Cyprus-Forum.com

[Piratis]

Political equality is a good thing. All good people want equality and hate inequalities.

So what we want is equality.

But then we come to the term "political equality" that many TCs want. Is this a good thing? Most people would instinctively say yes, because how can equality be bad?

The trick is that what TCs are asking for is not just political equality, but political equality between two unequally sized communities.

So while there is equality (between the states) there is also inequality (between the people).

Political equality of communities, and political inequality of citizens are the two sites of the same coin.

So my question:

Why in surveys (similar to Alexandros surveys) they ask Greek Cypriots if they accept "political equality between two communities", and not if they accept "political inequality between citizens".

I believe that asking just the question on one side of this coin, which includes the very positive word "equality" skews the results significantly.

I would like to see a survey where both questions are asked and then compare the results. I am sure that while many people will accept the question that contains the positive word "equality", an equal (or maybe larger) percentage will reject the question that contains the word "inequality".

[brother]

Wording of a question changes everything, yes you are right piratis.

[Alexandros Lordos]

Why in surveys (similar to Alexandros surveys) they ask Greek Cypriots if they accept "political equality between two communities", and not if they accept "political inequality between citizens".

I believe that asking just the question on one side of this coin, which includes the very positive word "equality" skews the results significantly.

Piratis, in my survey of Greek Cypriots I never used the phrase "political equality", at least not in the questionnaire. I asked people directly if they would accept or reject qualified majorities, international tie-breaking judges, permanent residence limits, and senate voting split according to ethnic lines (all of which put together, adds up to the concept of "political equality of communities").

And basically, the response of the majority (about 60%) was that yes, they could just about tolerate all these things, even though they would have liked it to be otherwise ...

Ofcourse, a strong minority of about 40% would have none of this, their views were more or less similar to yours ...

[turkcyp]

No matter what we say here Piratis will keep on believing his holly interpretation of equality and human rights. Now after this post of mine, I am also sure he will come up with bunch of interntaional articles, speechs, rules and regulations backing his views.

I can do the same. But all I wll say is this. I guess the citizens of South Sakota and citizens of California does not have equality under the US system, or citizens of RoC and citizens if Germany does not have equality in EU.

Of course he will not like these examples and will counter attack these examples, at which at that point I will be realizing we are getting in the same cycle again with Piratis where everybody keeps on saying his views and never understanding the others point of view, or misunderstanding the others point of view, and therefore shut up on my behalf.

Therefore I guess this will be my last post to this topic.

Take care everybody,

[Piratis]

I asked people directly if they would accept or reject qualified majorities, international tie-breaking judges, permanent residence limits, and senate voting split according to ethnic lines (all of which put together, adds up to the concept of "political equality of communities").

Well, it doesn't necessarily add to "political equality of communities" because this will depend on what the power of the senate would be. Also other factors exist like the presidential council etc.

From your research, do you conclude beyond any significant doubt that most GCs would be willing to accept TCs having a blocking power on everything?

[Piratis]

Turcyp,
As you said we discussed this a million times, and if you noticed this is not the issue of this post.
All I will say is that I have already accepted to adopt the system of US, Germany or any other EU country, and you rejected it.

[Alexandros Lordos]

From your research, do you conclude beyond any significant doubt that most GCs would be willing to accept TCs having a blocking power on everything?

Well, the picture I am getting is that about 60% of GCs have accepted the blocking powers/tie breaking "package" as it was in the Annan Plan - as I said, though, accepted with difficulty. People, I guess, are aware that the room for maneuvre of the Federal Government is minimal anyway, that many of the decisions would be taken in Brussels and many more at the constituent state level, so they do not worry too much about how the Federal Government will reach decisions ...

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.

[turkcyp]

"Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in". Godfather III

Turcyp,
As you said we discussed this a million times, and if you noticed this is not the issue of this post.
All I will say is that I have already accepted to adopt the system of US, Germany or any other EU country, and you rejected it.

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

But let me clarify my situation. I am more than happy to live in a scenario like US system adopted to realities of Cyprus. In US the citizens of south Dakota and California are not equal in your terms, but they do not make this an issue because they do not care, because after all they are all American. There is no ethnicity difference. At no point in time people in California tried to domintae the Dakotians (I guess this is what they are called.)

So what I am trying to get to is this. Its not that you are interested in equality dear Piratis. You are interesed in narrow definition of equality of people which do not leave room for equality of communities. And I do understand your view do worry. If I were a GC I would ask for teh same thing too. As a GC community. wWhy would I want to be equal with a community which is 1/4 of my size. I would not."

But again do not worry. Most TCs are on the same page with you, they rather have their true share of land and have partition then to live in a country you propose. So in reality your second best matches with the second bests of many TCs. So it looks like if you were community leader of GC, and I were the community leader of TC, we would have solved the Cyprus problem by now by settling on to second bests.

Take care,

[magikthrill]

turkcyp,

piratis offered many examples of federal systems including the swiss and the belgian and neither of these two countries have citizens of the same ethnicity.

moreover, the RoC will not attempt this 2nd best plan you and piratis suggest and you know why: because even at this you cant agree what % of land belongs to whom!

And lastly, do you really believe that a TC state would prosper even if the sanctions were lifted? First of all a legal TC state would have to compensate for all the property it stole. Secondly, the EU estimated that it would take hundreds of millions of euro for TCs to develop to the state of GCs and that is assuming TCs were already a part of the EU. Lastly, I'm not sure how interesting the EU would find for there to be another state as impoverished as Turkey that would one day ask for EU membership.

[turkcyp]

turkcyp,

piratis offered many examples of federal systems including the swiss and the belgian and neither of these two countries have citizens of the same ethnicity.

yes. Also Annan plan was one of those systems as well.....

moreover, the RoC will not attempt this 2nd best plan you and piratis suggest and you know why: because even at this you cant agree what % of land belongs to whom!

I did not say RoC will attempt. I said if it were upto me and Piratis we would have already settles at the second best solution. How much land belongs to who is a technicality and legallity issue which can be solved easily. I said it before and I keep on saying again, if we end up getting less than %15 I would admit it. The only thing we dispute with Piratis is the issue of %30. I guess the courth in Europe can easily solve that issue. It is international law after all.

Anwyay I do not think this kind of solution will ever happen anyway. I agree with you on that one. I just said if it was upto me it would be solved by now.

For the following I do not understand if you were talking about the our second best that we were discussing or you are talking about general in current day situation.

And lastly, do you really believe that a TC state would prosper even if the sanctions were lifted?

Totally I believe. It is not hard to prosper a socitey of 210k.

First of all a legal TC state would have to compensate for all the property it stole.

This is where my confusion lies. If it is second best scenario and partition on the lines of what we have and what you have why do we have to compensate you in the first place. After all we are getting our share of land only.

If you are talking about current sitauation, where we have more than what we own back in 1960, are you ready to accepts the compensation of difference? I mean this is an issue that is never discussed in this forum.

I guess I am really confused what you are saying here.

Secondly, the EU estimated that it would take hundreds of millions of euro for TCs to develop to the state of GCs and that is assuming TCs were already a part of the EU.

Me and TCs are quite different on the EU issue. I do not want EU because of economical reasons, and most of the TCs want EU for economical reasons. They do want EU for economical reasons because they are not even aware of the alternative, economic prosperity that can be achieved by being legal country small size, just outdside of EU without having to obey burdersome EU laws on many things.

If north was a %18 of Cyprus (assuming that Piratis is right and we get %18) and a seperare country the economical benefits are countles. It would take only 10 years for TC to catch up to GC state.

Lastly, I'm not sure how interesting the EU would find for there to be another state as impoverished as Turkey that would one day ask for EU membership.

Nonsense. Where do you get the idea that if north was a seperate country they will be liek Turkey. The reason Turkey is improvished is plenty. Low level of education, high population, not enough economical opportunituies for the size of the country.

All these reasons are completly the opposite in north TC. Very low population and very lower population growth, very high education level close to 47% college graduation rate, a more than enough economical opportunities for the size of the country.

Have a great weekend,