Cyprus-Forum.com

[Kifeas]

In your worst case scenario, vote of 7 TC senators are required to pass a bill; even if the rest of the TC senators(11) vote against the bill. So what kind of political equality of two communities is this? This is political equality of two constituent states. We are talking about political equality of two communities.

It was obvious from the beginning of this particular discussion here, that we were not talking about political equality between communities but political equality between constituent states.
It was clear what I was talking above, right from the beginning, and you agreed to carry on the conversation on this basis.

Read what I said earlier and then read what you answered to me below.

Similar provisions like those of Annan plan for quarantined majority. Permanent derogations as to the percentage of GCs that will be allowed, at any given time, to hail from the GC constituent state and obtain TCCS internal citizenship. What else do you want? I am sure GCs will understand and accommodate such provisions in exchange of TC political equality on the basis of Constituent states instead of ethnicity.

This is the first time I hear these words from you, re Kifea. Why do you shout to me, then.

Ok. agreed.

Then you here you are, after I wasted my time explaining about it, you come back and say that you do not agree, because we should only talking about political equality of the two communities.

Insan, when I said you are taking for a ride, it was indeed the case.
Otherwise we are not talking the same language here. Only one of the two must be true.

[insan]

Sorry Kifeas, I haven't well awared how your suggestion would have affected the political equality of TC community. Political equality of constituent states does not seem secure for political equality of TC community. Nevertheless, this is my conviction. There are other TCs on this forum. If majority of TCs accept such a political equality; there's no problem for me. I wouldn't try to dissuade them not to accept it.

[Kifeas]

Sorry Kifeas, I haven't well awared how your suggestion would have affected the political equality of TC community. Political equality of constituent states does not seem secure for political equality of TC community.

Then Insan, explain to me please why and how in principle, it affects the power sharing rights of the TCs? I do not understand what your fears or any other TC's are? I just do no understand it! I do not claim to be the most intelligent person on earth, but I do think I am the stupidest either, not to be able to understand it.

The GC community will agree to give substantially more territory to the TCCS, it will also agree to give substantially more power, up to 50%, it will also agree to a substantial number of mainland Turkish settlers to remain with full political rights, an essentially foreign element to Cyprus, and yet you expect it not to feel insecure about it. You expect the GCs to agree on all those above and also feel comfortable about it as it is absolutely normal and logical.

On the other hand, you feel uncomfortable if the GCs ask for a small percentage, less than the excessive one that you (TCs) gain in the federal level and on territtory, although you know that this is essential for GCs in order to counterbalance, to some extent, the concessions that they make to you in the Fed government, and also to counterbalance the very big number of settlers that will dominate the TC community’s political will.

I am sad to realise it but you want everything to be in your favour.
I am afraid Insan that you do not really want a solution!

[Kifeas]

In your worst case scenario, vote of 7 TC senators are required to pass a bill; even if the rest of the TC senators(11) vote against the bill.

The seven (7) TC senators that will come out of the eighteen (18 ) will amount to about 40% of the TC community’s voting power. This is just about the percentage that we can truly trust from among the TC community, (actually I should say the TC and the Anatolian Turkish community.) The remaining 60% will be the percentage of voters from the TC nationalists and the Turkish settlers. We cannot make a Federation that will be essentially controlled by those people. The TC Cypriot leftists will be able to play a very crucial role in the TC political affairs, because they will have the support of GCs that will be the voters of the TCCS.

[insan]

Then Insan, explain to me please why and how in principle, it affects the power sharing rights of the TCs? I do not understand what your fears or any other TC are? I just do no understand it! I do not claim to be the most intelligent person on earth, but I do thing I am the stupidest either, not to understand it.

First of all, political equality of two constituent states is not political equality of two communities. It is obvious that political equality of two constituent states is open to abuse when taken into consideration the nature of politics. Moreover, it can weaken the political power of TC community more, in the long run.

The GC community will agree to give more substantially more territory to the TCCS,

%29 was chosen by TCs because of reducing the number of TCs that will be obliged to relocate.

it will also agrees to give substantially more power, up to 50%

Giving %50 of the power to TC constituent does not change the core of the problem. In reality TCs will never have an effective legislative power.

it will also agree to a substantial number of mainland Turkish settlers to remain with full political rights

When did GC leadership agree to this? Mainland Turkish settlers didn't come as a whole. They came to North in various intervals. Those who came 20-30 years ago were either assimilated by TCs because they were a small minority when they came or died from natural diseases as a natural consequence of life. Their Cyprus born children have no difference than any Cypriot. What's the difference between a leftist settler, leftist TC and leftist GC? What's the difference between a fascist GC, fascist TC and fascist settler? In my opinion, the only problem with the settlers is the GC properties they have ocuupied/invested in last 30/20 years.

an essentially foreign element to Cyprus, and yet you expect it not to feel insecure about it. You expect the GCs to agree on all these and also feel comfortable about it as it is absolutely normal and logical.

I well understand your feelings concerning some issues but they are not actually how you see it. The language barrier between GCs and TCs/Settlers is the biggest obstacle infront of us to comprehend and understand the facts about each other. I'm sure if there has been no language barrier between two communities; we could overcome our differences, fears, stereotypes etc easily and rapidly.

On the other hand, you feel uncomfortable if the GCs ask for a small percentage, less than the excessive one that you (TCs) gain in the federal level, although you know that this is essential for GCs in order to counterbalance to some extent the concessions that they make to you in the Fed government, and also to counterbalance the bigger number of settlers that will dominate the TC community’s political will.

We have different perspectives on settlers issue that's why our arguments concerning this issue clash.

I am sad to realise it but you want everything to be in your favour.
I am afraid Insan that you do not really want a solution!

Actually I don't want everything to be in my favour. I'm asking the most feasible and viable by taking into consideration the circumstances and elements exist. You convicted that I don't want a solution. Why don't you ask other TCs, what their opinions are about your suggestion? The acceptance of your suggestion does not depends on me. As I said if amjority of TCs accept your suggestion, there's no problem for me.

[Bananiot]

In essence, by accepting the principle of bizonal, bicommunal federation, back in 1977 and 1979, we accepted the concept of political equality of the two communities. This political equality of the two communities will, as I see it, pass on to the the two constituent states after the solution. Thus, the two are inseparable and if we do not want to abide by the agreements of 1977 and 1979 we will do our utmost to prevent a solution that will incorporate political equality of the constituent states. Many people that voted for Papadopoulos and not just the New Horizons party, did so because they saw in Papadopoulos the man who could resist the agreed type of solution. These people write articles and speak day and night in the tv and radio shows. For them political equality of the communities now and the constituent states later is a treason. When did Papadopoulos, Prodromou, Angelides, Pittokopitis, Kleanthous, Sampson etc ever talk and reiterated their commitment to political equality stemming directly from the high level agreements?

[Kifeas]

First of all, political equality of two constituent states is not political equality of two communities. It is obvious that political equality of two constituent states is open to abuse when taken into consideration the nature of politics.

All Federations in the world are based on a form of political equality or power sharing between states, (USA, Belgium, Switzerland, etc,)
Why political equality between Constituent states is open to abuse and not the opposite?
Just give some logical examples of possible abuse?
If you do that, then I will give you twice as many examples of possible abuse on political equality between communities.

%29 was chosen by TCs because of reducing the number of TCs that will be obliged to relocate.

No Insan, the GCs agreed on this percentage long time ago on the assumption that most GCs refuges will be able to return back to their villages, or at least every one of them irrespective of village or town of origin, will have the same equal opportunity to return. If let’s say we had agreed to 18% of the territory, that means that zero percent of GCs could be allowed to return. Therefore, any refuge from the area that will be within the TCCS (18%) will not have the same opportunity to return as someone who originates from an area that will be returned to the GCCS.

If the number of GCs returning within TCCS is going to be too big for the TC community then I suggested dropping territory and percentage of returning GCs down to 25%.
a.) 25%-18% = 7% (25% is the amount of territory, 18% is the population of TCs before 1974 and 7% is the result of territory in excess)
b.) 7% divide by 25% = 28% (7% is the result of the above equation, 25% is the amount of territory of the TCCS and 28% is the result of the division of the two, which means the amount of GCs that should be allowed to return as a percentage of the total population of the TCCS.) I am willing to settle in favour of the TC community, down 25% INSTEAD OF 28%.

Giving %50 of the power to TC constituent does not change the core of the problem. In reality TCs will never have an effective legislative power.

WHY? How do you come to this conclusion? Can you justify it please?

When did GC leadership agree to this? Mainland Turkish settlers didn't come as a whole. They came to North in various intervals. Those who came 20-30 years ago were either assimilated by TCs because they were a small minority when they came or died from natural diseases as a natural consequence of life. Their Cyprus born children have no difference than any Cypriot.

We didn’t agree to anything yet!
Annan plan with its various provisions would have allowed up to 70 - 80,000 settlers to remain and obtain Cypriot citizenship. The total indigenous TC population is only about 90-95,000. What we are asking is that this number of settlers is reduced down to perhaps 50-55,000 thousands. If this is agreed, the total population of the TC community will be around 150,000. This will allow an additional number of about 50,000 GCs to return within the TCCS. The GC population is currently about 670,000. If 50,000 of them return and live within the TCCS, this number will be reduced to 620,000 thousands. If you add all the populations together, (620 +50 +150), then we have 820,000 thousands. The TCCS will have 200,000 which is equivalent to 24.4% of the total population and will live in the 25% of the territory of Cyprus. It is the perfect balance.

What's the difference between a leftist settler, leftist TC and leftist GC? What's the difference between a fascist GC, fascist TC and fascist settler? In my opinion, the only problem with the settlers is the GC properties they have ocuupied/invested in last 30/20 years.

There is a huge difference. Most of them are poorly educated. These people can be much more easily influenced or manipulated by the Turkish deep-state’s political adventurism than any indigenous TC. No, we cannot trust such an overwhelmingly huge amount of our own political determination and future in the hands a handful of Turkish Anatolian settlers. It is also a matter of historical consciousness and self-respect for our historical presence in this country for over 3 millenniums. We simply cannot swallow it. It will simply amount to capitulation. Try to understand us on this, if you want us to understand your own needs and concerns and if you really want re-unification and not partition from the back door.

I well understand your feelings concerning some issues but they are not actually how you see it. The language barrier between GCs and TCs/Settlers is the biggest obstacle infront of us to comprehend and understand the facts about each other. I'm sure if there has been no language barrier between two communities; we could overcome our differences, fears, stereotypes etc easily and rapidly.

Insan, it is not a matter of language, it is something much more than that. I don’t hate these people. They are also human beings. I am in favour of whatever compensation and any other benefit so that they will not victimised at all. However, GCs are not obliged to subsidise them politically against their own interests. Why should 70-80 thousand of them have the potential to elect one MP in the E.U. parliament, while it will require 167,000 of GCs to elect again this one E.U. MP? Although I accept that GCs have certain obligations towards their TC compatriots, what obligation do GCs have to the settlers in order to be required to subsidise them equally?

Actually I don't want everything to be in my favour. I'm asking the most feasible and viable by taking into consideration the circumstances and elements exist.

What are the circumstances that prohibit such a kind of agreement that I propose?
I have some idea, but I would like to hear your opinion.

You convicted that I don't want a solution.

I said I am afraid you don’t want a solution. I am not convinced 100%

Why don't you ask other TCs, what their opinions are about your suggestion? The acceptance of your suggestion does not depends on me. As I said if amjority of TCs accept your suggestion, there's no problem for me.

Well, they are free in this forum to raise their view. I am sure most of them read our discussion. They are welcome!

[Kifeas]

Bananidot,

If you think that you are going to make a bi-communal, bi-zonal federation with the Turkish Cypriots, YOU ARE MISTAKEN!
You are going to make a bi-communal, bi-zonal federation with Turkey and the settlers. BURRY IT DEEPLY IN YOUR MIND!
If you think that you are giving political equality to the Turkish Cypriots, again YOU ARE MISTAKEN!
You are going to give political equality TO THE SETTLERS AND TO TURKEY!

If this Annal formula of bi-communal, bi-zonal federation prevails, I am going to emigrate from Cyprus the next morning. SOON, IN A COUPLE OF YEARS YOU WILL FOLLOW ME.

AND PLEASE STOP PLAYING THE CLEVER HERE!

[turkcyp]

deleted by the author...

[Kifeas]

Community eqaulity exosted in 1960 constituion much much better than Annan Plan.

This 1960 constitution was a pure anachronism without any worldwide precedent. No country, No political theory, no natural or positive legal theory, No democratic principle whatsoever, assume division of people in a country on the basis of ethnicity. It is a purely chauvinistic approach. But if you like 1960 constitution so much, I am more happy with it than with the Anal plan. However, without any bi-zonal, bi-communal federation. Simply a unitary state as it was meant to be in 1960. With all human rights of people to be respected in full. Property, freedom of settlement etc.

In A. Plan every communal equality is diluted, but in return TCs were getting a temporary bizonality.

Why temporary bi-zonality? My formula, if you have read it carefully, suggests permanent bi-zonality. With ¾ (75%) of guaranteed TC majority in a 25% territory for the TCCS.

Bi-zonality is not a number one priortity for TCs but communal equality is. So give us what we need not what we do not want. You are giving us supposedly bizonality and in return taking from us communal equality.

Then why you accuse GCs for been Chauvinists when they say that all Turkish settlers must leave. Your approach is equally chauvinistic. Today Talat (what a chauvinist leader,) said in Sabah that he doesn’t want to see any of his children getting married with a Greek Cypriot. Are you up to this logic as well?

You think any TC would accepts such a solution. I say you are dreaming.

Then, with all the love and respect that I have for your community, we will probably have no solution.

The only way bizonality is desireuable for TCs is it is accopmanied iwth communal equality. If not then what is the point for having bizonality. that is why Annan Plan 1 and 3 would have been never accepted by TC, because there was no ethnic seperation to assure communal equality.

That’s also why Anal- plan 5 was not accepted by GCs.

p.s. A question. Is only the existence of settlers bother you? or are you not willing to give commuanl equality to TCs as well?

Yes, primarily due to the existence of settlers, but also because it is an anachronistic illogical idea of the past, incompatible with any European princible. Because I want to live in a country which will be founded on modern priciples, and to to be proud to be her Citizen.