Page 5 of 5

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2006 8:23 pm
by Tony-4497
Nice Analogy Tony,However do you think the t/c would go a 80/20 split?and its not just about territory either however,other things must come into the equation like will the new state in the north still retain such a large turkish army?will there still be trade and interaction between the two new state?will the northern state be let into the EU immediatly or will it have to start things over,and will there be derogations against the greek state of the south?


Territory - Alexandros's research suggests TC would be more than happy to accept this

Army - this will be a sovereign TC state, so they can have as much army as they like - even though there wouldn't be a need for it.. in a any case EU army and guarantees would of course have to be in place to guarantee the security of GCs and implementation ie. recognition of the new state of affairrs, would only happen after the return of the land

EU/trading etc - yes, the northen state would be in the EU and trade with everyone incl the GC state.. a friendly atmosphere would probably be achievable as the sense of fairness would prevail.. and some (probably all) people from both sides who would WANT to live in the "other" state would probably be able to do so, given the high ethnic concentrations respectively

That said, permanent derogations from the EU acquis will be needed, in order to prevent Turkey from flooding the GC state with Turks and creating a new Turkish/TC minority issue in the GC state.

I believe this is the only solution that can realistically be accepted by both parties in Cyprus.

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2006 9:53 pm
by The Cypriot
No need for sarcasm here..

Apologies for sounding saracastic, Tony but I geninely don't get it. So detailed changes to the Annan Plan have definitely been put forward by the Greek Cypriot side? What's going on? Why do the UN and others keep asking for these changes? Who's responsible for this particular mess?

your position seems to be identical to the Turkish one (or the DISY/EDI one) - i.e. asking for our required changes even after we have submitted those in full detail.

I try to take only the Cypriot position. I agree that the Annan treatment, as currently formulated, is flawed. But I think what's needed is a revised treatment that keeps the baby alive and which starts to address the cause of the illness so that one day it can be healthy and whole again. Then, perhaps, it can start growing up and standing on its own two feet. You clearly think that's not possible and I respect that. But I think a mother would cling on to the hope of a cure before agreeing to amputation.

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2006 10:14 pm
by VEX8
Sorry. I saw the headline and thought this was going to be saucy.

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2006 11:14 pm
by pumpernickle
what, a bit like saucy sue?

rotten gag.

PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 11:52 am
by Alexandros Lordos
The Cypriot wrote:Any chance of somehow incorporating a question on how best to approach the redrafting of the Annan Plan to make it acceptable to both sides? With options on whether it should be left solely to elected representatives or whether a re-drafting committee should be established to support the process, with options on how best to construct this committee.


Yes, that's a very good idea, thank you.

The Cypriot wrote:Incidentally, tacit approval from elected representatives for the 'Bottom up' approach may not be beyond reach now.

Mr Talat - who announced last week he was prepared to consider absolutely any proposal from the Greek Cypriot side - is unlikely to reject such an initiative.

Mr Papadopoulos, in turn, has indicated that there would have to be substantial revisions to the current Annan Plan before it could eliminate Greek Cypriot concerns. A first indication that the Plan is not off the table.

In other words, the perfect stage on which to have "fools rush in where angels fear to tread".

Any thoughts?


I also believe that a bottom-up approach is not beyond reach, especially after the failure of the 2004 referendum. All players "fear" the Cypriot public now, and will want to somehow incorporate it into the process.

A bottom-up approach has been succesfully used in Northern Ireland, to reach the "Good Friday Agreement" a few years ago. An Irish researcher - Dr Colin Irwin - went to and fro between the two leaderships, constructing questionnaires based on their feedback, then giving the leaders feedback on what options might possibly work for the public. The whole experiment was an unqualified success.

You can check out Dr Irwin's website at www.peacepolls.org

PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 12:00 pm
by Alexandros Lordos
Tony-4497 wrote:TCs are indeed demanding that they get all their properties in the non-occupied areas back - AND they got that in the Annan plan.


No they didnt, TCs would only get 1/3rd of their property in the south back, just like GCs would only get 1/3rd of their property in the north.


Tony-4497 wrote:GC refugees would indeed like to receive title for their refugee homes in the south, but you are making a big mistake by assuming that they are prepared to accept that IN EXCHANGE for forfeiting their properties in the north.

I personally know many relatives and others who would like to get title to such refugee homes, but there is NO WAY they would give up their rights to their occupied properties in return.


I understand and respect the sentiment, but that doesn't that amount to wanting to "have your cake and eating it as well"?

If GCs are allowed to get title deeds for TC properties they are using (mostly speaking here about refugee housing built on TC land), shouldn't the same right be granted to TCs using GC properties in the north? I believe this reality will eventually sink in, that we cannot have it both ways ..

PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 12:10 pm
by Alexandros Lordos
Michael wrote:It is quite laughable reading the contributions to the “Bottoms Up” debate. Of course if the “intellectuals” came forward and where allowed to redraft this dodo, or doodoo of a plan then overnight all our troubles would just vanish. It beggars’ belief the arrogance of these people! They put themselves above the elected representatives of the R.O.C and the people. I don’t think there is a so called Cypriot intelligentsia. Who and where are they ? Most of the debate appears to be blinded more by hatred of our Government then trying to find a solution. I think intelligentsia would do well to get back to what they know best, sitting in the smoking common rooms of the Cyprus University moaning about their derisory salary.


Michael, I agree that the elected representatives cannot and should not be ignored or swept away. Having said that, safeguards need to be put in place that when it comes to negotiating a solution, they will indeed be representing those whom it is their job to represent. We had a serious problem in this issue with the Annan Plan negotiations: Glafkos Clerides was no longer in agreement with the GC public, while Rauf Denktash was no longer in agreement with the TC public And yet, they were both "the elected leaders". What is our guarantee that this will not happen again, during the next round of negotiations?

I believe the best approach would be to respect the leaders AND the people in a new process, not sacrifice one for the sake of the other. A process similar to that followed in Northern Ireland, with independent polling to supplement and inform the official negotiations of the leaders, is probably the best way to go about it.

PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 4:37 pm
by The Cypriot
Alexandros wrote:
I also believe that a bottom-up approach is not beyond reach, especially after the failure of the 2004 referendum. All players "fear" the Cypriot public now, and will want to somehow incorporate it into the process.

A bottom-up approach has been succesfully used in Northern Ireland, to reach the "Good Friday Agreement" a few years ago. An Irish researcher - Dr Colin Irwin - went to and fro between the two leaderships, constructing questionnaires based on their feedback, then giving the leaders feedback on what options might possibly work for the public. The whole experiment was an unqualified success.

You can check out Dr Irwin's website at www.peacepolls.org


Thanks Alexandros. I will look at.

PostPosted: Sat Feb 18, 2006 2:29 pm
by Tony-4497
No they didnt, TCs would only get 1/3rd of their property in the south back, just like GCs would only get 1/3rd of their property in the north.


I may have been thinking about the previous version with respect to their actual properties - but I am pretty sure that based on the population quotas in the final plan ALL TCs could have returned to the GC component state if they wanted to... and certainly not vice-versa.

If GCs are allowed to get title deeds for TC properties they are using (mostly speaking here about refugee housing built on TC land), shouldn't the same right be granted to TCs using GC properties in the north? I believe this reality will eventually sink in, that we cannot have it both ways ..


That's not what I was talking about. In fact, if you check out today's announcements by the Goverment, you will see that titles will be given for all properties which do not affect TC property rights whereas those using TC property will be given alternative compensation.

This, combined with the Arif case, guarantees that TCs will be able to get their properties back and that your idea of exchanges is unlikely to be accepted by the government - and certainly not by the people.

As for having your cake and eating it.. are you saying, for example, that refugees who were given £6k as a contribution for buying a house or who received a shabby flat or tiny house in a nasty refugee camp in the middle of nowhere should give up any property they have in the occupied areas in return?

You are entitled to your views, but please try to understand that the basic right of ownership and full return to the stolen land is not negotiable for the vast majority of Cypriots - it is misleading to suggest otherwise here.

PostPosted: Sun Mar 12, 2006 4:13 pm
by Alexandros Lordos
Tony-4497 wrote:
No they didnt, TCs would only get 1/3rd of their property in the south back, just like GCs would only get 1/3rd of their property in the north.


I may have been thinking about the previous version with respect to their actual properties - but I am pretty sure that based on the population quotas in the final plan ALL TCs could have returned to the GC component state if they wanted to... and certainly not vice-versa.


Ah, you are talking about residence rights, that is a slightly different issue from property rights. And yes, in terms of residence rights all TCs would in practice have the right to live in the south, while this same right might be denied to GCs wanting to live in the north.

Property is a different issue however, and not necessarily related. TCs don't care so much about the right to residence in the south - they wouldn't want to live under GC administration - as they do about their right to OWN their original property. It is this right that was denied to them in the Annan Plan, where each individual would be allowed to keep 1/3rd of his property - i.e. if he had 12 donums he would be allowed to keep 4 donums.

This should not be confused with the 1/3 rd restriction to residence rights, whereby if the TC constituent state had 120,000 TC residents then the maximum number of GCs that could live there would be 60,000. This, as you correctly point out, is in practice restrictive to GCs but not to TCs.


Tony-4497 wrote:
If GCs are allowed to get title deeds for TC properties they are using (mostly speaking here about refugee housing built on TC land), shouldn't the same right be granted to TCs using GC properties in the north? I believe this reality will eventually sink in, that we cannot have it both ways ..


That's not what I was talking about. In fact, if you check out today's announcements by the Goverment, you will see that titles will be given for all properties which do not affect TC property rights whereas those using TC property will be given alternative compensation.

This, combined with the Arif case, guarantees that TCs will be able to get their properties back and that your idea of exchanges is unlikely to be accepted by the government - and certainly not by the people.

As for having your cake and eating it.. are you saying, for example, that refugees who were given £6k as a contribution for buying a house or who received a shabby flat or tiny house in a nasty refugee camp in the middle of nowhere should give up any property they have in the occupied areas in return?

You are entitled to your views, but please try to understand that the basic right of ownership and full return to the stolen land is not negotiable for the vast majority of Cypriots - it is misleading to suggest otherwise here.


Thank you, I was not aware that this was so regarding the title deeds. Does this "not giving deeds for TC property" also cover Refugee houses built over TC land - in Germasogeia for instance - or just GCs living in pre-1974 TC houses? Please clarify this for me, if you happen to know the answer.

As for the cake .. :wink: - yes, I am saying that they should be willing to give up EQUIVALENT property to the one they have been given, not by any means ALL their property, since almost by definition refugees have received much less than what they lost. This should especially apply if the house they have been given a deed to was built over TC land. If not, then I agree that the two matters - what you have been given and what you had before 1974 - are not necessarily related.

As for what might and what might not be negotiable, I think that the government - not just this but all GC leaderships so far - are prepared to consider a reasonable compromise on the issue of property rights, so long as "restitution of property is the rule rather than the exception". The people's response to my "option D" in the survey indicates that the wider public is not necessarily alien to such a notion of a compromise solution to the property issue - but more detailed research is required ..