Cyprus-Forum.com

[insan]

In a situation like above mentioned. There's an extra-ordinary opposition of either side. The presidential council will take this situation into consideration, examine the bill, prepare some amendment suggestions and finally will send the bill back to Senate for reconsideration in order to satisfy at least simple majority of the Senators of each community. How does it sound to you? Fair? Deadlock? Casus belli?

[insan]

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?

It should be fixed on the basis of population percentage. Yes . We agreed. But I couldn't quite understand the remaining part "subject to later change by means of agreement between the two communities."

[insan]

Ok jimmy, let me continue..


The budget was vetoed by presidential council because of extra-ordinary opposition of either side and sent back to Senate with some amendment suggestions for reconsideration in order to satisfy at least 9 Senators of the opposing side.

Senate reconsidered the budget by taking into consideration the suggestions of presidential council and voted the amended version of budget one more time.

Surprise!

More than simple majority of Senators of each community voted in favour of the budget.

HAPPY END

[insan]

And I'm sure for most of the bills related with daily matters would be voted in favour by simple majority of the Senators of each community.

[insan]

Conclusion:

The political structure that Annan Plan envisages is fair and democratic for both communities at Federal state level but it is not adequate at constituent level. Exactly the same political structure should be eastablished at constitutient state level particularly in TCCS in order to provide "political equality" for permemnant GC residents of TCCS which would constitute no more than %33 of TCCS, per Annan Plan.

[Saint Jimmy]

Oops! Sorry about that, Insan, I was off to a party, I guess I should have pm'd you... Won't happen again!

in order to satisfy at least 9 Senators of the opposing side.

Hmmm... we agree on everything else, but why do you insist on keeping the 'minority rule' alive? I mean, the basis of any democratic system is (well, not 'is'; rather, 'should be') 'the majority decides'. In effect, I would say that a majority vote is necessary from both CS senators (as in, at least 13 GC senators and at least 13 TC senators), for a bill to deviate from the constitution (which, as we agreed, would provide for a proportional allocation of the budget, with exemptions made only when both simple majorities exist).
This way, I think, the difference lies in that the good will of the two parties will be tested in matters that concern deviations from the constitution, not in applying the constitution itself! I hope you get what I mean...

[insan]

Hmmm... we agree on everything else, but why do you insist on keeping the 'minority rule' alive? I mean, the basis of any democratic system is (well, not 'is'; rather, 'should be') 'the majority decides'. In effect, I would say that a majority vote is necessary from both CS senators (as in, at least 13 GC senators and at least 13 TC senators), for a bill to deviate from the constitution (which, as we agreed, would provide for a proportional allocation of the budget, with exemptions made only when both simple majorities exist).

Jimmy, it's not "minority rule". Annan Plan states that, on some matters simple majority of Senate including at least 6 Senators of either side is necessary to pass a bill in Senate. This is the minimum number of Senators required to pass a bill in Senate.

However, let's say the budget voted 15 GC senators and 7 TC senators against with 3 rationales:

1- The budget violates the employment related law.
2- The personal tax provisions of budget is unjust
3- Administrative provisions of budget needs improvement.


As it is seen, although the budget has been voted in favour by the legally required number of Senators; there's a strong opposition to the budget(actually just 3 provisions of budget) by 22 senators.

That's why presidential council should take this situation into consideration. If presidential council convict that the claims of opposing Senators are justifiable, they will veto the budget and send it back to Senate with some amendment suggestions for reconsideration. And I believe this time the Senators will take into consideration the suggestions of presidential council and make the necessary amendment on the relevant provisions of the budget before revoting it.


See... In the end more Senators have been satisfied about the budget. Otherwise, it was obvious that the opposing 15 GC and 7 TC senators would apply to the supreme court with a file containing their claims. Even they might organize a protest demonstartion. Though these are also the components of the democratic process but can't we resolve the problem more peacefuly before causing the tensions; particularly among the people of either community.

This way, I think, the difference lies in that the good will of the two parties will be tested in matters that concern deviations from the constitution, not in applying the constitution itself! I hope you get what I mean...

In my opinion, the essentials of issue lies in the political structure and its methods(abilities) of stimulating Senators to work hard and more seriously on any bill and establish long-term relationships with larger alliance partners.

[insan]

What do you think about my final conclusion, jimmy?

[BigDutch]

makes good sound logic to me Insan - thumbs up

[insan]

makes good sound logic to me Insan - thumbs up

Thanks BigDutch Though I'm surprised. I hope you are serious.