Cyprus-Forum.com

It will be very costly for everyone to relocate when there is no reason to . Both Communities have settled down to South and to the North and asking them to re locate for one more time is not a wise thing to do!

I don;t think I understand what you are talking about here. The argument is not about forcing people to relocate, but giving them the option to if they so wish. What exactly is your argument?

Yes but Having this option exercised by all the GCs means that there will be no Bizonal cocept to talk about.

There will be a percentage of GCs free to relocate of course. The rest will accept compensation for the lost of their property. DOesnt this sound fair deal? If I had land valued 1000000 million in the north I would not choose to relocate but I would ask compensation on the value of my property. The same applies to the TCs that have left property in the South they will also get accept compensation on the value of their Land in the South and to stay where they are. This is what I mean . am I clear ?

And no one ask to force GCs to stay where they are. This is the reasons negotiations are there to go and agree with the other side . am I clear again ???????

Yes but Having this option exercised by all the GCs means that there will be no Bizonal cocept to talk about.

You are still not defining bizonality for me here. I am not trying to be obtuse, but you are forcing me in that direction. I have tried looking on the internet to establish exactly what the 'principle of bizonality' means but to no avail. In fact I am even more confused since all the sources I have found seem to indicate that the term means different things to differnet people. Can you please try to attempt to answer that question? What is 'bizonality' as you understand it?

There will be a percentage of GCs free to relocate of course. The rest will accept compensation for the lost of their property. DOesnt this sound fair deal? If I had land valued 1000000 million in the north I would not choose to relocate but I would ask compensation on the value of my property. The same applies to the TCs that have left property in the South they will also get accept compensation on the value of their Land in the South and to stay where they are. This is what I mean . am I clear ?

Sure, but what I am talking about is you then having the option to relocate to the north with that compensation. I think that many GCs would accept the compensation if they were at least given the option to relocate north if they would like. In practice probably very few would. Having a permanent restriction is only going to wond people up. I mean what's the difference between what we have today and permanent restrictions, on this particular issue?

And no one ask to force GCs to stay where they are. This is the reasons negotiations are there to go and agree with the other side . am I clear again ???????

Here you are very clear. What's not so clear to me is the 'principle of bizonality' and how that relates to your argument. Put another way, why do the lifting of restrictions on freedom of residence endanger 'bizonality'?

Here is the meaning of bizonal from the dictionary:

bizonal

adj : relating to or concerned with the combined affairs of two administrative zones


Can you now please explain your argument?

Sure, but what I am talking about is you then having the option to relocate to the north with that compensation. I think that many GCs would accept the compensation if they were at least given the option to relocate north if they would like. In practice probably very few would. Having a permanent restriction is only going to wond people up. I mean what's the difference between what we have today and permanent restrictions, on this particular issue?

Permanent restrictions are needed to preserve the TC zone not to become a GC zone in the long term and vice versa. The same applies to the TCs that are willing to relocate to the GC zone. My argumenst are not one way but they applies to both sides!

What we have today are two regions 67% and 37% At negotiations these percentages will not stay as they are but they will change. And again these particular issues will be decided by both sides at negotiations upon mutual aggreement.

Permanent restrictions are needed to preserve the TC zone not to become a GC zone in the long term and vice versa. The same applies to the TCs that are willing to relocate to the GC zone. My argumenst are not one way but they applies to both sides!

What we have today are two regions 67% and 37% At negotiations these percentages will not stay as they are but they will change. And again these particular issues will be decided by both sides at negotiations upon mutual aggreement.

I never said your arguments are one-sided. did it occur to you that my argument also applies to both sides?
So again, forgive me, but I am going to have to make some inferences from your statement. Your definition of bizonality is that the majority of people within each zone are of a certain ethnic background, is that correct? Whereas another definition is that the zone is administered by people of a specific background, two very different things.
So for you it is more important that we negotiate to make our zone as large as possible rather than having two zones with freedom of residence for both people? So in my opinion, and note that this is only an opinion, we are actually creating two separate zones in which there will exist 1 dominant community and one minority community? Am I still on the right lines or have I gone astray? In my opinion ion the longterm we want the communities to begin to mix, although we also need to ensure that the TCs do not lose their identity. I think this is definitely possible, TCs are distinct from us enough to preserve their identity for a long time to come. I firmly believe that permanent restrictions are going to alienate a large percentage of the GC community against unification. Instead some kind of transition period is required to prevent swamping of each zone by the other. After which (and if the people agree), a relaxing of these restrictions to allow nationwide freedom of residence in the longterm.

Alexis wrote:So for you it is more important that we negotiate to make our zone as large as possible rather than having two zones with freedom of residence for both people? So in my opinion, and note that this is only an opinion, we are actually creating two separate zones in which there will exist 1 dominant community and one minority community? Am I still on the right lines or have I gone astray? In my opinion ion the longterm we want the communities to begin to mix,

although we also need to ensure that the TCs do not lose their identity.

Yes I am referreing to two adminitred zones , the TC and the GC zone that will be accountable to a Central Government comprising of members of both communities at the percentages agreed at the negotiations!

The model I am referring has nothing to do with long term mixing of people and this is the main reason I said permanent restrictions on relocations are needed to assure that the concept of bi zonality is not altered.

Of course If people do not want Bi zonality and they decide to relax this concept for the sake of mixing then fair enough. But this can be decided upon mutual aggreement!

How can you have two zones with freedom of residence? This directly implies that If a high percentage of people in one Zone move to the other Zone for residence then this directly change the statues of this Zone! This is irrational.

And this is exactly my point that restrictions on settelement are inevitable!

It is so sad that I need to argue so long in order for my point to come accross !!

It is so sad that I need to argue so long in order for my point to come accross !!

Perhaps if you had made your point clearer it would have been easier. Try looking at the issues you argue from a different perspective and you might just see what the other person is trying to say. Apologies if I sound offensive but this is a forum where points of view are discussed and I am afraid you will frequently have to elaborate on your points of view in order for them to be understood. In this particular case despite your strong arguments I will continue to take the stance that in my opinion permanent restrictions on residence are detrimental to unification. I am quite happy for you to take the stance that I must be some complete idiot for believeing this, but there it is that is my opinion and the opinion of a good deal of others from both communities. Having said that it could be that the GCs as a community in particular might have to compromise on this particular point for the sake of unification.