Cyprus-Forum.com

[Kifeas]

I do not understand what you are trying to say, VP!

[Viewpoint]

I do not understand what you are trying to say, VP!

What will happen if a mixed political party is brought to power and were the vice president is not give any real authority only very symbolic this happened in the "RoC" central bank where the vice governor was a TC who was more symbolic than anything else, the GC governor did not consult or allow him to get involved in important issues.

[Kifeas]

I do not understand what you are trying to say, VP!

What will happen if a mixed political party is brought to power and were the vice president is not give any real authority only very symbolic this happened in the "RoC" central bank where the vice governor was a TC who was more symbolic than anything else, the GC governor did not consult or allow him to get involved in important issues.

VP, we are talking about rotating presidency/deputy presidency between the two, on a pre-decided ratio. For example, we may agree on a 3:1 (75%:25%) ratio, on a 4 year term, i.e. 3 years the GC is the president and 1 year the TC. The president and the deputy president will not have veto rights, but the decisions will be taken by the council of ministers and the two deputy presidents, by simple majority, provided a minim number of votes from ministers of each of the two communities is attained.

PS: The above system is very similar to that of the USA, i.e. the president /vice president are elected by the people on a State basis (via electorates,) with the only difference that the president does not choose the vice president to run together with him, but instead the two are choosing each other as their partner, and then run for the post(s.) Then, the two of them, together, form the council of ministers on a pre-determined ratio from each community. They will both have to agree, for all the chosen ministers.

[Viewpoint]

I do not understand what you are trying to say, VP!

What will happen if a mixed political party is brought to power and were the vice president is not give any real authority only very symbolic this happened in the "RoC" central bank where the vice governor was a TC who was more symbolic than anything else, the GC governor did not consult or allow him to get involved in important issues.

VP, we are talking about rotating presidency/deputy presidency between the two, on a pre-decided ratio. For example, we may agree on a 3:1 (75%:25%) ratio, on a 4 year term, i.e. 3 years the GC is the president and 1 year the TC. The president and the deputy president will not have veto rights, but the decisions will be taken by the council of ministers and the two deputy presidents, by simple majority, provided a minim number of votes from ministers of each of the two communities is attained.

PS: The above system is very similar to that of the USA, i.e. the president /vice president are elected by the people on a State basis (via electorates,) with the only difference that the president does not choose the vice president to run together with him, but instead the two are choosing each other as their partner, and then run for the post(s.) Then, the two of them, together, form the council of ministers on a pre-determined ratio from each community. They will both have to agree, for all the chosen ministers.

Kifeas you are avoiding my question, we have 1 GC President and 1 TC Vice President with no veto rights but on a rotating basis, what happens if the GC President by passes the TC Vice President and vice versa?

[DT.]

Here is the lousy Loukas Charalambous article for everyone to judge.

THE TWO leaders have been discussing the issue of the presidency (whether it should it be rotating) for two months now, without coming to an agreement. This is compelling proof of the ineffectiveness of the way the talks procedure is being conducted.

In an attempt to justify his proposal for the election of the president and the vice-president from the same ballot paper, President Christofias said the following in an interview in Kathimerini last Sunday:

“This promotes the unity of the state, the people and the institutions. It is a departure from the strict community and ethnic criterion and is dictated by a socioeconomic criterion.”

Political parties with the same ideology could join forces in elections to claim both the presidency and vice-presidency, he said. He did acknowledge, further down in the interview, that there was a problem and that “a way must be found to adjust the votes of the smaller community so that the bigger community does not impose its will.”

Of course the problem would be that no matter how the votes are adjusted the big community would essentially decide who would be elected as representative of the Turkish Cypriots. This is what Christofias cannot or does not want to understand.

In reality, such an arrangement would not strengthen the co-operation between the two communities within the framework of a federal administration. On the contrary, its implementation would prove a cause for bickering.

You only have to look at the numbers to understand how even a tiny percentage of Greek Cypriot votes could have a decisive influence in the election of the Turkish Cypriot representative. The voters of the Greek Cypriot community are about 500,000, while the Turkish Cypriots community’s (including the 50,000 settlers that would probably stay on after a settlement) would be in the region of 150,000.

Let’s assume there are two Turkish Cypriots standing for the post, with one receiving 82,000 votes and the other 68,000 from their community (55% and 45% of the vote respectively). As few as three per cent of the Greek Cypriot voters (15,000) could swing the result in favour of the candidate who took the smaller percentage of votes from the Turkish Cypriot community. Just think how the Turkish Cypriots would react to something like this – the Greek Cypriots essentially would be electing the representative of the Turkish Cypriots.

Christofias’ proposal is at best, absurd and it makes you wonder whether he had given it any thought before making it. Is it possible for Turkish Cypriots, who, under the 1960 constitution, had the right to choose the vice-president, to now agree that we would choose both the president and the vice-president? Does Christofias not credit them even with basic intelligence?

As regards, Christofias’ argument about encouraging the co-operation of political groupings, with similar ideological beliefs, from the two communities, he should look at the relevant provision in the Annan plan. The provision did not just encourage, but essentially forced the political parties to co-operate within the senate in the election of the members of the presidential council.

If the co-operation of the political parties was Christofias’ objective, then the best way to achieve this would have been the adoption of the above-mentioned Annan plan provision, instead of becoming lost in the impracticalities of his unfeasible proposal.

Kifeas, what have you done with your slogan about agreed partition? Have you changed your tune again, according to your prevailing mood?

If this is implemented and the logic of the author of that piece is implemented then I have one question to make

WHERE DO I SIGN UP TO BECOME A TC?

If in a population of voters of 650,000 I can become president with only 75,000 votes then I'm no fool and I want to be part of the "chosen people"

[Kifeas]

Here is the lousy Loukas Charalambous article for everyone to judge.

THE TWO leaders have been discussing the issue of the presidency (whether it should it be rotating) for two months now, without coming to an agreement. This is compelling proof of the ineffectiveness of the way the talks procedure is being conducted.

In an attempt to justify his proposal for the election of the president and the vice-president from the same ballot paper, President Christofias said the following in an interview in Kathimerini last Sunday:

“This promotes the unity of the state, the people and the institutions. It is a departure from the strict community and ethnic criterion and is dictated by a socioeconomic criterion.”

Political parties with the same ideology could join forces in elections to claim both the presidency and vice-presidency, he said. He did acknowledge, further down in the interview, that there was a problem and that “a way must be found to adjust the votes of the smaller community so that the bigger community does not impose its will.”

Of course the problem would be that no matter how the votes are adjusted the big community would essentially decide who would be elected as representative of the Turkish Cypriots. This is what Christofias cannot or does not want to understand.

In reality, such an arrangement would not strengthen the co-operation between the two communities within the framework of a federal administration. On the contrary, its implementation would prove a cause for bickering.

You only have to look at the numbers to understand how even a tiny percentage of Greek Cypriot votes could have a decisive influence in the election of the Turkish Cypriot representative. The voters of the Greek Cypriot community are about 500,000, while the Turkish Cypriots community’s (including the 50,000 settlers that would probably stay on after a settlement) would be in the region of 150,000.

Let’s assume there are two Turkish Cypriots standing for the post, with one receiving 82,000 votes and the other 68,000 from their community (55% and 45% of the vote respectively). As few as three per cent of the Greek Cypriot voters (15,000) could swing the result in favour of the candidate who took the smaller percentage of votes from the Turkish Cypriot community. Just think how the Turkish Cypriots would react to something like this – the Greek Cypriots essentially would be electing the representative of the Turkish Cypriots.

Christofias’ proposal is at best, absurd and it makes you wonder whether he had given it any thought before making it. Is it possible for Turkish Cypriots, who, under the 1960 constitution, had the right to choose the vice-president, to now agree that we would choose both the president and the vice-president? Does Christofias not credit them even with basic intelligence?

As regards, Christofias’ argument about encouraging the co-operation of political groupings, with similar ideological beliefs, from the two communities, he should look at the relevant provision in the Annan plan. The provision did not just encourage, but essentially forced the political parties to co-operate within the senate in the election of the members of the presidential council.

If the co-operation of the political parties was Christofias’ objective, then the best way to achieve this would have been the adoption of the above-mentioned Annan plan provision, instead of becoming lost in the impracticalities of his unfeasible proposal.

Kifeas, what have you done with your slogan about agreed partition? Have you changed your tune again, according to your prevailing mood?

If this is implemented and the logic of the author of that piece is implemented then I have one question to make

WHERE DO I SIGN UP TO BECOME A TC?

If in a population of voters of 650,000 I can become president with only 75,000 votes then I'm no fool and I want to be part of the "chosen people"

I think you should ignore "Loukouin" and live him down to his misery. His problem (and Bananiot"s) is how to get us back to the Annan plan. He is among those people that have given an oath their masters to work to death to bring the Annan plan and re-vote it again.

[Viewpoint]

What will you do Kifeas when what is put before in the future is a revised AP with adjustments closer to the GCs demands?

[Kifeas]

What will you do Kifeas when what is put before in the future is a revised AP with adjustments closer to the GCs demands?

First of all, you have to tell me how your above last "question" or "concern" was addressed and solved in the Annan plan!

[Viewpoint]

What will you do Kifeas when what is put before in the future is a revised AP with adjustments closer to the GCs demands?

First of all, you have to tell me how your above last "question" or "concern" was addressed and solved in the Annan plan!

Not with you? please clarify.

[Piratis]

VP is right to think that we would never vote for a racist TC like himself. But most GCs would not have a problem at all to vote for a TC with the mentality of Kikapu.

In fact I would personally not have a problem if there would be required that at least 1 every 5 presidents is a TC, as long as the president is always elected by the Cypriot people as a whole. It is unacceptable for a leader of a country to be elected by just the 9% of the votes.

Kikapu supports you views 100% thats why you would not have a problem with him, would you vote for Bananiot is the real question?

Exactly VP. I would vote for somebody who shares my views regardless of his language, religion or ethnic background, while I would not vote for somebody who shares my language, ethnic background and religion (me and Bananiot are both atheists) if we do not share the same views.

You are voting for someone who is anti TC, a convert and is more GC than you are, he does not voice anything the TC would support and therefore is not a candidate that you could label as a typical TC as he would be someone no TC would vote for as they would not want him to represent them just as any other GC as that would place us in avery risky situation.

Vp, you claimed that GCs are racists and that they would never vote for a TC. Now you admit that it is not a matter of race, it is a matter of views.

Now tell me why is Kikapu "anti TC"? Does he support human rights violations against TCs? Does he support that TC land should be stolen and given to GCs? What makes him "anti-TC"? Be specific.