The Best Cyprus Community

Skip to content


A polls-based Comprehensive Settlement Proposal

Propose and discuss specific solutions to aspects of the Cyprus Problem

Which aspect of this proposal needs the most work in order to become acceptable?

Security
1
6%
Governance
2
13%
Property
5
31%
Legal Status
3
19%
Settlers
0
No votes
Education
1
6%
Economics
1
6%
Implementation Guarantees
2
13%
Evolution of the New State of Affairs
1
6%
 
Total votes : 16

Postby magikthrill » Tue Feb 22, 2005 3:43 am

If I am not mistaken...

One question which asks "do you think of TCs/GCs as your cocitizens" the GC response showed mostly yes, but the TCs were split with more people being wary of coexisting with the other community.

Howver, this could be from the settlers responses as well sinc ethey have never actually lived with a GC.

Either way this response shows that GCs are more willing to find a solution at any cost than TCs even though TCs will have more to benefit.
magikthrill
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 2245
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 10:09 am
Location: Athens, Greece

Postby turkcyp » Tue Feb 22, 2005 5:45 am

Alexandros Lordos wrote:b) Cyprus should be dimilitarised, you say. To this I disagree, we live in a very dangerous part of the world.


I guess I am not as pessimistic as you are. I mean who is seriously going to attack Cyprus other than Turkey and Greece (and them only when provoked). I do not see any threat to Cyprus security quite honestly.

c) You do not accept that the constituent state constitutions should be constrained or defined by anyone other than residents of each constituent state. This is a more fundamental disagreement.


This goes against my understanding of basic principle of federation. The principle is “any power who is not vested in federal government is vested in states”.

Now having said that I am not saying that states have unlimited power to change their constitutions, electoral systems, its government styles, etc. etc. Any change first should be democratic, should not violate the federal constitution of Cyprus, should not violate human rights, etc. etc. and all the other limitations you might guess. Federal constitution is still above state constitutions, but I guess I rather have a constitution like USA’s where states are given very much power on the implementation of the USA constitution, and in deciding their own constitutions.

What I have to answer to you on this is: Sure, in regular Federal Systems each state writes up its own constitution, but the "United Cyprus Republic" is far from a regular Federation. If you are willing to give up qualified majorities in decision making of the Federal Government (also highly irregular), then I would be willing to give up the demand that the constituent state constitutions should be "regulated". :)

But from the moment that we are writing up a solution that is "custom made" for TCs, abandoning political idealism and regular models in the process, we should be prepared to "custom-make" it for GCs as well ...


Qualfied majorities (QM) are not that much important for me, and should only be used in very serious decisions like federal constitution change, federal law change relating to elections, etc. etc.

For example in the above you can see that I see no problem in giving up majority voting in the budget decisions. These are economical issues which I think are not the strategic.

So if you wish there is a lot of room to compromise over QM voting. I do not remember what Annan Plan was calling QM voting for. But if you be more specific of areas I can be more specfic as well.

Also you have suggested some things that are not very much important for TCs but would make plan more unequal to GCs like %40 ratio on federal employees. This I do not need as well. Quite honestly I could even give up any ratio for that matter. There is nit any need for setting a quote like %18 for TCs. The only thing that should be done is that the hiring commission for federal employees should be made bipartisan so that the best man gets this job, without any emphasis on ethnicity.

Also one thing I want to ask. Why is there no income tax at the federal level? Was it a mistake or intentional? I mean do not get me wrong I like it. For me as a principle the more decentralized government is the better it is. I do not even believe states should have to many rights as well. Many decisions relating to daily life’s of Cypriots can be delegated even further down to localities or special districts like in USA. I want more direct participation of people to decision making. Not one big system where you choose reps and you do not hear from them till the next election.

Anyway I will make some proposals relating to electoral systems. Bear with me. Trying to consolidate your desire of keeping nationalist politicians out of the loop but at the same time choosing true representatives of the societies.

Take care,
turkcyp
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 1117
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2004 12:40 am

Postby MicAtCyp » Tue Feb 22, 2005 2:09 pm

Alexandros wrote: The only sacrifice you might have to make is that, in case it is impossible to take back your original home (e.g. because it was demolished and a hotel was built on it), then you will be entitled to a new home built for you in the same village.


Please stop it Alexandre. You obviously don't know the costs involved or the fact that "property" does not involve just a house. For every house each GC or TC refugee owns on the average an additional 10 donums of land, plus a part of bussiness premises. The total value of GC properties in the occupied areas is estimated in the range of a trillion+ pounds. "Compensating" just a tiny fraction (one every thousand) of Refugees will cost a billion. And we are talking for a state that currently can juuust survive on a 2 billion pound budget !! Where will it find hundreds of billions to compensate the people?

It seems some people find it hard to understand that at a place where a family must work and save money for a lifetime to built a house, there is no Omnipotent State that can build them one free of charge or compensate them just like that !!

No,no, no the compensation "fruit" is totally out of question. IT IS AN IMPOSSIBILITY!.

The only thing that can be done is to encourage ( I hate to say enforce because that might no be allowed under EU law) the people to exchange properties. Still however even if all the TCs exchange all their properties there will be a subtstantial left over of GC owned properties currently in use by settlers who in the end have to either abandon them, or pay rent, or buy them. And since they can afford none of the 3 options that is why the settlers are one of the biggest problems for a solution, and that is why they have to be repatriated by Turkey itself.

In my opinion not only Papadopoulos, but the majority of refugees will never accept this lie for a compensation knowing very well that such money do not, and will never exist.
User avatar
MicAtCyp
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 1579
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2004 10:10 am

Postby magikthrill » Tue Feb 22, 2005 2:13 pm

MicAtCyp wrote:
Alexandros wrote: The only sacrifice you might have to make is that, in case it is impossible to take back your original home (e.g. because it was demolished and a hotel was built on it), then you will be entitled to a new home built for you in the same village.


Please stop it Alexandre. You obviously don't know the costs involved or the fact that "property" does not involve just a house. For every house each GC or TC refugee owns on the average an additional 10 donums of land, plus a part of bussiness premises. The total value of GC properties in the occupied areas is estimated in the range of a trillion+ pounds. "Compensating" just a tiny fraction (one every thousand) of Refugees will cost a billion. And we are talking for a state that currently can juuust survive on a 2 billion pound budget !! Where will it find hundreds of billions to compensate the people?

It seems some people find it hard to understand that at a place where a family must work and save money for a lifetime to built a house, there is no Omnipotent State that can build them one free of charge or compensate them just like that !!

No,no, no the compensation "fruit" is totally out of question. IT IS AN IMPOSSIBILITY!.

The only thing that can be done is to encourage ( I hate to say enforce because that might no be allowed under EU law) the people to exchange properties. Still however even if all the TCs exchange all their properties there will be a subtstantial left over of GC owned properties currently in use by settlers who in the end have to either abandon them, or pay rent, or buy them. And since they can afford none of the 3 options that is why the settlers are one of the biggest problems for a solution, and that is why they have to be repatriated by Turkey itself.

In my opinion not only Papadopoulos, but the majority of refugees will never accept this lie for a compensation knowing very well that such money do not, and will never exist.


IF refugees arent allowed to return and wont be compensated then how can a solution ever be achieved?

Compensation should be put on Turkey's part. This is the price the pay for violating international law for 30 years. Nobody is asking anything from the TCs cause the only Turkey is seen as the one responsible for 30 years of misery, pain and suffering.
magikthrill
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 2245
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 10:09 am
Location: Athens, Greece

Postby -mikkie2- » Tue Feb 22, 2005 2:25 pm

Magicthrill

I think you have missed the point that MicAtCyp was making. The problem is that the amount of GC property in the north is so vast that the cost of compensation would be massive.

He has rightly pointed out that he main problem with the property issue is the settlers. I have always said tha the more settlers that are repatriated the easier the property problem becomes.

However, the Turks want us to bear the brunt of the cost by allowing as many settlers to stay as possible. The Annan plan was so loose with the property and citizenship issue that most of the settlers would end up staying.
-mikkie2-
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 1295
Joined: Tue Sep 21, 2004 12:11 am

Postby magikthrill » Tue Feb 22, 2005 2:43 pm

i understood that micatcyp was saying it is not possible for the properties to be compensated. however if neither this nor return of refugees is done, how will a solution be achieved?

yes a way would be by removing as many settles as possible. however, most TCs seem to want settlers to stay and if this is their wish it doesnt bother me as long as compensation from turkey occurs. however, we cant have it both ways.

sorry if i fell off topic but that is what i understood.
magikthrill
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 2245
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 10:09 am
Location: Athens, Greece

Postby Alexandros Lordos » Tue Feb 22, 2005 2:50 pm

MicAtCyp wrote:Please stop it Alexandre. You obviously don't know the costs involved or the fact that "property" does not involve just a house. For every house each GC or TC refugee owns on the average an additional 10 donums of land, plus a part of bussiness premises. The total value of GC properties in the occupied areas is estimated in the range of a trillion+ pounds. "Compensating" just a tiny fraction (one every thousand) of Refugees will cost a billion. And we are talking for a state that currently can juuust survive on a 2 billion pound budget !! Where will it find hundreds of billions to compensate the people?


MicAtCyp,

I was not referring to the Annan Plan (the property provisions of which are utterly unworkable). I was referring to my own proposal, at the first page of this thread. According to this proposal, original owners get all their property except that which will be exchanged by refugees and also that which has been heavily invested on. The outrageous "one-third" clause, in other words, which caused the major difficulties, has been removed (as well as various other sub-clauses).

Most GC refugees, in other words, would get a home in the north and some donums of agricultural land.

Now, as for the issue of compensation, what we would end up having is a drastically scaled down version of the property board, which could just about become viable in the following way:

- All owners of "significant improvements" will have to "buy" the value of the original property and give that money to the property board, which Property Board will pass it on as compensation to the original owner. If current occupants are unwilling to "pay up", then the property reverts to the original owner, who will not be obliged to pay for the cost of the "significant improvement". The only problem I see here is how current occupants will find the money to buy the original property (this is a problem for GCs as well, you know, since many GC refugees will want to keep their house built in refugee camps on TC land). But really, it is just a question of paying up for what is not rightfully yours. Perhaps we might need help here from the international community, in the form of low interest long term loans for those individuals (GCs or TCs) who will wish to buy the land on which their "significantly improved" residence has been built. Do you see a problem here which I do not see, Economics-wise?

All refugees who wish to exchange their original property for their currently used property, will cede to the Property Board their original property and keep their current residence without a monetary transaction. Then the property board would have to either give equivalent property form its holdings to the original owner (again no monetary transaction) or pay compensation to the original owner, in which case to raise the funds for this compensation it would have to sell property in the free market. As we both know, this could be problematic if large volumes of property are involved, as it would disrupt the property market and by extension the economy. However, if it is limited only to this type of property issue, then the volumes would be much more limited. One way to limit it even further, would be to insist that property will only be exchanged for property (ie, no monetary compensation). The refugee will be able to choose another property anywhere in Cyprus, and that will be the end of it - this way, again we avoid compensation. Or, we opt for the "new home provision" which I suggested, which could be financed by international donors the same way that the relocation of TCs will be financed by international donors - but such donations have to be guaranteed in advance of the solution, perhaps with the money being pre-deposited in a reconstruction account, pending their release the day after two succesful referenda.

- Other than the above two categories, no other properties will be given over to the Property Board gratuitously, just so that "GCs don't own too much property in the north". Yes, refugee current occupants (of both sides) and heavily invested properties (in both sides) will be protected, but that's it: Everything else goes back to original owners.

MicAtCyp, I know you have studied these issues in depth, and I also know that you very much want to see a viable solution happening, so long as the compromises involved are tolerable - so I look forward to hear your thoughts.
Alexandros Lordos
Contributor
Contributor
 
Posts: 987
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2004 8:41 pm

Postby magikthrill » Tue Feb 22, 2005 3:05 pm

Alexandros Lordos wrote:
- All owners of "significant improvements" will have to "buy" the value of the original property and give that money to the property board, which Property Board will pass it on as compensation to the original owner. If current occupants are unwilling to "pay up", then the property reverts to the original owner, who will not be obliged to pay for the cost of the "significant improvement". The only problem I see here is how current occupants will find the money to buy the original property (this is a problem for GCs as well, you know, since many GC refugees will want to keep their house built in refugee camps on TC land). But really, it is just a question of paying up for what is not rightfully yours.


i think this idea is excellent alexandre. did you come up with it?
magikthrill
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 2245
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 10:09 am
Location: Athens, Greece

Postby brother » Tue Feb 22, 2005 3:10 pm

i second that idea of alex, but for those that cannot afford it how about a low interest goverment mortgage or something along those lines.
User avatar
brother
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 4711
Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2004 5:30 pm
Location: Cyprus/U.K

Postby Alexandros Lordos » Tue Feb 22, 2005 3:15 pm

magikthrill wrote:
Alexandros Lordos wrote:
- All owners of "significant improvements" will have to "buy" the value of the original property and give that money to the property board, which Property Board will pass it on as compensation to the original owner. If current occupants are unwilling to "pay up", then the property reverts to the original owner, who will not be obliged to pay for the cost of the "significant improvement". The only problem I see here is how current occupants will find the money to buy the original property (this is a problem for GCs as well, you know, since many GC refugees will want to keep their house built in refugee camps on TC land). But really, it is just a question of paying up for what is not rightfully yours.


i think this idea is excellent alexandre. did you come up with it?



He he, actually this part is in the Annan Plan ...

just goes to show you ... :)
Alexandros Lordos
Contributor
Contributor
 
Posts: 987
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2004 8:41 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Cyprus Problem Solution Proposals

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests