www.talkcyprus.org

[city]

Of course people shall have the right to return. But in order to find a solution that will cater to exercise this right, from a realistic point of view, imo it's necessary to investigate how many actually will/would return.

Let me take a simple example. I have 200 people that shall have the right to travel from A to B. Why should I organize 4 busses to take them when in the end only 50 of them will make the journey, hence I will need only one bus. So why shall spend time, money, manpower etc etc to find 4 busses when I won't really need them?
And the situation at the moment here is: sorry, we can't find 4 busses so the whole trip can not take place. Hence the 50 people willing to do the journey are also not able to go.
Ok, this is of course a very simplified example but I hope it explains what I am trying to say.

Cypez, I don't even see the 'serious practical problems'. Why not make a poll to find out the actual numbers and desires of the people concerned?
And even if the mentioned problems are existing - I would say the issue is important enough to make the extra effort and overcome these problems.

[depurple]

There should be a UN censers just like they did with the Annan Plan!
Let the people choose!
1: Go back within the year!
2: Not go back and get compensation!
3: Invest in the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus but not live there!

BUT saying you lost it in a WAR? We won! So there!
I don't think the UN and the EU will agree to this! We all know what Turkey, Denktash and a few other corrupt bastards want?
If Turkey had it's way it would also take Kirkurk as part of Turkey and play dumb for 50 or so years!
BUT that trick only works once my evil friends!
cheers

[Chapfallen]

The situation of the Cypriots brains is farm more ridiculous from what anyone can imagine.

I was watching now by mistake this son of a whore the poutanopedo Mr Erotokritou bullshiting the idiots about things than even my dickhead can understand about bizonality means and about what Makarios and everyone had signed for.

At the Anan plan (under the agreed bizonality by all the Darwin mistakes pseudo patriots worth of shooting on the head for treason, including akel malakes and all the brain dead lambs in Cyprus) ALL the refugees had the right to return to their homes.

Even if their home value was more than the 1/3and even if they could not return to their building and would like to have a home in the exchange of property process.

The 1/3 of those refuges had the right to gain the internal citizenship status of the north state and the rest 2/3 had the right to have a home their and stay their for ever at their property or have a property in the exchange process if their property had significant improvements.

But in the end everyone is getting what actually deserves. The pseudo patriots (ta poulimena poutanopeda pou gamiete I mana tous) like Erotokritou and Sillouris, will get kamposo ttopouzi, from the people that they are trying to fool.

If the UN cancers did not exist, the Cypriot biological mistakes and mental cancers they were not going to enjoy their holy trinity of villa, milla and lira and pretending the someone’s from the no one potion that they condemned their self’s and their next generation of them to be until the end of their pathetic existence.

Ps: I’m disgussed from the lies coming from TPap(arrostos, sick) Christofias (axristos gelios pouttos, useless ridiculous pussy)and Kasoulidis (voutiropedo kologliftis, ass licker). I’m thinking voting for Matsakis because he is sick but he is speaking his truth and he is not hiding his sickness behind lies. Division is what the donkeys have voted for this is what they deserve. END. And Matsakis can at least promote this idea and find a workable division solution before we will become Turks in our land because of pure idiocy. Either I will vote Matsakis, either I will vote the ass licker or I will drop white paper and stop for ever dealing with this sickness. In the scenario of TPap and Christofias I prefer to cut my dick and throw it to the trash than to vote on of them. And generally while I’m trying to find reasons to like the communists I remember the Hitler (Vril, search google) methods of burning the biological mistakes.

[stavrizatz]

Mete wrote: Don't worry, nobody is saying that if a Greek Cypriot does not return to his/her land, he/she loses her right to that land. This cannot happen in today's world.

I do worry when a plan proposed by the general secretary of the UN contradicts the human rights declared in the UN charter of human rights!

How many would return depends on the type of solution. But lets just focus on a federal solution which is the most probable type of 'solution'. If there is a good federal solution then most Greek Cypriot refugees will return, I believe, if there is a racist type of federal solution like the Anan plan for istance then not so many would, needless to say that not all would be able to get their right to return.

[depurple]

Do you really think that Denktashs and his corrupt bumchums and the Settlers will allow ANY resettlement in the North by Greek Cypriot?
I don't think so or they would of given back Famagusta many years ago instead of just letting it crumble away!
cheers

[Dhavlos]

All that is needed is a simple government survey on the wishes of the refugees, lke what Cypez has put out earlier:

i would return immediately
i would return within 5/10 years
i would not return but would like to keep my property( in this scenario the option is open for allowing Turkish Cypriots to stay in the house)
i would not like to return and would like compensation/market value of the house(again, Turkish Cypriots could stay)

from here i think a solution to the property problem is much easier and more managable...but i think that cypriot politicians in the south are scared of the results.

[RudeGal]

Isn't part of the problem that Greek Cypriot refugees been made to believe for decades that they will ALL go home one day, as when "a solution" comes, we will just turn the clock back to 1974 (or ??) and everyone in Cyprus will go back to living like it was..This false expectation now gets in the way of any balanced solution.

I mean DP wants access to his ancestral home in Lapta regardless of who's in charge. But most Greek Cypriots seem to detest Turks (their attitudes/comments/behaviour says it all), so very few are likely to move to a place where its under Turkish control - and that is what any united Cyprus will be like in near future, so surely it's good to take stock of to what extent people would return if BZ BC fed solution?

Also, anyone who thinks a mass of Turkish Cypriots will relocate to South does not know too many Turkish Cypriots! In recent past, the majority may have been happy to share the island, but most wouldn't trust Greek Cypriots (rightly or wrongly) enough to go back to their old homes and feel dominated/at risk again, given experiences since 1950s to present day. Post Annan rejection & other obstructive Greek Cypriot practices since, I'm not sure we would get a majority Turkish Cypriot YES vote today, but assuming we did, the best compromise solution would still be a BZ BC Fed state with 90% plus Turkish Cypriots all staying put in North.

And given Turkish Cypriot refugees have as many rights as a Greek Cypriots, how is it OK to give one the right to return and in essence force the other out? Some Turkish Cypriots are refugees three times over - especially where my family live in the Morphou region (all relocating from the South) - and they have now settled in, invested their time, money and own life experiences on land/in property they've called "home" for the past 30 years? Does this count for nothing?

Refugee rights is not a simple one-sided issue and a fair solution means considering all parties' rights. Yes, give people choice - but make sure it's based on today's realities, not la la land...

[stavrizatz]

RudeGal wrote: And given Turkish Cypriot refugees have as many rights as a Greek Cypriots, how is it OK to give one the right to return and in essence force the other out? Some Turkish Cypriots are refugees three times over - especially where my family live in the Morphou region (all relocating from the South) - and they have now settled in, invested their time, money and own life experiences on land/in property they've called "home" for the past 30 years? Does this count for nothing?

Sorry but I feel like you are only trying to persuade us using emotional statements "oh 33years, the house is like my own, feel sorry for me, I am poor ordinary person trying to make a living". So yes it counts for nothing because I can similarly argue something else using emotions. I would comment on the above with a question, if someone rents a property for 33years does it automatically become its own? Can the same be said by a renter - "I have invested money, time and life experience". And rent it is a mutual agreement, what about the situation where the owner does not even have a choice but they are uprooted from their properties and someone else is taking advantage of it.

RudeGal wrote: Refugee rights is not a simple one-sided issue and a fair solution means considering all parties' rights. Yes, give people choice - but make sure it's based on today's realities, not la la land...
Refugee rights were fought in the ECHR and the decision of the court was in favour of the refugees, and I am sure that the court took into consideration today's realities ?

Ok if we agree that such a survey is done, then how are the results going to be used?

[erolz]

In my view along with there being a right to return there is also a valid right to not be compelled to return against one's will and compelled to turn ones life upside down yet again.

For me there is a material deifference between wanting return of property and wanting return to property.

In a senario where the person wanting return lived in the property pre 74 and there family had lived there for generations and who want return to it , if there is someone else in it who does not want to leave then they should be compelled to leave in favour of the original owner (and given some form of compensation if they gainned that property post 74 by signing over property in the south). In a case like this the reutnee get priority.

In a senario where the person wanting return never lived on the property and has few emotional connections to it and wants not return to it, but just return of it and there is someone living on it now who does not want to leave then the person living there now should be allowed to stay and the returne compelled to take compensation in the form of similar land in same area, exchange land elsewhere or monetary compensation as they prefer.

At the simplest level there should be a balance on a case per case basis of who does not get their 'first choice' in those cases where one party has to not get their first choice. This 'not getting ones first choice' should be balanced between both communites, for both are culpable for creating the problem imo. To say that returnees should always in every cae, regardless of the situation, get their first choice is to say that Turkish Cypriot must bear the greater burden of solving the problem and that to me is not fair. We have to balance the right of return with the right to not be forced to return / leave imo.

stavrizatz wrote:
Ok if we agree that such a survey is done, then how are the results going to be used?

It will be used to get a grip on what the extent of the problem is. How many cases can be resolved with all parties in that cases getting their 'first choice' and in how many cases does one party getting their first choice require another to be compelled to not get theirs. Once we know the extent of the problem we have a better chance of finding realistic workable solutions.

[depurple]

RG good points and thanks for your reply:
Most Greek Cypriot may detest Turkish Cypriot and vise versa and these people are NOT FIT to live in a United EU Cyprus: In the EU they are bring the barriers down and we are putting them up! WHY? Because many Greek Cypriot & Turkish Cypriot have benefited by a divided Cyprus and after a solution they will be ACCOUNTABLE for there corrupt ways!
This scares them all to death!
I think after Denktas and Clerides bite the dust it may be easier for a solution!
These two keep a grip on the past or should I say still live in the past!
cheers
PS
How many Greek Cypriot would live in the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus under Turkeys control and rules? Who Knows?
BUT how many Greek Cypriot would live in the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus under EU control? That is the real question?
LET SEE WITH A NEW POST?

[RudeGal]

erolz wrote: In my view along with there being a right to return there is also a valid right to not be compelled to return against one's will and compelled to turn ones life upside down yet again.

For me there is a material deifference between wanting return of property and wanting return to property.

In a senario where the person wanting return lived in the property pre 74 and there family had lived there for generations and who want return to it , if there is someone else in it who does not want to leave then they should be compelled to leave in favour of the original owner (and given some form of compensation if they gainned that property post 74 by signing over property in the south). In a case like this the reutnee get priority.

In a senario where the person wanting return never lived on the property and has few emotional connections to it and wants not return to it, but just return of it and there is someone living on it now who does not want to leave then the person living there now should be allowed to stay and the returne compelled to take compensation in the form of similar land in same area, exchange land elsewhere or monetary compensation as they prefer.

At the simplest level there should be a balance on a case per case basis of who does not get their 'first choice' in those cases where one party has to not get their first choice. This 'not getting ones first choice' should be balanced between both communites, for both are culpable for creating the problem imo. To say that returnees should always in every cae, regardless of the situation, get their first choice is to say that Turkish Cypriot must bear the greater burden of solving the problem and that to me is not fair. We have to balance the right of return with the right to not be forced to return / leave imo.

Erolz, top points and you seem to have hit a fair solution that is practical and workable. I really think it has to be a 'case by case' situation, with transparent criteria that works for both sides. I certainly would be happy with this approach.

[RudeGal]

depurple wrote: Most Greek Cypriot may detest Turkish Cypriot and vise versa and these people are NOT FIT to live in a United EU Cyprus: In the EU they are bring the barriers down and we are putting them up! WHY? Because many Greek Cypriot & Turkish Cypriot have benefited by a divided Cyprus and after a solution they will be ACCOUNTABLE for there corrupt ways!
This scares them all to death!
I think after Denktas and Clerides bite the dust it may be easier for a solution!
These two keep a grip on the past or should I say still live in the past!
cheers
Hi DP, I don't think most Turkish Cypriots detest Greek Cypriots - they fear and they have prejudices, but my experience is we do not project the same level of hate and racism as we experience back (primarily as Turkish Cypriots effectively lumped in with Turks, who for Greek Cypriots are public enemy no. 1, but less so for mainland Greeks - there is hope yet!).

Also, I think you put way too much influence at feet of Clerides and Dentkas. People have been conditioned to act/think the way they do for more reasons than just these characters. Ultimately we are all responsible for ourselves and so change can come if we each put our minds to it - hence all should be based on universal values not ethnic/geographic/politically expedient ones.

Finally, the EU is full of bigots and racism is rife across Europe. We cannot always choose who we live next to, but if it gets really bad - like former Yugoslavia or Cyprus - we do end up having walls for very real and good reasons. They come down once we generate enough trust, respect and good will - that takes time and sincere action on all parties involved.

[RudeGal]

stavrizatz wrote: RudeGal wrote: Some Turkish Cypriots are refugees three times over - especially where my family live in the Morphou region (all relocating from the South) - and they have now settled in, invested their time, money and own life experiences on land/in property they've called "home" for the past 30 years? Does this count for nothing?

Sorry but I feel like you are only trying to persuade us using emotional statements "oh 33years, the house is like my own, feel sorry for me, I am poor ordinary person trying to make a living". So yes it counts for nothing because I can similarly argue something else using emotions. I would comment on the above with a question, if someone rents a property for 33years does it automatically become its own? Can the same be said by a renter - "I have invested money, time and life experience". And rent it is a mutual agreement, what about the situation where the owner does not even have a choice but they are uprooted from their properties and someone else is taking advantage of it. ?
stavrizatz my dear, you talk as if Turkish Cypriot refugees desired nothing more than to be made homeless in 1963-4, again in 1967, and again in 1974 and then had only baaaaaaaad intentions to go take over a Greek Cypriot house abandoned post 1974. Yes there are emotions involved but also facts. If you were a squatter (in there without the owner's permission) and had invested time, money etc for upkeep of property, then you would have rights. In fact in UK, some squatters have ended up with the full title! Fact is, many Turkish Cypriots were refugees through Greek Cypriot actions and as homeless people, made do with what was available (look up the Law of Necessity post war situations for more examples on this). Also, you only have to look at land left derelict for 33 years (from Varosha to various other buildings in villages on both sides) to realise the difference made if you maintain a home/land. So, please get some balance into your review of the issue and understand WHOEVER lives in the home of a refugee, they will still have some rights to compensation (at the very least!).

stavrizatz wrote: Refugee rights were fought in the ECHR and the decision of the court was in favour of the refugees, and I am sure that the court took into consideration today's realities ? Well, the ECHR is a strange place because for years Turkey/Turkish Cypriots took no notice of it (Turkish Cypriots barred from lodging claims under Denktas regime). Then for Louzidou, Turkey's EU aspirations brings new approach although they were not very on-the-ball back then. With floodgates beckoning and post Louzidou, Turkish Cypriots waking up to start fighting their own corner (many cases now registered at ECHR), the ECHR is much more informed about full "realities" (and not just one side's), so is taking a very different approach e.g. pushing back on Turkey/Turkish Cypriots to set up a Property Commission. So going forward, I think we will see the EU courts forcing a different set of rules on Cyprus cos I'm sure they don't want to spend the next 10 years clogged up with Cyprus refugee cases! :wink:

[stavrizatz]

depurple wrote: How many Greek Cypriot would live in the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus under Turkeys control and rules? Who Knows? BUT how many Greek Cypriot would live in the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus under EU control? That is the real question?
LET SEE WITH A NEW POST?

Unfortunately the strategic plans of Turkey and its expansionist policy led to discussing the scenario of two states as one of the most unfair yet realistic options. Nationalism and racist separatism once again have prevailed over peace, unity, oneness, freedom and human rights. Why I say the racist separatism? Because based on my ethnicity I am not able to enjoy the civil liberties and rights that others have in my ancestral land and similarly my compatriots cannot enjoy the rights that I have in the other half of my island. I am required to buy my own house and my own properties and I am required to recognise the thieves in order to live in the area that my parents grew up. But to answer your question DP, I will live in Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus and using my right as a citizen I will pursue social change towards a unified Cyprus because by playing the role of a victim will take me no where.

[stavrizatz]

RudeGal wrote: stavrizatz my dear, you talk as if Turkish Cypriot refugees desired nothing more than to be made homeless in 1963-4, again in 1967, and again in 1974 and then had only baaaaaaaad intentions to go take over a Greek Cypriot house abandoned post 1974


When I talk of Cypriot refugees I don't exclude Turkish Cypriots. Why do you bring it up, I cannot understand.I hope it is a virtual communication problem, I guess this way is not the easiest way to understand exactly what the other person is trying to say.

RudeGal wrote: Yes there are emotions involved but also facts. If you were a squatter (in there without the owner's permission) and had invested time, money etc for upkeep of property, then you would have rights. In fact in UK, some squatters have ended up with the full title!
So you suggest that Turkish Cypriots are like squatters? So if i come to england, kill you or force you out of your house and then invest time and money for upkeeping the house I will become a squatter and claim title deeds!!!

Quote: Fact is, many Turkish Cypriots were refugees through Greek Cypriot actions and as homeless people, made do with what was available (look up the Law of Necessity post war situations for more examples on this)
Thanks for bringing up the law of Necessity, because I think it is not in your interest to talk about it. Anyway sure many Turkish Cypriots were refugees as a result of the intercommunal conflict but most were able to return to their properties. As for now Turkish Cypriots are able to claim their properties in the South with some conditions but the Republic of Cyprus made sure that in case of a solution all Turkish Cypriots will be able to return to their properties. Eg. I have an uncle who as a farmer invested hundreds of thousands on a Turkish Cypriot property. He does not have a title and he is a temporary user of the land until a solution. In case of a solution he knows that he will be required to give the land back to the original owner who is a Turkish Cypriot. Why can't Turkey do the same in the occupied areas so as to make the solution scenario easier.

Quote: Also, you only have to look at land left derelict for 33 years (from Varosha to various other buildings in villages on both sides) to realise the difference made if you maintain a home/land. So, please get some balance into your review of the issue and understand WHOEVER lives in the home of a refugee, they will still have some rights to compensation (at the very least!).
What balance, I am here to express my subjective opinion, my point of view, feel free to disagree but please don't tell me my point of view is one-sided and therefore wrong but yours is not. I love dialogue, I love to be challenged but I don't like it when someone tells me that I am brainwashed, narrow minded, one-sided.

rudegal wrote: Well, the ECHR is a strange place because for years Turkey/Turkish Cypriots took no notice of it (Turkish Cypriots barred from lodging claims under Denktas regime). Then for Louzidou, Turkey's EU aspirations brings new approach although they were not very on-the-ball back then. With floodgates beckoning and post Louzidou, Turkish Cypriots waking up to start fighting their own corner (many cases now registered at ECHR), the ECHR is much more informed about full "realities" (and not just one side's), so is taking a very different approach e.g. pushing back on Turkey/Turkish Cypriots to set up a Property Commission. So going forward, I think we will see the EU courts forcing a different set of rules on Cyprus cos I'm sure they don't want to spend the next 10 years clogged up with Cyprus refugee cases! :wink:
So what? Was Loizidou vs Turkey a president case? Yes it was, did it require Turkey to pay compensation to Titina Loizidou for illegal occupation of her property for the last how many years while Mrs Loizidou still has the right to her property? Yes it did. Therefore I believe all similar cases should be treated the same way.


My view of a fair settlement of the refugee issue is:
Scenario 1 - Refugee wants to claim his/her undeveloped property:
Turkey or Republic of Cyprus pays compensation for occupying the property while the refugee was unable to use his/her own property and the refugee has the rights to the property. He can then return, just keep it or sell it.

Scenario 2 - Refugee does not want his/her property
Turkey or Republic of Cyprus pays compensation for occupying the property while the refugee was unable to use his/her own property and then the property is bought by the state or the person who settled in the property for an estimated market value price.

Scenario 3 - Refugee claims developed property where the value of the structure is higher than the value of the land.
Turkey or Republic of Cyprus or the developer pays compensation for occupying the property while the refugee was unable to use his/her own property. The developer has the right to the property but he/she is required to buy the land off the refugee for the estimated market value price.

Scenario 4 - Refugee claims developed property where the value of the structure is less than the value of the land and the refugee wants to keep the structure.
Turkey or Republic of Cyprus or the developer pays compensation for occupying the property while the refugee was unable to use his/her own property. The refugee has the right to the property but he/she is required to buy the structure off the developer for the estimated market value price.

Scenario 5 - Refugee claims developed property where the value of the structure is less than the value of the land and the refugee does not want to keep the structure.
It is a bit complicated, need more time to think

Scenario 6 - Refugee property was used for public infastructure
Refugees receive compensation while they were unable to use their own property for the period up to the point of public take over. Then refugee gets additional compensation for the estimated market value price at the point of take over plus interest.

Scenario 7 - where the refugee and the settler make any kind of mutual agreement

Other scenarios - the result to have as principle to benefit the person who suffered from the loss of their possessions and not to reward the person who benefited from the situation.

The funding for all these compensations will come out of the budgets of the militaries of Britian, Turkey, Greece and Republic of Cyprus which are directly responsible for the conflict in Cyprus.

Those who settled in refugee properties:
If they are also refugees, they would be able to return to their homes anyway if not they would receive a massive compensation and they will be able to buy other property.

If they are non refugees or foreign settlers/investors, they should deal only with those who geve them the properties/sold them or brought them to Cyprus. Eg Turkish settlers to deal only with the Turkish government, foreign investors with the person who sold the property and follow up to the person who sold to the other person and so on.