Cyprus-Forum.com

[Malapapa]

I think the question is whether such a solution can be found without affecting the fundamental human rights of GCs so badly that this is rendered unacceptable to GCs.

My position has always been that the only way forward is a BBF which is made as "painless" as possible for GCs (as the very concept of a BBF is already a vast compromise by GCs and by definition guarantees that TCs will not be "dominated", which is their main concern). Such a BBF would inter-alia address most of the points you raise above.

This is what I'd like TCs to do. Address the points raised above so we can move on. But they have been unable to do so.

[Tony-4497]

I think the question is whether such a solution can be found without affecting the fundamental human rights of GCs so badly that this is rendered unacceptable to GCs.

My position has always been that the only way forward is a BBF which is made as "painless" as possible for GCs (as the very concept of a BBF is already a vast compromise by GCs and by definition guarantees that TCs will not be "dominated", which is their main concern). Such a BBF would inter-alia address most of the points you raise above.

This is what I'd like TCs to do. Address the points raised above so we can move on. But they have been unable to do so.

Unfortunately, TCs (and particularly Turkey) are not genuinely interested in just reaching a BBF solution that will guarantee their self-governance, non-domination/ supression/ becoming a minority in GC state etc etc. They are more concerned about keeping the spoils of war at the expense of GCs and are using the above issues as excuses.

If they were genuine, they would be happy with e.g. a BBF where everyone kept their own properties, a BBF where the land sharing was closer to population and land ownership % in 1974 (e.g. 23:77) etc.. Instead, they are insisting that 18% of the population (who owns some 15% of property) take 30% of land and 55% of coastline.. and take by force the properties of GCs in the north.

[Malapapa]

If they were genuine, they would be happy with e.g. a BBF where everyone kept their own properties, a BBF where the land sharing was closer to population and land ownership % in 1974 (e.g. 23:77) etc.. Instead, they are insisting that 18% of the population (who owns some 15% of property) take 30% of land and 55% of coastline.. and take by force the properties of GCs in the north.

Indeed. Any civilised, independent observer, with an ounce of intelligence, can see this once it is explained to them. TCs who object to this arrangement are guilty of either malice or ignorance. In VPs case it's the former, in YFred's case it's the latter. In insan's case it's a combination of both.

The truth is incontrovertible; malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is.
Winston Churchill

And in Acikgoz's case it's impossible to say.

[Acikgoz]

Malap: If I address them in the context of a united island comprosised of Turkish and Greek Cypriots each with their own baggage - which is the reality of the situation - will it make any difference to you? or will only a context of Greek Cypriot do it for you?

Simply put it's like saying I want democracy in Europe but I want to be able to veto its actions. It's all about context.

Fact is if you want all the above then you have to have it in the context of partition, land exchanges and/or populations willing to move to another "country" to be governed.




Ps. Tony your numbers require serious revision and your implications in the way you frame them are pathetic. Can I please ask that you please step away from the GC propoganda dossier (adjective is accurate and deliberate), if you want to show real bias dig a little deeper (implication that the bias you say pertaining to TCs has been monumentally more significantly shown by GCs).

[Tony-4497]

Ps. Tony your numbers require serious revision and your implications in the way you frame them are pathetic. Can I please ask that you please step away from the GC propoganda dossier (adjective is accurate and deliberate), if you want to show real bias dig a little deeper (implication that the bias you say pertaining to TCs has been monumentally more significantly shown by GCs).

Lots of fancy words, but not much substance there.. What exactly are you disputing? That TCs were 18% (and less today) or that they own an even lower % of land?

The latter is not from any propaganda dossier but from the Land Registry we all inherited from the Brits (one of the really good and solid things they left us). This has been challenged by Turks (EVKAV etc) at EU and international courts and stood up, so don't waste too much effort rejecting it.. anyone who knew Cyprus pre-74 will tell you that the average TC was poorer than the average GC (partly due to more children per family, hence property dilution), so it is a no-brainer that 18% TCs had slightly less % in property.

So what's your point?

[Malapapa]

Malap: If I address them in the context of a united island comprosised of Turkish and Greek Cypriots each with their own baggage - which is the reality of the situation - will it make any difference to you? or will only a context of Greek Cypriot do it for you?

Just addressing them would be nice. The reality of the situation is the whole island is in the EU, with the acquis communautaire suspended in areas where the government of Cyprus does not have effective control.

Simply put it's like saying I want democracy in Europe but I want to be able to veto its actions. It's all about context.

You may think you've put it simply. I however am confused. It has been agreed by treaty that every member state in Europe has the right to veto in certain fundamental areas. What is your point?

Fact is if you want all the above then you have to have it in the context of partition, land exchanges and/or populations willing to move to another "country" to be governed.

What are you on about? The human right to property that belongs to me is not something I 'want'. It is an inalienable right, protected by law, that others cannot take from me, or negotiate away on my behalf.

Now, if you're going to engage in a debate with me, Acikgoz, stop talking in riddles.

[wyoming cowboy]

Reading these posts endelessly, i realize that the Turk cyp or
cyp Turks or Turks of cyprus dont really know what they want, they want to be in europe but still keep Gc lands and call it their own, they want civil rights, and equal rights but they want to oppress the Gc, they want a federal system, but they want their own nation state, with in the federal state, why are Greek cyps even contemplating giving Tc or cT's any form of say in yprus? They were given say in 1960 and thought veto meant running the country, they signed a document they didnt actually understand...what makes the Gc think the document they sign again will be fully understood by them......We show these people that 2+2=4 and they keep coming back and saying it could be 3, this is the Turkcyp cypTurk turk mentality...

[Acikgoz]

Tony, why give you substance, you only believe and repeat the same lies. Substance outside of the propaganda is useless to you. If you truly want to make intelligent comment then intelligently put forward the many sides of the truth that make up the Cyprus property questions from both sides of the ethnically divided perspective. Unfortunately historical property ownership and true title is subjective in Cyprus! If you cannot admit that then why waste my time.

[paliometoxo]

its the truth that you cant handle to hear

[insan]

If they were genuine, they would be happy with e.g. a BBF where everyone kept their own properties, a BBF where the land sharing was closer to population and land ownership % in 1974 (e.g. 23:77) etc.. Instead, they are insisting that 18% of the population (who owns some 15% of property) take 30% of land and 55% of coastline.. and take by force the properties of GCs in the north.

Indeed. Any civilised, independent observer, with an ounce of intelligence, can see this once it is explained to them. TCs who object to this arrangement are guilty of either malice or ignorance. In VPs case it's the former, in YFred's case it's the latter. In insan's case it's a combination of both.

The truth is incontrovertible; malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is.
Winston Churchill

And in Acikgoz's case it's impossible to say.

U've already made up ur mind regarding those issues u raised in ur initial post and even u judged everyone who would vote "yes" for it as "menatally deficient"... in this case, i can only let u be with ur ignorance forever which only allow u run around the same circle and go nowhere...