The Best Cyprus Community

Skip to content


Cypus Mail article

How can we solve it? (keep it civilized)

Postby metecyp » Sun May 01, 2005 6:29 pm

erolz wrote:magikthrill wrote:
he is just using the EU as an example to show us that you can have both democracy and disproportional voting.


Thank you

Erol, I think people like Piratis try to act like they don't know what you're talking about just to get their point across. Everyone knows that we're talking about the principle of using disproportional voting to protect the smaller entity in a democracy and there are many examples of this both in unions like the EU and the federations like the US. The fact that the EU is not a country or the US is a different type of federation is irrelevant, the fact that the same universal principle applies to many different entities is relevant and I'm glad to see many forum members understand this.
User avatar
metecyp
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 1154
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 4:53 pm
Location: Cyprus/USA

Postby Viewpoint » Sun May 01, 2005 7:45 pm

metecyp, erolz
The fact that the EU is not a country or the US is a different type of federation is irrelevant, the fact that the same universal principle applies to many different entities is relevant and I'm glad to see many forum members understand this.


We do guys, your both doing a great job, well done you are both clear and precise in your arguements and unruffled by a constant brick wall of unacceptable counter arguements, pleasure to read what you have to say.
User avatar
Viewpoint
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 25214
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2005 2:48 pm
Location: Nicosia/Lefkosa

Postby Piratis » Mon May 02, 2005 2:17 am

he is just using the EU as an example to show us that you can have both democracy and disproportional voting.


Not the kind of disproportional voting that he wants. Thats why this kind of disproportional voting does not exist in other country in the world. This is why I accept any system of any EU country and he accepts none.

The example of disproportional voting that he gives is one of association between independent countries. Why do you think he gives this example instead of a country example? The answer is clear: Because what they want is much closer to the asociation of two separate countries rather than any one country.

TCs are a comunitity. They are not a country, and they are not a state. They do not own any part of Cyprus just by themselves.

So why don't you give me some examples of arrangments between communities of a single country? (you can't find any?)
User avatar
Piratis
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 12261
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 11:08 pm

Postby magikthrill » Mon May 02, 2005 5:16 am

Piratis wrote:
TCs are a comunitity. They are not a country, and they are not a state. They do not own any part of Cyprus just by themselves.

So why don't you give me some examples of arrangments between communities of a single country? (you can't find any?)


that is a different topic to discuss. from what i understood erol was trying to tell you that saying it is undemocratic to have disproportional voting is wrong because it is democratic based on the EU.and thats it.

from then on what happens in Cyprus is a different story.
magikthrill
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 2245
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 10:09 am
Location: Athens, Greece

Postby erolz » Mon May 02, 2005 9:47 am

magikthrill wrote:
that is a different topic to discuss. from what i understood erol was trying to tell you that saying it is undemocratic to have disproportional voting is wrong because it is democratic based on the EU.and thats it.

from then on what happens in Cyprus is a different story.


Thank you again.

Piatis wrote:
Not the kind of disproportional voting that he wants. Thats why this kind of disproportional voting does not exist in other country in the world.


The diposrtional aspect of the voting that I propose is the same as every federal country in the world. What is different is not the concept of component states having equality regardless of their size - that is true of all federal countires - it is the defintion of a federal county. The difference is in the ethnic composition of the component states. Yet you still insist now as you and others have before that it is the disporprtional to numerical numbers power of component states that is fundamantaly undemocratic- that democracy is a matter of 'mathematics' and other such claims and it is this I that I point out does not stand the test of comparission to other democratic system.

Piatis wrote:
This is why I accept any system of any EU country and he accepts none.


OK - I accept the Belgium system. But I also insist we have to apply it exactly as it is in Belgium. I Insist we have to rename Cyprus as New Belgium. We have to adopt Flemmish and the other belgium languages as the offical language of New Belgium, rename Nicosia Brussels and all other towns after Belgium towns, start eating waffles and build a staue of a pissing boy in our capital and create a monarchy and new belgium royal family (I'll apply for that governemtn role). Do you accept this model?

The above is clearly ridiculous but this is essesntialy what you are saying but to a less extreme and obvious degree. The fact is if we accept the belgium model we have to take the basic principals of that model and then apply it to Cyprus and the Cyprus problem. The basic principals of that model are the equality of component states regardless of their size. To apply this to Cyprus and the Cyprus problem we have to recognise that the component states have an ethnic component - becasue the Cyprus problem is one of recent and continuing ethnic clashes and of one ethnic groups attempt to force it will on another ehtnic group. So I accept the belgium model (or any other federal model) as long as it is applied to the Cyprus problem in a sensible and realistic way.

You start from a premis that in principal any political represntation disporportionate to numerical numbers is undemocratic. When the falacy of this argument is pointed out you reluctantly retreat to the next position (though continue to make the original argument anyway)

The next position is that in principal any political represntation disproportionate to numerical number within a country (but not between countries) is undemocratic. When the falacy of this argument is pointed out you reluctantly retreat back to the next position (though continue to make the original argument and if pushed this revised one)

The next position is that in principal any political representation disporoprtionate to numerical numbers within a country (but not between countries) and where the component states have a (protected) ethnic component is undemocratic. (though continue to make the original argument and when pushed the second revised one).

My problem is with the first and second position - which you repeatedly make. With the idea that in principal and fundamentaly what we proposed is undemocratic. By the time you reach the third position you are so far from fundamental principals of democray and more into the specfic situation of Cyprus yet you insist you objections are based on these fundamental principals of democracy. I have little doubt that if I were to present an example of a federal country with component states with equality regardless of size and with an ethinc element to the component states you would simply retreat back to another position that in principal any system of dispoportionate representation within a country (but not between countries) where there are component states with equality regardless of size and where there is an ethnic compnent to those component states and the ethnic component is between Greek and Turkish ethnicites is fundamental ans in principal undemocratic!
erolz
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 2414
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 5:00 pm
Location: Girne / Kyrenia

Postby Piratis » Mon May 02, 2005 2:40 pm

The diposrtional aspect of the voting that I propose is the same as every federal country in the world.


Freedom of movement and choice of residency in any state with full political rights exists in all federal countries. Since you agree with this, then we agree. Its a deal!
User avatar
Piratis
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 12261
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 11:08 pm

Postby magikthrill » Mon May 02, 2005 2:49 pm

Piratis wrote:
Freedom of movement and choice of residency in any state with full political rights exists in all federal countries. Since you agree with this, then we agree. Its a deal!


This is why the term bizonal/bicommunal federation is an oxymoron. Such a nation will not be an actual federatoin but a confederation.

If TCs are really interested in just political issues then bicommunal is much more important than bizonal. however those who believe bizonality is a necessity are hypocrits who would rather be left alone.
magikthrill
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 2245
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 10:09 am
Location: Athens, Greece

Postby metecyp » Mon May 02, 2005 3:03 pm

magikthrill wrote:If TCs are really interested in just political issues then bicommunal is much more important than bizonal. however those who believe bizonality is a necessity are hypocrits who would rather be left alone.

So, political issues should be the only concern to TCs? Let's imagine this. Let's say there're no restrictions in movement/residence in the north. All GC refugees return back to their former homes/lands and even more GCs come to settle in the north. What would be the sense of calling the north TCCS if 90% of the land is owned by GCs, 80% of businesses owned by GCs, 70% population is GC?? These are just made-up numbers but they're quite possible. Add to these GC political representation in the TCCS state, then you have a TCCS state that is Turkish Cypriot in name and nothing else. Don't you agree?

The point is before criticizing people believing in bizonality, you should really try to understand where they're coming from.
User avatar
metecyp
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 1154
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 4:53 pm
Location: Cyprus/USA

Postby Piratis » Mon May 02, 2005 3:45 pm

Magic. It is very obvious that they do not accept federation, but only a loose confederation. This is why they use the EU as an example. Because EU is an association of independent countries. This is what they want for Cyprus. They don't want Cyprus to be one. They want Cyprus to be the association of two separate parts and most importantly two separate categories of citizens (something that doesn't happen in any federal or unitary state)
User avatar
Piratis
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 12261
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 11:08 pm

Previous

Return to Cyprus Problem

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest