Cyprus-Forum.com

[turkcyp]

The whole discussion with Erolz revolves around the composition of the senate of the federal state. i.e. Political equality of Constituent states versus political equality of Communities on the federal level. Therefore, although the mentioning of the world federal senate in above posting was omitted, it was mutually understood throughout all our postings in the thread that this is what we are talking about. Erolz, am I my making a mistake here???

In my opinion Yes! Because this is the most crucial issue. Mind you Insan and Turkcyp do not share your approach. They want absolute community (ethnic or racial) political equality, irrespective of internal citizenship status. In other words any percentage of GCs that will live within TCCS, will be excluded and disregarded from any decision making participation on the senate level within the TCCS, but instead will be residents without political rights through the TCCS but only through the GCCS.

If we could agree on this then I am 100% sure we can agree on the rest.

The word in red is an addition to my posting, which was accidentally omitted.
Not deliberately!!!!

Ok. My bad. Sorry. I am very sensitive to these issues that's all. WE have been called enough amount of thief and human rights abuser in this forum. That's why. Thanks for the clarification. Please accept the apologies.

Now can you explain one more thing though...

You keep on claiming %40 of TCs will be required to pass a bill. Why is then A. Plan was not acceptable for you. I mean after all only 1/4 of TC approval on most cases and on specific cases than 40% of TC approval was necessary at the senate level.

I mean it seems to me that Annan Plan was giving us what you propose at the end. Was it the mechanism that we reach to that end important for you or was other things in Annan Plan make you reject the plan?

[Kifeas]

You can make a very complex proposal and Erolz or Turkcyp misunderstand it and say they agree. However if your proposal doesn't give to them as a community an effective 50% power (not 49.9999%) when they realize what you are talking about they will reject it.
So whats the point of this?

We disagree on the principle and thats it. What TCs want is not just guarantees, protection, participation etc. they want unlimited 50% power, and we do not agree.

Why bother with details when we do not agree on the principle? its a waste of time.

Piratis, I absolutely agree with you!!!
You was right with everything!

They do not care if they make us (700,000 GC peoples) a subject of the will of the 80,000 settlers and a few chauvinist TC circles, which can easily form this 50%+1 “TC community” majority, but they get scared to death if only 40% of TCs agree with a proposal and the remaining is contributed by the GC votes.

Forget it man!

Theirs is theirs and ours is again theirs.

Let the courts solve the problem, even if it will be after 30 years. In any case it would have still taken us 30 years to receive any compensation from our properties should A-plan was approved. And this would have been peanuts compare with what the ECHR will yield.

Forget it man!

[Kifeas]

You keep on claiming %40 of TCs will be required to pass a bill. Why is then A. Plan was not acceptable for you. I mean after all only 1/4 of TC approval on most cases and on specific cases than 40% of TC approval was necessary at the senate level.

There is an essential difference Turkcyp. Read my previous posting, please. Primarily because of the overpowering role of settlers and TC far -right wingers. If a certain percentage of GCs participate through the TCCS, it will not affect the genuine interests of the TC community, but it will also secure the genuine interests of the GCs. It will simply counterbalance the potential deviation of the TC community (majority) towards a pro-turkey- anti GC interests direction. You only see how your interests are going to be affected (which are not in reality) but you do not see or care how our interests might be affected, taking into consideration the current (or Anan plan) composition of the Turkish Cypriot community, which ceased to a be a Turkish Cypriot community in practice, but half a mainland Turkish community.

I mean it seems to me that Annan Plan was giving us what you propose at the end. Was it the mechanism that we reach to that end important for you or was other things in Annan Plan make you reject the plan?

Yes the different mechanism in which this is going to be reached is what makes a lot of the difference.

[erolz]

So in a few words a TC is equal to a TC and a GC is equal to a GC, but a TC and a GC are not equal.

Yes in exactly the same way that a GC is equal to a GC, but a GC and a German or French person or British person is not equal in the EU.

Having a federation is not your right, is a compromise from our part, but we never agreed that we would agree on any kind of federation you dream about, right?

No having a federation is not our right. Our right is self determination. We too compromise on a federation in order to achieve unity rather than partition but we will not agree on a federation where the GCCS voice as a community is worth 4 times more than the TCCS is or one where both the GCCS and the TCCS are both controlled by GC numerical majorites.

If you want to talk about a type of federation that will make the citizens of this country unequal, then I agree that we should stop talking about federation.

Political Equality of communities = inequality of citizens = racial discrimination

If this equation is true then why is the following not also true

Political equality of nation states in EU = inequality of citizens of the EU = disrcimination.

Equality of states does not mean inequality of citizens though, because citizens are free to become residents of any state they wish.

Therefore a federation is OK, political equality of communities (the way you realize it) is not.

So to you a federal solution means two component states both of which are or could be controled by a GC numerical majority? This then is your idea of compromise and a federal solution? Yeah we better forget it!

[erolz]

However if your proposal doesn't give to them as a community an effective 50% power (not 49.9999%) when they realize what you are talking about they will reject it.
So whats the point of this?

I admit to having got very confised during this discussion. However for me personally I do not require a senario where by 50%+1 of TC can veto anything. However a senario whereby say 65-75% of TC can not veto a decision that affects the TC commuity adversly is not acceptable to me - given how GC have persued soley GC apsirations for ALL of Cyprus and ALL its people in the past.

We disagree on the principle and thats it. What TCs want is not just guarantees, protection, participation etc. they want unlimited 50% power, and we do not agree.

Why bother with details when we do not agree on the principle? its a waste of time.

Why bother discussing anything when you can tell us with absoulte certainty what we want - regardless of what we might say? That to me IS a waste of time.

[erolz]

Piratis, I absolutely agree with you!!!
You was right with everything!

You agree that Piratis knows what we want better than we know? Or that we are all liers and Piratis has the magic vision to see through our lies?

Forget it man!

Construstive (not)

Theirs is theirs and ours is again theirs.

Ahh - now heres the Cypriot way - forget talking, negotiating or understanding - what we need are more propaganda slogans. That will help.

Let the courts solve the problem, even if it will be after 30 years. In any case it would have still taken us 30 years to receive any compensation from our properties should A-plan was approved. And this would have been peanuts compare with what the ECHR will yield.

and of course we mustn't forget the 'threats'.

[-mikkie2-]

Yes in exactly the same way that a GC is equal to a GC, but a GC and a German or French person or British person is not equal in the EU.

So you want to create a mini-EU in Cyprus! We are supposed to be one country, not two with 'assosiation' agreements between our two 'states'. Call it by what it is Erol, it is partition with the added bonous of the TC's (and Turkey via her implanted population) effectively holding the GC's to ransom, where the bigger and more populous community will subsidise the smaller and less populous one.

If that is the end result then we might as well go our separate ways. If you want a trully united Cyprus, then we have to participate together for the common good of Cyprus, not for the common good of one community at the expense of the other. For that to happen you have to make some kind of compromise that allows GC and TC people to interact at a political level. Currently, they way things stand it is us and them or them and us, not we.

[erolz]

Yes in exactly the same way that a GC is equal to a GC, but a GC and a German or French person or British person is not equal in the EU.

So you want to create a mini-EU in Cyprus!

Actually I was just trying to show that equalilty within a state but not equailty across states is a concept that Piratis is perfectly happy with (apparently) when it it is in GC favour (like in the EU) but a toal anethma to him (them) when it is not. The EU is a union of (nation) states. A federal Cyprus would be a union of (component) states.

Call it by what it is Erol, it is partition

I think in a federation the elements of a federation should be equal. That means inequailty of indivduals accross the federation unless all federal elements are numericaly equal. You seem to think in a federation the federal elements should not be equal - only indivduals should be equal across all federal elements. That to me does not seem like a federation but just a 'disguised' unitary state under effective control of GC alone

If that is the end result then we might as well go our separate ways. If you want a trully united Cyprus, then we have to participate together for the common good of Cyprus, not for the common good of one community at the expense of the other.

Yes but historicaly GC have persued GC solely GC agendas (and sought to impose them on ALL cypriots) and TC have persued TC agendas. Do you say we should foget this reality. That we should just trust that GC will never again persue soley GC agendas?

For that to happen you have to make some kind of compromise that allows GC and TC people to interact at a political level. Currently, they way things stand it is us and them or them and us, not we.

Is the EU them and us or is it we? The idea that having equality of federal elements is incompatible with TC and GC interating at a political level is one I find hard to understand? It seems to me that going straight to a unitary state is more likely to lead no interaction between TC and GC at a politcal level - because GC will be able to persu and enforce purely GC objectives without having to 'interact' with TC at all politicaly. The only time GC would need TC political support in such a senario is when the GC community itself is not in agreement.

[Piratis]

Erolz, yes, I believe after several months in this forum I learned what you want even if you use different words to describe it. I know what TCs mean by "peace operation", I know what they mean by "unification", I know what they mean by "political equality of communities" etc. Believe me, I got the essence and this is what matters.

In this forum I also learned a lot of things I didn't know before, mainly on how TCs think about, but also about facts I was not aware of. And I changed my mind on some things also. E.g. I decided that the EOKA straggle was wrong, and that considering what had happened in Crete it was not a surprise that the TCs joined the British and fought against enosis. Before I didn't justify them, now I do.

I also learned there are two types of TCs: The ones that wouldn't mind to live in one country together with GCs, and the partitions that would not accept anything less than partition or disguised partition.
In this forum the only regular that belongs in the first group is Brother, and I also believe that Metecyp would agree that what we are asking for is not unfair if the discussions were in a more friendly environment.

However the rest of you, and apparently the majority of TCs are partitionists, even if you insist on using pretty words to describe it. The analogy of the EU that Erolz brings up all the time is a good example of what TCs want: Two separate countries that will cooperate. Nothing much more than the relationship that France has with Belgium, or Germany with Austria.

[erolz]

Erolz, yes, I believe after several months in this forum I learned what you want even if you use different words to describe it.

But of course if the same accusation was made against you - that would be totaly wrong. You use words like 'federal solution' but actually you mean 'unitary state under effective control of GC community'.

I know what TCs mean by "peace operation", I know what they mean by "unification", I know what they mean by "political equality of communities" etc. Believe me, I got the essence and this is what matters.

Again this only works one way presumably? That when you talk of human rights you actually mean only respecting the rights of indivduals and ignoring those of communites / peoples. When you talk of democratic ideals you mean one thing in Cyprus and another thing anywhere else. When you talk of federation you mean unitary state under GC control. When you talk of racism you mean accpeting that there are ethnic dividions in Cyprus is racist but calling all Turks rtapist and killers is not.

In this forum I also learned a lot of things I didn't know before, mainly on how TCs think about, but also about facts I was not aware of. And I changed my mind on some things also. E.g. I decided that the EOKA straggle was wrong, and that considering what had happened in Crete it was not a surprise that the TCs joined the British and fought against enosis. Before I didn't justify them, now I do.

You think the EOKA struggle was wrong but still insist it was a nobel sturggle a legal struggle and that the GC in it had a right to use violence and murder to gain their (GC) objectives and force them on TC? Or do you mean you used to think it was wrong and now you have changed your mind?

I also learned there are two types of TCs: The ones that wouldn't mind to live in one country together with GCs, and the partitions that would not accept anything less than partition or disguised partition.
In this forum the only regular that belongs in the first group is Brother, and I also believe that Metecyp would agree that what we are asking for is not unfair if the discussions were in a more friendly environment.

However the rest of you, and apparently the majority of TCs are partitionists, even if you insist on using pretty words to describe it. .

And are there not also two types of GC? Those that accpet that as a community TC has the SAME rights as the GC community in their sahred homeland (like Alexandros) and then there are those that still persue a Cyprus run and controlled by GC alone, even if they insist on using pretty words to decribe it

The analogy of the EU that Erolz brings up all the time is a good example of what TCs want: Two separate countries that will cooperate. Nothing much more than the relationship that France has with Belgium, or Germany with Austria

The purpose of the anaolgy with the EU is to counter the constant GC claim that as a matter of principal any 'union' that does not give absoloute equality accross all individuals is undemocratic unfair and unstable. You repeatedly ignore the point of the analogy and then twist it's use to mean something that was never intended by the person using the analogy (me) - and this only days after complaing of people twisting your meaning!

It seems to me (you see I do not claim certainty of what goes on inside your head) that your basic position is that you deny the very concept of equality of the communites in Cyprus as communites (a long standing GC position) at any level. You often dress this up in 'pretty words' but deep down you know what is 'right' - namely a Cyprus controlled by a single community, the GC community. What you want is GC control of all of Cyprus. If you can not get that you may compromise on GC control of part of Cyprus but only if you decide how big a part.