Cyprus-Forum.com

[Piratis]

Concerning blocking powers, the way this particular proposal deals with the problem is through cross-voting. Because TC senators will need GC votes as well to get elected, they will have a vested personal interest in not appearing intransigent and uncooperative. So the system would self-regulate, and blocking powers would only be used on issues that are really critical to the TC community.

Hmmm . Who will decide what the election system will be in each state? You said that the systems of both states should be harmonized, does this mean each state will not be allowed to change its own election systems?
Will it be "apli analogiki", in which case that 25% will trully always count as 25%?
Also can you explain this a bit more:

The Presidential Council will be elected directly by the People, from an integrated ticket, and with an Electoral College system based on the US Constitution. Each constituent state will appoint its own electors proportionately to population, but with each state having no less than 40% of the total electors.

Concerning what you, as a GC non-refugee, "will have to gain" from the northern constituent state, here follows a list:
a. You could opt to buy a home in the north after 7 years have elapsed.
b. You could opt to become a permanent resident of the TC state (even if you haven't yet purchased your own home, since property and residence are separate issues), and enjoy extended political rights as well as guaranteed education for your children under the Federal Government.
c. You could opt to work in the north, returning to your permanent residence in the south for weekends.
d. You could opt to have your holiday home in the north, in any region which you find attractive (see "point a" above).

I see. Well, apart from the possibility (very low one since I am not refugee) of getting some political rights in the north, I don't see any other difference between the north state of my own country and any other EU country. Most of the other "advantages" are due to the proximity of the two states than anything else. (if we had borders with Italy I could do most of the things you said).

It would be much easier to accept your plan if it was part of a specific transitional period, or if the amount under the TC state was much closer to their population percentage.

[magikthrill]

After this 3 to 5 year period, GCs will be allowed to relocate in the north up to a ceiling proportion of 33% of the TC state's population. This of course does not include those who will go to the north either to just work or to just have a holiday home - there will be no restriction on those.

After 20 years, the whole issue of residence restrictions based on ethnic origin will come under review from the Constitutional Assembly, and if both GCs and TCs agree then they can be abolished.

This is something that I personally don't agree with this. Although I understand a transition period is a good thing I dont think that this transition period should be temporary, ie after x years (20 i think is toooooo many), then this residency restriction should be permanently halted.

Otherwise as Piratis said, the connection between the two states is nothing more than the connection between other EU countries. And personally i think that if this argument is ever used against a solution I dont think many GCs will change their opinion from their initial no (justifiably too)

[insan]

Insan,

firstly, my apologies if I insulted you. This is the kind of thing that happens when you are talking with one person and someone else overhears the conversation out of context.

Actually, such implications hurt me as a human being not as a TC. We should really avoid giving such messages otherwise none of us can make the others to believe our sincerity when talking about reconciliation and peaceful co-existence. My reaction is not only and specifically related with you above expressions in your dialogue you used out of context. I have the conviction that this the gneral and perhaps usual perspective of GCs toward TCs and Turks.

When I say that "I don't believe that GCs constitute a threat to TCs", I mean as Community-to-Community. Of course, there are GC extremists that have to be dealt with, but Turkish guarantees won't help you with those: It's rather a matter of good police work and, as you say, education.

Yes, you may not believe a single match could set a forest on fire but if there's a strong wind to help fire to spread besides some forest enemies who goes to fire with fuel and majority of the remaining part of the society just watch; a big catastrophe would become inevitable.

What I certainly believe WILL NOT happen, knowing my own community, is that suddenly all the GCs will gang up against the TCs, and try to "invade" the northern constituent state. And yet, many TCs (correct me if I am wrong) fear precisely such an eventuality.

Not suddenly but dependently to the circumstances.

Forgive me for being arrogant. It is indeed one of my weaknesses.

It's not a big problem for me but it is a problem for public psychology. On such over sensitive communal issues we should be careful not to create emotional violence that feed the fears and prejudices...A single match, eventually might lead the inceneration of whole forest.

[Alexandros Lordos]

This is something that I personally don't agree with this. Although I understand a transition period is a good thing I dont think that this transition period should be temporary, ie after x years (20 i think is toooooo many), then this residency restriction should be permanently halted.

Otherwise as Piratis said, the connection between the two states is nothing more than the connection between other EU countries. And personally i think that if this argument is ever used against a solution I dont think many GCs will change their opinion from their initial no (justifiably too)

Magiktkrill, this concern is more theoretical than real: With a 33% residence right, as many GCs as are likely to select permanent residency in the north will be able to get it. A far greater number will elect NOT to have permanent residence in the north, but rather to just work there or have a holiday home there.

So in practice, no one will experience any constriction whatsoever.

[magikthrill]

This is something that I personally don't agree with this. Although I understand a transition period is a good thing I dont think that this transition period should be temporary, ie after x years (20 i think is toooooo many), then this residency restriction should be permanently halted.

Otherwise as Piratis said, the connection between the two states is nothing more than the connection between other EU countries. And personally i think that if this argument is ever used against a solution I dont think many GCs will change their opinion from their initial no (justifiably too)

Magiktkrill, this concern is more theoretical than real: With a 33% residence right, as many GCs as are likely to select permanent residency in the north will be able to get it. A far greater number will elect NOT to have permanent residence in the north, but rather to just work there or have a holiday home there.

So in practice, no one will experience any constriction whatsoever.

Alexandre,


I absolutely agree with you. However, what I am saying is that this restriction of residency can be used as a coutner argument for the plan. And also if it wont be a problem then why does it need to be permanent?

Also, has anyone actually thought how this would work? I mean what happens if there are 30% GCs and then so many decide to move in the north that the nuber would reach 35% (ie, greater than 33%). yes this is highly unlikely but it is a possibily. Who would be chosen to move in the north.

Is there any other country in the world that has a limitation of residency based on ethnicity? And how does it work there?

[Alexandros Lordos]

Hmmm . Who will decide what the election system will be in each state? You said that the systems of both states should be harmonized, does this mean each state will not be allowed to change its own election systems?
Will it be "apli analogiki", in which case that 25% will trully always count as 25%?

Yes, I think harmonisation is essential, and the states should not be able to change their election laws without ratification from the Federal Senate. Even though such harmonisation is irregular in Federations, this is one example of a "derogation" that is needed to make the solution more workable for GCs (actually, for TCs as well, but GCs tend to focus more on the issue of their rights in the north than TC on their rights in the south).

"Apli Analogiki" was what I had in mind ...

Also can you explain this a bit more:

The Presidential Council will be elected directly by the People, from an integrated ticket, and with an Electoral College system based on the US Constitution. Each constituent state will appoint its own electors proportionately to population, but with each state having no less than 40% of the total electors.

Yes. In the US Federal System each state is appointed a number of electors according to its population, and people vote for these electors who in turn vote for the president. To protect very small states, however, there is a minimum number to the number of electors that a state can have.

In the case of Cyprus, given that there will only be two states, I thought that the minimum percent of electors from each state should be 40%. If in the future the demographic balance changes (say, if TCs have more kids), and they become more than 40% of the population, then they will have more than 40% of the electoral college votes.

What people will vote on, is a choice of "six person lists", each list having 4 GCs and 2 TCs. So each group of six Politicians will have to succesfully campaign in both north and south, in order to get the popular mandate.

Well, apart from the possibility (very low one since I am not refugee) of getting some political rights in the north, I don't see any other difference between the north state of my own country and any other EU country. Most of the other "advantages" are due to the proximity of the two states than anything else. (if we had borders with Italy I could do most of the things you said).

The issue of political rights and the issue of refugee status are totally separate. Some refugees will use the property that they will reclaim as a second home and nothing else. Some non-refugees will choose to become permanent residents in the north, and live in a property that they will buy.

I would reverse your "same as another country" argument and say, you will have exactly the same rights relocating to the north (eg from Limassol to Kyrenia) as you would have if you were to relocate to another town in the south (eg from Limassol to Paphos).

It would be much easier to accept your plan if it was part of a specific transitional period, or if the amount under the TC state was much closer to their population percentage.

Hmm, the "transition aspect" is somehow covered by the Constitutional Assembly that will be held 20 years later ... by which time experience might have taught us that various restrictions are unnecessary.

As to territory ... well, as I said, I will check your "request for more territory" in the next round of polls ...

[Alexandros Lordos]

this restriction of residency can be used as a coutner argument for the plan.

True, it would be an argument against the Plan, but a relatively weak argument, for two reasons:

a. Everyone will know that in practice it won't make a difference.
b. It is a provision that is compatible with the overall framework of a bizonal-bicommunal Federation - indeed, it is necessary to the framework. If people don't accept this framework, then they will vote "No" anyway, however good we make the Plan.

On the contrary, if we remove this 33% restriction, then that will be used as an effective argument against the Plan, on the TC side - TCs will rightfully be concerned that they will become a minority in their own constituent state, as every GC will consider it his patriotic duty to relocate to the north in order to create a GC majority there ...

So, my argument is, if we are going to remove this 33% restriction, then the whole "Federation" scheme begins to unravel and we might as well start talking about a bicommunal Unitary state, based on the 1960 constitution, with shared GC and TC control of the one central administration - a totally different solution proposal, though not an unthinkable one.

[magikthrill]

this restriction of residency can be used as a coutner argument for the plan.

True, it would be an argument against the Plan, but a relatively weak argument, for two reasons:

a. Everyone will know that in practice it won't make a difference.
b. It is a provision that is compatible with the overall framework of a bizonal-bicommunal Federation - indeed, it is necessary to the framework. If people don't accept this framework, then they will vote "No" anyway, however good we make the Plan.

On the contrary, if we remove this 33% restriction, then that will be used as an effective argument against the Plan, on the TC side - TCs will rightfully be concerned that they will become a minority in their own constituent state, as every GC will consider it his patriotic duty to relocate to the north in order to create a GC majority there ...

So, my argument is, if we are going to remove this 33% restriction, then the whole "Federation" scheme begins to unravel and we might as well start talking about a bicommunal Unitary state, based on the 1960 constitution, with shared GC and TC control of the one central administration - a totally different solution proposal, though not an unthinkable one.

Alexandre

as i said it is fine to have this for a temporary transition period. but permanently with a suggestion of a referendum? I mean if the EU would ever ot be come a federation then GCs could live freely anywhere in the EU except the northern part of their country????

[Alexandros Lordos]

Insan,

what our "little quarrel" has taught me is that we should be careful in our conversations with members of our own community, because "the other community" is also listening ...

This is especially true of the public statements of our political leaders, who say what they say for internal consumption, without concern about how it will be received from the other side.

You can tell me from your point of view which GC leaders' statements you have found insulting, but from my point of view I have personally been hurt by many of Talat's statements this year, where he presents a hard-line face towards GC concerns, so that he gets more votes from the traditional "status-quo" voters - but without concern about how these statements hurt the relationships between the two communities.

You can give me your own examples as to which statements of GCs have been insulting to you.

Concerning education, I agree with you that much needs to be done in both sides. My proposal for resolving the legal status issue, was partly meant to help provide us with a common linguistic framework so that we can begin to talk about what has been happening between us.

GCs especially need to be educated in the rights of the TCs as a community, but especially they need to learn to respect the TCs as individuals, who are not "just Turks" or "lazy, uneducated people" or whatever other stereotypes they have developed over the years.

TCs need to be educated to respect the fundamental principles of democracy and the free market, and only demand derogations from these principles where it is absolutely necessary. But they also need to get over their personal stereotypes of GCs, that "GCs are out to get us", or that they are "blood-thirsty arrogant nationalists".

So Yes, Education is the number one concern: On the one hand education about the political system we will be co-creating, on the other hand education about the people we will be living with. And this education should start before the agreement, ideally it should start as soon as negotiations start.

[Alexandros Lordos]

as i said it is fine to have this for a temporary transition period. but permanently with a suggestion of a referendum? I mean if the EU would ever ot be come a federation then GCs could live freely anywhere in the EU except the northern part of their country????

Magiktkrill,

the whole system of a bizonal-bicommunal Federation is odd and irregular, necessitating such restrictions and also various others.

You can't really take parts of this delicately balanced system and make them temporary, because then the whole system unravels leading to instability and perhaps violence.

That is why I propose a Constitutional Assembly where all these issues can be re-examined with a cool head, and in the light of experience.