Cyprus-Forum.com

[insan]

No, they can ask for more than 18%, but they can not demand it in this case. More than 18% will not be their right, and they will not be able to veto a budget that gives them no less than 18%. Doesn't sound fair to you?

"No more than the population proportion of each constituent state" would be the best, imo.

Huh?
Guys, what is your disagreement here?
Piratis is saying that there should be a percentage floor on the budget allocation that can be distributed (proportional to the population), leaving the option for a larger percentage allocation for the TC CS (but not lower), and Insan says proportionally according to population? What is the discussion then?

Which one is more rational, jimmy? Piratis says that if you want more than %18, it's up to GC community to approve it or not. And I said there's no need for GC senators to decide it. In federal constitution, it can be defined as "Federal budget should be allocated according to population proportion of each constituent state."

[Saint Jimmy]

Which one is more rational, jimmy? Piratis says that if you want more than %18, it's up to GC community to approve it or not. And I said there's no need for GC senators to decide it. In federal constitution, it can be defined as "Federal budget should be allocated according to population proportion of each constituent state."

Implying, of course, that the GC community would never decide a higher percentage, under any circumstance, for the TC CS (sorry, didn't get the irony). But I think this implication is wrong and doesn't reflect the would-be reality. If the TC CS had valid and reasonable arguments in asking for a higher percentage of the budget, I am more than sure that enough GC senators would vote for it - this goes, of course, hand-in-hand with the electoral system that someone (can't remember who, sorry) proposed a while back: that common tickets are formed, not separate ones, so that politicians with contradictory or unacceptable agendas can't get their hands on power.

[insan]

If the TC CS had valid and reasonable arguments in asking for a higher percentage of the budget, I am more than sure that enough GC senators would vote for it

And if the GCCS had valid and reasonable arguments in asking for a higher percentage of the budget, I am more than sure that enough TC senators would vote for it.

Do we need "majority rule" here or "political equality" is adequate?

[Saint Jimmy]

And if the GCCS had valid and reasonable arguments in asking for a higher percentage of the budget, I am more than sure that enough TC senators would vote for it.

OK, but isn't that what Piratis was saying? The budget to be allocated based on the demands of each community, following agreement thereof, but safeguarding the 18% for the TC CS as a percentage floor, no matter what? It's one thing to demand political safeguards against political domination (where GCs would impose decisions that affect TCs adversely), and quite another to demand disproportional allocation of the budget without the consent of the majority (of tax-payers).
What I don't understand is, how do you relate the 'domination' concerns to the budget allocation? Or do you believe that, no matter what the circumstances, the TC CS should have the option of blocking the budget, if it disagrees with the proportions set forth (especially when the minimum of 18% would be safeguarded, anyway)? Could this not lead to dead-locks?

Do we need "majority rule" here or "political equality" is adequate?

I remain reluctant to get into this discussion, for two reasons:
a) neither term is clear-cut, at least to me, and I feel there are perceptual issues in interpreting them - subjectivity would hinder such a discussion, imo.
b) like many other aspects of the Cyprus problem (the right of refugees to return, for instance), this one, too, cannot be the outcome of an 'either-or' choice. A hybrid solution must be sought, in which, at times the 'majority rule' will be at work, and, at others, the 'political equality' doctrine must be employed. Choosing between the two is a recipe for one 'yes' vote and one 'no' vote - much like the A-Plan (which largely employed the principle of 'political equality', while largely ignoring (do you think it did?) the 'majority rule' concept).

[insan]

Jimmy, what Piratis is saying; "No less than %18 of the budget should be allowed for TCs."

First of all who can guarantee that population percentage of TCCS will be %18 or will stay at any percentage either the right to permenant residence is restricted or not?

Second, Piratis says that if TCCS demands more than %18 and it is not approved by simple majority of GC senators; TCs shouldn't have the right to veto the decision of simple majority of GC senators because it would be against the will of majority. Shortly and simply he means that TCCS should be allowed at least %18 of the budget. However if TCCS demands more its up to the approval of simple majority of GC senators. If simple majority of GC senators don't approve demand of TCCS; TC senators shouldn't have the right to veto the decision of simple majority of GC senators. TC senators should either agree with them or apply to the supreme court.

Piratis, correct me if I'm wrong.

[Saint Jimmy]

It is open ended. TCs still can demand more than %18.

No, they can ask for more than 18%, but they can not demand it in this case. More than 18% will not be their right, and they will not be able to veto a budget that gives them no less than 18%. Doesn't sound fair to you?

His response here led me to believe that he meant that TCs could ask for a different allocation of the budget, other than the 18-82 percentage, but that would be subject to the consent of the GC CS. In any case, even if the GC CS refused the different percentage allocation, the budget allocation can in no way be below the 18% floor.

First of all who can guarantee that population percentage of TCCS will be %18 or will stay at any percentage either the right to permenant residence is restricted or not?

Well, no one can. But the constitution can guarantee that the standard ratio cannot allow for less than the population proportion, whatever that might be - 18%, 11%, or 49%. This is where my questions were aiming at. Do you feel that the TC community is entitled to a greater share of its numerical population proportion, regarding the budget allocation? If that minimum allocation is guaranteed (safeguarded by the constitution), then anything over and above that can be discussed and agreed or disagreed between the communities. What is fair, I think, is to reverse what (I think) you are proposing: instead of the numerical minority being entitled to blocking the whole budget if it doesn't get what it considers fair for itself, we ensure that it gets its fair share of the budget (equal or over its numerical proportion, the latter subject to majority vote in the Senate), and any changes to that are to be agreed upon by the communities.
Does this go deeper? I think 'political equality' and 'majority rule' should not be aims in themselves. Where you consider 'political equality' as being vital to the safeguard of your communal character, I'm all for it. But the budget (mainly comprised by tax-payers' money) should basically be allocated based on population ratios. If reasons exist for a different arrangement, they should be examined at the time - not beforehand, because the basic principle (imo) is that the budget should be allocated proportionately!

Second, Piratis says that if TCCS demands more than %18 and it is not approved by simple majority of GC senators; TCs shouldn't have the right to veto the decision of simple majority of GC senators because it would be against the will of majority. Piratis, correct me if I'm wrong.

I don't agree with this mechanism, either (especially with the part that says 'approved by simple majority of GC senators'). In my view, approval should be subject to simple majority (or whatever kind of majority is required) by both communities' senators jointly, not GC senators alone. That would mean, in a Senate of 24 each, operating on simple majority, 25 votes (of any numerical combination) would pass the budget.

[insan]

Jimmy, I think you are confusing the population of TC community in TCCS and total population of TCCS which would be restricted with %33 or unrestricted.

[insan]

I don't agree with this mechanism, either (especially with the part that says 'approved by simple majority of GC senators'). In my view, approval should be subject to simple majority (or whatever kind of majority is required) by both communities' senators jointly, not GC senators alone. That would mean, in a Senate of 24 each, operating on simple majority, 25 votes (of any numerical combination) would pass the budget.

So according to your judgement, for instance 21 GC senators + 4 TC senators in favour or 21 TC senators + 4 GC senators in favour would be adequate and democratic to pass the budget.

[Saint Jimmy]

Jimmy, I think you are confusing the population of TC community in TCCS and total population of TCCS which would be restricted with %33 or unrestricted.

Where does that come in?
If the population with the citizenship of the TC CS is X% of the total population, then the budget floor for the TC CS is X%.

What do you mean?
_________________________________________________________

EDIT:

So according to your judgement, for instance 21 GC senators + 4 TC senators in favour or 21 TC senators + 4 GC senators in favour would be adequate and democratic to pass the budget.

Yes, that's what I meant...

[insan]

Jimmy, I think you are confusing the population of TC community in TCCS and total population of TCCS which would be restricted with %33 or unrestricted.

Where does that come in?
If the population with the citizenship of the TC CS is X% of the total population, then the budget floor for the TC CS is X%.

What do you mean?

That's what I'm saying, too. Piratis says that budget should be allocated population of TC community not the CSs. And of course you based your arguments upon Piratis' arguments.