Cyprus-Forum.com

[insan]

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...

Jimmy I think in a situation like this the budget should be checked and balanced by presidential council before the opposing 25 senators bring the issue to supreme court. What do you think?

[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?

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.

Wait...
Piratis is against any form of discrimination based on race. That's what he says. So, it wouldn't make much sense for him to argue what you're saying; allocation by citizenship makes more sense, I think (because the CSs would then use their share of the budget for the benefit of their citizens... right? That's my rationale...).
Maybe we should wait for him to clarify his position.

[Saint Jimmy]

Jimmy I think in a situation like this the budget should be checked and balanced by presidential council before the opposing 25 senators bring the issue to supreme court. What do you think?

Ummm... the Senate was supposed to be 48 senators in total... so the opposing senators would only be 23.

[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.

Wait...
Piratis is against any form of discrimination based on race. That's what he says. So, it wouldn't make much sense for him to argue what you're saying; allocation by citizenship makes more sense, I think (because the CSs would then use their share of the budget for the benefit of their citizens... right? That's my rationale...).
Maybe we should wait for him to clarify his position.

That's right.

[insan]

Jimmy I think in a situation like this the budget should be checked and balanced by presidential council before the opposing 25 senators bring the issue to supreme court. What do you think?

Ummm... the Senate was supposed to be 48 senators in total... so the opposing senators would only be 23.

Ok. Sorry 23 senators. And don't forget that 20 of these Senators are either TC or GC.

[Saint Jimmy]

Ok. Sorry 23 senators. And don't forget that 20 of these Senators are either TC or GC.

OK, so 23 senators, whether TC or GC, would be a minority against the 25 who voted for the budget. So why would they take it to the Supreme Court? And how can they? If the Constitution states that only a simple majority is needed, then they don't have a case to take to the Court.

[insan]

Ok. Sorry 23 senators. And don't forget that 20 of these Senators are either TC or GC.

OK, so 23 senators, whether TC or GC, would be a minority against the 25 who voted for the budget. So why would they take it to the Supreme Court? And how can they? If the Constitution states that only a simple majority is needed, then they don't have a case to take to the Court.

Would the opposing parties and their supporters digest a situation like this? Therefore, I think what Annan 5 proposed would create a more balanced, fairer and democratic situation than this.

Simple majority of the senate including at least 6 senators of either community and checks&balance of presidential council would be fairer and more democratic, imo.

At least the budget would have the chance to be amended to get the aproval of simple majority of each groups of Senators respectively. At least 13 GC senators + 13 TC senators in favour.

[Saint Jimmy]

24+6 and checks&balance of presidential council would be fairer and more democratic, imo.

At least the budget would have the chance to be amended to get the aproval of simple majority of each senate repectively. At least 13 GC senator + 13 TC senator in favour.

But that's effective veto power on the budget... The point was to remove the veto element, and peg the budget allocation to the numerical percentage of the communities (=citizens of each component state), unless both communities' senators concur for an amendment to the budget.
So, I guess this changes my position the budget should be fixed by population ratio (e.g., 18-82%, if that's what the census shows), and any changes should be decided upon by senators of each constituent state separately (two separate majorities for amendments in the budget).

So much for GCs not knowing what they want

[insan]

I made some corrections on my last post jimmy. Please reevaluate it and tell me your opinion.

[Saint Jimmy]

Simple majority of the senate including at least 6 senators of either community and checks&balance of presidential council would be fairer and more democratic, imo.

At least the budget would have the chance to be amended to get the aproval of simple majority of each groups of Senators respectively. At least 13 GC senators + 13 TC senators in favour.

Are we in agreement on the principle of the budget? That it should be fixed on the basis of population percentage, subject to later change by means of agreement between the two communities?