Cyprus-Forum.com

[insan]

TCs want to have the right to effectively participate on every decision related with their group interests(communal) in particular and common interests of Cypriots in general; according to Federal constitution and laws of Federal Republic of Cyprus.


This is how I understand the "political equality" of two communities. What is your understanding of "political equality". Please state it briefly.

[insan]

Any ideas? I really wonder everyone's point of view regarding "political equality" of two communities.

[turkcyp]

deleted by the author...

[insan]

you did not need to shout this with bold and big fonts insan...

We can read small letters as well....

hehehehe

turkcyp, what's your point of view about "political equality" of two communities. Briefly please.

[Saint Jimmy]

That sounds like a fair definition to me Insan. However, the terms 'participate' and 'matters that affect TCs as a community' need to be elaborated upon.
1) What does 'participate' mean? Various forum members have suggested at times, 'participating' isn't necessarily on a 50-50% basis, neither necessarily by means of blocking power (veto). What is your position regarding these suggestions?
2) Should 'matters that affect the TC community's interests' be clearly pre-defined, so as to avoid any future mis-interpretation or mis-representation by either side?
3) Should there be any 'participation' provision (in terms of 'weight' of say in decision-making) about matters that affect both communities, but inevitably affect the GC community more (quite an elusive concept, this one ), because of population differences (such as the budget issue)?

Otherwise, I agree with your definition.

[turkcyp]

deleted by the author...

[insan]

That sounds like a fair definition to me Insan. However, the terms 'participate' and 'matters that affect TCs as a community' need to be elaborated upon.

Ok, jimmy. I'm talking about "political equality" related with legislative matters. TC participation on legislative and judicial bodies according to Federal Constitution and federal laws of FRoC.

Decisions that can affect TCs as a community; directly or indirectly, can be related with any matters. This depends upon the provisions of the bill that will be brought to the agenda of the Senate and the relevant provisions of Federal Constitution and Federal laws.

1) What does 'participate' mean? Various forum members have suggested at times, 'participating' isn't necessarily on a 50-50% basis, neither necessarily by means of blocking power (veto). What is your position regarding these suggestions?

Yes. Participation does not necessarily needs to based upon 50-50%. It can be based upon population ratio of two communities with seperate majority rule i.e "double majority rule".

2) Should 'matters that affect the TC community's interests' be clearly pre-defined, so as to avoid any future mis-interpretation or mis-representation by either side?

I don't think either communitie's interests can be clearly pre-defined in constitution. However if someone thinks it is posssible to pre-define TC community's interests, then GC community's interests too, should be pre-defined in the constitution with the same way.

3) Should there be any 'participation' provision (in terms of 'weight' of say in decision-making) about matters that affect both communities, but inevitably affect the GC community more (quite an elusive concept, this one ), because of population differences (such as the budget issue)?

A mutually agreed compromise is needed in this case, imo; according to the provisions of Federal Constitution and federal laws. I think in a case like this, if both sides senators and checks and balances cannot succeed to compromise on a common ground. Most probably the supreme court would judge the issue fairly. Both sides should respect the decision of supreme court but if not satisfied should be free to apply to international courts.


What's your opinions, jimmy. I'm looking forward to hear.

[Saint Jimmy]

Turkcyp,
acceptable. On these terms, Insan's definition is accepted as valid. 50-50% representation is not an absolute prerequisite on ALL decision-making; clear distinction between issues that affect both communities and those that don't is needed.

On a side note, I fail to see why the budget should be decided on on a 50-50% basis - I assume this means separate senate majorities (does it?) - (that is, the budget allocation). After all, the budget funds are contributed to by individual tax-payers, right? Doesn't this mean that the communal budgets should be allocated to CSs in proportion to their respective tax-paying populations? Please take it easy with the economic terms, I am rather simple on economics.

[Saint Jimmy]

1) 'Separate majority rule', isn't that an effective veto? If you can concede that this is not absolute (i.e., that it needn't necessarily be applied on EVERYTHING), then we are in agreement, as far as the basic definition goes.

2)

I don't think either communitie's interests can be clearly pre-defined in constitution. However if someone thinks it is posssible to pre-define TC community's interests, then GC community's interests too, should be pre-defined in the constitution with the same way.

You are right, either community's interests will probably be a drag to define. Turkcyp's suggestion makes a lot more sense - defining common interests and leaving everything else implied as being communal.

3) Agreed. The point of this question was to see whether you can accept the principle that on matters concerning quantitative allocations, this should be done proportionately to CS population.

[garbitsch]

Good view insan. I agree with you. TC do not want to be equal in each and every aspect with GCs. The Annan plan didnt entitle this either. What we want is to have our own federal state, in which we can regulate the matters related to T.C. by ourselves. Yet, we still need some control to outvote a GC decision over an issue that is related to the FR of Cyprus in general.