Cyprus-Forum.com

[Piratis]

But back to your question: I can not be 100% sure, since I have not asked the precise question that you mentioned (ie blocking powers on everything). I think that if I ask it this way, people will be scared and vote that No, it is unacceptable. But the truth is that even "blocking powers on everything" will only mean "blocking powers on Federal Government business" which is just one of the four levels of decision making (European, Federal, Constituent State, Local). So you see, it would be misleading to ask such a question.

Well this depends on how you view things and what you consider misleading and what not. This is why the results of a survey depend a lot on the beliefs of the person that prepared the survey. I don't mean that this is intentional. However on some matters even if you want you can't be objective and your personal beliefs and knowledge can have a huge impact on the results. Surveys are very tricky things, especially with complicated matters.

You have said that you accept US system, and I have rejected it. I do not remember this.

I think Erolz did, but it seems that you agree with him when you say that it has to be "adopted to realities of Cyprus".
I don't have a problem to make changes to the US system to match what we all want better, but apparently you want changes that totally change the philosophy of the the US system, without be willing to give up anything in return that would bring back the balance that the US system has.

How much land belongs to who is a technicality and legallity issue which can be solved easily.

There is only one legal thing: The removal of the Turkish army and the return to the 1960 agreements.
Agreements beyond that is political agreements and beyond the courts.
So the only technicality regarding how much land the TCs should get is to find the exact percentage of TCs in 1974. If they were 18% they will get 18% of land, if they were 18.5% they will get 18.5% of land. Anything else would be unfair, and not an option because we would not accept it.

The other technicality would be which 18% TCs would get, and this should be an 18% that would be as close to 18% of resources and 18% of value. I believe this is the most fair.

Of course in this scenario, TCs owe us nothing, and we owe nothing to them. Our relations after that would be relations of two separate countries, but I believe TCs would not want to have bad relations with EU, and discriminating against some EU citizens will not be an option for them.

After this development, TCs will forget about the GCs that want to supposedly dominate them, and they will wake up and see who is actually dominating them (Turkey).

If in the future we want to re-unite the island, this will be done under fair terms, and not under the occupation/embargo pressure and the "unification" plans of some foreigners.

[Alexandros Lordos]

But back to your question: I can not be 100% sure, since I have not asked the precise question that you mentioned (ie blocking powers on everything). I think that if I ask it this way, people will be scared and vote that No, it is unacceptable. But the truth is that even "blocking powers on everything" will only mean "blocking powers on Federal Government business" which is just one of the four levels of decision making (European, Federal, Constituent State, Local). So you see, it would be misleading to ask such a question.

Well this depends on how you view things and what you consider misleading and what not. This is why the results of a survey depend a lot on the beliefs of the person that prepared the survey. I don't mean that this is intentional. However on some matters even if you want you can't be objective and your personal beliefs and knowledge can have a huge impact on the results. Surveys are very tricky things, especially with complicated matters.

All I did was to present particular aspects of the Annan Plan, and ask people if they accept them or not. In other issues, such as security and property, the majority said that improvements were essential. In issues pertaining to governance and "political equality" only the minority said that improvements were essential (or at least, core improvements). I did not ask any loaded questions. I did not choose questions according to my beliefs, but according to what was being widely said at the time of the referendum. So, I don't see where bias crept in. You have seen my questionnaire (I mean the one about the Greek Cypriot survey, not the more recent one about the Turkish Cypriot survey). If you can find a particular question which was presented in a biased manner, or which would elicit a biased result, feel free to enlighten me.

Personally, I suspect you just don't want to accept my result because you dislike it, and so you resort to criticising my methodology.

[Alexandros Lordos]

If in the future we want to re-unite the island, this will be done under fair terms, and not under the occupation/embargo pressure and the "unification" plans of some foreigners.

I find merit in this argument.

[metecyp]

I find merit in this argument.

Well, I find merit in his argument as well but the whole argument depends on the definition of fair. We know that fairness is a relative term. For me, safeguards for TCs is something fair to ask. For Piratis, it is completely unfair. For me, it's fair to demand political equality, for Piratis, it's completely unfair since it'll make GCs second class citizens. And the list goes on...who is going to determine what's fair?

And another problem is that even if we agree on what's fair, a fair and just solution is always not realistic. I also want all GCs return and I think return of all refugees is a fair claim but is it realistic? I don't think so.

[Alexandros Lordos]

I also want all GCs return and I think return of all refugees is a fair claim but is it realistic? I don't think so.

Actually, if we are creative about it, I do think it is realistic ... here is how:

a. We go by the Annan Plan limit that one third of TC state citizens can be GC. This still safeguards bizonality and your need to be a political majority in the TC state. The only amendment we make is that this limit applies as a final total, not village-by-village (ie there should be no limit as to how many of each village are GC, so long as their overall percent in the TC state does not exceed one third). With a TC state of 225,000 TCs, up to 112,000 GCs could return and still be no more than one third of the population. This is more than the total number of refugees (if you subtract the refugees that will be returning to their homes anyway because of territorial adjustment).

b. Refugees should be allowed to get all their property back, except that which is currently used by TCs etc (exceptions as per the Annan Plan). The 1/3 limitation is stupid and meaningless. And if a refugee can not get his actual home, then he should be entitled to a new home in the same town or village, which will be built in ex-agricultural land at the outskirts of his village, land that will be divided up into plots especially for the purpose of housing refugees.

So you see, the return of all GC refugees is no less possible than the granting of political equality to TCs ...

[Piratis]

Personally, I suspect you just don't want to accept my result because you dislike it, and so you resort to criticising my methodology.

I didn't criticize your methodology. I just said that inevitably the beliefs of the person that creates the survey will have an impact on the results. Of course somebody can create a survey that will intentionally skew the results, but this is not what you did. So there is no criticism

For me, safeguards for TCs is something fair to ask. For Piratis, it is completely unfair.

No, I never said safeguards for TCs are unfair, quite the opposite. But what you demand goes way beyond safeguards.

Like if you drive in the road you wear your belt, you drive carefully and this is the way you can be as safe as you can. If you demand that nobody else should be driving when you do so you will be safe, this is an overkill with huge negative consequences that can not be accepted.

What I mean is that TCs can be safeguarded without huge violations of human rights and democracy. What I do not accept are the ways you want to achieve these safeguards and not the safeguards per se.

To take it one step further, I highly doubt that all you want are safeguards. You don't ask for a rifle when you only intent to kill a fly.
What you really want apparently is Independence. You don't want to be the 18% of Cypriots, you want to be separate and independent, and "union" is only desirable up to the point that it gives you benefits without taking away from you your independence.

However, such kind of pseudo union has really no benefit for us. This is why I said that we have to decide if we are one group, and unite and move ahead and prosper together, or if we are two groups, in which case we have to move ahead separately, and not to have one group sucking the blood of another.

[Alexandros Lordos]

No, I never said safeguards for TCs are unfair, quite the opposite. But what you demand goes way beyond safeguards.

Like if you drive in the road you wear your belt, you drive carefully and this is the way you can be as safe as you can. If you demand that nobody else should be driving when you do so you will be safe, this is an overkill with huge negative consequences that can not be accepted.

Hmm, I tend to agree with Piratis on this one ... here is the overkill I sense:


a. You go into a lot of trouble to ensure that the Federal Government will not be able to do anything without your consent.

but then,

b. You try to take away as many powers as possible from the Federal Government and give them to the constituent state, as if the Federal Government is something foreign to you.


To me this is overkill ... since you have ensured that the Federal Government will be yours just as much as ours, then why do you want it to be as weak as possible? Why do you refuse to invest it with the power and the authority it requires in order to help us forge a new and integrated identity?

[metecyp]

With a TC state of 225,000 TCs, up to 112,000 GCs could return and still be no more than one third of the population.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought the Annan plan said GCs can be 1/3 of the TC population not total population. Or was it 1/3 of the total population? If that's the case, that means GC population will be half of TC population in the north?

[Alexandros Lordos]

With a TC state of 225,000 TCs, up to 112,000 GCs could return and still be no more than one third of the population.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought the Annan plan said GCs can be 1/3 of the TC population not total population. Or was it 1/3 of the total population? If that's the case, that means GC population will be half of TC population in the north?

hmm, yes, I am pretty sure it was 1/3 of the total population (in other words, one GC for every two TCs) ... I think the way it was phrased in the Annan Plan was that "not more than 1/3 of residents of the TC constituent state can have a mother tongue other than Turkish". If someone can find the relevant quote from the Annan Plan and post it here that would be helpful.

[turkcyp]

….. but apparently you want changes that totally change the philosophy of the the US system, without be willing to give up anything in return that would bring back the balance that the US system has.

Your interpretation….

There is only one legal thing: The removal of the Turkish army and the return to the 1960 agreements.

There are so many more legal issues but you fail to see the others.

Agreements beyond that is political agreements and beyond the courts.
So the only technicality regarding how much land the TCs should get is to find the exact percentage of TCs in 1974. If they were 18% they will get 18% of land, if they were 18.5% they will get 18.5% of land. Anything else would be unfair, and not an option because we would not accept it.

When I have mentioned legal issues, actually I have meant legal issues in finding how much land belongs to us. If you read my post you would understand this. At that point I was just telling that, we pretty much agree on everything with you with the exception of how much state land is ours and how much is yours, and I argue that our share is %30 and yo argue that our share is 18%. And in relation to that I have said that that is I guess up to courts to decide.

The other technicality would be which 18% TCs would get, and this should be an 18% that would be as close to 18% of resources and 18% of value. I believe this is the most fair.

Again I do not like your arbitrary %18. We should get the economical value of the land up to the amount we had in 1963. I have said it so many times. If we end up having less than %18 percent than I am ready to accept. Why is everything 18%. Just because we were %18 of the society, does not necessarily means we had %18 of the land or %18 of the economical resources.

Of course in this scenario, TCs owe us nothing, and we owe nothing to them. Our relations after that would be relations of two separate countries, but I believe TCs would not want to have bad relations with EU, and discriminating against some EU citizens will not be an option for them.

After this development, TCs will forget about the GCs that want to supposedly dominate them, and they will wake up and see who is actually dominating them (Turkey).

If in the future we want to re-unite the island, this will be done under fair terms, and not under the occupation/embargo pressure and the "unification" plans of some foreigners.

This is fair and square. I like it. Let’s do it. Second best it is.