Cyprus-Forum.com

[Piratis]

You don't accept restrictions claiming that they are unfair and against your human rights. Then you don't accept federation.

So you claim that federation = restrictions and violations of human rights?

Isn't the US a federation? Do they have restrictions based on race or other kind of violations of human rights?

So the conclusion is that you do not want federation. You want something else.

Of course I understand you when you say: "Whats the point of federation if both states can become GC states?". You are right, there is no point.

So what we do is that we accept this deviation from what a real federation is IF you accept to make some kind of deviations on the opposite direction that will bring back the lost balance that is needed for a federation to run in a democratic way.

The bottom line is: yes you can have an area where you will be the majority and have an effective control of most of the internal affairs, no you can not have something totally separate (The whole Cyprus is our country too) and no your 18% can not have a 50% power or an effective blocking power on everything for the whole island.

[erolz]

It required a what? …. majority of all senators????
Where did you get this from???
What do you mean by that?
Where did I say something like this?
Can you provide me with a quotation?

Look you made the proposal below

Therefore we agree that the two constituent states (one with majority TCs and the other with majority GCs) will constitute the federal government and the federal senate and they should both (TCCS and GCCS) be equal between them.

Do you feel it is a fair deal?
Do you agree with this arrangement?

I responded to this with

Sounds ok to me.

This was all done on an assumption as to what it meant that 'the two component states would be equal at the federal level.'

I originally assumed this meant a federal decision would require spereate majority consent from each component state.

Turkcyp pointed out a different interpretation which was the two states would be equal in having the same amount of senators but a federal decision would only require a majority of all senators and not sperate majority of each component states senators. At this point is was not clear which interpretation you meant - the one I assumed or the one Turkcyp suggested. So I then went on to say (pending clarifcation from yourself as to which you meant)

OK I understood this differently. I understood that at the federal level decisions would require seperate consent of each of the component states. Thus if say ENOSIS was proposed at the federal level lets say the GCCS vote in favour but the TCCS did not then enosis would not happen.

If what Kiefas is suggesting is that the decision on enosis would require simply 50% +1 of federal senators from either component state, then no this does not meet my requirements.

(new emphasis)

Which basically made my position pretty clear (I thought?). IE if you meant seperate majorites from each component state then I accepted your proposal and if it meant majority of all senators I did not. Later is became clear that you meant the former - problem sorted or so I thought up till your claim

Last night, I proposed to you an even better for you (TCs) system than the US system that you claim you now accept, with guarantees that the north state (TCCS) will be numerically controlled by the TC community as you claim above, but after consulting with TurkCyp you concluded rejecting it.

I did no such thing. I accepted your proposal - as long as I understood what you meant by it (sperate majorites from each state not majority of all senators). So implying I reject your proposal was at best a gross misunderstanding on your part and at worse a gross manipulation. To say I did so after consulting Turkcyp just makes me feel it was manipulation and not misunderstanding.

and so we come too

Actually I shouldn’t pass on this.
What are you talking about, Erolz? Can you be more specific?

My point here is if you can turn 'I accept your proposal provided we both understand the same thing' into 'you rejected my proposal after consulting with Turkcyp' in a discussion only days old and we a full documentary record - then how much greater the opportunites to misundertand (or more worryingly to distort and manipulate) the history of 40 years ago.

Is that clear enough and specfic enough for you?[/quote][/b]

[erolz]

The bottom line is: yes you can have an area where you will be the majority

How can we have this (or a guarantee of this) without restrictions on GC?

and have an effective control of most of the internal affairs,

I guess the issue here is what is 'most'?

no you can not have something totally separate (The whole Cyprus is our country too) and no your 18% can not have a 50% power or an effective blocking power on everything for the whole island.

Again the issue is not blocking power on everything, the issue is on what should we and will we have blocking powers. You want us to accept a pre defined and limited list of areas we can block on (namely culture, religion education - essentially all guaranteed anyway as the rights given to minorites) and no more. Yet your list, as I understand it, would not give us a right to veto say enosis or a whole host of other decisions that could affect the TC community differently and adversly to that of the GC community.

[Kifeas]

My point here is if you can turn 'I accept your proposal provided we both understand the same thing' into 'you rejected my proposal after consulting with Turkcyp' in a discussion only days old and we a full documentary record - then how much greater the opportunites to misundertand (or more worryingly to distort and manipulate) the history of 40 years ago.

Erolz,

From the begging of the conversation with you I made it clear I was speaking about political equality between constituent states, which means separate majorities.

I do not understand why you needed to obtain Turkcyps interpretation, which by the way was not adequate and unjustifiably missrepresented to you. Now that I read it again yes you put that “if “which I missed and instead took your two paragraphs together as a sort of acceptance to turkcyp’s interpretation. Why you didn’t direct this question to me since you had doubts as to what I meant after you consulted with turkcyp?

Why manipulation???
I have no reason and absolutely no benefit that will ever make me feel I should try to manipulate you.

[erolz]

From the begging of the conversation with you I made it clear I was speaking about political equality between constituent states, which means separate majorities.

Maybe that is clear to you but obvioulsy it was not clear to others. Equality of component states can mean equal number of senators or it can mean seperate majorites from each.

I do not understand why you needed to obtain Turkcyps interpretation, which by the way was not adequate and unjustifiably missrepresented to you.

I had no need to obtain Turkcyp interpretation. Before he made his comments I assumed you meant seperate majorites. After he made I realised that it was not clear which you meant.

Now that I read it again yes you put that “if “which I missed and instead took your two paragraphs together as a sort of acceptance to turkcyp’s interpretation.

You mean you saw what you wanted to see rather than what was actualy there perhaps?

Why you didn’t direct this question to me since you had doubts as to what I meant after you consulted with turkcyp?

I directed my clarifying post to Turkcyp because it was his post that led to the need for it. I also assumed that you would make clear which you meant without any need for making the question explicit (which you did). I was actually in the process of making a post asking which you meant when it became clear anyway - so I did not send the post.

Why manipulation???
I have no reason and absolutely no benefit that will ever make me feel I should try to manipulate you.

You did not manipulate me - you manipulated what I said. That may have been by mistake and it may have been on purpose. If you say accident then I accept that. However it is not hard to imagine why you might want to try and create a impression that I did not accept your proposal (when in fact I did) and that my decsion as to if I accepted it or not was controlled / influenced by Turkcyp and not my own views.

[Piratis]

How can we have this (or a guarantee of this) without restrictions on GC?

Read my post again:

So what we do is that we accept this deviation from what a real federation is IF you accept to make some kind of deviations on the opposite direction that will bring back the lost balance that is needed for a federation to run in a democratic way.

I guess the issue here is what is 'most'?

About the same like the US states.

Again the issue is not blocking power on everything, the issue is on what should we and will we have blocking powers. You want us to accept a pre defined and limited list of areas we can block on (namely culture, religion education - essentially all guaranteed anyway as the rights given to minorities) and no more. Yet your list, as I understand it, would not give us a right to veto say enosis or a whole host of other decisions that could affect the TC community differently and adversely to that of the GC community.

The communities will be equal in terms of language,religion and culture. TCs can also have a blocking power on pre-defined matters. In many countries they have something like "extended" majority where not 50%+, but 70%-75% is required to pass some important decisions (e.g. amending the constitution, going to war etc). Similarly we can require separate majorities to pass critical issues. Something like enosis would at a minimum require this double majority (since it is obviously something very critical), while it could also be prohibited by the constitution directly (in which case majority doesn't matter).

[Kifeas]

However it is not hard to imagine why you might want to try and create a impression that I did not accept your proposal (when in fact I did) and that my decsion as to if I accepted it or not was controlled / influenced by Turkcyp and not my own views.

Can you enlighten me on this, too?

[erolz]

However it is not hard to imagine why you might want to try and create a impression that I did not accept your proposal (when in fact I did) and that my decsion as to if I accepted it or not was controlled / influenced by Turkcyp and not my own views.

Can you enlighten me on this, too?

Is there not a constant battle, historically and presently, between both sides to create an impression (internaly and externaly) that the 'other' side are the intransigent ones and the cause of failure to secure a settlement? Is it so hard then to understand how the 'changing' of a TC 'yes I accept this proposal' to 'you TC refused my proposal' could be seen in this light?

Anything else I can help you with?

[erolz]

Read my post again:

Ok I am with you now (sorry for taking so long). You would accept some restrictions on GC freedoms as part of a compromise but not any restrictions. For me personaly actualy restrictions on GC living in the TCCS is not an issue for me. The issue is political representation, so personaly if there was a compromise on offer I would prefer it to be on limits to how many GC can be political represented by the TCCS than on how many can live in the TCCS.

The communities will be equal in terms of language,religion and culture. TCs can also have a blocking power on pre-defined matters. In many countries they have something like "extended" majority where not 50%+, but 70%-75% is required to pass some important decisions (e.g. amending the constitution, going to war etc). Similarly we can require separate majorities to pass critical issues. Something like enosis would at a minimum require this double majority (since it is obviously something very critical), while it could also be prohibited by the constitution directly (in which case majority doesn't matter).

Generally I see this as acceptable. The probelms still come (for me) in the details of what issues will require seperate consent and which will not. Again my gut reaction is that any predefined list would be too inflexible to protect the TC communites vaild interests and concerns, but would be willing to consider such a pre defined list approach. Some are relatively easy to pre define (changes to consitution, unions of Cyprus to toher countires or orgnaisations). I still have concerns however. The 'old' hypothetical issue I raised before about a bill seeking to limit foreign investment from non EU countires is one example. Such a bill would materialy affect TC anf the TC community very differently to how it affects GC and the GC community. I am not convinced that a pre defined list would protect TC community from such a bill being forced on them, against their will and at their material disadvantge relative to GC.

[Kifeas]

Is there not a constant battle, historically and presently, between both sides to create an impression (internaly and externaly) that the 'other' side are the intransigent ones and the cause of failure to secure a settlement? Is it so hard then to understand how the 'changing' of a TC 'yes I accept this proposal' to 'you TC refused my proposal' could be seen in this light?

Anything else I can help you with?

So you suggest that I waste my time and brain and energy to write all these things down in an as much as possible more analytical way, in order to make a point and convince you on something, and after I finally achieve this, I will turn around and say that I failed to convince you because you are intransigent, just to make an impression to others (whom?)

Erolz, please!!!