Oh man, you really like to stretch the truth. So, even if only few pages of the 9,256 of 2004 AP are used in today's talks, you want to make the claim that the talks are based on the AP. What ever lights your fire VP, it's fine by me.!
Thank you for at least saying you did state that the AP will be used as a basis, how many pages remain and how many go no one knows for sure but its more than likely more will stay than go this happened during the transition from AP1 to AP5.
I will stand with you and all the TC's for the best deal we can get under the rules set by the UN and the EU under True Federation and True Democracy. Is there another choice VP, because the only way you can ask for special "safeguards" is only if you want to declare the TC community as a "MINORITY", because under political equality which is what we are demanding, we will not be regarded as a minority, but equal to everyone else, just like they have in Switzerland or do you want to tell the EU, "screw with your rules and regulations, because we will not go along with your demands on Democracy, Human Rights and International Laws but we still want to be part of EU regardless, and if you do not like our demands, tough shit". Give me some solid argument rather than your burnt out excuses and telling me that I only support what the GC's want. The GC's will not go for Confederation or worse, two independent states. What I want is what all of Europe has with respect to Democracy, Human rights and International Laws. The bigger question I have for you is, why don't you want the same for our people what rest of Europe has.?
Lets look at what you have posted by choosing a few words and sentences, you say we will become a minority if we ask for safeguards and not a minority if we join the ranks of 800.000 GCs, I'm having problems understanding this as it is exactly what we are fighting against not be pushed aside by the 80% and reduced to a status where the majority of GCs can vote whatever they wish against our wishes, you expect us to leave it to chance and hope for the best experiencing what we have in the past at the hands of "democratic" GCs? You are more naive than I ever thought you were, what we need is a mechanism that will allow us the right to say no on sensitive issues which will effect our community/state more negatively than the state. Kifeas has acknowledged this addressed it and put forward a system that could work that allows TCs the opportunity to have effective say in their own future, and stops them being brushed to one side as would be the case if we took your recommendations. Its this approach that make me suspicious of your intentions and why on the whole I do not take you seriously as you not see the dangers in store for us and blindly try to push us into oblivion at the hands of GCs.
Political equality to us means a balance between being forced to do everything the GCs force upon us and the right to say no to decisions that will effect the north state and TCs more negative than the GCs in the south state, this balance above all is vital to any solution as TCs will not joint take their chances by putting themselves at the mercy of the 800.000 GC who have yet to prove that their donkey which has a saddle on it is in fact a race horse, we have seen no sign of this in the past 4 years.
How do you expect to combat discrimination and persecution when you have a majority which will sure keep TCs out of office out of official jobs and generally at arms length, what safeguards do you recommend? or do we leave things to chance yet again, without a secure and safe structure to guarantee the majority act fairly and equally to all those who live on this island there will never be a solution TCs can commit to.
As for your last comment let me try to answer this simply I am the indigenous population of this island and want to be in the position of the English Scots or Welsh in the UK not the Pakistanis or Indians also in the UK, can you grasp the difference? Safeguards have to be in place to ensure or force, no guarantee that the GCs majority cannot ignore, push aside, discriminate against TCs who have to be included in all walks of life be it the government, official offices, representation etc.
Look at it this way do you feel that the 80% GC majority would ever vote for a song sung by a TC in Turkish to go into the Eurovision? This may sound like a very stupid question but its the underlying racists tone that is import, the 80% would never allow this to happen, think about it for just a few seconds, you want us to leave it to chance??? what if the was a safeguard that stated that every 3 years at least 1 has to be a TC with a Turkish or English song, lets say and hope the GCs showed they were not racist and voted a TC singer 2 years in a row this would make this safeguard redundant, so explain to me what so wrong with having the safeguard in the first place because for us without it is a big risk and no one TC will ever agree to leaving things to chance as you wish to do so.
It is not rubbish. We had discussed this in lengths a while back and if I can find the letter from the EU, I will post it. The EU was entering the RoC into the EU club under that name alone and not something that was being created. Don't forget, that the AP changed from AP I to AP V from the time RoC was already accepted. By the time 2004 came around, AP V would no longer have been the RoC, therefore the whole deal would have collapsed and the EU would have had good argument to make for not allowing the island into the EU Club under it's new name.
You need to do a bit more research as I have inside information on the AP negotations and everything was geared to 1st May 2004 and the entry as 1 island with transition periods for the north to come inline with the south. Join then carry out amendments was the policy.
