined: 08/01/2009
Posts: 752

Message Posted:
23/02/2009 01:06

mmmmm, if you dont know......I aint going to point it out to you! Just about everything you say is contestable by someone with a brain.......you just dont ACCEPT that reunification is unlikely and dont want to think of it in anything other than GC terms! About time for the "fess up" methinks!

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
23/02/2009 01:11

re 84, Clarets



The "fact" is that you just scored another "own goal" which proves your questionable knowledge re Cyprus..

viz: "ANY EU decision about the Island will ALWAYS involve foreigners,because of the of the club to which it now belongs."



The EU encouraged the Annan Plan - Olli Rehn ( then enlargement Commissioner) , Irish Presidency being examples - it specifically "infringed" the rights of freedom of movement for one set of EU citizens - the Cypriots who were living in the RoC..



Annan also failed to allow non Cypriots the right to remain in properties that would come under the GC admin in the new federation. That included foreigners.. NON Cypriots...



It allowed those who had recently acquired properties on GC land less rights - mainly foreigners wouldn't you agree ?



It would seem you and the late President Papadopoulos had a lot in common. He also rejected Annan as it didn't "adhere to EU norms"... ;)

clarets



Joined: 08/01/2009
Posts: 752

Message Posted:
23/02/2009 01:23

mmmmm,your cerebral cortex shrinking by the second,or too much Efes ? Was that EU or the UN you were referring to? You appear a little confused....they are not the same! The only people to have their movements infringed are .....yes you actually got that right....the GC's.Because......they rejected the Annan plan! You lost in extra time,my son!

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
23/02/2009 01:42

Dear Clarets, re msg 112



Firstly I need to correct an error of mine.. the EU Commissioner for enlargement then was Gunter Verheugen..



"EU or the UN ..? You appear a little confused....they are not the same!



Oh, I meant the EU alright..I'm well aware it was a UN initiative.. the EU supported it.



I guess this response is some sort of attempt to deflect from your faux pas...



Let me make it clearer ... as I'm quite sober..



The EU encouraged a plan that infringed the rights of one EU memeber state to be's ethnic grouping AND it "discriminated" against all non -Cypriots who had to move out in the "territory" swap.. Non-Cypriots = foreigners, right ??!



It also, "penalised" those buying recently on disputed land - again mainly FOREIGNERS..



I know this renders your "facts" as - well - nonsense - but try and deal with the correct info, rather than suggesting another possible medical defect or impairment through alocohol consumption...:P

SAFFI


Joined: 01/07/2008
Posts: 342

Message Posted:
23/02/2009 03:25

I hope not !!

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
23/02/2009 08:29

MM msg 111



The Annan Plan did not restict any movement in Cyprus. Nor did it restrict where one could reside in Cyprus. The only restriction was on the numbers of one component state that could subsequently both reside in the other component state AND vote at the component state level where they resided. This was to protect against a senario where GC became numercialy dominant in both component states and thus destroy the whole point of a federal structure.



I also think you are wrong re your other claims but would have to check that first.



A copy of the Anan Plan version 5 which was the final one can be found here for anyone interested.



http://www.visionmatters.co.uk/cyprus/Anan5.pdf

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
23/02/2009 09:31

Dear Erolz re msg 115,



I'd say you just backed me up..



" Freedom of movement, mobility rights or the right to travel is a human rights concept which is respected in the constitutions of numerous states. It asserts that a citizen of a state, in which that citizen is present, generally has the right to leave that state, travel wherever the citizen is welcome, and, with proper documentation, return to that state at any time; and also (of equal or greater importance) to travel to, reside in, and/or work in, any part of the state the citizen wishes without interference from the state."



Can we now agree that the restriction on numbers - conflicts with the above..



don't get me wrong - I was in favour of Annan - I was pointing out to another poster that the EU DID subscribe to contraventions of articles 2/3...



If you can be precise as to the points you "disagree" with - I'll point you to the source...

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
23/02/2009 11:45

Can you show me where in Anan 5 the right to freedom of movement as defined above is restrcited ?



The fact is it is not restricted in Anan 5. Under that plan all of those things listed above are unrestricted to all. The idea that the Anan plan



"...specifically "infringed" the rights of freedom of movement for one set of EU citizens - the Cypriots who were living in the RoC.."



is just not correct and it is the sort of misinformation that led in part to it's rejection by the GC community. That you alledgedly 'supported' the plan yet still spread such disinformation is unfortuante.



The Anan plan did NOT restrict freedom of movement (as defined above) and certainly not just for Cypriots in the RoC. I have posted the link to Anan 5. If I am wrong please do point out where in that document it restricts freedom of movement (and only for GC). If you can not then have the decncy to admit your error.

clarets



Joined: 08/01/2009
Posts: 752

Message Posted:
23/02/2009 13:29

mmmmm,re msg113......nope.....you are wrong and I totally concur with Erolz.No faux pas here.......you just keep missing the points!

YOU keep making the same incorrect points,and a variety of people KEEP trying to bring you up to speed on them."You.....right all the time , and everyone else wrong ?" How can that be? Please take a good look at yourself....it may not be obvious to you,but it is to me and a whole lot of other people on this forum.....from what I read !

TRNCVaughan


Joined: 27/04/2008
Posts: 4578

Message Posted:
23/02/2009 13:42

Hi mmmmmmmmmmm,



I have said before that the UN and the EU both want to see the Cyprob solved but they both have a different agenda. The EU has said, more than once, that the Cyprob is a problem for the UN, not themselves. Given this, there are bound to be "clauses" that the UN sees as reasonable that the EU wouldn't were it calling the shots. The fact is A5 was as good as it was going to get, and the UN wouldn't let the EU nit-pick it to death and the EU knew that. Lesser of two evils, and all that.

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
23/02/2009 13:55

Dear Erolz re msg 117



You "lost me" and I expect most people.. You contradict yourself.. Could a GC return to his dispossessed home or move to the north at will ? A simple YES or NO will do.. The answer is of course NO... thus the EU did agree to "overlook" it's own "rules"...



Now I think the plan was sensible in this respect - but it is a reason oft quoted by GCs.



If you care to read on down from page 111



http://www.unficyp.org/media/Other%20official%20documents/annanplan.pdf



You'll find measures that give priority for CY Citizens, then residents then those residing three years of more..





So Annan did affect folk who have bought into CY post 2001,( EU Citizens of not) DID prioritise those who had residency ( locals ) and DID prevent Cypriots - over a certain quota - moving sides...

clarets



Joined: 08/01/2009
Posts: 752

Message Posted:
23/02/2009 14:19

mmmm,there are going to be an awful lot of ex-patriots living here for more than 3 years....looks like you have taken well to shooting yourself in the foot. By the way,I agree with Erolz,because HE makes sense,and you DONT.

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
23/02/2009 14:44

Dear Clarets, re msg 121



However did I guess you would walk right in and stand on the rake..? ;)



Wasn't you that said that Foreigners / EU wouldn't be "allowed" to be prejudiced in any settlement ? !



"there are going to be an awful lot of ex-patriots living here for more than 3 years"



Good God, I hope you read up on patients notes - if applicable - more carefully than you appear to do re my posts..Annan was FIVE years ago... it was rejected by GCs - who knows what the time scale might be, now..



Property price went up in "TRNC" when a "no solution, solution" was deemed to make it "worth a punt".. I'd be the first in line to say GCs who voted NO, have only themselves to blame if any soln is WORSE than Annan.



Erolz tells you what you want to hear.. ;)

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
23/02/2009 14:52

MM msg 120



"Could a GC return to his dispossessed home or move to the north at will ? A simple YES or NO will do.. The answer is of course NO... thus the EU did agree to "overlook" it's own "rules"... "



Yes after some tranistional limits for a period of time ANY NUMBER of GC could move and reside in the Northern Component State under the Anan Plan. If you do not believe me just READ the plan.



The ONLY (permanent) restriction was in the number of those GC that could move and reside in the Northern Component State AND be represented politicaly at the component state level via the Northern Component State. If the number of GC residing in the North AND being represented at the component state level exceeded 30% of the Northern Component State (NCS) then restricting GC rights to live in the North AND be represented by the NCS was allowed but NOT the right to stop them residing in the North. These over 30% would remain represented at state level via the SCS.

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
23/02/2009 14:59

Dear Erolz re 120, phew



WHERE did I ever say it was *permanent*.. ? You see we agreed all along ..



Now let's deal with "Clarets" and his foreigners... Did or did not the plan favour locals, then residents, before recent purchasers?



"Clarets" claims the EU would never agree to THAT either...



Can we put him straight, please ?!



He will only believe you..



Just to remind you - *I* was in fav of Annan and I had to know every facet of it - to show a doubting GC...



YES, there HR were restricted.. and that's what Liealotopoulos told 'em was "wrong" ..

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
23/02/2009 15:11

MM msg 124



"WHERE did I ever say it was *permanent*.. ? You see we agreed all along .. "



Oh come on MM ! Temporary abbrogations are standard practice within the EU and totaly compatible with it. Any number of EU members negotiated TEMPORARY abbrogations of any number of parts of the EU Aquis on joining but they are allowed exactly because they are temporary.



" *I* was in fav of Annan and I had to know every facet of it - to show a doubting GC... "



So you sought to promote the Annan plan to gc by telling them "it specifically "infringed" the rights of freedom of movement for one set of EU citizens - the Cypriots who were living in the RoC.. "



With NO mention of this being a time limited temporary and transitional measure ? Or point out that the SAME restrictions applied equally to BOTH communites ? You told GC that their right to free movement was limited under the Annan Plan and that on RoC Cypriots were subject to this. Both not true.

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
23/02/2009 15:23

MM msg 120



"If you care to read on down from page 111



http://www.unficyp.org/media/Other%20official%20documents/annanplan.pdf



You'll find measures that give priority for CY Citizens, then residents then those residing three years of more.. "



From page 111 down is all about the operation of the property board. It is NOT about freedom of movement which is a seperate issue. Your claim that under the Annan plan GC would have their rights to freedom of movement 'infringed' and in ways that no other EU citizens would be limited is just NOT TRUE.



If this is how you 'promoted' the Annan plan to GC, with such disinformation, it is little wonder they were not impressed !

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
23/02/2009 15:35

Dear Erolz, 125

you are now "shooting the messenger".. Once again:



1/ I was PRO Annan - I thought the restrictions were worth the compromise ..

Let's be clear, though. we aren't talking about 4/ 5 year temp. abrogations- the normal permitted EU norms - we were talking TWENTY !



2/ E:" you sought to promote the Annan plan to gc by telling them "it specifically "infringed" the rights of freedom of movement for one set of EU citizens - the Cypriots who were living in the RoC.. "



Erolz, wind your neck in before I "chop it off"..! - I quoted Liealotopoulos' "reasoning" for "rejection" - now you assume it is my opinion ?!... FOR SURE -if you read Hitchens works like you interpret my posts your evaluations can't be sound...



Rewind..

A/ Is or is it not true that Annan included abrogations to HR rights "norms"? The answer is YES...



B/ Did, or did not the plan favour locals, then residents, before recent purchasers ?



Don't you want to put Claret's straight ? ;)

TRNCVaughan


Joined: 27/04/2008
Posts: 4578

Message Posted:
23/02/2009 15:44

Hi mmmmmmmmmmmmm,



"B/ Did, or did not the plan favour locals, then residents, before recent purchasers ?"

Can you give us the plan page number for that, please?

Also your answer to my 119, old chap.

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
23/02/2009 15:45

Dear Erolz re msg 120



Suggest you READ properly... heres the WHOLE quote:



"If you care to read on down from page 111





http://www.unficyp.org/media/Other%20official%20documents/annanplan.pdf





You'll find measures that give priority for CY Citizens, then residents then those residing three years of more..





So Annan did affect folk who have bought into CY post 2001,( EU Citizens of not) DID prioritise those who had residency ( locals ) and DID prevent Cypriots - over a certain quota - moving sides..."



This was in response to Clarets suggestion that the EU would "never" permit an agreement that favoured one lots of EU citizens over another.....



Suggest you take a breath, have a cup of tea, clam down and realise that you simply picked on the wrong "pedant"...



In your "efforts" to attempt to "discredit" you have simply proved me correct..



you might even notice that I wasn't "rude" to you nor am I asking for an apology...

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
23/02/2009 15:46

MM msg 127



"we aren't talking about 4/ 5 year temp. abrogations- the normal permitted EU norms - we were talking TWENTY !"



upto 19 years actually and still temporary and still in accordance with EU Aquis.



"I quoted Liealotopoulos' "reasoning" for "rejection" - now you assume it is my opinion ?!"



Read what you wrote in post 111. Where is there ANY indication that what you wrote re the plan 'infringing' freedom of movement (and only to GC) was TP's reason for rejecting the Annan Plan and not your own view ?



"A/ Is or is it not true that Annan included abrogations to HR rights "norms"? The answer is YES..."



TEMPORARY ones yes. PERMANENT ones NO. Big difference and one you totaly failed to mention.

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
23/02/2009 15:56

MM re msg 129



The issue I am contending with you is NOT the provisions of the Annan Plan re property settlement but those that relate to freedom of movement (and residence).



You said in msg 111



"- it specifically "infringed" the rights of freedom of movement for one set of EU citizens - the Cypriots who were living in the RoC.."



with no indication that this was not YOUR view, though it seems now you are saying that this was what TP said and is NOT your view ?



The above assertion is NOT TRUE (whoever says it). The Anan plan does not have PERMANENT restrictions on freedom of movement and certainly not ones that apply only to GC. There is section 6 of Article 3 but this explicitly says "in conformity with the acquis communautaire," (page 9)



I am not discredting you I am correcting the misinformation you posted in msg 111 (as your own view or anyone elses). Nor am I or have I been rude.

TRNCVaughan


Joined: 27/04/2008
Posts: 4578

Message Posted:
23/02/2009 15:57

Hi mmmmmmmmmmmmm,



"So Annan did affect folk who have bought into CY post 2001,( EU Citizens of(sic) not) DID prioritise those who had residency ( locals ) and DID prevent Cypriots - over a certain quota - moving sides..."



Once again you are confusing what UN proposed as against what EU would or could go along with.

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
23/02/2009 16:04

Dear Erolz, re msg 131



Don't worry you didn't "hurt" my feelings, but I suggest you RE-READ my posts as you are STILL not paying attention..



It may seem convenient to you but I just learnt my youngest sprog has been hospitalised and I need to deal with that..



Dear "TRNC"Vaughan.. re msg 132 - briefly - Gunter Verheugen (sp?) and the Irish - Presidency of EU backed the plan - YES?



What are you getting at.?. and pls be patient re response..

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
23/02/2009 16:12

MM Msg 129



"...and DID prevent Cypriots - over a certain quota - moving sides..."



Only for a temporary period. Any restrictions after this must be "in conformity with the acquis communautaire".



And once again the temporary restrictions were not re 'moving sides' per se but about moving sides AND component state citizenship. There is NO provision even temporary re just 'moving sides'. The restrictions are re moving sides AND being a citizen of that side at the component state level. So no restrcitions on ANY NUMBER of GC buying property in the North and using it on say weekends as long as they do not also wish to be a citizens of North component state rather than Southern component state, other than article 3 section 6 and "in conformity with the acquis communautaire".



The bland assertion that the Annan Plan did prevent Cypriots moving sides over a certain quota is far from the truth of what the Annan Plan actually says.

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
23/02/2009 16:20

MM msg 133



Go deal with your child and take my personal best wishes and hope that it is nothing serious with you.



If and when you are able to continue the discussion then my point remains the same as in the post above (134).



Saying that the Annan Plan did prevent Cypriots - over a certain quota - moving sides (which itself is different from the orginal assertion that it infringed freedom of movement and only to those currently in the RoC) is in my considered opinion a gross misrepresentation of the reality of what the Plan actually says. Any such limits are temporary. They apply to those residing in the North Component state AND who become citizens of that component state. Any permanent limits on those residing in the North Component state who are NOT citizens of that component state must be in accordance with EU Aquis. This is very different in my view from what you have said.



Sincerely hope all turns out well with your little one. Keep us posted.

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
23/02/2009 16:43

Hi Erolz, re msg 135



Just scanned your msg and I will "return" ... if anyone knows how to get a flipping hospital to divulge info to the non resident parent, regarding their kids health - let me know... I've even pm'd Clarets...

Macha


Joined: 18/01/2009
Posts: 650

Message Posted:
23/02/2009 17:52

Mark,



Fingers crossed mate and let us know how you got on.

WAZ-24-7



Joined: 18/10/2008
Posts: 695

Message Posted:
23/02/2009 20:57

mmmmmmm msg 136

Mark

If you have parental responsibility then you should be able to, and have a legal right to obtain the information that you require. If you do not have parental responsibility then you may apply to a UK Court for a Parental Responsibility Order.

WAZ-24-7



Joined: 18/10/2008
Posts: 695

Message Posted:
23/02/2009 21:10

Some very interesting posts and reads that pertain to the detail within the Anan Plan.



It is the case. The Anan plan is now history and the political and Social landscape on Cyprus has changed significantly.

mmmmmm tells us that he continues to have dealings with Cyprus and was a resident until Sept 2008. Why then do you almost continually look backwards to events that are factual but are historical and often frustrating to the route forward.

The continued detailed debate upon the Anan plan has no real purpose to settlement.

Certainly some aspects of Anan may be a basis of future settlement but I feel certain that the current political landscape will see a marked difference in the way that many issues, including property will be dealt with.

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
23/02/2009 21:37

OK panic over re Daughter .. I found out there are some smashing folk in the world..



Waz, Sadly I'm an "expert " in UK family law - and "winning" in the Family Court and having great Cafcass reports on your side is USELESS if Mum is the resident carer and Dad lives in foreign land...No UK court is going to put my ex in the cells for more than a few hours for contempt..and that would be too traumatic for the child(ren) - a "shrewd" Resident carer Mum works that out soon enough..I understand why some guys throw flour bombs and block roads ... Thx anyway !



The main thing is the "sprog" is recovering from what was probably a viral infection and the hospital erred on the side of caution re Meningitis..



So battle can commence again.. Erolz, give me 24 hours max.. ;)

jay76


Joined: 17/07/2008
Posts: 532

Message Posted:
23/02/2009 22:00

mmmmmmm



By the looks of things you have already lost the battle.

WAZ-24-7



Joined: 18/10/2008
Posts: 695

Message Posted:
23/02/2009 23:33

mmmmmm

I have sympathy and common ground. Good luck and keep to the moral high ground. W

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
24/02/2009 17:27

OK from yesterday.. Thx to all, and my apologies for "disappearing" in the middle of a good debate.



To refresh every one's minds.. up thread it was suggested that the EU wouldn't "allow" one set of citizens to have preferential treatment.. I pointed out that the EU HAD as they had supported Annan in 2004.. So why would now be any different ?



I posted a link which demonstrated priority to "citizens" of the "new state

priority to TCs over GCs and priority to those resident 3 years, or more.



Erolz, pointed out that the EU tolerated abrogations, but I would like someone to show where these are for 20 years !



Just to remind folk.. I was in favour of these compromises..



Annan was an example of what was "accepted" by the EU in the past..



So.. please can someone tell me why these "exceptions" wouldn't be tolerated .. they clearly were before ..well, except by the GCs and their then President :(

WAZ-24-7



Joined: 18/10/2008
Posts: 695

Message Posted:
24/02/2009 20:57

mmmmmm

My angle is:

The Anan plan took a differential stance upon the various occupiers of TRNC because at that time (5 years ago) the political,social and indeed geographical landscape was somewhat different than it is now.



ROC are in the EU. Citizens of TRNC can be construed to be members of that Union and should be considered thus. Turkish imigrants that were present in 2004 should also now be awarded some level of citizenship if they so desire.

The massive development of the TRNC since Anan has changed the view upon land exchange and relinquish.

The Social structure has altered significantly since Anan. Yes there are large numbers of imigrant Turks. There are many foreign nationals who live, work and provide economic input in the TRNC since Anan.



Sumise to say Anan is History. It failed in 2004 and is even more likely to fail in 2009. Certainly some of the plan can be resurected. The citizenship and differentiation of same is most definately out of date and inappropriate.

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
25/02/2009 00:25

Dear Waz, re msg 144



It's seems that the only thing you, and most GCs would agree on in the above post is: Annan is "dead" ;)



It was obvious, to me, that a "rump" RoC "no" to Annan was going to be treated as a "green light" to develop, in the "north" - thinking the likelihood of any comeback receded every year. I'd hardly say it changed the view re "exchange" land..most buyers simply thought the "risk" was minimal..



Just as predictable that we would hear someone say - well it's "mine" now - "move on" ...



In the CY prob the "tribes" can't agree on WHO is entitled to be called a citizen.



Is Annan "history".. ? I think not - could it work? - within the EU ( if TR was in , too ) - YES..



Who will "blink" first?

TRNCVaughan


Joined: 27/04/2008
Posts: 4578

Message Posted:
25/02/2009 13:48

Heard an interesting bit of info today. Seems the GC planning authorities are in the process of zoning all Turkish land at "Zero". This means no planning permission will be granted for any re/development - derelict, farm land or scrub, it stays the way it is. In practice this means that any TC who claims it back before or after any solution will be presented with land which is effectively worthless.

Perhaps mmmmmmmm might be able to throw some light on this?

vincehugo


Joined: 28/01/2009
Posts: 208

Message Posted:
25/02/2009 17:44

mmm



I only just found this thread but am staggered to see that someone who was "..was in fav of Annan and .. had to know every facet of it - to show a doubting GC..." could misunderstand an important element of the plan.



A5 defines "dispossessed owners", stating that this includes successors in title, reinforcing this point in Article 13 - Property currently used by subsequent purchasers from dispossessed owners. A5 therefore confers the rights of the originally dispossessed TC onto subsequent purchasers - whether TC or foreign. Where no such right exists then there are other routes available to "current users" having made "significant improvements" before 2003. But for purchasers of valid Es Deger land (TC or foreign) the 2003 date is irrelevant.



So to suggest that A5 "..favour locals, then residents, before recent purchasers" is pretty misleading. Is this how you explained Annan to your GC friends?

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
25/02/2009 17:56

"So to suggest that A5 "..favour locals, then residents, before recent purchasers" is pretty misleading. Is this how you explained Annan to your GC friends? "



Indeed as it is also misleading to claim the Annan Plan



"specifically "infringed" the rights of freedom of movement for one set of EU citizens - the Cypriots who were living in the RoC.."



or the lesser version of the above that claims the Annan plan



"prevent[ed] Cypriots - over a certain quota - moving sides..."



With 'supporters' like this 'explaining' the Annan plan to GC there was little need for detractors I guess.

No1Doyen


Joined: 04/07/2008
Posts: 16617

Message Posted:
25/02/2009 18:22

http://www.brtk.cc/index.php/lang/en/cat/2/news/46387

vincehugo


Joined: 28/01/2009
Posts: 208

Message Posted:
25/02/2009 19:58

Link to additional comments by Mr Talat after the meeting today



http://www.brtk.cc/index.php/lang/en/cat/2/news/46396



"Asked his view regarding Dimitiris Hristofias’s statement yesterday that ‘the rights of the displaced to their properties is sine qua non for the Greek Cypriot side’, the President replied ‘we made clear that we respect property rights from the very beginning’.



President Talat emphasized that ‘what’s important is what kind of mechanism the property that was left behind is going to be subjected to and returned to its owner, or exchanged with another property or how they will be compensated’.



He said of course the views of the property owner will be heard before any decisions regarding the properties are taken."

vincehugo


Joined: 28/01/2009
Posts: 208

Message Posted:
26/02/2009 17:34

Erolz Re Msg 148



Seems we may have touched a nerve, as mmmm has gone uncharacteristically quiet on this thread.

Tiggy


Joined: 25/07/2007
Posts: 1994

Message Posted:
27/02/2009 01:30

Heard he broke all his fingers! (only joking)

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
27/02/2009 09:55

re 146 "TRNC" Vaughan



I don't know.. IF, what you say is true, I'm sure it would ultimately be ruled "legally invalid" ;)



re 151/2, VinceHugo/ Tiggy



sorry to "disappoint" ;)



re msg 147, VinceHugo



You and Erolz, need to read the whole thread .. I pointed out, correctly, that Annan favoured local ( citizens) residents, and then recent arrivals - in that order and have quoted parts of Annan regarding that.. This dealt with areas where folk had to vacate properties during the redrawing of the autonomous regions. We were discussing how it was a FACT that the EU permitted abrogations ..( and therefore COULD again) as we had posters saying all would be treated similarly...





It is interesting that you both jumped in and got it "wrong" !

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
27/02/2009 10:44

MM



Did you or did you not say in this thread the Annan Plan



"specifically "infringed" the rights of freedom of movement for one set of EU citizens - the Cypriots who were living in the RoC.."



and



"prevent[ed] Cypriots - over a certain quota - moving sides..."



Let me help you. You did say these things. They are at best misleading and and worst down right incorrect. What the Annan plan actually says and what you claimed it says are very different - and this from an alledged 'supporter' of the Annan plan. When you make such misleading claims about what the Annan plan says then yes I do jump in. That you said these things to prove some other point does not make them any less wrong or misleading.

vincehugo


Joined: 28/01/2009
Posts: 208

Message Posted:
27/02/2009 11:01

Dear Marky Let's Twist Again Mark Re Msg 153



I'll leave Erolz to deal with the point about autonomous regions.



I certainly didn't get it wrong. My point was that, in relation to Es Deger (Points Exchange) land, A5 does not favour local (citizens) and residents over foreigners and/or recent arrivals. So treats all EU citizens equally.



You refer to p111 onwards in A5, though I believe that the important and relevant text is in the General Articles (p95 onwards) and the Definitions (p107 onwards).



To avoid further twisting ;



Do you agree that Annan treated all owners of Es Deger land equally, whether TC or "foreign" and irrespective of when the land was purchased/developed?



A YES or NO answer would be great.

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
27/02/2009 12:21

Dear Vincehugo re msg 155



*I* suggest you first withdraw your suggestion that I'm "twisting", READ the thread... and respond, accordingly.



The discussion was could the EU allow abrogations and I pointed out a place on the Annan Plan where they clearly DID.

vincehugo


Joined: 28/01/2009
Posts: 208

Message Posted:
27/02/2009 12:40

mmm Re Msg 156



I did read the thread (and I have re-read the thread). In Msg 113 you said (re the Annan Plan) " It also, "penalised" those buying recently on disputed land - again mainly FOREIGNERS."



My Msg 147 questioned this with regard to Es Deger land. Your Msg 153 assumed this point related to redrawing of the autonomous regions, which it didn't.



But, you know what Mark, if it's an obstacle to you answering the question I asked in Msg 155, I will gladly withdraw the suggestion that you were twisting, accepting that you may simply have misunderstood my point.



I look forward to hearing your answer to the important part of Msg 155.

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
27/02/2009 13:12

MM



Did you or did you not say in this thread the Annan Plan



"specifically "infringed" the rights of freedom of movement for one set of EU citizens - the Cypriots who were living in the RoC.."



and



"prevent[ed] Cypriots - over a certain quota - moving sides..."



Let me help you. You did say these things. They are at best misleading and and worst down right incorrect. What the Annan plan actually says and what you claimed it says are very different.

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
28/02/2009 09:26

Dear ErolZ re msg 158





Once again, I remind you and ErolZ that this thread has evolved into a discussion about whether Annan removed EU HR norms:



1/ "specifically "infringed" the rights of freedom of movement for one set of EU citizens - the Cypriots who were living in the RoC.."



2/ "prevent[ed] Cypriots - over a certain quota - moving sides..."



It DID, we discussed the EU permitting HR abrogations. and specific examples - . there is NOTHING incorrect or misleading about the statements.. these examples "Liealotopoulos" used ..



I say again, *I* think it was still worth the GCs voting YES - an acceptable compromise.

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
28/02/2009 10:05

re 157, Vince Hugo -Thank you



Annan 5 Annex 7 - part I - art. 13 Deals with properties NOT affected by a territory"swap":



"Property currently used by subsequent purchasers from

dispossessed owners

1. Any purchaser (or his/her successors in title) of an affected property,

which was assigned to a dispossessed owner (hereinafter "the vendor")

and is of a similar current value to a property of which the vendor was

dispossessed, shall have the same rights and obligations as the vendor

would have had according to Article 12 with respect to the affected

property, provided that s/he and the vendor and any predecessors in title

have collectively been current users of the affected property on a

continuous basis for at least ten years. "



There's one example of where a recent resident - more likely a foreigner -wouldn't you say, would be affected ?

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
28/02/2009 10:55

MM msg 159



"there is NOTHING incorrect or misleading about the statements"



Are you SERIOUS ? You SERIOUSLY say there is nothing misleading or wrong about the claim that the Annan plan



"specifically "infringed" the rights of freedom of movement for one set of EU citizens - the Cypriots who were living in the RoC."



when the reality is that they placed a temporary restriction on the total number of Cypriots from both sides that could both reside in the other side and be ciztizens of the other side at the component state level. A total that increased over time until after 19 years or Turkey's accession to the EU all such restrictions were removed.



I am just dumbfounded that you do not think the first statement is misleading when compared to the reality of the second ! THe first makes NO mention of the temporary nature of the restrictions. It implies they are constants. It makes no mention of the fact that these restrictions are only after certain



(cont)

vincehugo


Joined: 28/01/2009
Posts: 208

Message Posted:
28/02/2009 10:57

Mark Re Msg 160



"Annan 5 Annex 7 - part I - art. 13 Deals with properties NOT affected by a territory"swap":" Correct



"Current users" are defined on P107 of A5 as "a person who has been granted a form of right to use or occupy property .." Current users therefore do not actually have to be living on this land, just need to have the right to use it. So as long as the current owner of Es Deger deeds can demonstrate that they and the previous TC owner had between them continuously owned the land for ten years (a likely scenario for Es Deger land) then it doesn't matter what nationality they are.



So I would say that this does NOT provide an example of where a recent resident - more likely a foreigner - would be affected. Indeed I would say that it is the fundamental Article demonstrating that, when it comes to Es Deger land, foreigners have just the same rights as TC's, irrespective of length of tenure.



Any other examples?

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
28/02/2009 11:02

threashold number has been reached, or that this threashold number increases steadily over time until it disapears totaly. It implies that the restrictions apply only to Cypriots living in the RoC when they are in fact the same for all Cypriots.



If one read the first statment the impression one would get is that under the Annan plan GC (and only GC) would permanently have their rights to freedom of movement in Cyprus restricted, but other EU citizens would not.



Like I say MM I really am just stunned that you can claim the first statement on its own as it was originally presented by you is neither wrong or misleading. It is clearly designed to present the Annan Plan in the most pejudice way possible and makes no attempt to explain the reality. It is in my opinion clearly both wrong and misleading and designed to be so.

vincehugo


Joined: 28/01/2009
Posts: 208

Message Posted:
01/03/2009 21:07

Awfully quiet on this thread, Erolz.

spider


Joined: 03/01/2009
Posts: 5527

Message Posted:
01/03/2009 21:10

give over.....you will start them all off......................................

















spider.

vincehugo


Joined: 28/01/2009
Posts: 208

Message Posted:
03/03/2009 13:21

Never thought I'd say that I was missing mmmmmmmmm but I am genuinely interested to hear what he has to say in reply to Msg 162.



It seems like a pretty important issue for those with Exchange deeds.



He's been awfully (uncharacteristically) quiet recently but I'm sure it's because he's been busy and not because he is stumped for an answer!

LondonCypriot


Joined: 15/12/2008
Posts: 426

Message Posted:
03/03/2009 13:48

Like with any agreement an referendum would have to take place. Greek Cypriots hated the Annan plan. I think the Annan plan was the only realistic plan to re unite the two core areas of the island. Greek Cypriots insisted that the Annan plan violated EU laws.

TRNCVaughan


Joined: 27/04/2008
Posts: 4578

Message Posted:
03/03/2009 15:12

I suspect mmmmmmmmmm has just realised how far he has stuffed his foot in his mouth.

vincehugo


Joined: 28/01/2009
Posts: 208

Message Posted:
03/03/2009 17:09

LC Re Msg 167



I guess the thing Erolz and I have being trying to bottom out was how the GC's (and their "advisers") interpreted the Annan Plan, especially in relation to EU laws and "foreigners". It's one thing to hate it for what it proposed but quite another to hate it for what you are falsely led to believe it proposed.



Having said that, I'm not sure the GC view of the Annan plan would improve with the discovery that it treated Cypriots and non-Cypriots equally when it comes to property ownership! Even if this is consistent with EU law!

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
03/03/2009 17:43

vincehugo



For some real hard evidence as to why people voted the way they did on the Annan Plan I would suggest the work of Alexandros Lordos that can be found here.



http://www.cypruspolls.org/



and specifically for the issue of how much misunderstanding of the Annan plan influced GC voters have a look at the 2004 poll and analysis at the bottom of the page. A quick quote (but you really need to read the whole thing)



"We can see here that there is indeed a correlation between vote at the

referendum and level of awareness about the Plan: While among those

who do not know the Plan at all 78% voted “No” and only 22% voted

“Yes”, among those who know the Plan extremely well only 60% voted

“No” while 40% voted “Yes”."



"From this perspective, those who claim that the Plan was voted down

because the Greek Cypriots did not understand it are PARTLY in the

right." (my emphasis)

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
03/03/2009 17:53

A general note on Alexandros' work from my perspective. I personaly have a great deal of respect for Alexandros' work and for him as an indivdual. I have had many and long discussions and debates with him about the Cyprus problem on forums and off. Whilst we do not always agree we have always managed to debate in a constructive manner and with mutual respect and without personalisation and insults. His approach to such is markedly different from people like Macha and MM.



Whilst at times I feel his work, and specificaly some of the conclusions he draws from the raw data, does SOMETIMES contain a certain bias, I also recognise its integrity and intelectual rigor and think his work is exteremly important. Most especially his evidence based analysis of what would be needed in a plan to aloow BOTH sides to secure a yes vote. The June 2005 Options for Peace: Mapping the possibilities for a Comprehensive Settlement in Cyprus from the link above.

vincehugo


Joined: 28/01/2009
Posts: 208

Message Posted:
03/03/2009 20:31

Erolz Re Msg 170 & 171



Thanks for the reference - it makes for very interesting reading. The June 2005 Options for Peace research, in particular contains some interesting insights (though in my view it's spoilt a bit by augmenting the facts with the authors opinion). I found the mathematical calculation of a workable settlement interesting but can't help thinking that any future outcome will be strongly affected by the passage of time and perceptions of negotiating power at the point of any vote.



I was much less impressed with the analytical rigour of the 2004 Poll about understanding of the Annan Plan. Primarily because the pivotal questions was about "awareness", as opposed to "understanding" of the plan - admittedly much harder to establish. What one can draw from the research is that 78% of those admitting "no awareness of the plan" still voted NO to it! (On what basis??) And that, as awareness increased the percentage YES vote increased. That seems significant to me

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
03/03/2009 22:25

Vincehugo msg 172



"That seems significant to me "



I think so to, though I do also take on board the obsevation that of those that considered themselves in the highest category of 'awarness' about the plans details, whilst the yes vote rose as high as 40% , we do have to recognise that 60% in that category STILL voted no.

vincehugo


Joined: 28/01/2009
Posts: 208

Message Posted:
04/03/2009 14:22

Erolz Re Msg 173



Fair point. I guess where I was coming from was that if increasing "awareness" of the plan increases the "YES" vote then what might be the effect of increased "understanding". Also that if 78% could vote "NO" whilst admitting they were not aware of the plan, then it seems that whatever plan is produced in the future, their vote will still be "NO".

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
04/03/2009 16:45

Dear Vincehugo, Erolz and "TRNC" Vaughan



So sorry to "disappoint" you, but this thread ain't dead yet... I was in London for a couple of days and I didn't realise this might lead you to the "interesting" conclusion that I would be "hiding".. ;) ..





ErolZ:"Like I say MM I really am just stunned that you can claim the first statement on its own as it was originally presented by you is neither wrong or misleading. It is clearly designed to present the Annan Plan in the most pejudice way possible and makes no attempt to explain the reality. It is in my opinion clearly both wrong and misleading and designed to be so."



Well, I STILL suggest you read the WHOLE flow of this thread - AGAIN..



It wan't my intention ( deliberately or unwittingly ) to "deceive" or portray Annan in such a way.. and you've obviously "may your mind up" ..! your "loss" ..

(Cont)

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
04/03/2009 16:53

( cont from 175) You "lightly dismiss" huge HR abrogations that where extremely hard to "sell" to GCs - as their then leader, was advising them that the plan went against EU norms - which it DID.



Could you help us by showing us such long term ( 19 yrs plus) abrogations being allowed by the EU elsewhere?



So it DID infringe the HR rights of one set of RoC Citizens and it did favour "citizens" /locals over more recent arrivals...



I've not seen anything to counter those points..



Let's not forget that the actual point i was making is:



the EU "allowed these abrogations" and so most likely would again

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
04/03/2009 17:38

MM msg 175



"It wan't my intention ( deliberately or unwittingly ) to "deceive" or portray Annan in such a way.. "



It might not have been your intention but it is what you did. Just to try and clear this up once and for all. Do you think the following description of what the Annan Plan actualy says about GC ability to live in the North is an acurate fair complete and balanced one or not ?



[The Annan Plan]'specifically "infringed" the rights of freedom of movement for one set of EU citizens - the Cypriots who were living in the RoC'



19 years (or Turkey joining EU which ever is first) may be the longest abbrogation the EU has allowed - I do not know if it is or not, but the point is there is and can be no PERMANENT restrictions on such rights under EU Aquis. Something you totaly seem to ignore.



"So it DID infringe the HR rights of one set of RoC Citizens"



Which set of RoC citizens did it place (temporary) restrictions on , that did not apply to ALL Cypriots ?

ROBnJO


Joined: 30/06/2008
Posts: 1289

Message Posted:
04/03/2009 17:45

Pedantics?



'tis a wonderful thing, but no Degree in pedantics or Cypriot History will have a jot of wisdom or relevance to any discussions or resolution.



They haven't for the last 34 yrs, or even 1000 yrs, they won't now.







Which basically means uninformed thicko's such as me can say what we like and probably have as much chance of success in foreguessing the outcome as any 'uber' informed poster.



Rob

vincehugo


Joined: 28/01/2009
Posts: 208

Message Posted:
05/03/2009 01:53

Mmmm Re Msg 175/176



As I've said before, I'll leave the point about redrawing of autonomous regions in Erolz's capable hands.



But I still don't think you have answered my question, raised originally in Msg 155, namely ;



"Do you agree that Annan treated all owners of Es Deger land equally, whether TC or "foreign" and irrespective of when the land was purchased/developed?" Yes or No.



The example you quote, I believe, supports the answer "Yes" but if you have other examples that support a "No" I would love to hear them.



And the reason I won't let this go is that it seems a pretty fundamental issue to owners of Es Deger land, but also a key issue for GC's, and if you didn't understand it correctly I wonder how many GC's did?

andre 514


Joined: 31/03/2008
Posts: 1163

Message Posted:
05/03/2009 09:06

it's comfortable to escape into a theoretical labyrinth regarding earlier,

failed propsals

I think the gc side is far more pragmatic about their present needs

than we give them credit for

hence their house chairman now states that they should not support

anything that does not benefit them

a cyprus-nicosia lady interviewed in 2004 said that $5000 was not enough for the house they lost

why should they agree to a deal now that legally endorses a large chunk of "their country" as a separate state? and possibly to compete with them?



I'm sure there are quite valid points made about the length of abrogations from the eu acquis cordonaire which are well beyond my understanding



but the gc's may not be as pragmatic about a "deal" itself

as they are assumed to be,

if they really wanted a re-unification deal they would make proper concessions



you cannot really have "talks" go on for this long without it being obvious

that this bodes ill for a cosy agreement in our lifetim

vincehugo


Joined: 28/01/2009
Posts: 208

Message Posted:
06/03/2009 02:19

MMMM Re Msg 179



I'd really like to hear your answer.

wynyardman



Joined: 15/12/2007
Posts: 4580

Message Posted:
06/03/2009 11:17

A fascinating and interesting thread.



What comes readily to mind is..."too much analysis, leads to paralysis"



A solution is what is required now!



wyn

LondonCypriot


Joined: 15/12/2008
Posts: 426

Message Posted:
06/03/2009 12:52

What kind of solution are you pointing out. If the Annan plan was rejected, I see no hope for solution. Greek Cypriots, including the powerful church insist that Turkish Cypriots like all other minorities should become equal citizens of the Republic of Cyprus.



Tell you the truth, you are wasting your time, as I can't see any solution as the core issues are to do with with population, land and property. Land and property are the main issues that are in dispute here.

wynyardman



Joined: 15/12/2007
Posts: 4580

Message Posted:
06/03/2009 21:43

London Cypriot,



Do you think if the Annan Plan were presented today, for the first time,it would be accepted?



wyn

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
10/03/2009 14:27

To ErolZ re 177



Interesting that you still persist in concentrating on my "misleading" folk, when I have many times told you:



1/ I was not



2/ demonstrated it



3/ you forgot that I was pro Annan and "demonstrating" WHY GCs rejected it... as their "leader" told them it was a gross breach of HR rights - relating to EU norms - which it WAS... but it was still better than they have now..



The GCs could not move back "willy nilly" but say, a Turk - on becoming an EU citizen *could*...



I pointed out several other instances were Annan favoured long term residents or "citizens" but you seem to have overlooked those examples..



Could it be you are so busy trying to "trip me up" .. that you can't see the wood for the trees ?! ;)

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
10/03/2009 14:34

Dear Vincehugo 179/181



you must learn to be more patient - sometimes I'm travelling or on a "relaxing break" and my "priority" isn't Cyprus44 and responding to specific posts.



But here I am, and I always try to respond - lest someone might foolishly get the idea my "silence" was anything else ;)



I've already pointed out that :



1/ if you lived in an area that came under the GC region Annan treated "citizen" differently



2/ Annan also dealt with folk who had been living a shorter time - without a claim to land somewhere else - differently, too



You, like ErolZ, seem to have forgotten how this branch came about..



I am pretty sure I have demonstrated that Annan did treat certain folk differently and I se no reason why any new plan, would / couldn't.



If you remember there were posters who claimed the EU wouldn't "allow" it... ?