Cyprus-Forum.com

[Piratis]

Do you agree with the principal that legislation that affects TC differently from GC should require the consent of the TC community?

I agree if GCs and TCs live mixed together and not in separate states. If they live in separate states, then many things will affect communities differently because of this separation. E.g. a new 4 lane road needs to be built from Limassol to Trodos. This is something that affects TCs differently from GCs (it helps GCs, it doesn't help TCs). So because this affects them differently they can block it? If there is no limit on what they can block, then whats to stop them from doing so?

So basically if we live together in one unified island, then mostly our only differences would be religion, culture and language, and therefore I would agree with the principle that you gave. But with two separate confederal states (like Annan plan) and separated people, then a lot of things will affect us differently because we will live in separate locations.

[erolz]

I agree if GCs and TCs live mixed together and not in separate states. If they live in separate states, then many things will affect communities differently because of this separation. E.g. a new 4 lane road needs to be built from Limassol to Trodos. This is something that affects TCs differently from GCs (it helps GCs, it doesn't help TCs). So because this affects them differently they can block it? If there is no limit on what they can block, then whats to stop them from doing so?

Things tha affect ONLY the GCCS (like you describe above) should be decided by GC only and visa versa - as I have said before.

[Piratis]

Things tha affect ONLY the GCCS (like you describe above) should be decided by GC only and visa versa - as I have said before.

What you are asking is partition. Don't tell me that this is how federations work because it is not. In federation there is no discrimination based on race and all all people are equal citizens that can choose the state of recidency. Threfore states are a geographical split mainly for administrative purposes and are part of a nation. What you want is your state to be a separate TC nation in which there is a minority of GCs. This is not what states are for. This is what countries are for. I will say it again: disguised partition will not be the solution because it is unfair and can not be tolerated even if it was imposed.

[MicAtCyp]

I am watching your long discussion Erol and Piratis, sorry for not actively participating, but me and Erol came to an undrerstanding in the past regarding the matter of "equality". My worry however is not Erols definition (to which I agree completely) but the definition of the TC leadership. For them equality means clearly 50-50 on everything, as it can be seen in the thread "The 25 chapters..."

I just have one question for Erol: What if a law comes from Brussels and it does in fact affect the TCs differently than the GCs? What do you propose in this case? What if an action is required due to international agreements that Cyprus already signed that will affect the TCs/GCs differently. What if the British take some decisions regarding their military bases that affect differently the TCs/GCs?

What I mean to say is, if this rule of "affecting differently" is going to be strictly followed without any political interplay between the communities of the sort of "give & take" =give on one occasion-take on another, we may end up having serious problems.
What is your oppinion on this?

[erolz]

Things tha affect ONLY the GCCS (like you describe above) should be decided by GC only and visa versa - as I have said before.

What you are asking is partition. Don't tell me that this is how federations work because it is not. In federation there is no discrimination based on race and all all people are equal citizens that can choose the state of recidency. Threfore states are a geographical split mainly for administrative purposes and are part of a nation. What you want is your state to be a separate TC nation in which there is a minority of GCs. This is not what states are for. This is what countries are for. I will say it again: disguised partition will not be the solution because it is unfair and can not be tolerated even if it was imposed.

There is no point in discussing anything with you Piratis that I can see. I doubt I will try much longer. You claimed that the 'princple' of TC having a right to block decisions that affect them differently from GC is ok if they are intermingled but no ok is there is a federal based solution. You claim that this is because intermingled only some things affect TC differently to GC but in a federal senario effectively everything would affect TC differently - thus TC could block everything (this is clealry rubbish as far as I am concerned). You then give an example of a proposed road built exculisvely in the GCCS and say this would affect TC differently to GC (in federal senario) and thus TC could block (though why they would want to is beyond me). When I point out that you have misunderstood my set of 'principles' - because they would apply to federal level decisions and not component state decisions (such as your hypothetical road in the GCCS) - you start up with your self rightgeous rantings yet again and start telling me what I want (namely partition) and lecturing me on human rights and discrimination.

How many times do I have to make my position clear?

Decsions that apply only to the component states are taken by that component state (like your hypothetical road)

Decsions of the central federal state that affect GC and TC equaly are taken on a straight majority.

Decsions of he central federal state that affect GC and TC differently require seperate concent from each.

There is nohing complicated or confusing about this set of principles. They are not a set of principles that aim for partition but for effecive protecion of TC in a federal based senario. I can make my position no clearer than this. That you still choose to insist they are propsals that aim for parition when clealry they are not makes it clear to me that there can be no sensible discussion with you. All you want to do is rant and lecture and tell me what I want - regrdless of what I say. This is clear from your posts and has been your approach from day one and remains - appart perhaps from a tiny minority of your posts that appear o be writen by a different person entirely.

[Piratis]

I understand what you are saying Erolz,

Decisions that affect France are decided by French alone, decisions that affect Spain are decided by Spanish alone etc, and decision that affect the EU are decided by all EU countries together.

The difference that you can not understand is that that while France for the Spanish is a foreign land and they just happen to be in the same union, north Cyprus for us is our land and you can not take decisions for any part of Cyprus just by yourselves because you do not own any part of Cyprus just by yourselves.

Even in Federations people are not split, land is split, but the whole country belongs to all the citizens of the country. Florida for example doesn't belong to Hispanics, New York to Irish Americans and Alabama to African Americans.

Whats the difference between what you are asking and this:
Some land is given back to RoC, some GCs move to the "TC country" and become a minority there, and the "TC country" enters the EU. I don't find any significant differences between this (partition), and what you are asking. It is definitely much closer to 2 countries than 1. Within countries people and land are not split in the way you want it. (because there is no point of claiming that you have 1 country when in effect you have 2)

[erolz]

My worry however is not Erols definition (to which I agree completely) but the definition of the TC leadership. For them equality means clearly 50-50 on everything, as it can be seen in the thread "The 25 chapters..."

that is not in the 'scope' of this discussion. I am suggesting a principal for determining where TC should have an equal say in decisions and where they should not. The discussion is about my proposals not what the TC leadership are asking for in the lead up to potential fresh negotiations. If you think there is no point in such discusions about my proposal (because of the position or percieved position of TC leadership) then do not post.

I just have one question for Erol: What if a law comes from Brussels and it does in fact affect the TCs differently than the GCs? What do you propose in this case? What if an action is required due to international agreements that Cyprus already signed that will affect the TCs/GCs differently. What if the British take some decisions regarding their military bases that affect differently the TCs/GCs?

Quite simply we do not fear domination from the EU (though perhaps all Cypriots should more - but thats a different issue). It was not he EU that persued objectives in Cyprus that were against TC wishes and the agreed consitituon. It was not the EU sending bands or armed men to attack us. It was not the EU that killed my uncle. We want and need protection from potential GC domination, not EU (or other) domination and that is what my principles are aimed at achieving.

What I mean to say is, if this rule of "affecting differently" is going to be strictly followed without any political interplay between the communities of the sort of "give & take" =give on one occasion-take on another, we may end up having serious problems.
What is your oppinion on this?

My opinion is that my system will lead to interplay and give and take. If you take the exmpale of legislation limiting foreign investment from non EU conutries - under Piratis system TC would just have to 'lump it' even though such legislation clearly would affect TC community much more adversly than GC. In my system TC would say - no as it stands this legislation is prejudical to our community. If you change it to be non EU countires except Turkey then we will agree to it. Or if you offer some financial compensation to offset the gretater damage to TC busniess we can accept it. In short under my system the right to block such discrimitory legislation will lead to negotition on such legislation such that it meets both communites needs. Under Piratis system TC would simply have to accept the legislation regardless of how much more it affected TC and GC would see no need for any compromise or negotiation.

[erolz]

, north Cyprus for us is our land and you can not take decisions for any part of Cyprus just by yourselves because you do not own any part of Cyprus just by yourselves.

Then you mean you reject a federal solution to cyprus - unless of course GC get to control both consistuient states.

Whats the difference between what you are asking and this:
Some land is given back to RoC, some GCs move to the "TC country" and become a minority there, and the "TC country" enters the EU. I don't find any significant differences between this (partition), and what you are asking. It is definitely much closer to 2 countries than 1. Within countries people and land are not split in the way you want it. (because there is no point of claiming that you have 1 country when in effect you have 2)

Yet there is a point in claiming you have one country (and people) when in reality you have two?

My system is based on a federal model. My set of principals defines in what (federal) areas decsions will be made by a straight majority and where hey will require seperate consent of each consitutient state or community. What are you arguing against - a federal solution (with an ethnic component) or my principlas within a federal solution? You use either to argue, over and over again that I want partition. A federal Cyrpus where TC have total equality is NOT the same as two seperate and sovreign nations - not in theory or in practice. A federal solution where TC have equality on some issues and not others - as determined by my criteria is even more so not the same as two sovreign nations. It seems then your position is that any equality for TC beyond your predifened list of 'gifts' to TC is unacceptable to you. So you claim any such solution is the same as partition and seperate sovreign states in Cyprus - a patently absurd assertion yet an appraoch you presumably consider better spin that 'I will accept no equality for TC as rights and will only grant them some 'special priveledges' (not rights) in a set of predefined areas and will accept no federal solutiuon unless both consituient states can be controlled by a GC majority'.

[brother]

Piratis wrote

north Cyprus for us is our land and you can not take decisions for any part of Cyprus just by yourselves because you do not own any part of Cyprus just by yourselves.

Nor do you own any part on your own but yet you still are doing what you want without the participation of the tc in the south for many years now.

Piratis sometimes your thought process can be very indulging at others its like talking to a nationalistic 12 year old child, but nether the less i am sure others have their own opinions of what you write and say.

[Piratis]

Then you mean you reject a federal solution to cyprus - unless of course GC get to control both consistuient states.

No. I accept a federal solution as a compromise.But I accept it like it exists in all other federal countries, where the citizens are free to become residents of whichever state they want. I never said that GCs have to control both of the states. Instead of 29% for the north state, it can be much smaller, and if all TCs choose to live there then they will be the majority and they will control it.
It is you that you do not accept a federal solution - unless this racist separation that exists nowhere else in the world is added just for Cyprus.

Yet there is a point in claiming you have one country (and people) when in reality you have two?

There is just one country. This country has 18% TCs. You can call yourselves whatever you want, but you have no right to take any part of the country just for yourselves.

My system is based on a federal model.

No, your system is based on separate countries. Just look at how often you bring EU (a union of independent countries) as example and compare it with how many times you use USA or another federation as an example.

What are you arguing against - a federal solution (with an ethnic component) or my principles within a federal solution?

I am arguing against what you claim is a federal solution (but in fact is the association of two separate countries). In one country all people are equal. Maybe in the federal system people have different rights/voting power depending in which state the choose to live, but not based on what race (which they can not choose) they are.

So you claim any such solution is the same as partition and seperate sovreign states in Cyprus

What I am saying is that Unification - 1000 things = Partition + 10 things. You choose to name this thing unification, I choose to call it partition because it is much closer to the reality of what you are asking for.