Cyprus-Forum.com

[insan]

- Recognition of 20th of July 1974 as the anniversary of "bloody Turkish invasion"?

- Recognition of April 1st 1955 as the anniversary of "independence struggle of EOKA heroes."

- Recognition of "Armenian Genocide."

- Recognition of "Pontian Genocide."

- Recognition of "Asia Minor Greek Genocide."

- Condemnation of TMT as "bloody murderers."

- Management of Federal Economy.

- Determination and allocation of Federal budget.

- Economic, social, cultural and military relations with foreign countries.

- Security policy.


Add all other matters that you wish majority to decide it.


Would you like majority rule concerning these issues?

[Piratis]

Basically we could work out a formula that could exclude from the "majority rule" most of what you said. As I said many times what I oppose is TCs having veto power on everything. However I am perfectly fine with TCs having this power on any issues related with language, religion and culture, or other sensitive issue that we could agree in advance. (which could include almost everything from your list)

From the list that you gave, I wouldn't care for majority rule in anything but "Determination and allocation of budget.". Even in that case I could accept to have it defined that no less than 18% of the budget should go for TCs. However giving you unlimited blocking power means that there is nothing to stop you from demanding 30% or 50% of the budget.

[insan]

Basically we could work out a formula that could exclude from the "majority rule" most of what you said.

For example which ones do you want to include/exclude.

From the list that you gave, I wouldn't care for majority rule in anything but "Determination and allocation of budget.". Even in that case I could accept to have it defined that no less than 18% of the budget should go for TCs. However giving you unlimited blocking power means that there is nothing to stop you from demanding 30% or 50% of the budget.

And there's nothing to stop you from demanding %90 or %95 of the budget. In a case like this, there should be nothing to stop us vetoing it. Even I could accept to have it defined in Federal Constitution that allocation of the budget should be based upon population proportion of each constituent state, not each community.

[insan]

However I am perfectly fine with TCs having this power on any issues related with language, religion and culture, or other sensitive issue that we could agree in advance. (which could include almost everything from your list)

My list can be summarized as "Everything against the economical, security, social, psychological, health care, cultural, political, development, educational, religious, historical interests and sensitivities of TCs"

Shortly everything. everything you have concerns about, TCs have also concerns about. Why do you want to discriminate TCs and exclude from decision making on some matters?

[Piratis]

And there's nothing to stop you from demanding %90 or %95 of the budget.

there is. I already said it: That TCs should get no less than 18%.

[insan]

And there's nothing to stop you from demanding %90 or %95 of the budget.

there is. I already said it: That TCs should get no less than 18%.

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

[Piratis]

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?

[boulio]

they want ta dika mou dika mou kai ta dika sou dika mou.

[insan]

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?

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

[Saint Jimmy]

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?