Cyprus-Forum.com

[Piratis]

Viewpoint, it is not up to TCs to cement partition. You keep saying this, but its a joke. If TCs could legalize "TRNC" they would have done it long time ago.

Time works against you, because there will be a time that Turkey will have to choose between huge financial benefits and stability, and a military base in Cyprus. You better start praying for the army to keep its power until then, maybe wish for another coup in Turkey, otherwise be sure that the Turks in the end will choose their own well being over the illegal demands of the army and a bunch of TCs.

[Viewpoint]

Kifeas

so you do not want do discuss from now a form of agreed partition with the necessary land adjustments?

Whatever way you look at it the status quo will confirm 37% and a negotiated partition will reduce us down to maybe18% (we could get experts to assess the percentage) which Im sure we could agree on, but in my opinion we would have to give up most of the north east of the island and Varosha/Maras region. Kyrenia would definately remain in TC country.

[Viewpoint]

Piratis

Viewpoint, it is not up to TCs to cement partition

If you read my post you will see that its the GCs that will cement partition for good by its current approach to the whole issue, I am personally very happy with their actions and what is now evolving. Well done Papadop, keep it up.

Time works against you, because there will be a time that Turkey will have to choose between huge financial benefits and stability, and a military base in Cyprus. You better start praying for the army to keep its power until then, maybe wish for another coup in Turkey, otherwise be sure that the Turks in the end will choose their own well being over the illegal demands of the army and a bunch of TCs.

Im willing to wait are you????, GCs always complain about Turkeys unpredictability dont bank on certain things on the EU front Turkey always suprises you guys eg 1974, Annan plan and she is now playing your administration real well with the customs union issue. Never under estimate her international clout.

[Kifeas]

Whatever way you look at it the status quo will confirm 37% and a negotiated partition will reduce us down to maybe18% (we could get experts to assess the percentage) which Im sure we could agree on, but in my opinion we would have to give up most of the north east of the island and Varosha/Maras region. Kyrenia would definately remain in TC country.

I do not understand. I know that currently Turkey occupies illegally 37%. You do not need to mention it at all. Do you want to discuss an agreed partion with 18% (I even gave you 19%) as a starding point, or you do not want?

[Viewpoint]

Which ever way you look at it partition issue will gain weight as time goes by, I dont understand what you are trying to do, you keep referring to 19% for me thats acceptable to. Drawing up a map is pointless.

[boulio]

iF im not mistaken piratis a few weeks ago posted a map of the proposed partition on 82-18 %,if he would be kind to repost it please.

[Kifeas]

p.s. The difference between you and me is that even if I know that people like you are majority in Cyprus I still think partition is second best not the first best. On the other hand, you said that if you believe that people like me are majority among TCs you would say that partition is your first best. This actually shows our desire to compromise and our stomach to accept the differences among each other. I have no problem with living with people who does not think like I am but apparently you do. Sad very sad...

My friend,

I began analysing a formula for a federal solution, which you agreed to study and tell me your opinion. At some stage you came up with a posting, which clearly showed to me that you didn’t really think about it with a cool head, that you do not wish to hear about it anymore and that you wish to discuss a solution based on the 1960 agreements.

Why I made the conclusion that you rushed to reject it unthoughtfully and even tried to fabricate it on purpose, in order to convince your self and me that I shouldn’t even dare to suggest it, because it is a terrible one.

Look at my postings below, and how you reacted to them.

*In the Federal Senate, each bill or law will require a separate majority of Senators from each CS, in order to get passed. In other words, at least 13 senators from each CS out of the 24 will be needed.

**Aha. That is how you think, now I see. You do not want separate majorities of TC senators abut separate majorities of state senators, in the TC state bith GCs and TCs combined. So in reality we may have situations where you can pass a law where majority of TCs do not approve.
**Sorry maid. Not acceptable. We do not sell molohiya here, bullez may be but not molohiya.

And further

*In the highly unlike (impossible) scenario that all the GCs of internal TCCS citizenship (25% of population) will form a separate party within the TCCS, the maximum number of Fed parliament senators that they can possibly elect, will not exit the number of six (6) out of the 24 total. Therefore they cannot from a separate majority by themselves because they will still require an additional 7 from the remaining TCCS senators.

**As I have said let’s say that everything worked out the way you have said, and we were able to keep GCs in TC state to a level of 25% legally (which is an impossibility I think), and as you have said they have chose 6 senators of 24 TC state. Then all you basically need is 6 out of 18 TC senators, in other words only 1/3 of TC senators to vote so that something becomes law. As I have said you can pass a bill where majority of TCs object.

First of all you have chosen on purpose to change the additional number of “real” TC senators needed, on top of the unlikely possible to happen, event of having 6 GCs, from 7 to 6, in order to show that only 1/3 instead of 2/5 will be required.

First of all you didn’t take into consideration that all the Greek Cypriot voters of the TCCS will fraternise or associate with existing TC political parties and therefore any possible election of a GC senator will be through a TC political party or platform and it will represent this party’s ideological line. You simply thought that they would all unite under one single newly founded GC party within the TCCS, as if all of them will adhere to the same political ideology and therefore they will manage to elect 6 senators. The number of 6 GC senators was a purely theoretical number, matching as a percentage (25%) the maximum number GCs within the TCCS. All the senators of the TCCS will come out of mixed elections not separate for TCs and separate for GCs, and under their corresponding political partie's platforms and agendas.

You fervently rushed to say that this is not acceptable and that we are trying to give you what you don’t want instead of giving you only what you want, as if there is some divine order obliging everybody to give to the TCs exactly what they want and nothing else.

Then you said that you prefer to discuss a solution on the basis of the 1960 constitution of the RoCy, and that you would like to hear what proposals there are for such a solution. Once I began describing what I believe is the proper way to achieve such a solution, you came back again and said, without making specific suggestions or raising specific practical (real) concerns:

** It seems that we have huge understanding differences between what I mean turning back to 1960 constituional rights, and what you mean by it. There is no way majority of TCs would have accepted some of the laws you have passed in the last 30 years, may be including EU accesion the way you have accesed. So let's cut the crap and concentrate on partition. (because I guess your understanding of turning back to 1960 agreements will not be accepted by TCs, and my guess is our understanding of turning back to 1960 agreements will not be accepted by GCs)

Therefore I began discussing your request for a partition. Well my friend, the way you went through all the above discussion, indeed, made me believe that if the majority of TCs react in your way i.e. to get only what you want and nothing else, irrespective of what others in the same equation may want (in other words, “my way or the high way”,) that truly the best solution is partition.

Now my friend you complain to me because I said that should all TCs have your attitude, partition automatically becames my first priority. Of course it will be, because that’s the way you showed me.

My friend, you have to learn to negotiate on the basis of real interests and not on the basis of “divine” principles. Try to gain the truly essentials and not the schematics (symbolisms.)

I hope you understand what I mean. If not, let me know and explain further.

Now on what basis you want to solve the Cyprus problem?
Partition?
Return to 1960 const. rights and return to RoCy?
Federation?

[turkcyp]

First of all you have chosen on purpose to change the additional number of “real” TC senators needed on top of the unlikely possible to happen event of having 6 GCs, from 7 to 6, in order to show that only 1/3 instead of 2/5 will be required.

I did not change anything to make it look unfair myfriend. All I did was calculate that there are at least 50% needed for approval. %50 percent of 24 is twelve, and 6 GC so there is a need for 6 TCs, What is wrong with that.

Ok. Forget about the above. Let’s go with the seven. 7 TC voting to pass the bill and 11 TCs voting to turn the bill down. 62% vs. 38%. Apparently majority of TCs does not support the bill, but you still have a chance of passing it. Where is the equality in that. You tell me any scenario from above that there can be a bill that passes when majority of TCs approve but majority of GCs does not. That is how I define equality.

First of all you didn’t take into consideration that all the Greek Cypriot voters will fraternise or associate with existing TC political parties and therefore any possible election of a GC senator will be through a TC political party or platform and it will represent this party’s ideological line. You simply thought that they would all unite under one single newly founded GC party within the TCCS, as if all of them will adhere to the same political ideology, and therefore they will manage to elect 6 senators. The number of 6 GC senators was purely theoretical number matching as a percentage (25%) the maximum number GCs within the TCCS. All the senators of the TCCS will come out of mixed elections not separate fro TCs and separate for GCs, and under their corresponding political parties platform and agenda.

You fervently rushed to say that this is not acceptable and that we are trying to give you what you don’t want instead of giving you only what you want, as if there is some divine order everybody to give to the TCs exactly what they want and nothing else.

I do politics not only just hoping for the best but also for expecting the worse as well. Your theoretical number has a very decent chance of happening. Actually it really does not have to happen 6 or 7. All it takes is 1 GC and then you have a chance of passing a bill where a majority of TCs oppose.

And there is no such thing a divine order giving TCs what they want. But if we are trying to find a solution then we should find some which makes us better than 1960 agreements. Isn’t that right. Both GCs and TCs should be better of from 1960 agreements. IF we are not better of from that then what is the point of discussing.

Read my lips. It is not the bizonality that is the a red line for TCs but it is communal equality. Anything short of that is not accepted.

Then you said that you prefer to discuss a solution on the basis of the 1960 constitution of the RoCy, and that you would like to hear what proposals there are for such a solution. Once I began describing what I believe is the proper way to achieve such a solution, you came back again and said, without making specific suggestions or raising specific practical (real) concerns:

My friend after being in this forum more than six months I realize where things are going after short period of time. We could argue over implementation of how we should turn back to 1960 agreements, but the chances that we will agree on that implementation is actually much less than finding a new solution.

Because on that subject differences in opinion is actually wider than you think. This is why I have said in my post, this is actually much harder than partition. And I can safely say that it is harder than finding a new solution.

For us, the only way we will accept to turn back to 1960 agreements is IF AND ONLY IF necessary safeguards are put into that implementation that if the same 1960 agreements fail again in the future, we do not turn back to the same period of 63-74, but rather turn back to after 1974. And for you this is not acceptable. Then the only way it is acceptable to us is to turn back to pre 64 situation, but none of your proposals were not giving us that. By claiming that everything you guys have done since 1964 legal but everything we have done since 1974 illegal means that this is the continuation of current day RoC and if it fails again we are trungnig back to current day RoC not pre 64 republic.


That is why I have given objections to your points one by one, some I have admitted and some I have rejected. And in return you wrote an answer which simply shows the wide difference in opinion, so we have moved to the partition talk.

Therefore I began discussing your request for a partition, but also mentioning that it is not your first priority. Well my friend, the way you went through all the above discussion, indeed made me believe that if the majority of TCs react in your way i.e. to get only what you want and nothing else, irrespective of what others in the same equation may want (in other words, “my way or the high way”,) that truly the best solution is partition.

How is majority of TCs seem non compromising again? In Annan Plan the communal equality was less than we have desired, and also was less than 1960 agreements but we have accepted them didn’t we? And I have voted “yes” for that plan. In that you were able to pass bills with the vote of 1/4 of TC in most cases, and 2/5 of vote of TCs in some other cases.

Now you are talking about changing Annan plan again. WE have accepted those compromises but it was not enough for you guys but you are asking more as well, like killing the bizonality too.

Let me say it again. The only reason TCs had accepted to compromise on communal equality was that we were given bizonality in return. We were ready to give up more important thing for us (communal equality) and accept some thing less important (bizonality) in return. And now you are telling me that we do not compromise. You should be thanking the world for the isolations they have put on us for all these years, to force us to accept that.

Now my friend you complain to me because I said that if all TCs have your attitude, partition automatically became my first priority. Of course it will be, because that’s the way you showed me.

My friend, you have to learn to negotiate on the basis of real interests and not on the basis of “divine” principles. Try to gain the truly essentials and not the schematics (symbolisms.)

I hope you understand what I mean. If not, let me know and explain further.

Now on what basis you want to solve the Cyprus problem?
Partition?
Return to 1960 const. rights and return to RoCy?
Federation?

Why is partition is your first priority again? What attitude of TCs convinced you that? The willingness of us to compromise but not give up all you want.

Let me explain what I want. My first priority will be a country (it does not matter federation or unitary state) where we have communal equality. In 1960 agreements we had these. So it is acceptable. In Annan Plan this communal equality was diluted but we were given a temporary bizonality so we still accepted it.

If the above first best is not achieved, then we want partition. Why is partition my second best but not my first best. Because I rather live in a joint country and live in a little bit more tense environment but in time learn to get along and ease the tension, than rather live in two separate countries in such a small island with a constant threat of a bigger neighbor on my neck all the time for eternity, waiting, as Piratis said once, for the balance of power to change so that they can claim the rest 18%, and make me political minority in my own house. Nobody ca make me convince that if we had partition we will have good relations with southern part of the island. Even you have said we will put a Berlin Wall in between us, which is not very friendly and remind me of cold war. So I rather give up living in an independent sovereign TC country and rather share power equally with GCs in a joint country. That is my reason of asking unification and making it my number one choice nothing else. What is your reason?

The third and the other end pf spectrum which no TC will ever accept is what majority of GCs are trying to give us. One-man-¬one-vote, effective political minority in the island so that we can be like Turks in West Thrace or past Turks in Crete which do not exist anymore. Sorry for wanting the continuation of TCs on the island by preserving their identity.

[Kifeas]

Read my lips. It is not the bizonality that is the a red line for TCs but it is communal equality. Anything short of that is not accepted.

My entire thesis is based on the bi-zonal (Constituent state) equality and not on the communal (ethnic) equality. I think this was made very clear from the very beginning (political equality of the two Constituent states.) I just do not understand how you didn’t take note of this from the beginning. I personally would have never agreed on a political equality based on ethnic community lines (i.e. one based on ethnicity) .

Now if the 25% of GCs seems too much and you are afraid it will bastardise your Constituent state’s ethnic purity, we can decrease this percentage but simultaneously we have to decrease the territory percentage accordingly (i.e. below 25%.) If you want 0% of GCs participating in your constituent states senator’s elections, then 0% of GCs will settle within TCCS but subsequently territory goes down to 18%.

I simply do not discuss political equality purely based on ethnic lines. Only based on Constituent state residency, like in the rest of the world, and in the USA, since you lived there.
Call me a chauvinist if you like but simply I do not accept Atatürk’s motto that "one Turk equals the whole world," or 18% of TCs equal 82% of GCs.

[Kifeas]

Why is partition is your first priority again? What attitude of TCs convinced you that? The willingness of us to compromise but not give up all you want.

It was just a matter arbitrary listing and not in terms of priority of most/least favourable.

Let me explain what I want. My first priority will be a country (it does not matter federation or unitary state) where we have communal equality.

My formula gives you an almost communal equality, you just fail to realise it because you continue to see everything with TC vs GC (ethnic) glasses and anything not 100% pure looks bad to you. You (most TCs) have been conditioned (spoiled) to look at things through this monomaniac narrowly defined spectrum.

In 1960 agreements we had these. So it is acceptable.

We are not talking now about 1960 agreements. It is an entirely different issue. We are not any more in the 1960’s but in year 2005 and members of the E.U. We either see the world with modern eyes or call the quits. We do not go back to this, unless we go directly to the 1960 constitution in the fashion which I described yesterday.

In Annan Plan this communal equality was diluted but we were given a temporary bizonality so we still accepted it.

Annan Plan gave you pure communal equality along ethnic lines. Senate was formed on the basis of ethnicity. That is why it was rejected by GCs.

The third and the other end pf spectrum which no TC will ever accept is what majority of GCs are trying to give us. One-man-one-vote, effective political minority in the island so that we can be like Turks in West Thrace or past Turks in Crete which do not exist anymore. Sorry for wanting the continuation of TCs on the island by preserving their identity.

I am not discussing such an issue here. I hope you do not imply such a thing. My formula is not a one- man- one- vote formula.

To make it more simple.

Instead of what you are asking, which is:

18 = 82

Left side of the equation is the TC community and right side is the GC community

I propose

(18+6) = (82-6)

left side of equation is the TCCS and right side of the equation is the GCCS