Referendum

tutor4u · Post by **tutor4u** » Mon 05 Oct 2015 6:46 pm

With the potential referendum approaching, would it not be good idea that as well TC's voting on the unification of North and South Cyprus only why can't any landowners vote as well irrespective of nationality.

After all they also have invested in North Cyprus.

Thoughts people BRS included...

Ragged Robin · Post by **Ragged Robin** » Mon 05 Oct 2015 8:14 pm

You need to be more specific. What about leaseholder, shared ownership, land owned by large corporations or relgious (any or all religions) groups and foundations? Disputed land?

I cant think of any modern democratic country which gives voting rights to landowners per se, in fact off hand I cant think of any country! UK citizens loose voting rights (including the right to vote in European referenda) after a period however much land they own - or even pay tax on - if they are not residents.

If I remember history lessons aright, didnt the Magna Carta enfranchise NON property owners?

There is an argument (in fact there are several going on all the time) for some form of citizenship and enfranchisement to be granted to those who can demonstrate a long term permanent commitment to the country , and property ownership might be one of the criteria - but that is a larger issue!

Lem · Post by **Lem** » Mon 05 Oct 2015 9:53 pm

Referendum or not, there will be trips to Mars advertised by Virgin Galactic before a settlement takes place between North and South Cyprus. However, if Lord Lucan turns up riding Shergar in the meantime, I am willing to concede I was wrong!

mrsgee · Post by **mrsgee** » Mon 05 Oct 2015 10:01 pm

Love it Lem and tend to agree .....

tutor4u · Post by **tutor4u** » Tue 06 Oct 2015 3:18 am

Ragged Robin wrote:You need to be more specific. What about leaseholder, shared ownership, land owned by large corporations or relgious (any or all religions) groups and foundations? Disputed land?

I cant think of any modern democratic country which gives voting rights to landowners per se, in fact off hand I cant think of any country! UK citizens loose voting rights (including the right to vote in European referenda) after a period however much land they own - or even pay tax on - if they are not residents.

If I remember history lessons aright, didnt the Magna Carta enfranchise NON property owners?

There is an argument (in fact there are several going on all the time) for some form of citizenship and enfranchisement to be granted to those who can demonstrate a long term permanent commitment to the country , and property ownership might be one of the criteria - but that is a larger issue!

Bit more recent than Magna Carta, Parliamentary Franchise in the United Kingdom 1885–1918.
The following are the classes of persons who, being males of full age, are entitled to be registered, and when registered to vote at Parliamentary Elections, provided they are not under any legal incapacity, such as alienage or conviction for corrupt practices, and have not within 12 months preceding 15 July received parochial relief (other than medical relief) or other disqualifying alms:-

Counties[edit]
1. THE OWNERSHIP FRANCHISE.

(a) FREEHOLDERS:-

(1) Persons possessed in fee simple or fee tail of a freehold estate in land or tenements of the annual value of 40s.

(2) Persons possessed of a freehold estate for life or lives in land or tenements of the annual value of 40s. who actually or bona fide occupy the premises or were seised of such estate on 7 June 1832, or have acquired such estate after that day by marriage, marriage settlement, devise, or promotion to a benefice or office.

Persons possessed of a freehold estate for life or lives in lands or tenements of the clear yearly value of £5.

Note.-Residence on the property is not required from freeholders. A freehold situate in a Parliamentary borough qualifies the owner for the county vote, unless it is in his own occupation. See also N.B. below.

(b) COPYHOLDERS:-

Persons possessed of an estate for life or lives in land or tenements of copyhold or any other tenure of the clear yearly value of £5.

Note.-Residence on the property is not required from copyholders. A copyhold situate in a Parliamentary borough does not qualify the owner for the county vote if it would qualify him or any other person (i.e., his tenant) for the borough vote. See also N.B. below.

(c) LEASEHOLDERS:-

Lessees, their assignees, and sub-lessees (if in actual occupation) of a term originally created for not less than 60 years, of the value of £5 per annum. Not less than 20 years of the value of £50 per annum.

Note.-Residence on the property is not required from leaseholders. A leasehold situate in a Parliamentary borough does not qualify the owner for the county vote if it would qualify him or any other person (i.e., his tenant) for the borough vote. See also N.B. below.

N.B.-Joint Ownership. - One only of several joint owners can claim a vote, unless they have acquired the property by inheritance, marriage, or will, or are bona fide carrying on business thereon as partners, in which case all can claim votes if the value is sufficient.

Possession. - The claimant must have been in actual possession or in receipt of the rents and profits for his own use for 6 months (in the case of (c) leaseholders, 12 months) preceding 15 July, unless the property has been acquired by descent, marriage or will.

Rentcharge. - A rentcharge does not now qualify to vote, except the whole of the tithe rentcharge of a living; but a person registered before 1885 retains his vote.

Claims - Freeholders, Copyholders and Leaseholders in order to obtain a vote must, if not already registered, send in a notice of claim to the Overseers of the Parish in which the property is situated on or before 20 July.

2. THE OCCUPATION FRANCHISE.

(a) £10 OCCUPIERS:-

The occupier as owner or tenant for 12 months preceding 15 July in any year of any land or tenement within the county of a clear yearly value of not less than £10.

Note - The word "tenement" includes a warehouse, counting-house, shop, or any part of a house separately occupied for the purpose of any business, trade or profession. Such part may be described in claims as "offices," "chambers," "studios," or by any other applicable term. Sole occupation of one part will qualify, although another part may be occupied jointly. "Residence" on the qualification is not required from £10 occupiers.

Joint Occupation. - Only two joint occupiers under the £10 qualification can be registered, unless they derive the property by inheritance, marriage, or will, or are bona-fide engaged in carrying on business as partners. See also N.B. below.

(b) HOUSEHOLDERS:-

The inhabitant occupier as owner or tenant for 12 months preceding 15 July in any year of any dwelling-house within the county.

Note - A "dwelling-house" includes, for the purposes of the franchise, any "part of a house which is separately occupied as a dwelling," and where the landlord lets out the whole of the house in apartments, retaining no control. A single room may thus be considered a dwelling-house. Sole occupation of one "part of a house" qualifies, notwithstanding joint occupation of another part. Residence is required. Joint occupation under this head confers no qualification. A man does not lose his vote by letting his house furnished during a part of the qualifying period not exceeding 4 months in the whole.

The Service Franchise.* - Any man who himself inhabits a dwelling-house (as above defined) by virtue of any office, service, or employment, is entitled to a vote in respect of the same, provided that the person under whom he serves does not inhabit the house. The overseers are bound to place the names of all such upon the rate-book as inhabitant householders, notwithstanding that the rent or rates may be paid by their employer. See also N.B. below.

N.B.- Occupation of premises in a Parliamentary borough cannot qualify to vote for the county.

Successive Occupation. - If two or more premises in the same division of a county, or in the same county if it is undivided, are occupied in immediate succession, the vote is not thereby lost. If the occupier is omitted from the list, a claim should be sent to the overseer by 20 August, giving particulars of all the premises so occupied.

Poor Rates. - The occupier must have been rated in respect of the premises to all poor rates made during the qualifying period. All poor rates due on 5 January must have been paid on or before 20 July. If the owner is liable for the rates, and has not paid them, the tenant may pay them, and deduct the amount from the rent. Wherever the landlord pays the rates, the overseers are bound to insert the occupier's name in the rate-book.

Claims. - The names of qualified householders and occupiers must be placed by the overseers on the list published by them on 1 August. No claim is necessary in their casem but if any names are omitted by the overseers, a notice of claim must be sent on or before 20 August.

3. - LODGERS.

The inhabitant occupier, for the 12 months preceding 15 July in any year of lodgings in the same house within the county (or division) of the clear yearly value, if let unfurnished, of £10 or upwards.

Note. - The term "lodgings" comprises any apartment or place of residence, whether furnished or unfurnished, in a dwelling-house, where the landlord resides and retains control over the passages and outer doors.

Residence is required.

Joint Occupation. - The inhabitant occupier, jointly with others, of lodgings of such clear yearly value, if let unfurnished, as gives a sum of not less than £10 for each occupier is entitled to claim a vote; but no more than two such joint occupiers may be registered in respect of one set of lodgings.

Occupation of lodgings in a Parliamentary borough cannot qualify to vote for a county.

The occupation in immediate succession of different lodgings of sufficient value in the same house will qualify. But removal from one house to another disqualifies for the year.

Additional rooms may be taken during the year without vitiating the qualification.

Claims. - Lodgers not already registered must send to the overseers claims to vote on or before 20 August. Those already registered must renew their claims yearly, on or before 25 July.

Keithcaley · Post by **Keithcaley** » Tue 06 Oct 2015 6:16 am

tutor4u,

Ii is far from clear what point you are trying to make in response to Ragged Robin's post, but the very first sentence of the text that you have posted appears to validate RR's argument: -

...males...entitled to be registered....provided they are not under any legal incapacity, such as alienage...

- So that means that if you are an 'Alien', i.e. not a citizen, then you are not allowed to vote, which was precisely the point that RR was making...

- It also says that you cannot vote unless you are 'Male' - I can see a problem there!

Could you explain, in simple terms, (for the likes of me ) just what it was in that text that you were trying to draw to our attention?

Unfortunately, posting a large chunk of text from another source, with no explanation does not lead to an understanding of what you are trying to put across...

Ragged Robin · Post by **Ragged Robin** » Tue 06 Oct 2015 9:20 am

just a thought. If expat property owners in the North were given a vote, natural justice would indicate that expat property owners in the South should also have it! How would that affect the equation? Do expats living in the South have any route now to citizenship of the rRoc, or do those who are EU citizens through their native country find it unnecessary?

Groucho · Post by **Groucho** » Tue 06 Oct 2015 9:27 am

Ragged Robin wrote:just a thought. If expat property owners in the North were given a vote, natural justice would indicate that expat property owners in the South should also have it! How would that affect the equation? Do expats living in the South have any route now to citizenship of the rRoc, or do those who are EU citizens through their native country find it unnecessary?

Well now there's the rub - as EU citizens (assuming that expats in the south are from EU) they must be entitled to human rights enshrined in EU laws - but no such rights exist here it seems.... But the EU should be insisting that they do... after all the joining of the north and south will lead to an EU nation state.

On another point the expatiates in the south will be determined that expatiates in the north do not have any such rights.... because their investments look costly in comparison - I wonder why they feel that way? Enlightened self-interest?

Maisiemoo · Post by **Maisiemoo** » Tue 06 Oct 2015 11:00 am

Put into the mix the possibility of a 'Brexit' next year, so no more EU protection for British citizens anyway.

Ragged Robin · Post by **Ragged Robin** » Tue 06 Oct 2015 2:33 pm

So .......next question is anyone representing the rights of British expats in the North under EU legislation currently and as future potential residents of an EU State in the negotiations, particularly regarding the property issues?

Don't all speak at once

tomsteel · Post by **tomsteel** » Tue 06 Oct 2015 3:44 pm

The BRS has appointed itself and has raised the subject of expat property title deed holders with the TRNC President. As to non title deed holders, those with property not completed - who knows?

erol · Post by **erol** » Tue 06 Oct 2015 5:09 pm

Groucho wrote: Well now there's the rub - as EU citizens (assuming that expats in the south are from EU) they must be entitled to human rights enshrined in EU laws - but no such rights exist here it seems....

Human rights in North Cyprus are 'protected' by the ECHR (European Court of Human Rights). This court is NOTHING to do with the European Union. It is a body of the Council of Europe - entirely different and separate from the European Union. All members of the Council of Europe are signatories to the ECHR treaties - that give jurisdiction to the European Court of Human Rights to make rulings and judgements on violations of an individuals human rights in the country (or territory under effective control of that country) once all domestic remedies have been tried and exhausted. The ECHR hasd already ruled that North Cyprus is as far as the ECHR treaties go, effectively under the control of Turkey and that Turkey is a signatory to these treaties and a member of the Council of Europe. Thus human rights violations in North Cyprus can be and have been taken to the ECHR and the ECHR has and does make rulings in such cases.

The UK has been taken to the ECHR over the blanket ban on the rights of people in prison to not be able to vote. The ECHR has ruled that such a blanket ban is not acceptable under the terms of the ECHR and that the UK must review its legislation in light of this - something that it has so far resisted, but will not be able to resist indefinitely. The UK could leave the European Union and it would not change the status of the ECHR with regard to the UK one iota - because the ECHR is nothing to do with the European Union. The only way the UK can not be bound by ECHR legislation would be for it to leave the Council of Europe - and entirely different body to the EU, formed at a different time and with a different membership than the European Union.

So anyone's human rights in the TRNC ARE protected by the ECHR treaties and court, be they a TRNC citizen, an EU Citizen or any other status. It might FEEL like there is no such protection but , there is in fact such a protection. Yes pursuing a violation of your rights via such means is a long and slow process and does require you to first exhaust any local domestic remedies available to you, but it does exist and it has been used in the past and it has made rulings about North Cyprus that has led to significant changes that effect all of us (like the opening of the 'border' between north and south in Cyprus- that was done to meet a ECHR ruling following a case brought to that court by a TC)

dodger · Post by **dodger** » Tue 06 Oct 2015 7:44 pm

Don't forget about the owners (Turkey) they will have the final say. Perhaps plan B.And the annexing of the North.

Groucho · Post by **Groucho** » Tue 06 Oct 2015 8:23 pm

erol wrote:
Groucho wrote: Well now there's the rub - as EU citizens (assuming that expats in the south are from EU) they must be entitled to human rights enshrined in EU laws - but no such rights exist here it seems....
Human rights in North Cyprus are 'protected' by the ECHR (European Court of Human Rights). This court is NOTHING to do with the European Union. It is a body of the Council of Europe - entirely different and separate from the European Union. All members of the Council of Europe are signatories to the ECHR treaties - that give jurisdiction to the European Court of Human Rights to make rulings and judgements on violations of an individuals human rights in the country (or territory under effective control of that country) once all domestic remedies have been tried and exhausted. The ECHR hasd already ruled that North Cyprus is as far as the ECHR treaties go, effectively under the control of Turkey and that Turkey is a signatory to these treaties and a member of the Council of Europe. Thus human rights violations in North Cyprus can be and have been taken to the ECHR and the ECHR has and does make rulings in such cases.

The UK has been taken to the ECHR over the blanket ban on the rights of people in prison to not be able to vote. The ECHR has ruled that such a blanket ban is not acceptable under the terms of the ECHR and that the UK must review its legislation in light of this - something that it has so far resisted, but will not be able to resist indefinitely. The UK could leave the European Union and it would not change the status of the ECHR with regard to the UK one iota - because the ECHR is nothing to do with the European Union. The only way the UK can not be bound by ECHR legislation would be for it to leave the Council of Europe - and entirely different body to the EU, formed at a different time and with a different membership than the European Union.

So anyone's human rights in the TRNC ARE protected by the ECHR treaties and court, be they a TRNC citizen, an EU Citizen or any other status. It might FEEL like there is no such protection but , there is in fact such a protection. Yes pursuing a violation of your rights via such means is a long and slow process and does require you to first exhaust any local domestic remedies available to you, but it does exist and it has been used in the past and it has made rulings about North Cyprus that has led to significant changes that effect all of us (like the opening of the 'border' between north and south in Cyprus- that was done to meet a ECHR ruling following a case brought to that court by a TC)

I think you've missed the point - once we have not been allowed to vote in the referendum it's too late - I only said it 'seems' like we don't have rights because the reality is and will be that we won't be able to exercise them even though in theory they exist.... As the vote will be to join two communities into a coherent EU nation covering the whole of the island I was asking for the organisers of the referendum to make sure that these rights are evident - and I don't think that's the ECHR - i.e. I don't believe it is ECHR running the show so they would only be able to act after the fact and that's simply no good - it would be a done deal by then....

Lovely as the ECHR is, it would seem powerless to come to our aid in this particular case in sort of time frame that would make a material difference. Too late is too late.

jacob · Post by **jacob** » Tue 06 Oct 2015 8:51 pm

Groucho, you are 100% on the money.

<<Removed - Please respect forum rules>>

The ECHR, the EU, whoever will have no say in anything, did the EU protect the expats in Spain when their homes were being demolished...NO.... they were in the EU and weren't seen as carpetbaggers, noone is going to come to your defence, we all took a risk buying in TRNC, the British Governments website tells us not to buy, it is a criminal offence and punishable with a lengthy prison term, now I am not saying that will happen but IT COULD.

I hope I am wrong as I did think the talks wouldn't go anywhere but the longer they go on the more I see the Island uniting.

The GC's will take over and reclaim their lands and properties.

turtle · Post by **turtle** » Tue 06 Oct 2015 9:44 pm

No they won't ...

jacob · Post by **jacob** » Wed 07 Oct 2015 6:28 am

Turtle

'No they wont'

If you are referring to the ECHR or EU, you are correct. If you are referring to my last comment, could you perhaps expand, do you think the GC's will simply say, 'hi there, you are living in my house or in a house built on my land but hey, thats ok, no prob, enjoy.

An agreement will be reached between GC's and TC's but all others COULD be in a very tricky situation, especially those without Kocans, having said that, even those with Kocans could have real problems, the GC's will not recognise title deeds issued by a de facto state.

erol · Post by **erol** » Wed 07 Oct 2015 8:15 am

jacob wrote: The ECHR, the EU, whoever will have no say in anything,....

ECHR rulings are already defining the terms and language and basis of the current negotiations re property - the whole language of the rights of 'current users' needing to be considered along side those of (pre 74) owners is straight out of the ECHR ruling in the Demopoulos v Turkey case. There is a direct relationship between this ECHR ruling and the basis on which property is being discussed in the current negotiations today. To make out that these rulings by the ECHR have no impact on the kind of settlement that is negotiated is to fundamentally misunderstand the situation.

jacob wrote:the British Governments website tells us not to buy,

Actually it does not simply tell 'us' not to buy. It says

Property owners and potential purchasers should also consider that a future settlement of the Cyprus problem could have serious consequences for property they purchase, including the possible restitution of the property to its original owner, in addition to compensation payments. In particular, prospective purchasers should consider the implications of any future settlement on land/property:

in the north that was owned by a Greek Cypriot national prior to 1974
that was subsequently classified as exchange or ‘gift’ land/property by the Turkish Cypriot “authorities”

http://www.gov.uk/guidance/how-to-property-in-cyprus

jacob wrote:The GC's will take over and reclaim their lands and properties.

I myself think you are in the business of trying to create FUD.

jacob · Post by **jacob** » Wed 07 Oct 2015 8:39 am

Erol, once again you are simply WRONG;

Buying property in the north of Cyprus
The ownership of many properties is disputed in the north of Cyprus, with thousands of claims to ownership from people displaced during the events of 1974. Purchase of these properties could have serious financial and legal implications. The European Court of Human Rights has ruled in a number of cases that owners of property in northern Cyprus before 1974 continue to be regarded as the legal owners of that property. Purchasers could face legal proceedings in the courts of the Republic of Cyprus, as well as attempts to enforce judgements from these courts elsewhere in the EU, including the UK. There has been at least one successful case to enforce rulings in the UK, putting at risk property owned in the UK.

The leaders of both communities are currently in negotiations to try to solve the Cyprus issue. One key issue is property and the handling of pre-1974 Greek Cypriot title-owned property. Property owners and potential purchasers should also consider that a future settlement of the Cyprus problem could have serious consequences for property they purchase, including the possible restitution of the property to its original owner, in addition to compensation payments. In particular, prospective purchasers should consider the implications of any future settlement on land/property:

in the north that was owned by a Greek Cypriot national prior to 1974
that was subsequently classified as exchange or ‘gift’ land/property by the Turkish Cypriot “authorities”
In addition, purchasers should ensure they are fully aware of the rules in the north of Cyprus in respect of foreigners purchasing property in the north of Cyprus including the requirement to obtain consent to the transfer of property. Even when purchasing Pre 1974 Turkish title land, you may still be refused permission to purchase the land/property and no reason for the refusal may be given.

On 20 October 2006, an amendment to the Republic of Cyprus criminal code relating to property came into effect. Under the amendment, buying, selling, renting, promoting or mortgaging a property without the permission of the owner (the person whose ownership is registered with the Republic of Cyprus Land Registry, including Greek Cypriots displaced from northern Cyprus in 1974) is a criminal offence. The maximum prison sentence is 7 years. The amendment to the law also states that any attempt to undertake such a transaction is a criminal offence and could result in a prison sentence of up to 5 years. This law is not retrospective, so will not criminalise transactions that took place before 20 October 2006.

Furthermore, documents relating to the purchase of property in the north of Cyprus will be presumed by the Cypriot authorities to relate to the illegal transfer of Greek Cypriot property and may be subject to confiscation when crossing the Green Line. Anyone found in possession of these documents may be asked to make a statement to the Cypriot authorities and could face criminal proceedings under the 20 October amendment. Any enquiries regarding the scope of this law should be made to the Republic of Cyprus High Commission in London or to the Ministry of Foreign affairs for the Republic of Cyprus:

RoC High Commission London
13, St James's Square
London SW1Y 4LB
Telephone: +44 (0) 207 3214 100
Fax: +44 (0) 2073214-165/164
Email: [cyphclondon@btconnect.com](mailto: cyphclondon@btconnect.com)
RoC Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Presidential Palace Avenue
1447 Nicosia
Telephone: +357 22401000
Fax: +357 22661881
Email: [minforeign1@mfa.gov.cy](mailto: minforeign1@mfa.gov.cy)

jacob · Post by **jacob** » Wed 07 Oct 2015 8:41 am

Please do not accuse me of scaremongering, you are the one misleading people.

erol · Post by **erol** » Wed 07 Oct 2015 8:42 am

jacob wrote:Erol, once again you are simply WRONG;

Where does it say 'do not buy property in North Cyprus' ? That is what you claimed it said and it does not say that.

erol · Post by **erol** » Wed 07 Oct 2015 8:44 am

jacob wrote:Please do not accuse me of scaremongering, you are the one misleading people.

It is my opinion that your are in the business of creating FUD. Am I not entitled to my opinion or to express it here ? You claim here "The GC's will take over and reclaim their lands and properties." as if this is some kind of undeniable fact and then say you are not scaremongering ?

jacob · Post by **jacob** » Wed 07 Oct 2015 8:49 am

Read 4th paragraph and read between the lines, thinking outside the box isn't one of your strongest attributes.

waddo · Post by **waddo** » Wed 07 Oct 2015 8:51 am

Consider - think carefully about (something), typically before making a decision.

erol quoted - "the whole language of the rights of 'current users' needing to be considered along side those of (pre 74) owners is straight out of the ECHR ruling in the Demopoulos v Turkey case"

There in the wording lies the rub - both TC & GC will "consider" the plight of other nationalities who are in the same position vis a vis property ownership. Once it has been carefully thought about and "considered", that if they are left to their own devices, then it will have no effect on those who have "considered" the problem, the problem is solved by the simple expedience of ignoring it! This is how politics works - Non Cypriots or those without citizenship have no right to vote so will not be "considered" as they have no impact on the Island.

The Island belongs to Cypriots - they should be left to make decisions on their own and those of us who are not Cypriots will have to abide by the Cypriots decisions - we all knew this before we came but perhaps we have forgotten it along the way.

Once again the non-Cypriot band is in a state of panic due to the Peace Talks, enjoy the day, what will happen, will happen. You have no control over the outcome and can only sit and wait or sell and leave - the choice, like the choice of coming here in the first place, remains in your own hands.

erol · Post by **erol** » Wed 07 Oct 2015 8:56 am

jacob wrote:Read 4th paragraph and read between the lines, thinking outside the box isn't one of your strongest attributes.

So when you claimed the the UK government website advised people to not buy property in North Cyprus, what you actually meant was the UK Government website advised people to not buy in North Cyprus if you read between the lines of what the website actually says and think outside the box. The truth is the UK government website does not say 'do not buy in North Cyprus' as you claimed. It says in effect be very very careful if you decide to buy property in North Cyprus and understand the potential risks involved and highlights what some of those risks are.

jacob · Post by **jacob** » Wed 07 Oct 2015 9:18 am

Erol, stop splitting hairs. Last post to you, reading your scripts are tortuous in the extreme, enjoy your day

erol · Post by **erol** » Wed 07 Oct 2015 9:41 am

jacob wrote:Last post to you,...

Heard that before, even explained to you how you could block my 'tortuous' posts so you did not even have to see them when you asked how to do that, yet .......

dodger · Post by **dodger** » Wed 07 Oct 2015 7:35 pm

Jacob are you an ex poster on Cyp 44 with a naval background.

jacob · Post by **jacob** » Wed 07 Oct 2015 7:45 pm

Dodger, I am a former Cyp44 poster, if I say I get sea sick paddling, I think that answers your question

Bowman · Post by **Bowman** » Wed 07 Oct 2015 8:28 pm

Jacob.

I to feel you a scaremonger.

In this posting you comment (message 14) about the homes demolished in Spain. Either you do not know the facts or do not want to know the fact. The demolished was because there was no planning permission and there was no dispute over the land ownership.

turtle · Post by **turtle** » Wed 07 Oct 2015 9:34 pm

Jacob
You have no more idea what is going to happen during the latest (and certainly not the last) round of so called talks so stop "biggin" your part up.

jacob · Post by **jacob** » Thu 08 Oct 2015 6:56 am

Bowman, let me make myself clear, I am not scaremongering, I hope the talks fail as they have so many times in the past, if you go back to my previous posts on other threads you will see what I have said.

Spain: I have friends who lost everything they had when their houses were demolished....they thought and were told they did have planning permissions to build, their homes were not on 'stolen land' which was under dispute, they were not advised by the British Government of the pitfalls etc etc, so no comparison, did the ECHR or EU step in with help........NO, unless you know otherwise! plus Spain is in the EU, now, as I said, if you know differently then I am sure you would like to enlighten us all.

jacob · Post by **jacob** » Thu 08 Oct 2015 7:07 am

turtle wrote:Jacob
You have no more idea what is going to happen during the latest (and certainly not the last) round of so called talks so stop "biggin" your part up.

Of course I have no idea, it is my opinion, as for 'biggin myself up' , are the BRS bigging themselves up cos they are very concerned!!! I am not a member, I am concerned from what I have read, that they are only interested in helping their own who have Kocans..they do not seem to be having success with Akinci.

Akinci is no friend of the expat and has openly said property bought on stolen lands will have consequences.

Groucho · Post by **Groucho** » Thu 08 Oct 2015 8:29 am

jacob wrote:
turtle wrote:Jacob
You have no more idea what is going to happen during the latest (and certainly not the last) round of so called talks so stop "biggin" your part up.

Of course I have no idea, it is my opinion, as for 'biggin myself up' , are the BRS bigging themselves up cos they are very concerned!!! I am not a member, I am concerned from what I have read, that they are only interested in helping their own who have Kocans..they do not seem to be having success with Akinci.

Akinci is no friend of the expat and has openly said property bought on stolen lands will have consequences.

To be honest I think the BRS are being concerned because they think that's what is expected of them.... as far as their ability to influence matters is concerned I think they have very little if any material influence because largely we have no votes - however given the fact that US, UN, ECHR and the EU are all interested parties in addition to the island's inhabitants I am confident that they can not successfully ride rough-shod over basic human rights regarding domicile, right of abode and natural justice - even if they want to... however I'm not confident that the rights of what ought to be naturalised inhabitants who have had the basic human right of permanent residency and citizenship undermined by successive unconstitutional protocols that have sought to deny anyone other than Cypriots same will be protected.

That is what this thread is about - the right to vote in a referendum affecting our futures too... I've lived here for more than 10 years and feel totally frustrated that the 5 year qualification rule for permanent residency and citizenship which existed when we came here has been unilaterally withheld by successive TRNC Governments seemingly outwith the rule of law.

Ragged Robin · Post by **Ragged Robin** » Thu 08 Oct 2015 10:08 am

However carefully the High Commission may word their Websites (no doubt on legal advice) the British Government has made it clear from the onset that they do not approve of expatriates living, let alone buying property in N. Cyprus and will not represent or support them. In fact they not exactly supportive of expatriates anywhere.

The BRS represents BRS members who are normally the most affluent.. It does not necessarily act in the interests of all the British community here - in fact it may acting against their interests. The problem is they refuse to tell us what they are doing so we cannot even make plans to cope with it.

What happens to expats who cant afford to pay compensation? Will they be treated as refugees if they have to return to the UK!?

I am beginning to think my best option is to get myself extradited and imprisoned in the UK. That way I would get a flight back, and my Human Rights to shelter, food and particularly medical treatment - which as a UK citizen, pensioner , taxpayer with full N.I. contributions I would not apparently have!

PS Someone asked about the Foreign Residents Assocation above, but answer was there none? Does anyone know if they are active in the question of the Referendum and expatriate rights?

waddo · Post by **waddo** » Thu 08 Oct 2015 1:09 pm

RR, I beg to differ that the BRS represents BRS members who are normally the most affluent. Instead I would suggest that the majority of BRS members only join for the discounts and that because they are way, way below the affluent line! But the question remains, what happens to the expats who can't afford to pay compensation? Probably the same thing that will happen to Cypriots who find themselves in the same boat! The British expats are not alone with this compensation problem but I feel they will be treated as an easy target and will be the first on the firing line in order to set the precedents for other claims to follow. That should be the worry, if indeed there is any worry.
I did not realize that this thread was about the right to vote in a referendum affecting our futures too! But if that is the case the thread may as well be closed down now because the answer - by law - is NO! No further discussion is required.

turtle · Post by **turtle** » Thu 08 Oct 2015 1:55 pm

I think the term "Stolen Land" is being thrown around a little too much at the moment and the suggestion that Akinci mentioned or referred to this subject as "Stolen Land" is somewhat fanciful ?

Keithcaley · Post by **Keithcaley** » Thu 08 Oct 2015 2:12 pm

turtle, I've just done a search for that term, using the 'Custom search facility' on this forum, and it appears to have been used only 3 times in posts on here - and you are responsible for 2 of those instances!

turtle · Post by **turtle** » Thu 08 Oct 2015 3:19 pm

Keithcaley wrote:turtle, I've just done a search for that term, using the 'Custom search facility' on this forum, and it appears to have been used only 3 times in posts on here - and you are responsible for 2 of those instances!

Ahh but you missed the plural as in Stolen Land(s) ?
Admittedly only 1 but that is still enough

Keithcaley · Post by **Keithcaley** » Thu 08 Oct 2015 3:34 pm

Turtle, you just upped the count by one, so you are the biggest offender by far!

erol · Post by **erol** » Thu 08 Oct 2015 4:35 pm

turtle wrote:I think the term "Stolen Land" is being thrown around a little too much at the moment and the suggestion that Akinci mentioned or referred to this subject as "Stolen Land" is somewhat fanciful ?

I agree - the claim made by Jacob that President Akinci has 'openly stated that they (expats) had bought on stolen land' is exactly the kind of FUD creating distortion that he is pushing here.

What President Akini was quoted as saying in the Cyprus today was

They have to understand that the land they (expats) are living on belongs to someone else.

And the FULL context from which that snippet has been extracted is as follows'

Speaking to Cyprus Today, Akinci said: 'Our expat friends should not be concerned. Their property rights will be safeguarded. No-one will become victim to this problem'.

But he added: 'They have to understand that the land they are living on belongs to someone else. So the best way to resolve this is through compensation. Perhaps a special fund can be created for this purpose. The criteria have not yet been discussed and we are at the very beginning. But they should not be concerned. I was elected to find a bi-zonal solution. I was not elected to find a settlement where everyone will be mixed up, and this is certainly not what we are negotiating

To me the above is clearly VERY different from the claim Jacob has made here - which is why I continue to maintain that in my opinion he is in the business of creating FUD around this whole issue.

waddo · Post by **waddo** » Thu 08 Oct 2015 4:41 pm

Well, its disgusting is what it is! I have not stolen any land from anyone - I may have borrowed it for a while.............................

erol · Post by **erol** » Thu 08 Oct 2015 4:45 pm

waddo wrote:Well, its disgusting is what it is! I have not stolen any land from anyone - I may have borrowed it for a while.............................

Sorry Waddo but I am unclear

is the above a joke ?

If it is not a joke what are you disgusted at ? Jacob saying that President Akinci has openly stated that you are living on stolen land, when in fact President Akinci said no such thing ?

waddo · Post by **waddo** » Thu 08 Oct 2015 4:50 pm

Erol, Just a joke, just a joke. I have given up with Jacob its not even as good as watching paint dry.

Kibkom North Cyprus Forum

Join us