The Best Cyprus Community

Skip to content


The Cyprus Solution - The Next Step Forward....

Propose and discuss specific solutions to aspects of the Cyprus Problem

Postby MicAtCyp » Fri Jul 08, 2005 11:12 pm

Viewpoint wrote: why dont GCs take the first step and get both sides talking without any outsiders?


Good question VP. You think they never talk, and they don't know what each other wants? Then what you think all these party meetings between CTP and Akel are for? They are just messengers of Papadopoulos and Talat in my opinion. What do you think all these foreign Ambassadors are doing everyday? The same job.

On the other hand suppose they really do meet without the presence of the UN or other outsiders.The next day they will accuse each other with lies, and nobody will know who says the truth and who says lies.

On the other hand Papadopoulos says he talked with Talat many times through others on many everyday issues. According to Papadopoulos Talat said OK fine no problem, but I have to go to Ankara and tell them, however don't worry consider it a deal already. He goes to Ankara, comes back, and says sorry Ankara does not agree! This is what happened regarding the opening of the 2 new checkpoints in Nicosia.

Another example I can give is the "secret" negotiations they had in Brussels for the matter of Varoshia and the direct Trade. Talat said if you accept direct trade and flights and we will then discuss the matter of Varoshia. One weak later Ecevit reports Talat to Sezer and Sezer says we did not give permission to Talat to say anything about Varoshia!!!

Under these conditions if you were Papadopoulos what would you do?

wrote: For me personally I would get rid of all the army tomorrow on both sides and take stock of GC demands regarding the property issue by way of a concesus as to how many would return and how many would sell (same for TCs) this would allow us to evaluate exactly what we are dealing with but we have to also take into account the current practicalities of our situation.


I am glad for it VP. This is the correct way to move forward. Do you know how many times I myself agreed with TCs on how to solve the problem? Do you know how many times TCs agreed with my proposals? Hundreds!!! And I don't mean on soft issues, I mean on very hot issues. Here just today I agreed 99% with Turkcyp, and you too, and you with me yesterday.

What I cannot understand is why the leaders cannot move on a single inch on ANY issue! This is beyond my understanding....
User avatar
MicAtCyp
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 1579
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2004 10:10 am

Postby Viewpoint » Fri Jul 08, 2005 11:45 pm

double post...
Last edited by Viewpoint on Fri Jul 08, 2005 11:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Viewpoint
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 25211
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2005 2:48 pm
Location: Nicosia/Lefkosa

Postby Viewpoint » Fri Jul 08, 2005 11:46 pm

MicAtCyp
Good question VP. You think they never talk, and they don't know what each other wants? Then what you think all these party meetings between CTP and Akel are for? They are just messengers of Papadopoulos and Talat in my opinion. What do you think all these foreign Ambassadors are doing everyday? The same job.

On the other hand suppose they really do meet without the presence of the UN or other outsiders.The next day they will accuse each other with lies, and nobody will know who says the truth and who says lies.

On the other hand Papadopoulos says he talked with Talat many times through others on many everyday issues. According to Papadopoulos Talat said OK fine no problem, but I have to go to Ankara and tell them, however don't worry consider it a deal already. He goes to Ankara, comes back, and says sorry Ankara does not agree! This is what happened regarding the opening of the 2 new checkpoints in Nicosia.


How do you know?? have you got inside information?? you could be making all this up.

Another example I can give is the "secret" negotiations they had in Brussels for the matter of Varoshia and the direct Trade. Talat said if you accept direct trade and flights and we will then discuss the matter of Varoshia. One weak later Ecevit reports Talat to Sezer and Sezer says we did not give permission to Talat to say anything about Varoshia!!!


our press today stated that Varosha/Maras was offered by TCs (Rasit Pertev) for Direct trade (recognition of all ports and airports to be declared by GCs and guaranteed that it would not later be cancelled) and aid but GCs paniced and rejected offer there was an EU official who witnessed the offer.

Under these conditions if you were Papadopoulos what would you do?


I would agree to the above and invite to TCs to rebuild Varosha/Maras thus building trust, do you know the impact this would have on TCs tremendous, but no leader has this vision and courage.


I am glad for it VP. This is the correct way to move forward. Do you know how many times I myself agreed with TCs on how to solve the problem? Do you know how many times TCs agreed with my proposals? Hundreds!!! And I don't mean on soft issues, I mean on very hot issues. Here just today I agreed 99% with Turkcyp, and you too, and you with me yesterday


Why are we agreeing MicAtCyp?? what has changed where we could not agree on anything before?????

What I cannot understand is why the leaders cannot move on a single inch on ANY issue! This is beyond my understanding....


The will is not there plus the big boys have other plans.
User avatar
Viewpoint
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 25211
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2005 2:48 pm
Location: Nicosia/Lefkosa

Postby MicAtCyp » Sat Jul 09, 2005 2:08 pm

Viewpoint wrote: How do you know?? have you got inside information?? you could be making all this up.


Like I said "According to Papadopoulos..... "

wrote: our press today stated that Varosha/Maras was offered by TCs (Rasit Pertev) for Direct trade (recognition of all ports and airports to be declared by GCs and guaranteed that it would not later be cancelled) and aid but GCs paniced and rejected offer there was an EU official who witnessed the offer.


Your press does not talk clearly. The offer of your side had two parts.a) First give us direct flights and Trade b) then/some time in the future we will discuss the matter of Varoshia having in mind our claim that 90% of Varoshia belongs to Evkaf.
The offer from our side was always the same:Direct trade from Famagusta port only under the EU auspices on exchange of Varoshia.

Our proposal was not accepted by your side.
Your sides proposal on "a" was not accepted by our side. "b" was not accepted either as it was conditional and refered to just a promise for the furure, not a package deal.

My point is that your press is not clarifying "how" Varoshia was offered.

wrote: Why are we agreeing MicAtCyp?? what has changed where we could not agree on anything before?????


Well I never agreed with anyone about partition, not even Piratis when he tried to discuss it.
So it was your continuous reference to partition and your provocations on sentimental matters. Plus my overheated continuous/unnecessary/and sometimes unfair attacks against you. Now I see you can discuss the cyprus problem globally, so I threw away my "devil mask". After all soon you will be a millenia member meaning a friend in a small company that everybody knows and accepts.

wrote: The will is not there plus the big boys have other plans.


Can you elaborate on the matter of the big boys and their plans?
User avatar
MicAtCyp
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 1579
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2004 10:10 am

Postby MicAtCyp » Sat Jul 09, 2005 2:12 pm

Metecyp wrote: We talked about this before, how bizonality does not mean anything if there isn't some kind of restrictions to maintain TCs as majority in TCCS. If you want to discuss about the details of these limits (like percentage, duration, etc. ) , we can do that. Otherwise, it's waste of time to talk about a bizonal federation with no limits.


I don't remember we ever agreed that Bizonality requires permanent restrictions on the GCs. That was just your personal thesis all along. . .

What we said is that Bizonality simply means that the TCs will govern the area in which the majority of them lives . Permanent restrictions were never in the picture because such permanent restrictions are contrary to EU aquis and human rights, furthermore they are not acceptable by us

Discussing this point we concluded that if the TCs want to be absolutely sure they will be the vast majority in their area (after the non permanent restrictions are lifted) then their TCcs should be very small, even smaller than 18% of the territory.

So chose what you want. A very small TCcs where your vast majority will be almost 100% certain or a greater TCcs where your vast majority status could/possibly/might/perhaps get spoiled in the future.

By the way how would you like the opposite to occur to preserve the TCs been the majority? No TC is allowed to settle outside the TCcs because that would spoil their majority. How about permanent restrictions on that? Remember it is quite possible after the oil starts getting pumped from the Southern sea that 90% of the new jobs will be on on the southern coast.
User avatar
MicAtCyp
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 1579
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2004 10:10 am

Postby Alexandros Lordos » Sat Jul 09, 2005 3:05 pm

metecyp wrote:
Bizonal, bicommunal federatio does not mean having to limit peoples right to live anywhere they wish in their own country. A BBF can be set up without having to put these restrictions on people.

We talked about this before, how bizonality does not mean anything if there isn't some kind of restrictions to maintain TCs as majority in TCCS. If you want to discuss about the details of these limits (like percentage, duration, etc.), we can do that. Otherwise, it's waste of time to talk about a bizonal federation with no limits.


Metecyp, you mention "duration of limits". Does that mean you are prepared to consider temporary limits to residence, after which time everyone will be allowed to live where he wishes, or have I misunderstood you?
Alexandros Lordos
Contributor
Contributor
 
Posts: 987
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2004 8:41 pm

Postby cannedmoose » Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:05 pm

I'm not a great expert of the residency and right of return issue, but I have a question for you guys who are. Are there any indications of how many GCs would actually want to return to the north if property restrictions were removed, let's say along the lines that Alexandros has suggested in the latest incarnation of his plan. If the boundary of the TCCS was drawn on a rough line from just north of Morfou across to Lefkosia, bisecting Mesaoria across to Famagusta (which would give the TCCS roughly 25% of the island), how many GCs would want to move north and live under the TCCS administration? Alex, did you get anything from your survey data that could measure this?

I've been talking exclusively about the GCs here, so the vice-versa is also true, how many TCs would be willing to move south. Somehow I would surmise that a large number of TCs would be willing to live outside of their CS in the short-term, particularly as many of the jobs in tourism are clustered on the south coast. In the medium to long-term however, if the boundaries were so defined, I think you'd see many TCs happy to remain within their CS as the resorts develop along Famagusta bay and as the north becomes a building site for foreign homes.

Anyone who has info on this, can you let me know what you think.
User avatar
cannedmoose
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 4279
Joined: Sun Feb 29, 2004 11:06 pm
Location: England

Postby metecyp » Sun Jul 10, 2005 5:22 am

MicAtCyp wrote:I don't remember we ever agreed that Bizonality requires permanent restrictions on the GCs. That was just your personal thesis all along. . .

Did I talk about permanent restrictions anywhere in my previous post or any other posts of mine, for that matter? Whenever we talked about bizonality, we have to talk about restrictions. This is what we agreed on. You're right that we didn't agree on the details of these restrictions such as the duration, the percentages, etc. but I remember you also agreed that bizonality by its definition requires some restrictions.
Alexandros Lordos wrote:Metecyp, you mention "duration of limits". Does that mean you are prepared to consider temporary limits to residence, after which time everyone will be allowed to live where he wishes, or have I misunderstood you?

Yes, I'm prepared to consider temporary limits. I think it's not logical nor is it necessary to ask for permanent limits to residence. Currently, we lack the vital element of trust between the two communities. Therefore it makes sense to make sure that TCs are majority in TCCS but after certain time (like 20-30 years) when the two communities gain trust, I don't see any reason why we cannot lift residence restrictions. I don't think that TCs will object to GC presence in the north if that presence is nothing but useful. We currently see this happening. My dad owns a shop in old Nicosia (near Ledra Street) and his customers are mainly GCs nowadays. He's very pleased about the increased quality and number of his customers and he would be the first one to protest if GCs are not allowed to cross to the north again. This is just a small example but it shows that when communities interact in a good way and when both communities benefit from this interaction, there's no reason to limit that interaction.
User avatar
metecyp
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 1154
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 4:53 pm
Location: Cyprus/USA

Postby Dhavlos » Mon Jul 11, 2005 12:02 pm

If restrictions were lifted on residence rights, eg, GCs being able to live in the north, wouldnt that make the whole concept of a TCCS redundant?

Surely if bizonality is to be used, then perminant restrictions have to be enforced (unless of course, the TCs decided to remove them), otherwise, it would just be a waste of money, amongst other things.

as i have said before, bizonality can only exist if property rights are restricted, and property rights can only exist properly if bizonality does not exist.

unless of course, bizonality is only a temporary solution....so the TCs feel safe until they want a unitary state?

i think i am right in saying(correct me if im wrong) that GCs would probably accept bizonality, as the TCs want it , if it is temporary. TCs on the other hand, want perminant bizonailty(generally speaking)....is this not a conflict of interests?

A solution will not work if the two sides agree on something, but for different reasons.
Dhavlos
Member
Member
 
Posts: 176
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2005 6:05 pm

Postby MicAtCyp » Mon Jul 11, 2005 5:48 pm

Cannedmoose wrote: how many GCs would want to move north and live under the TCCS administration?


The answer to your question is 16%. A poll was contacted by politis newspaper (article code number 432362) last year.You can e-mail Politis to have the full article and the statistics.
Heres a copy in Greek with latin characters.

Se o,ti afora tin epistrofi ton prosfugon polu endiaferon parousiazei o pinakas 5, sto erotima tou opoiou apantoun oloi ekeinoi oi prosfuges pou prin to 1974 katoikousan se perioxes oi opoies me vasi to sxedio Anan tha parameinoun upo T/K dioikisi. Apo tous prosfuges autous mono to 16% tha ithele na epistrepsei stis poleis i ta xoria tous, eno to 72% katigorimatika tonizei oti den tha epestrefe

Kod. arthrou: 432362

User avatar
MicAtCyp
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 1579
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2004 10:10 am

PreviousNext

Return to Cyprus Problem Solution Proposals

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests