Cyprus-Forum.com

a bizonal system would be perfect and dandy assuming that TCs owned the majority of land in the north.

since tihs is not the case a strict bizonal system violates the numbre one concern of GCs which is the right to return.

you are right Denktash officially proposed the bizonal system sometime in 76 i believe.

i asked TCs to porpose something the GCs would accept. The reverse equivlanet of a bizonal system would be Makarios 13 points.

Would the solution that Dhavlos gave be accepted by the GCs??A complete unification with 50-50 power

Dhavlos used a very important term in his proposal "sold to" I believe depending on how the idea is sold to GCs the model woul dbe accepted by them anyqhere between 55-70% seeing as refugees are allowed to return which is their numbr 1 priority.

However, TCs would NEVER accept such a proposal because from what i understand they pretty much want their own country or something equivalent and power sharing is not something they are actually interested in.

Do you mean 55%-70% of the population?? And let's forget the second bit for now please..

a bizonal system would be perfect and dandy assuming that TCs owned the majority of land in the north.

but they 'officially' dont, so that is why my solution i feel is better...no one get their 'own' little state...instead , power sharing. this is a change from what i said before, but hey, never mind.

Basically im saying...

no little 'zones'/'states' etc.... just 'one cyprus'

in the govenment, the ethnic composition of deputies would be something like that of the population in general (20-30%TC/70-80%GC).

However, when they pass/amend legislation, both ethnic groups of Deputies have to agree to it separately...

eg.
Law 1....vote to accept it.... TCs: 5 for, 15 against(20 total)
GCs : 60 for, 20 against (80 total)

the law would not pass because not 50+1% or more of the TCs voted in favour. This would work vis-versa.

BUT... Law 1....vote to accept.... TCs: 18 for, 2 against(20 total)
GCs: 60 for, 20 against(80 total)

the law has passed, and so is now law, because both ethnic groups agreed in favour of it.


hope this makes sense

Why 80 for GCs and 20 for TCs??

anyway should we ever get tothe point where our leaders are haggling over 5% we'll have a resolution, but i somehow doubt it.

one thing for sure is tc must compensate gc for that land in excess of what tc left behind.

we can not have a sollution where only one side benefits.

Annan gave gc almost nothing, what did gc have to gain by accepting?

answer = nothing.

Why 80 for GCs and 20 for TCs??

this is just from population figures, it was only supposed to be an example.

as around 20% of the population on cyprus are TC(i assuming, forgive me if im wrong)
80% of the population are Gc, so out of 100 Deputies, it would make sense if the population matched the Deputy numbers

gabaston wrote:anyway should we ever get tothe point where our leaders are haggling over 5% we'll have a resolution, but i somehow doubt it.

one thing for sure is tc must compensate gc for that land in excess of what tc left behind.

we can not have a sollution where only one side benefits.

Annan gave gc almost nothing, what did gc have to gain by accepting?

answer = nothing.

Mr gabaston

If memory serves me correctly, the majority of GC refugees would have been able to return to their homes, or sell them to developers. Guzelyurt, Kalkanli, Camlibel. and all the western coastline down to Yesilirmak would have been given to the GC's.

Within the TC remaining part GC's would have been able to re settle up to 30% of the population of those parts , over 25 years.

TC army would be heavily reduced. Settlers would have been "Assisted" to return to Turkey.

Just some of what the GC's said NO to.

Do not tell me this is "Nothing"

Admittedly not ALL of Cyprus was handed over on a plate as I am sure the vast majority of GC's want and hope for.

If this plan had been accepted , in 30-50 years time this Island would have been a Greek speaking Island completely.

sue'n co

thankx for the input

so gc's what sayest you to that?