Cyprus-Forum.com

[observer]

As an afternote, it has just occured to me that the states in the USA have an effective veto on changes in the Constitution. The US Constitution may not be changed until a certain number of states (can't remember the number but you can look it up) have all individually agreed to the change.

I am not positive on this, but I think that Canada is the same, except they are called provinces, not states.

[boomerang]

Boomerang wrote

So which community within the countries of the EU has VETO rights in their own country?....Germany, UK, maybe France...I am not sure you tell me...

Countries within Europe where there were large differences in culture, ethnicity or whatever solved their differences by splitting up. Recent examples are the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic, numerous parts of Yugoslavia, even more parts of the USSR, and most recently Serbia and Kosova. If, for any reason they were being forced back together, the constituent countries would probably want vetoes in some areas.

RoC and TRNC have been separate countries for the last 30+ years. Given the history of the preceding 20 years the smaller constituent part wants a veto on sensitive areas to make sure history doesn't repeat itself. Alternatively most TCs would be prepared to be a separate country, just like the 20 or so 'new' countries above (many in the EU).

If we are to come together the TC portion wishes to be autonomous. The Spanish constitution is a good example, especially articles 149 and 148 (an English version is here http://www.servat.unibe.ch/icl/sp00000_.html ). The autonomous regions do not have a veto, but Spain is more homogenious and does not have Cyprus' recent history.

As Viewpoint wrote, "Those issues (where the veto may be applied) will have to be predetermined in the constitution, eg like changing the national flag or anthem, stopping trade with Turkey, removing Turkish as an official language, changing the constitution". None of these seem contentious to me.

I wonder if there was any ethnic cleansing and colonization involved in these countries...I am not sure, you tell me...

[michalis5354]

Veto right between Unions and Employers can be seen a a part of Democracy according to the following article in Sweeden:

Mechanism for exerting influence on the basis of industrial democracy whereby trade unions have the right to block (veto) proposed decisions by employers in matters relating to management or the right to direct work.

Full article here http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/emire/SW ... -TT-SE.htm

This is a tool that increase the effectiveness of the Decision making and that neither side feels discriminated and neglected.

[Piratis]

Boomerang wrote

So which community within the countries of the EU has VETO rights in their own country?....Germany, UK, maybe France...I am not sure you tell me...

Countries within Europe where there were large differences in culture, ethnicity or whatever solved their differences by splitting up. Recent examples are the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic, numerous parts of Yugoslavia, even more parts of the USSR, and most recently Serbia and Kosova. If, for any reason they were being forced back together, the constituent countries would probably want vetoes in some areas.

RoC and TRNC have been separate countries for the last 30+ years. Given the history of the preceding 20 years the smaller constituent part wants a veto on sensitive areas to make sure history doesn't repeat itself. Alternatively most TCs would be prepared to be a separate country, just like the 20 or so 'new' countries above (many in the EU).

If we are to come together the TC portion wishes to be autonomous. The Spanish constitution is a good example, especially articles 149 and 148 (an English version is here http://www.servat.unibe.ch/icl/sp00000_.html ). The autonomous regions do not have a veto, but Spain is more homogenious and does not have Cyprus' recent history.

The examples you give are totally irrelevant. In the cases of Czechoslovakia, former USSR etc, we are talking about two or more separate regions each region with a majority of a different peoples.

For example Czechoslovakia was made up by Slovakia (a distinct geographical region with a majority of Slovaks) and Czechia (another distinct geographical region with a majority Czechs). Those two regions used to be together, now they are not. The same goes for former USSR, which as the name says it was the "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics", a union of several separate republics, not just one.

In Cyprus what we have has nothing to do with the above. Cyprus is one region, and the whole of Cyprus has a Greek Cypriot majority of 82%. The TCs are not a nation owning a separate region of this island. The TCs are a minority formed relatively recently with the transfer of population by the Ottoman Colonial power to its former colony Cyprus. In the same way the Turks have similar minorities in Greece, Bulgaria and elsewhere. Other similar cases are the people that other Colonial powers such as the British or French transfered to their colonies. Those are the minorities that you should compare TCs with, not irrelevant examples of separate regions that used to be united in one country.

If you owned your own separate region their would be no problem at all. We could be separate and thats it. The problem is that you stole land that belongs to us and you want to rule over a an area of our country that we and not you are the majority. If you know anything like that happening elsewhere then let me know.

So don't confuse irrelevant situations. The Slovaks didn't steal their land from the Czechs, neither they ethnically cleansed them in order to illegaly and artificially become the majority of Slovakia. What you call "trnc" is nothing more than an artificial creation, created unnaturally by the use of force and ethnic cleaning, with an invasion of a foreign country on the sovereign and independent Republic of Cyprus, the one and only state on this island.

If you want to compare TCs compare them with other similar minorities. There are many of them in almost every country.

As Viewpoint wrote, "Those issues (where the veto may be applied) will have to be predetermined in the constitution, eg like changing the national flag or anthem, stopping trade with Turkey, removing Turkish as an official language, changing the constitution". None of these seem contentious to me.

Many times in the past I asked for this (predetermined areas where veto can be applied) but it was always rejected by some TCs here (VP included) saying that they don't want any limit on where their vetos can be applied. Have you changed your mind on this?

[Viewpoint]

Boomerang wrote

So which community within the countries of the EU has VETO rights in their own country?....Germany, UK, maybe France...I am not sure you tell me...

Countries within Europe where there were large differences in culture, ethnicity or whatever solved their differences by splitting up. Recent examples are the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic, numerous parts of Yugoslavia, even more parts of the USSR, and most recently Serbia and Kosova. If, for any reason they were being forced back together, the constituent countries would probably want vetoes in some areas.

RoC and TRNC have been separate countries for the last 30+ years. Given the history of the preceding 20 years the smaller constituent part wants a veto on sensitive areas to make sure history doesn't repeat itself. Alternatively most TCs would be prepared to be a separate country, just like the 20 or so 'new' countries above (many in the EU).

If we are to come together the TC portion wishes to be autonomous. The Spanish constitution is a good example, especially articles 149 and 148 (an English version is here http://www.servat.unibe.ch/icl/sp00000_.html ). The autonomous regions do not have a veto, but Spain is more homogenious and does not have Cyprus' recent history.

The examples you give are totally irrelevant. In the cases of Czechoslovakia, former USSR etc, we are talking about two or more separate regions each region with a majority of a different peoples.

For example Czechoslovakia was made up by Slovakia (a distinct geographical region with a majority of Slovaks) and Czechia (another distinct geographical region with a majority Czechs). Those two regions used to be together, now they are not. The same goes for former USSR, which as the name says it was the "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics", a union of several separate republics, not just one.

In Cyprus what we have has nothing to do with the above. Cyprus is one region, and the whole of Cyprus has a Greek Cypriot majority of 82%. The TCs are not a nation owning a separate region of this island. The TCs are a minority formed relatively recently with the transfer of population by the Ottoman Colonial power to its former colony Cyprus. In the same way the Turks have similar minorities in Greece, Bulgaria and elsewhere. Other similar cases are the people that other Colonial powers such as the British or French transfered to their colonies. Those are the minorities that you should compare TCs with, not irrelevant examples of separate regions that used to be united in one country.

If you owned your own separate region their would be no problem at all. We could be separate and thats it. The problem is that you stole land that belongs to us and you want to rule over a an area of our country that we and not you are the majority. If you know anything like that happening elsewhere then let me know.

So don't confuse irrelevant situations. The Slovaks didn't steal their land from the Czechs, neither they ethnically cleansed them in order to illegaly and artificially become the majority of Slovakia. What you call "trnc" is nothing more than an artificial creation, created unnaturally by the use of force and ethnic cleaning, with an invasion of a foreign country on the sovereign and independent Republic of Cyprus, the one and only state on this island.

If you want to compare TCs compare them with other similar minorities. There are many of them in almost every country.

As Viewpoint wrote, "Those issues (where the veto may be applied) will have to be predetermined in the constitution, eg like changing the national flag or anthem, stopping trade with Turkey, removing Turkish as an official language, changing the constitution". None of these seem contentious to me.

Many times in the past I asked for this (predetermined areas where veto can be applied) but it was always rejected by some TCs here (VP included) saying that they don't want any limit on where their vetos can be applied. Have you changed your mind on this?

Australia and the USA.

I have given many examples you have chosen to ignore them, read back and you will see examples but these can be agreed by the experts who willbe astitude at determining areas which could put us at risk.

[Oracle]

Boomerang wrote

So which community within the countries of the EU has VETO rights in their own country?....Germany, UK, maybe France...I am not sure you tell me...

Countries within Europe where there were large differences in culture, ethnicity or whatever solved their differences by splitting up. Recent examples are the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic, numerous parts of Yugoslavia, even more parts of the USSR, and most recently Serbia and Kosova. If, for any reason they were being forced back together, the constituent countries would probably want vetoes in some areas.

RoC and TRNC have been separate countries for the last 30+ years. Given the history of the preceding 20 years the smaller constituent part wants a veto on sensitive areas to make sure history doesn't repeat itself. Alternatively most TCs would be prepared to be a separate country, just like the 20 or so 'new' countries above (many in the EU).

If we are to come together the TC portion wishes to be autonomous. The Spanish constitution is a good example, especially articles 149 and 148 (an English version is here http://www.servat.unibe.ch/icl/sp00000_.html ). The autonomous regions do not have a veto, but Spain is more homogenious and does not have Cyprus' recent history.

The examples you give are totally irrelevant. In the cases of Czechoslovakia, former USSR etc, we are talking about two or more separate regions each region with a majority of a different peoples.

For example Czechoslovakia was made up by Slovakia (a distinct geographical region with a majority of Slovaks) and Czechia (another distinct geographical region with a majority Czechs). Those two regions used to be together, now they are not. The same goes for former USSR, which as the name says it was the "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics", a union of several separate republics, not just one.

In Cyprus what we have has nothing to do with the above. Cyprus is one region, and the whole of Cyprus has a Greek Cypriot majority of 82%. The TCs are not a nation owning a separate region of this island. The TCs are a minority formed relatively recently with the transfer of population by the Ottoman Colonial power to its former colony Cyprus. In the same way the Turks have similar minorities in Greece, Bulgaria and elsewhere. Other similar cases are the people that other Colonial powers such as the British or French transfered to their colonies. Those are the minorities that you should compare TCs with, not irrelevant examples of separate regions that used to be united in one country.

If you owned your own separate region their would be no problem at all. We could be separate and thats it. The problem is that you stole land that belongs to us and you want to rule over a an area of our country that we and not you are the majority. If you know anything like that happening elsewhere then let me know.

So don't confuse irrelevant situations. The Slovaks didn't steal their land from the Czechs, neither they ethnically cleansed them in order to illegaly and artificially become the majority of Slovakia. What you call "trnc" is nothing more than an artificial creation, created unnaturally by the use of force and ethnic cleaning, with an invasion of a foreign country on the sovereign and independent Republic of Cyprus, the one and only state on this island.

If you want to compare TCs compare them with other similar minorities. There are many of them in almost every country.

As Viewpoint wrote, "Those issues (where the veto may be applied) will have to be predetermined in the constitution, eg like changing the national flag or anthem, stopping trade with Turkey, removing Turkish as an official language, changing the constitution". None of these seem contentious to me.

Many times in the past I asked for this (predetermined areas where veto can be applied) but it was always rejected by some TCs here (VP included) saying that they don't want any limit on where their vetos can be applied. Have you changed your mind on this?

Australia and the USA.

I have given many examples you have chosen to ignore them, read back and you will see examples but these can be agreed by the experts who willbe astitude at determining areas which could put us at risk.

Such colonisation as seen for Australia and USA is never going to happen again. So do not compare yourselves, a small, offshoot, minority remnant group of Turkey, to the Expansionist Europeans of a few hundred years ago ..... Otherwise you would still be an Ottoman Empire, and not supposedly a Modern State with non-expansionist ideas.

Or do you still harbour Expansionist Colonial Ottoman dreams VP....

[Piratis]

In Australia and USA the foreigners managed to become the majorities several centuries ago. What could be similar to that is Asia Minor, where the Turks became the majority, not the TC in Cyprus which are a minority. Although the Turks forcefully took Asia minor from its previous inhabitants, this happened many centuries ago when building empires and capturing slaves was the norm. Today there are things like international law and human rights, you can't just go around stealing the lands of others anymore.

Do you know any minority which ethnically cleansed the majority of people from a part of a country so it can create a separate state for themselves? I am still waiting for a relevant example.

[Viewpoint]

Boomerang wrote

So which community within the countries of the EU has VETO rights in their own country?....Germany, UK, maybe France...I am not sure you tell me...

Countries within Europe where there were large differences in culture, ethnicity or whatever solved their differences by splitting up. Recent examples are the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic, numerous parts of Yugoslavia, even more parts of the USSR, and most recently Serbia and Kosova. If, for any reason they were being forced back together, the constituent countries would probably want vetoes in some areas.

RoC and TRNC have been separate countries for the last 30+ years. Given the history of the preceding 20 years the smaller constituent part wants a veto on sensitive areas to make sure history doesn't repeat itself. Alternatively most TCs would be prepared to be a separate country, just like the 20 or so 'new' countries above (many in the EU).

If we are to come together the TC portion wishes to be autonomous. The Spanish constitution is a good example, especially articles 149 and 148 (an English version is here http://www.servat.unibe.ch/icl/sp00000_.html ). The autonomous regions do not have a veto, but Spain is more homogenious and does not have Cyprus' recent history.

The examples you give are totally irrelevant. In the cases of Czechoslovakia, former USSR etc, we are talking about two or more separate regions each region with a majority of a different peoples.

For example Czechoslovakia was made up by Slovakia (a distinct geographical region with a majority of Slovaks) and Czechia (another distinct geographical region with a majority Czechs). Those two regions used to be together, now they are not. The same goes for former USSR, which as the name says it was the "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics", a union of several separate republics, not just one.

In Cyprus what we have has nothing to do with the above. Cyprus is one region, and the whole of Cyprus has a Greek Cypriot majority of 82%. The TCs are not a nation owning a separate region of this island. The TCs are a minority formed relatively recently with the transfer of population by the Ottoman Colonial power to its former colony Cyprus. In the same way the Turks have similar minorities in Greece, Bulgaria and elsewhere. Other similar cases are the people that other Colonial powers such as the British or French transfered to their colonies. Those are the minorities that you should compare TCs with, not irrelevant examples of separate regions that used to be united in one country.

If you owned your own separate region their would be no problem at all. We could be separate and thats it. The problem is that you stole land that belongs to us and you want to rule over a an area of our country that we and not you are the majority. If you know anything like that happening elsewhere then let me know.

So don't confuse irrelevant situations. The Slovaks didn't steal their land from the Czechs, neither they ethnically cleansed them in order to illegaly and artificially become the majority of Slovakia. What you call "trnc" is nothing more than an artificial creation, created unnaturally by the use of force and ethnic cleaning, with an invasion of a foreign country on the sovereign and independent Republic of Cyprus, the one and only state on this island.

If you want to compare TCs compare them with other similar minorities. There are many of them in almost every country.

As Viewpoint wrote, "Those issues (where the veto may be applied) will have to be predetermined in the constitution, eg like changing the national flag or anthem, stopping trade with Turkey, removing Turkish as an official language, changing the constitution". None of these seem contentious to me.

Many times in the past I asked for this (predetermined areas where veto can be applied) but it was always rejected by some TCs here (VP included) saying that they don't want any limit on where their vetos can be applied. Have you changed your mind on this?

Australia and the USA.

I have given many examples you have chosen to ignore them, read back and you will see examples but these can be agreed by the experts who willbe astitude at determining areas which could put us at risk.

Such colonisation as seen for Australia and USA is never going to happen again. So do not compare yourselves, a small, offshoot, minority remnant group of Turkey, to the Expansionist Europeans of a few hundred years ago ..... Otherwise you would still be an Ottoman Empire, and not supposedly a Modern State with non-expansionist ideas.

Or do you still harbour Expansionist Colonial Ottoman dreams VP....

If thats the only option you allow us then thats how we will proceed another 50 years and we will be the majority on the island anyway and the TRNC will exsist unrecognized or recognized Im willing to take my chances are you? this is prefered to being forced into a minority in a GC state run by GCs.

[Viewpoint]

In Australia and USA the foreigners managed to become the majorities several centuries ago. What could be similar to that is Asia Minor, where the Turks became the majority, not the TC in Cyprus which are a minority. Although the Turks forcefully took Asia minor from its previous inhabitants, this happened many centuries ago when building empires and capturing slaves was the norm. Today there are things like international law and human rights, you can't just go around stealing the lands of others anymore.

Do you know any minority which ethnically cleansed the majority of people from a part of a country so it can create a separate state for themselves? I am still waiting for a relevant example.

Your making excuses to support your mindset the first stage has taken place in 1974 and the population growth in the north is the second stage, you are the only ones that can stop this by agreeing solution that we can commit to otherwise in 50 years and with your birth rate we will be the majority on this island, the choice is yours, feel free to continue with your current hardline but dont expect anything more than the last 34 years, absolutely nothing.

[Lysimachos]

Still waiting for a clear explanation of the idea of political equality of the two communities under a BBF solution and how this combines with EU principles of individual human rights.

Nikitas, was Cyprus every Greece? no it was not, so trying to gift it to Greece was a big mistake, that's why the minority revolted as they did no want to share the destiny as those Turkish minorities in Crete and Rhodes, why is it so hard to understand we do not want to live or become Greek just as you do not want to be part of Turkey or be Turkish.

As for Political equality under a BBF solution think of it this way, 2 states north and south the GC administer the south and TCs the north, everyone has the freedom to settle where they wish. Everyone has 1 vote and elects 20 TC MPs and 80 GC MPs, but just like south Cyprus who has a veto right in the EU the TC MPs votes are required on sensitive issues which are considered a risk or detrimental to that community, this could also be the same for the GC community.

Best to veto the Turkish out of Europe and be done with. Even as minorities the Turkish have abused their way into power. And the TCs are no different as a demanding subversive minority who are destroying the majority of Cypriots inside out. Which other minority groups have had as much right to such gains past and present as the TCs have grabbed?

And they get offended if Cypriots associate with Greeks by virtue of being outnumbered fourfold. Hahaha!

Go study the Swiss and Belgian models and Serbia Montenegro for that matter, we all know how they ended up, if they can do it so can we.

Lofty ambitions. Hahaha! Which guy are you in your avatar?

Virtual numerical parity against definitive majoritiy to minority distributions is not a sensible comparison;

Swiss ........... 62% Germans : 38% French + Italian ... Ratio 1.6 : 1

Belgium ......... 60% Dutch : 40% French ................... Ratio 1.5 : 1

Cyprus ........... 82% GC : 18% TC ............................. Ratio 4.5 : 1

Hahaha!