Nikitas wrote:Deniz and semantics:
"I am merely pointing out that the word itself is like a red rag. TCs will see it as the majoriy - GCs - RULE over the TCs. "
If the word was changed to majority government would that be more palatable? Is this an objections that comes from some other root and not connected to the system, constitution or other factor but a historic/cultural thing? We were all "ruled" by the British at some point and the TCs were not particularly bothered.
At some point, no matter what kind of solution is chosen, there will be majority rule-government-administration call it what you will, for the simple reason that there is no other way to do it. When a boring matter like a transport bill is debated it will be approved or rejected by majority vote. So where exactly is the problem in that?
Even if we manage to invent a unique system that does not have majority "rule", as members of the EU, following the Lisbon treaty, we will be subject to EU majority "rule" on things that touch all of us. Is it better then becaue the majority does not contain the G word? Is majority "rule" more acceptable when it derives from a mix of foreigners minus the Greeks?
You still don't get it do you, let me try and explain. The majority maybe the GCs and they may have more members in th ruling house, the problem is when can the TCs say no? how will they stop a bill that will effect the TC community more negatively than the GCs community. A good example of this is your current veto right in the EU, what TCs is there be proportional representation but n matter where we see a danger to the TCs we should be able say no.