Cyprus-Forum.com

[Piratis]

Erolz, my conclusion is that I was right all along and what you are asking for in practice is indeed 50% power on everything.


You said:

Even if by some bizzare set of circumstances there was a split of opinions based on GC / TC ethnicity, then under my system before the TC community could block such legislation they would have to show how it would affect the TC community in a materialy different way. How could this argument possibly be made for the age of consent? On what basis could the TC community argue that it affect TC differently to GC? The simple answer is they could not argue or show this because such legisaltion does not affect the two communites in a materialy different way.

Say in the above scenario the TCs insist that such legislation affects the two communities in a materially different way, while GCs argue that it does not. What then? Who will decide? Some foreigners?

[Piratis]

Namely that it does not matter how many times I have explained this or how clearly because you simply ignore such explainations and repeatedly accuse me of saying I want total equality of everything (and moan about others doing this too you).

Because this is exactly what you do. You just did it again now. You gave to Cypriots no right to take a decision just by simple majority in an area.
If this is not true then give me the areas for which decisions will taken by simple majority. Can you do that? No.
Instead you are telling me something like this:

"If we agree, then no problem, if we don't agree, then it means this something we do not agree affects us differently and therefore we have the right to block it."
Therefore: You can block anything that you don't agree with.
Simple logic really.

[erolz]

Erolz, my conclusion is that I was right all along and what you are asking for in practice is indeed 50% power on everything.

No it is not. However demanding straight majority vote of GC and TC combined IS to say in practice that TC must always bow to the will of TC no matter how much such a decision affects TC differenlty to GC.

Say in the above scenario the TCs insist that such legislation affects the two communities in a materially different way, while GCs argue that it does not.

And how would TC go about that? On what possible basis could they make such a claim, let alone why they would make it?

What then? Who will decide? Some foreigners?

If necessary yes some independent and international body can rule on such cases if we decide to give them the power to do so. Why not? If such ageed arbitration can help us end the current status quo and create a cyprus where we can with will and determination and hard work and compromise work towards the shared ultimate end goal - then I am more than willing to accept and welcome it.

[erolz]

Because this is exactly what you do. You just did it again now.

I have no idea what you mean by this is exactly what I do ?

You gave to Cypriots no right to take a decision just by simple majority in an area.

No I did not. I made and have made it totaly clear under what circumstances I think decisions should require seperate consent from each community and where threy should not.

If this is not true then give me the areas for which decisions will taken by simple majority. Can you do that? No.

Not only can I do it, I have done it - time and again. With detail and explict examles and in brief.

Instead you are telling me something like this:

"If we agree, then no problem, if we don't agree, then it means this something we do not agree affects us differently and therefore we have the right to block it."

What I am saying and have said is that the chances that TC (or GC for that matter) would wish to block a decision when such a decision does not affect the two communites differently is vabishingly small. Why do you think TC would want to block a decision against the majority will of the GC if it did not affect TC differently? Because we are just trouble makers? Even in this vanishingly small chance of such a senario that you suggest TC still would not be able to block such a decision that has GC majority in support of it UNLESS they could show / prove that it would affect the communites in a materialy different way. Yet STILL you claim

Therefore: You can block anything that you don't agree with.
Simple logic really.

If your idea of logic is that TC community having a right to block decisions that affect it differently to GC is the same as TC having a right to block all decisions - then may God save us from GC logic!

What would be a logical conclusion is that you resitance to TC having a right to block decisons by GC that affect TC differently on the ridculous premise that this is the same as giving them rights to block every and any decision is based on your desire to ensure that GC alone can effectively rule Cyprus without any let or hindernace even when such decisions affect TC more adversly than GC.

[gabaston]

Mic At Cyp

comon please,- presidents sould know better than to give interviews to micky mouse newspapers. just imagine if Blair has said the same thing about northern ireland or Bush about Kuwait, in an interview with fishermans monthly. It still would have made front page of the Washington Post.

What this does go to show is how insignificant the world sees the Cyprus problem. That worries me than what T-paps said or didnt say.

[Piratis]

If your idea of logic is that TC community having a right to block decisions that affect it differently to GC is the same as TC having a right to block all decisions - then may God save us from GC logic!

You missed a word, I will add it:

TC community having a right to block decisions that they claim affect it differently to GC is the same as TC having a right to block all decisions.

How do TCs claim that the invasion of 1974 was a "peace operation", how do they claim that they now own the homes that were stolen from us, etc etc. The examples that the TCs claim outrageous things are countless.

Why would they stop having such outrageous claims, when the collapse of the new state would be something that wouldn't bother them that much since the result of such collapse would be the partition they wanted?

This is why a predifined list is needed, so TCs can block decisions in areas that it could affect them differently, but not in just whatever they claim that it affects them differently.

[Piratis]

What I am saying and have said is that the chances that TC (or GC for that matter) would wish to block a decision when such a decision does not affect the two communites differently is vabishingly small.

With TCs thinking that they should have the 30% or even 50% of everything I don't think is small. Whenever there would some kind of distribution of funds, they will always demand that they deserve a whole lot more than 18%, this is proven, since TCs have shown that are never satisfied with the percentage that naturally belongs to them.

[erolz]

TC community having a right to block decisions that they claim affect it differently to GC is the same as TC having a right to block all decisions.

But it is not enough, under my system, to just claim that it affects them differently. It has to actualy affect them differently and they have to be able to show that is true to some form of 'arbitrating' body if that is necessary. So it is not the same as a right to block all decisions despite what you claim.

How do TCs claim that the invasion of 1974 was a "peace operation", how do they claim that they now own the homes that were stolen from us, etc etc. The examples that the TCs claim outrageous things are countless.

There is a basis to these claims. You also claim that there can be no democracy with any disproprtionate representation and that TC have no RIGHTS to equality as a community or people or that most TC fled their homes because of poltical orders from Turkey and not because GC were killing them and driving them from their homes or that all Turks know how to do is kill rape and steal and other outrageous claims. The difference is in my system I am willing to accept external independent arbitration to settle differences of opinion and you are not. Why is this?

This is why a predifined list is needed, so TCs can block decisions in areas that it could affect them differently, but not in just whatever they claim that it affects them differently.

Why do you insist on perverting what I am saying. TC can would not be able to block a decision under my system just by claiming it affects them differently - they would have to prove it to an independent and external body.

Can you show how TC could protect themsleves from the kind of example I gave (GC majority passing a law limiting foreign investment from non EU countries) with a pre defined list appraoch? If you can then I consider a 'pre defined' approach. If you can not then another approach is necessary. I have suggested one. All you are insiting is that we should not be able to protect ourselves from such one sided legislation as far as I can see. In effect then you just ignore our valid concerns. This is not a way to move forward.

[Piratis]

The difference is in my system I am willing to accept external independent arbitration to settle differences of opinion and you are not. Why is this?

Do you know any other country were there is no system of effective decision making in the goverment and the deadlocks that are created are resolved by foreigners? There are unitary countries, federal countries, countries with multi-lingual multi-religion communities etc. Nobody does such thing. This would create a banana republic, not a normal country. I would accept such thing as part of a transitional period, but this can not go on indefinetly.

Can you show how TC could protect themsleves from the kind of example I gave (GC majority passing a law limiting foreign investment from non EU countries) with a pre defined list appraoch?

With transitional periods. After lets say 30 years transitional period when the now occupied Cyprus will be totaly up to speed with the rest of Cyprus and GCs and TCs will be living around the whole island and they will not be separated how such a law affect only one community?
If there are specific industries were the TCs have some kind of tradition, then anything that has to do with these kind of industries of sectors can be part of the predifined list where the TCs will have a blocking power.

[erolz]

Can you show how TC could protect themsleves from the kind of example I gave (GC majority passing a law limiting foreign investment from non EU countries) with a pre defined list appraoch?

With transitional periods. After lets say 30 years transitional period when the now occupied Cyprus will be totaly up to speed with the rest of Cyprus and GCs and TCs will be living around the whole island and they will not be separated how such a law affect only one community?
If there are specific industries were the TCs have some kind of tradition, then anything that has to do with these kind of industries of sectors can be part of the predifined list where the TCs will have a blocking power.

If TC businesses get 70% of their foreign investment from Turkey and 30% from Europe and GC businesses get 1% of their foreign investment from Turkey and 80% from Europe then a law that restricts foreign investment from non EU countries would affect TC business to a vastly greater degree than GC. This is true at whatever stage in the reunification process we are in. In your system this would just be 'tough luck' to TC and in mine they would be able to block such descrimatory legislation unless their valid concerns were addressed.

This is just one example. Even if this eventuality were put into your 'pre defined' list there may be others in the future. Unless we can forsee every possible piece of legislation that affects TC differently to GC and get it included in the pre defined list then we are not protected form such potentialy discriminating legislation. That is why a set of principles that can be applied to each and every situation forseen and unforseen is a 'better' solution.

Just for a moment forget the problems of 'implementation'. Do you agree with the principal that legislation that affects TC differently from GC should require the consent of the TC community? Not legislation that we think affects us differntly but legislaion that actualy does affect us differenly. Should he TC have a right to block such legislaion in your view? Or do you insist that we be put at the 'mercy' of a GC numerical majority - for that is what it seems you expect.