Cyprus-Forum.com

[erolz]

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.

You accept a federal solution as long as it has no ethnic element - which is saying you accept a federal solution as long as GC can become a majority in both constiuent states. Making the whole point of a federal solution in cyprus pointless.

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.

The whole point of a federal solution is that it is one way TC can have their valid rights to some degree of self determination WITHOUT total seperation. Of course this is not a solution to you because you want effective GC control of all of cyprus - as you did in the 60's and still want now. A federal solution in Cyprus without an ethnic component is meaningless and pointless - and you know this. So you keep insiting you will accept a federal solution - as long as it is a meaningless and pointless one - that is the degree to which you support a federal solution in Cyprus.

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.

I use the EU as an example when you constantly lecture us all about how on principal ANY democratic system that does not give poltical representation exactly equal to numerical numbers is undemocratic. I choose to use the EU as an example of why your constant assertation is plainly rubbish - because the RoC is part of the EU and benefits from such disproprtionate representation to a massive degree (far in excess of what TC want and in much fewer areas using my 'principal'). The USA (and ALL federal countries) also show this. Does it make the blindest bit of difference to you? No it does not. Still you lecture us on how representation not directly related to numerical numbers is undemocratic on a matter of fundamental democratic principal. You do not say it is undemocratic within a country but not between countries. You do not say it is democratic in a federation if there is no ethnic basis for federal component states. You just trot out the same old tierd and patently incorrect assertions that it is undemocratic. Then you use the fact that I proove the nonsense of your arguments by using the EU as an example as proof that I want two seperate countries. In fact there is nothing you will not try and use to show this - regrdless of what I actualy want, what I say I want. It would make no difference if I used the USA or the EU or any other federal system to show that your argument that ANY democratic system that has representation disproprtionate to numerical numbers is actual undemocratic. It does not matter because you do not care about reality. All you care about is trying to 'proove' that Cyprus must be effecetively controlled by GC alone and TC must just 'lump it' and no argument is so p-atently not supportable that you wil not use it for this end - over and over again regardless.

In short you accept a federal solution - provided that it is meaningless. You accept a degree of 'equality' for the TC community in Cyprus (but never as a right of the TC community - regardless of the spirit of the declarations on human rights that you lecture us on constantly and regardless of the 60 consitution) as long as any equlity is meaningless. In reality then you accept nothing except the pre 74 Cyprus - a Cyprus effectively run and controlled by GC alone. With acceptance like that you needs refusal?

[Kifeas]

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.

You accept a federal solution as long as it has no ethnic element - which is saying you accept a federal solution as long as GC can become a majority in both constiuent states. Making the whole point of a federal solution in cyprus pointless.

I do not think this is what Piratis is trying to say above! In fact his posting is quite clear in that respect! He is simply saying that with the right sizing of the two constituent states and with the appropriate transitional period allowance so that the TC community's economic standard will come at parity with the GC community's one, the social and market forces will work in such a way so that the "North" state will always have a TC majority, even if all settlement restrictions will be completely lifted one day. I agree with his approach and logic!

[erolz]

I do not think this is what Piratis is trying to say above!

Then you have not read his many many posts where he makes it explicitly clear that any ethnic compoment to consituent states in a federal Cyprus is against human rights and racist - on principal and in practice. Or you have read them and chose to ignore and forget them.

In fact his posting is quite clear in that respect! He is simply saying that with the right sizing of the two constituent states and with the appropriate transitional period allowance so that the TC community's economic standard will come at parity with the GC community's one, the social and market forces will work in such a way so that the "North" state will always have a TC majority, even if all settlement restrictions will be completely lifted one day. I agree with his approach and logic!

The size of the consituent states does not stop the ability of GC to become a majority in both states. It might change the probability but it does not exclude the possibility - yet this is what you would have me believe. Even if the TCCS was made up of only 5 house of TC today - if there is no protection based on GC / TC for poltical domiance of each community in each component state, then there is nothing stopping GC buying the houses of 3 of these 5 TC and controling both component states. The size of he consituent states is an EXCUSE for piratis to shoot down any solution that does not meet his maximal demands. Do you really exepect me to believe that if I agreed a TCCS of 25% or of 20% or of 18% or 15% that Piratis would suddenly decide that an ethnic component is OK in cyprus or that equality between the component states on any issues is not undemocratic? Do you really think I am that stupid?

[Piratis]

Do you really exepect me to believe that if I agreed a TCCS of 25% or of 20% or of 18% or 15% that Piratis would suddenly decide that an ethnic component is OK in cyprus or that equality between the component states on any issues is not undemocratic? Do you really think I am that stupid?

You are missing the point.

What I am saying is that if the state is smaller, say 18% of ground, then if all TCs choose to live there then in practice they will control it.

Do you think that if the 200.000 TCs live in the 18% of land that it is practically possible that more than 200.000 GCs will move in this same 18% of land to become the majority?

What may happen is that in lets say 10-20-50-100 years from now when trust will develop, TCs will not feel the need to concentrate in that 18% anymore and they will start spreading all over the island. If this happens then it means that TCs don't care to be separated from GCs anymore and the need to split the hair called Cyprus into 2 parts with several governments, parliaments etc will not exist anymore.

This way you can have the separation and the control of one state that you believe is needed for your security for us long us you need it. This state that you will effectively control will have the same kind of powers that states in all other federal countries have. At the same time no racist discriminations will need to be applied.

[Kifeas]

I do not think this is what Piratis is trying to say above!

Then you have not read his many many posts where he makes it explicitly clear that any ethnic compoment to consituent states in a federal Cyprus is against human rights and racist - on principal and in practice. Or you have read them and chose to ignore and forget them.

I was only reffering to the posting I quoted!

In fact his posting is quite clear in that respect! He is simply saying that with the right sizing of the two constituent states and with the appropriate transitional period allowance so that the TC community's economic standard will come at parity with the GC community's one, the social and market forces will work in such a way so that the "North" state will always have a TC majority, even if all settlement restrictions will be completely lifted one day. I agree with his approach and logic!

The size of the consituent states does not stop the ability of GC to become a majority in both states. It might change the probability but it does not exclude the possibility - yet this is what you would have me believe. Even if the TCCS was made up of only 5 house of TC today - if there is no protection based on GC / TC for poltical domiance of each community in each component state, then there is nothing stopping GC buying the houses of 3 of these 5 TC and controling both component states. The size of he consituent states is an EXCUSE for piratis to shoot down any solution that does not meet his maximal demands. Do you really exepect me to believe that if I agreed a TCCS of 25% or of 20% or of 18% or 15% that Piratis would suddenly decide that an ethnic component is OK in cyprus or that equality between the component states on any issues is not undemocratic? Do you really think I am that stupid?

Erol, I do not want to make you believe anything and I do not think you are stupid!

It is up to logic! Are you saying that if for example the TCCS will be around 24%-25%, and the TC population is around 150 thousands and perhaps in 20 years around 200 thousands, there will be another 250 thousand GCs that will move and reside into the TCCS so that they will become a majority. In theory it might be possible if they want to do that on purpose. In practice though this is impossible because no such number of GCs will ever want to move north, for social and economic reasons. What are they going to do in such a small area? This will essentially mean 250 thousand less people in the southern 75% of the country, or almost half the total Cypriot population living only in the 25% of the island. As I said, the easing up on the restrictions against the GCs might begin only when the TC community will proportionally have the same economic power with the GCs.

You are giving me an example that is not related in my opinion. We are talking about residing permanently and not just buying a house or investing money into one or the other Constituent State. To be considered a permanent resident of one state or the other, one has to live permanently in that state for a certain period and on a continued basis. To do so, one has to have a valid reason for it. i.e, he got a permanent job there, got married with someone from that state and begun his family life there, started a business that requires his permanent presence, etc. We are not talking about someone who will just buy a house and visit the other state for a few weeks or months in a year for his pleasure.

[erolz]

You are missing the point.

Or perhaps I am seeing the point to clearly?

What I am saying is that if the state is smaller, say 18% of ground, then if all TCs choose to live there then in practice they will control it.

Do you think that if the 200.000 TCs live in the 18% of land that it is practically possible that more than 200.000 GCs will move in this same 18% of land to become the majority?

You mean that TC can choose between being able to live anywhere in Cyprus and loosing their right and ability to have majority control of one of the consituent states OR they can keep their ability to have majority control of one of the component states and lose their right to live anywhere in Cyprus. GC of course will have both rights in full without any ristriction at all - beacuse thats what equality means (apparently)

[Kifeas]

You mean that TC can choose between being able to live anywhere in Cyprus and loosing their right and ability to have majority control of one of the consituent states OR they can keep their ability to have majority control of one of the component states and lose their right to live anywhere in Cyprus. GC of course will have both rights in full without any ristriction at all - beacuse thats what equality means (apparently)

This is a good one!
Let us reverse the analogy. You want permanent restrictions on the GCs at a certain percentage so that the TCs do not become a minority in the TC state. Any percentage of restrictions on the GCs will still not inhibit any number of TCs to move south and into the GCCS. Even if there is one on the TCs, in practice it will make no difference because of the considerably smaller size of the TC community. Right? Right!
What happens if 100 thousand TCs out of the 150 or 170 thousand TCs decide to gradually move south for their own reasons, irrespective of the political implications? They will certainly have every right to do so! Won’t the north (TCCS) state become virtually empty from people in this way, assuming that the GCs will always have to be a certain percentage of the TCs that will remain in the TCCS? What if we have already reached the maximum percentage of GCs in the TCCS, and for some reason the TCs begin moving out of that state and reside permanently into the south? Should the excessive GCs in the TCCS get to be expelled from the north so that their percentage drops down to the pre-determined one and at par with the new, reduced number of TC that remained in the north? How do we regulate all these theoretical possibilities?

The whole idea assumes that the TCs will not want in any significant numbers to live from the TCCS and permanently reside into the GCCS. After all, it is the TC community that wants and promotes the idea of a BBF for the simple reason that they do not want to be assimilated by the GC community and to have a certain degree of autonomy.

[erolz]

I was only reffering to the posting I quoted!

Exactly!

It is up to logic!

Do you and other GC not constantly remind us TC how before 74 GC were a majority in what is now the TRNC? Of course I should not fear such again should I?

Are you saying that if for example the TCCS will be around 24%-25%, and the TC population is around 150 thousands and perhaps in 20 years around 200 thousands, there will be another 250 thousand GCs that will move and reside into the TCCS so that they will become a majority.

For GC to become a majority in the TCCS of say 150,000 people does not require 250k GC to move to the north as you suggest but 75k+1.

In theory it might be possible if they want to do that on purpose.

And of course there is no reason to fear that GC might on purpose wish to undermine an agreement made with TC that gives TC some degree of control over Cyprus greater than that of a minority, is there?

In practice though this is impossible because no such number of GCs will ever want to move north, for social and economic reasons.

You mean 'trust us'. The problem is I / we do not trust you and with good reason based on past experience.

You are giving me an example that is not related in my opinion. We are talking about residing permanently and not just buying a house or investing money into one or the other Constituent State. To be considered a permanent resident of one state or the other, one has to live permanently in that state for a certain period and on a continued basis. To do so, one has to have a valid reason for it. i.e, he got a permanent job there, got married with someone from that state and begun his family life there, started a business that requires his permanent presence, etc. We are not talking about someone who will just buy a house and visit the other state for a few weeks or months in a year for his pleasure.

On the one hand you say ALL GC should have a right to return and on the other you are saying of course do not worry because not ALL (or anywhere near close to all) GC will actualy return. If this is the case then work out how many GC DO wish to return and negotiate on that basis. If you insist on negotiating on a basis that all GC must have the right to return then do be surprised if I worry that ALL (or many) will return and the impact that will have on TC communities ability to have an effective say in Cyprus.

This is a good one!
Let us reverse the analogy. You want permanent restrictions on the GCs at a certain percentage so that the TCs do not become a minority in the TC state. Any percentage of restrictions on the GCs will still not inhibit any number of TCs to move south and into the GCCS. Even if there is one on the TCs, in practice it will make no difference because of the considerably smaller size of the TC community. Right? Right!

Again my personal position is clear. For me bizonality is not a requirment. What is a requirment is that the TC community is protected from a GC numerical majority against legislation that prejudices TC relative to GC. I would prefer a Cyprus where anyone can live anywhere AND TC are still protected from a GC numerical majority (as far as acts that affect TC differently to GC goes). What you appear to offer is such protection - provided TC stay only in the TCCS (whilst GC can live in either) or we go where we want and risk losing the political protection of majority in one component state. And in reality I just do not believe you that if we agreed to a TCCS state of say 25% or 20% that you would suddenly drop all your objections that you claim if it is 30% or 35% (restrcitions on GC being able to live in TCCS, full return of all property, racist based federation, undemocratic system etc etc etc). You say this because atm a TCCS of 25% is not 'on the table'. My belief is that if it were, you would 'take' the 25% AND still insist on more on exactly the same basis you do now with a TCCS of 30% or 35% or whatever. That is my belief.

[Kifeas]

It is up to logic!

Do you and other GC not constantly remind us TC how before 74 GC were a majority in what is now the TRNC? Of course I should not fear such again should I?

Remind it or not it was a fact! However, they were the majority because:

1. There were only 55,000 thousand TCs, living in that area or only 47% of the total TC population. The rest of TCs were living in other areas located in the south of Cyprus.
2. GCs were the majority because the Size of the occupied areas now is about 35% of the total territory, while in the post-solution situation we are talking about a considerably smaller area, i.e. 25%
3. The GCs were a majority 31 years ago. The older generation has passed away, a considerable number have emigrated abroad and the younger generations, even if they remained in Cyprus, they have established their lives, families and professional activities in other areas and towns of the south. It is highly unlikely that any decent numbers of these people will want to change there lives so dramatically, i.e. abandon their current house, professional engagements and social life, and head north in order to serve a hypothetical GC political agenda.

All the above factors provide enough data to safely assume that the GCs will never become a majority in the north, if there is a better regulating of the territory issue and especially in view of fact that there will be another 15-20 years of transitional period in which certain percentage quotas regarding residency will be applied. Unless of course you want to assume that the TCs will be castrated, or that they will want to evacuate the north TC state and move else where in the south, abroad, etc.

Are you saying that if for example the TCCS will be around 24%-25%, and the TC population is around 150 thousands and perhaps in 20 years around 200 thousands, there will be another 250 thousand GCs that will move and reside into the TCCS so that they will become a majority.

For GC to become a majority in the TCCS of say 150,000 people does not require 250k GC to move to the north as you suggest but 75k+1.

I think you need to check your maths here. If you add 75k to an existing TC population of 150k, then the total number will be 225k. The 75k over the 225k do not constitute a majority but only a 33% of the total. To have a GC majority in such a case, you will need another 150k +1, so that the two population groups will have a 50:50 ratio. However, by the time a number of 150k of GCs multiply or permanently settle in the TC state, assuming that this has a chance to become feasible in the next 60-80 years, the number of the TC population will rise to perhaps 270 thousands, taking into account a current growth rate of 1.2% per year.

[Viewpoint]

Kifeas your whole arguement is based on trust and seeing we do not trust GCs as erolz also confirms then we dont have a chance in hell of getting any consensus on your ideals, I will constantly pull you up on how everything relates back to Trust and try to prove how important this issue that you so conveniently find a minor problem is the key to moving forward.