Viewpoint wrote:This I think you will have problems selling to the GCs not us. We can agree on this point as long as we have the right to block decisions in the upper house then you will get most TCs to agree, now this I would like to see you get GCs to agree to, this is what I have been asking for a issue pro TC.
Picking to pieces the current north will never be accepted by TCs but the compromise would be to return land near enough along the lines of the AP
continuation of the post above...
we have nothing against GCs getting their land back in fact we support it, alternatively compensation or even if they wish to reside in the north as long as we have a balance thast allows us to run the north state as the GCs run the south.
In a GC move to block trade with Turkey I would be against GCs but a move by Turkey to block oil revenue into the united Cyprus that will benefit us all I would be against Turkey, each situation deserves an indpendent decision. If Turkey wanted to attack the GCs for no reason then I would not support such a move, we are not evil and we do not hate GCs they have every right to live on this island just as we TCs do but we need safeguards to provide a that net in case anything should happen or go wrong. This will make us more confident in taking bigger steps towards a better Cyprus.
I am a person who does not like leaving things to chance so that everyone one exactly by which rules they have to abide without having to try and chnage matters to the determent of anyone else just we experienced in 1963.
The Scottish comparison is just to bring home the difference in just being a minority and having more rights for your community, there are many shades of grey yet you persistently try to place us in a slot where we do not belong and never accept.
The acceptence of the 4;1 ratio is to provide the safety net, do you understand where I am coming from when I ask for this? allow 1 person one vote but also ensure the majority do not abuse their numerical advantage to bypass TCs all together.
VP,
Viewpoint wrote:This I think you will have problems selling to the GCs not us. We can agree on this point as long as we have the right to block decisions in the upper house then you will get most TCs to agree, now this I would like to see you get GCs to agree to, this is what I have been asking for a issue pro TC.
BBF Federation is what's on the table, therefore with the right formula of Democracy and Human Rights respected, most GC's will go for it in my opinion, since it will be a complete contrast to what the majority rejected with the Annan Plan. As I remember back in March 08, Christofias told the GC's to start accepting the idea of a Federation for Cyprus. So far it has been the TC's who have tried every which way to reject Federation and push for Confederation instead. As you have surprised me with you acceptance of the upper house structure that will give the TC's a strong hand in decision makings, I sometimes wonder whether most TC's really understand how a Federation works, or do they just blindly follow their leaders without asking questions.? (I'll talk about the USA style Federal structure for Cyprus later)
Viewpoint wrote:Picking to pieces the current north will never be accepted by TCs but the compromise would be to return land near enough along the lines of the AP
I completely understand in wanting to keep the north state in one piece, although according to Talat, the north right now is in TWO pieces, so it is not such a strange idea for having the north state in more than ONE piece if it benefits the TC's in maintaining complete control of their share in the upper house. Keeping the size as described in the AP ( 30% which most GC's will not go for, hence their refusal to accept the AP) you may find this to be a hindrance in protecting the upper house for the TC's. (More on this later.)
Viewpoint wrote:we have nothing against GCs getting their land back in fact we support it, alternatively compensation or even if they wish to reside in the north as long as we have a balance thast allows us to run the north state as the GCs run the south.
Making the north state 30% land mass with one man one vote that you support, freedom of movement with Democratic and Human Rights of all Cypriots citizens respected (including non TC's and GC's), you will not be able to run the north as a solely TC state or chose who can reside in the north or how many. Land and property of the GC's in the north will remain theirs except for certain situations, where return will be impossible for all practical purposes and will be compensated 100% for market value of today. Despite all this, the north will be able to function independently from the Federal Government close to 99%.!
Viewpoint wrote:In a GC move to block trade with Turkey I would be against GCs but a move by Turkey to block oil revenue into the united Cyprus that will benefit us all I would be against Turkey, each situation deserves an indpendent decision. If Turkey wanted to attack the GCs for no reason then I would not support such a move, we are not evil and we do not hate GCs they have every right to live on this island just as we TCs do but we need safeguards to provide a that net in case anything should happen or go wrong. This will make us more confident in taking bigger steps towards a better Cyprus.
I was hoping you would say that if Turkey were to attack any Cypriots, you will be against it. You still can bring yourself to see yourself as a Cypriot even after peace is agreed on, but continue to see it as TC's v's GC's. I hope in time you can bring yourself to see all of Cyprus as your country and not just a part of it.!
Viewpoint wrote:I am a person who does not like leaving things to chance so that everyone one exactly by which rules they have to abide without having to try and chnage matters to the determent of anyone else just we experienced in 1963.
You have to understand something about any constitution in a Democracy, VP. Constitutions are a "living and breathing" entity and not just printed words piled together. That is why it is very important to have a Constitution that protects every one's Democratic and Human Rights from the beginning so that it is not left for chance by having Undemocratic and Racist provisions that the 1959 Constitution had, which brought the 1963 incident, so I agree with you there, that lets not take chances with our individual rights as citizens of Cyprus. Constitutions also from time to time needs to be amended to add or subtract items as needed with the will of the people. This too should be accommodated with a working and acceptable terms for such changes if and when needed, Democratically rather than a simple "Veto Power" as before.
Viewpoint wrote:The Scottish comparison is just to bring home the difference in just being a minority and having more rights for your community, there are many shades of grey yet you persistently try to place us in a slot where we do not belong and never accept
Sorry VP, but the above explanation is totally meaningless and offers nothing to explain the difference between the Scots and you. Just stick to the fact that you are an indigenous to Cyprus and that you should have every right as anyone else with nothing more and nothing less as an equal citizen in every aspect, just like the Swiss Germans, the Swiss French, the Swiss Italians and the Romansch in Switzerland, and the Scots, the Welsh, the English in the UK along with the Irish from Northern Ireland. The moment you demand special treatment, you will be treated differently no matter what. In all honesty, you will not be respected as an "equal citizen" but a privileged individual that the Cypriot society owes you an entitlement.
The acceptence of the 4;1 ratio is to provide the safety net, do you understand where I am coming from when I ask for this? allow 1 person one vote but also ensure the majority do not abuse their numerical advantage to bypass TCs all together.
I do understand where you are coming from but you should also understand this. By having ratios, you are putting a ceiling on number of TC's that can participate in any functions, no matter how many more talented TC's should be available above that allocated ratio, they will be rejected since those quotas has been filled, and my personal view on any ratios given to the TC's or using an American term "affirmative action", can only have a very negative impact on the TC's in the long run, because even the most productive and talented TC will not be respected for their accomplishments, but rather that they have gotten a "free ride" with the ratio system. This has been the danger the blacks and other minorities faced in the USA, and in the eyes of the most conservative radio talk-show hosts believes the same about Barack Obama.
See this video
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=lovF-f8bkTU produced by Cenk Uygur on his show
"The Young Turks" http://www.theyoungturks.com . He has some very interesting views in general, although, they may be too liberal for you.!
But having said all that, I think in the first 10 years, we can have the 4:1 ratios to allow TC's to establish themselves in all of the Federal government structures and public services sectors, even though I still hold on to my beliefs, that using quotas in hiring people, be it be sports, police, cooks or shoe polishers, only encourages mediocrity and punishes excellence in all areas of the work place. We want to be respected for our achievements in what we do, because we have earned them, and not because we were entitled to them.
