Nikitas,
I owe you a post, but it will have to wait until tomorrow I'm afraid.
Kikapu wrote:zan wrote:Kikapu wrote:zan wrote:Kikapu wrote:zan wrote:OK! So we are going to learn from the past but ignore the past so that we do not make the same mistakes again....Have the Three Stooges heard that one before???
Now to get on to the great Kifeas plan......
Just think about it for one minute...Is that not the same as giving both parties a veto. What will happen is one side will vote for GC rights and the other TC rights and STILL nothing will get done. Can you not see that. This is why I say separate states will run their own affairs.
On the; why don't I right my own plan....I am not qualified. I don't know much about art but I know what I like......
I am not qualified. You are not qualified and Kifeas is not qualified. Not with ideas like that anyway.
Well of course I see that. The only difference is, that the number of members in the Parliament is proportional to the each community, and it is fair and Democratic, rather than insisting on a 50-50 which is not getting us anywhere. As you very smartly figured out, the TC's still have a VETO if they all decide against a certain law, but guess what, you have 20 members making a decision for the TC's and not just one vice President. The more players you have there's more chance on a give and take rather than between two men, the President and a Vice president.
I'm glad you have finally grasped the basic concepts of Democracy. (being sarcastic)
There's hope for us all yet.
So as you can see, Kifeas has put in Safeguards for the TC's, that you and VP has been asking for.
Is this not correct.??
So, no more excuses please.
There is no difference to giving us 50-50 than this concoction Kiks. The point was that you say one will not work and advocate another when they are equal in status. Do you think by having just a president voting that he can vote what he likes or does he have to have a majority of his party and countrymen's agreement.
You are tying yourself up in notts ( ) here mate. If one will not work then nor will the other. If that is the case then welcome to the world of partition..you partitionist you.....
So to recap, in case you did not get what I was saying above...We, the TCs were given too much power in 1960 and that is why the system did not work but you have redesigned the wheel and are giving us back the same power and are convinced that it will work and are now calling it democratic.....Clear as mud!
Zan,
OK wise guy, since you and VP are so anti solution along the plan I presented, and since you both want a Turkish run state in the North, and are willing to let GC's come and live there under your rules, then I assume you're also going to be giving them regardless what ever number of GC's are in the Northern State, 50% percent of power sharing, so that the GC's get to control their own future.?? If the answer is NO, then I can see the status que continuing with the isolation and a de facto State. But VP predicts that the "TRNC" will become recognised in 10 years time. There you go Zan, just hang in there and all the problems for the TC's and the "TRNC" will all go away in about 10 years, just as it has for Israel after taking over Palestinian land in 1948. Sarcasm intended. I believe the phrase used by Nikitas " you want to be Masters of the North, and Partners in the South" seems to be very true with all the Partitionist. Talk about being "Double Faced".
I am not trying to be a wise guy Kiks just trying to point out the similarities of the two systems and the silliness behind trying to sell one and condemn the other...With a bit of humor of course. And in that same vein if I do not believe that one 50-50 system will work then why would I accept another.
As I have said to you before you took on the job and have come up against another brick wall. You have to be the one to get around it. Stop getting angry. Tell me where I am going wrong in my thinking that both systems are one and the same thing and that you said one of them would not work but the other will. It is you that have confused me as to what you want???
Zan,
Well, if you believe there is no difference, then why are you pushing for a 50-50 Power sharing as a means to give the TC's safeguards. Am I to understand from your statement, that since there is no difference from Kifeas's power sharing plan and the 50-50 that you want, you are just jerking us off with this claim as a smoke screen. In another words, the 50-50 power sharing is not the main issue for you, is it.??
But to get back to Kifeas's plan for a moment, although it gives the TC's all the Safeguards as your 50-50 plan, it also gives positions in the government in a 80-20 proportion, which will be the demand of the GC's to be fair and balanced. Do you think it is wrong to expect that by the GC's.?? So, if you think 50-50 is fair, then I don't know why you do not accept Kifeas's Plan, which actually "levels the playing field", to use VP's words.
Nikitas wrote:Kikapu,
I just read your very interesting account of your visit to Cyprus. Mine was different mostly because I was not returning from a country like Switzerland but from Greece, which softened the contrast.
You mentioned the word Haram, which I know from Arabic. Your choice of the word fascinated me. But alas, such wishes do not come true. It is when I read accounts like yours that I reluctantly envision that reunification might not be possible. Who is going to compensate the "innocent" foreigners who bought the land? And how can you talk about a partnership with the regime that has allowed this corrupt system to flourish? It will be an incongruous mix to have European style efficiency in the south and the corrupt cronyism in the north. It is at times like that when I give in and see Kifea's point of going for total separation, high walls and all.
In my recent vistis to Cyprus, in 2005 and this year, I just could not bring myself to visit the north. It was not a political or nationalist problem. It was personal. I just could not risk losing my memories. At this point the only thing that I have of my childhood and early teens are those memories of Famagusta. So I played it safe and did not visit. In any case, I could not visit Famagusta itself, just the villages in the district, and they do not even have the same names anymore.
But let us get back to your points re a solution. The reason I keep coming back to the incentives for people like us to return to the island is to counteract an attitude expressed by many and above all prime minister Erdogan when he said:
"What if people are leaving [from the north of Cyprus], we have plenty of people to put there....". The comment is self explanatory. I feel insulted to see so much effort going into how settlers will be treated and possibly compensated for leaving land that belonging to others when Cypriots who were forced to leave get no mention in any solution. Yes we are allowed to go back now, but we are not actively encouraged to go back. Rather than bring people to populate the north a lto can be cone to encourage Turkish Cypriots who left to come back and settle there. That I can understand and accept and so can most Greek Cypriots I would say. In the same way I can accept the rotating presidency if the presidents are Cypriot, but would never accept it if one was a non Cypriot, even if he were a Greek from the mainland. The possiblity just goes against the grain.
Nikitas
Return to Cyprus Problem Solution Proposals
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests