www.talkcyprus.org

[pg]

I have tried to put together a list of changes that I believe should make the AP5 acceptable to a majority of Greek Cypriots.

SECURITY

Revoke the Treaty of Guarantee.
The UROC to be a full NATO member. The Treaty of Alliance will be latent until one of the 4 states ever leaves NATO.
Turkey to establish an air-base on the Mesaoria Plain, with the military activities constrained to the base.
The UROF to have armed forces with 20-30% Turkish Cypriot participation, completely mixed units, Greek or English as command language.


PROPERTY

The Republic of Cyprus title deeds are respected (as AP5).
Present users has right to lease the property for as many year more as they have been living in the property today. The rent to be paid is to be set by a market based formula. Rental income is taxed as normal.
'Settlers' given permanent residency has a right to lease for maximum 3 years.
If a present user is to purchase the property, he can receive a cash subsidy (15%) by a Cyprus Property Fund. The seller will not have to pay capital gains tax.
If the owner sells the property the present user has right to buy it at the sell price - also within the first year after a transaction.
The sell price will be set by the market - meaning in negotiation between seller and buyer.

A Cyprus Property Fund is established.
Turkey offers all owners of property in northern Cyprus a settlement to with compensation according to the Aresti case.
The UROC will tax the amounts received as compensation at 25% and the proceeds will go to the Property Fund.
The Property Fund will also finance restoration of public infrastructure in northern Cyprus.
Cypriots would still have the right to resort to the ECHR, but naturally the with compensation based on the Aristi case it will make no change.

"Improvements" made to property:
- If the improvement has been made before 2004:
- If the present user returns the property with its improvement to its owner the present user can seek compensation for the improvement from the Property Fund.
- If the owner chooses to keep the improvement he will need to pay for it to the Property Fund, otherwise it will be destroyed.
- Also if the present user buys the property he can effectively discount the value of the improvement.
- There is no compensation to present users for 'improvements' made in 2004 or after.


SETTLERS

The following ones receives full citizenship in the UROC:
- Republic of Cyprus citizens in 1974.
- Anyone born in Cyprus after 1974 (including children of 'settlers').
- Their spouses and children.

In addition, the following will receive a 'special permanent recidency':
- Anyone who has lived in Cyprus for more than 15 years.
- Their spouses and children.
These will never have voting rights in Federal elections.
They will however vote in constituent state and municipal elections.


CONSTITUTIONAL and BBF ISSUES

Constituent state "citizenship" is set according to elections on the day of settlement - or residency at time of future naturalization.
The constituent state "citizenship" can not change regardless of place of later permanent residency.
Children with mixed (Greek Cypriot/Turkish Cypriot) parents chooses citizenship when 18 and can change it twice.
naturalization citizens will vote in the southern constituent state and Turkish Cypriot in the northern regardless of place of residency.
All residents votes in municipal elections.

There is right of free settlement and residency. (But Greek Cypriots moving north still votes in the southern constituent state. This is more or less the same as AP5 but spelled out properly).

The constitutions of the constituent states are both exactly the same and agreed at the time of settlement. Any future changes to constituent state constitution (followed by both states) must be agreed in the same way as changes to the UROC constitution.

[pg]

If anyone gives some feed-back on this, I would most of all also like to hear if you would change the way you vote compared to AP5.

In other words, if you votes NO before please state so when you complain :)

[100%cypriot]

Why revoke the Treaty of guarantee ?

Or is it just a way of safeguarding the future challenge of Enossis with Greece ?

Meaning if and when the same problem arises in Cyprus the Greek Cypriots will feel safe in the knowledge that Turkey has no right to defend the Turkish Cypriots .

That is the biggest flaw in your post here , If The Greek Cypriots have no real Intention to seek Enossis or to go back to the intercomunal fighting as before 1974 then why do they specificly want the guarantee removed ?

There is no smoke without FIRE

[Khan]

1. Why have a Cypriot armed forces? Why join Cyprus to NATO? other than act as a drain on funds which could otherwise be used to reintegrate the two communities i cannot a see a reason for this.

2. Why should Turkey only compensate property owners in north Cyprus? Whatabout the Republic of Cyprus and Greece for their role in the conflict? In fact will the South compensate the 20,000 Turkish Cypriot's for the 11 years they were not able to use their property from 63-74?

3. Why should improvements only before 2004 be taken into consideration? We were not the ones to reject the plan and we should not be expected to hold a moratorium on development whilst Tpap is delaying the search for a solution as long as possible.

[100%cypriot]

Khan wrote: 1. Why have a Cypriot armed forces? Why join Cyprus to NATO? other than act as a drain on funds which could otherwise be used to reintegrate the two communities i cannot a see a reason for this.

2. Why should Turkey only compensate property owners in north Cyprus? Whatabout the Republic of Cyprus and Greece for their role in the conflict? In fact will the South compensate the 20,000 Turkish Cypriot's for the 11 years they were not able to use their property from 63-74?

3. Why should improvements only before 2004 be taken into consideration? We were not the ones to reject the plan and we should not be expected to hold a moratorium on development whilst Tpap is delaying the search for a solution as long as possible.

The silence answers your questions :wink:

[pg]

100%cypriot wrote: Why revoke the Treaty of guarantee ?

Or is it just a way of safeguarding the future challenge of Enossis with Greece ?

Meaning if and when the same problem arises in Cyprus the Greek Cypriots will feel safe in the knowledge that Turkey has no right to defend the Turkish Cypriots .

That is the biggest flaw in your post here , If The Greek Cypriots have no real Intention to seek Enossis or to go back to the intercomunal fighting as before 1974 then why do they specificly want the guarantee removed ?

There is no smoke without FIRE

Have you read the treaty lately? It is only half a page long.

The main reason to abolish it is that it is unreasonable to to have one independent country intervene in another one in today's Europe.

In addition, none of the 3 guarantor countries has fullfilled their part of the treaty:

Quote: ...each of the three guaranteeing Powers reserves the right to take action with the sole aim of re-establishing the state of affairs established by the present Treaty

And the state of affairs in the treay is:

Quote: ...recognition and maintenance of the independence, territorial integrity and security of the Republic of Cyprus, as established and regulated by the basic articles of its Constitution

The fact that Turkey has used this treaty to partition the island has made it unacceptable to most Greek Cypriot, and the fact that Turkey insists on having a "legal" possibility to do it again means it will be very difficult to get a YES for a plan that contains this treaty.

In order to address the security concerns of the Turkish Cypriot community I have instead added the Turkish air-base -- which addresses the security concerns of Turkey too; which may be even more important.

[pg]

100%cypriot wrote:

The silence answers your questions :wink:

What is that supposed to mean?

[pg]

Khan wrote: 1. Why have a Cypriot armed forces? Why join Cyprus to NATO? other than act as a drain on funds which could otherwise be used to reintegrate the two communities i cannot a see a reason for this.


We which no armies were needed in the world, but that is not the case. I believe we can be certain that any solution will mean we will continue to have armed forces on the island - due to the security concerns of the UK, Turkey and the US.

All 3 countries use NATO as a central pillar of their security arrangement.

Instead of just having NATO countries run us over left right and center, we can at least be members so that we have a say on what goes on (before they run us over anyway).

We can spend time on discussing American miss-use of NATO for own interests, but I think we can agree on that NATO membership has provided for the security interests of the members - which is also why most eastern European new EU member states has joined too.

I do not believe we can rely on NATO resources without also contributing, which is why I think an army may be needed. If we can be full NATO members without contributing more than the 'unsinkable air-craft carrier', then that would be even better.

In short, the NATO membership is for addressing everyone's security issues, Cypriots, Turkey, UK, US - the ones that count.

[pg]

Khan wrote:
2. Why should Turkey only compensate property owners in north Cyprus? Whatabout the Republic of Cyprus and Greece for their role in the conflict? In fact will the South compensate the 20,000 Turkish Cypriot's for the 11 years they were not able to use their property from 63-74?


Turkey has already agreed to compensate the owners of property in north Cyprus - in fact Turkey was very happy when the latest ruling on the Aresti case came through.

Who is "the South"?

In 63-74 there was a armed paramilitary on both sides. You may accuse the Republic of Cyprus of not being able to protect all its citizens during those times, but it would hardly stand up in any court.

Turkey did by official decisions hinder unarmed civilians from staying in or returning to their homes.

[pg]

Khan wrote:
3. Why should improvements only before 2004 be taken into consideration? We were not the ones to reject the plan and we should not be expected to hold a moratorium on development whilst Tpap is delaying the search for a solution as long as possible.

Yes, you are.

[pg]

So, I can not please everyone... but, would anyone change the way they voted with these changes?

[cypezokyli]

on the factor security, i believe akel was right.
an international force will be necessary for a a certain period (5-10 years) .


Quote: Why revoke the Treaty of guarantee ?
can i ask, if turkey receives a military base in cyprus, does that make you less secure than having the treaty of guarantee ?

[pg]

I think the ideas above could move many Greek Cypriots from NO to YES, without moving that many Turkish Cypriots the other way...

Naturally the suggestions we not be popular among Turkish Cypriots that already voted NO, but hey..., we can't please everyone.

I certainly appreciate the clarity with which some members of the forum can describe the present situation, and the stupidity of the past and present. However, I feel it would be useful to also discuss some constructive suggestions...

[stavrizatz]

Khan wrote:
Quote: 1. Why have a Cypriot armed forces? Why join Cyprus to NATO? other than act as a drain on funds which could otherwise be used to reintegrate the two communities i cannot a see a reason for this.

2. Why should Turkey only compensate property owners in north Cyprus? Whatabout the Republic of Cyprus and Greece for their role in the conflict? In fact will the South compensate the 20,000 Turkish Cypriot's for the 11 years they were not able to use their property from 63-74?

3. Why should improvements only before 2004 be taken into consideration? We were not the ones to reject

1. I would agree with you khan on that. Why with a simple re-unification we should accept other details that the majority might disagree and most of those details only favour the stakeholders to the cyprop other than the people living there! The treaty of gurantee, NATO, UROF defense should not be included in a plan for solution because they are not directly related. The unified government should make the decision on that (if we ever have a unified government)

2. Turkey only should pay compensation, at least for properties in the North, because they are the only who benefit from the division. In the south the Republic of Cyprus should pay compansation for the properties used. What does Greece have to do with anything!!! As for compensation between 63-74, good point but I think again we should keep it separate to any agreement for solution because it rises new debates. imo most importantly it is to find a solution to the current proplem

3. Again because we refuced to say NO to the fucking plan. Don't forget Turkish Cypriots said NO to all previous attempts for solution and as DP said, if you steal a $30 and you offer to give $5 back as a settlement to the problem... is it fair? There were many reasons why Greek Cypriots said NO. Anyway back to the point. Personally it is good not to give compensation after 2004 because at this point if we make improvement we will make them only having in mind the personal benefit.

and I will add:
4. Imo citizen of the Republic of Cyprus should be only those who are already citizens and everyone who was born in Cyprus. Their parents and spouses should only become permanent residense. This is the same in thailand and other contries. No-one can become a Thai citizen even if they get married to a thai person, they can only get PR. Actually I would rather if they all went back to were they came from, only because they so many and cyprus as an island is overpopullated and not able to sustain itself... but let's not be too hush.

[Chapfallen]

I used to agree with Akel also but eventually as the time passing there is nothing to agree with this suckers. The Anan plan was more than perfect for the idiot donkeys, if it will come back for a million times I’ll vote yes again and there is no security issues, there are only bullshits like always was.

Quote: 1.I would agree with you khan on that. Why with a simple re-unification we should accept other details that the majority might disagree and most of those details only favour the stakeholders to the cyprop other than the people living there! The treaty of gurantee, NATO, UROF defense should not be included in a plan for solution because they are not directly related. The unified government should make the decision on that (if we ever have a unified government)

The guarantees issue was perfect and can’t be better and the plan was more secure than the situation we are now.

Quote: 2. Turkey only should pay compensation, at least for properties in the North, because they are the only who benefit from the division. In the south the Republic of Cyprus should pay compansation for the properties used. What does Greece have to do with anything!!! As for compensation between 63-74, good point but I think again we should keep it separate to any agreement for solution because it rises new debates. imo most importantly it is to find a solution to the current proplem

All this could paid from the oils and the from the one who is was exploiting the British founds, our pathetic side that have sell the half of Cyprus to British and generally exploiting the found of the foreigners that we spit on and we still spitting after the rejection of the a.p. The plan was FUCKING PERFECT

Quote: 3. Again because we refuced to say NO to the fucking plan. Don't forget Turkish Cypriots said NO to all previous attempts for solution and as DP said, if you steal a $30 and you offer to give $5 back as a settlement to the problem... is it fair? There were many reasons why Greek Cypriots said NO. Anyway back to the point. Personally it is good not to give compensation after 2004 because at this point if we make improvement we will make them only having in mind the personal benefit.

Bullshits, Turkish Cypriot’s was never said no to a solution, Dektash did and before 1974 we was the side who was saying no and no to everything and everyone. They thrown out Dektash and we made him a hero and prove for another one time what we was never wanted a solution.

The plan was perfect and it will be a god work if it come back exactly like it was, it was the first time in history that a war winner was giving back ground and as I said the found for the solution was going to come from foreigners and from the Cyprus united government that could find founds from foreigners in many ways but also it could exploit the oils.

Quote: and I will add:
4. Imo citizen of the Republic of Cyprus should be only those who are already citizens and everyone who was born in Cyprus. Their parents and spouses should only become permanent residense. This is the same in thailand and other contries. No-one can become a Thai citizen even if they get married to a thai person, they can only get PR. Actually I would rather if they all went back to were they came from, only because they so many and cyprus as an island is overpopullated and not able to sustain itself... but let's not be too hush.

Unnecessary bullshits, the Anan plan was PERFECT and we was able to guarantee the population analogies and keep the Greekness of the island and now we can’t guarantee anything and we are in the deepest shits than ever.