Cyprus-Forum.com

[Piratis]

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?

Wait a second. Isn't you that you were telling me some posts ago that it is impossible that in 1963 most TCs moved from their homes to other areas in order to achieve their political aims? Now you claim that GCs will do that? Double standards again Erolz?

And since we are talking about double standards, here is another one:
Cyprus as a whole has a great majority of GCs. However TCs accept nothing Greek to be associated with Cyprus, they think it is fair to have 50% power in it, they claim that GCs being the 82% majority means nothing, etc etc.

When it comes to the possibility of a future state in the north they call it "Turkish CCS". Why is that? Why should the Greek Cypriots that will live there have to live in a state called "Turkish"?? Shouldn't the Greek Cypriot numerical minority in a possible future north state have the same kind of rights like the TCs think is fair for them to have in a whole Cyprus that they are only the 18%?

[erolz]

Wait a second. Isn't you that you were telling me some posts ago that it is impossible that in 1963 most TCs moved from their homes to other areas in order to achieve their political aims? Now you claim that GCs will do that? Double standards again Erolz?

I said it is ridiculous (and a gross propaganda distortion of the truth) to assert that TC FLED (leaving behind their possesions and livelhoods) their homes to go and live in caves and tented enclaves to persue a political objective. You compare this with (relatively to TC) rich GC buying or reclaiming property in the north whilst fleeing nothing and maintaing their existing homes (but claiming residence in the north) and livings. Your usual total nonsense. IF GC do not want to return to the north in significant numbers why do you insist that ALL GC must have such a right? Why not just establish which do and which do not and then negotiate on that basis. One logical assumpation is that you wish to get us to agree to no limits on the basis that a significant (significant enough to undermine the poltical control of the TCCS by GC) number will not return and then once we have agreed significant numbers will return.

And since we are talking about double standards, here is another one:
Cyprus as a whole has a great majority of GCs. However TCs accept nothing Greek to be associated with Cyprus, they think it is fair to have 50% power in it, they claim that GCs being the 82% majority means nothing, etc etc.

What absolute rubbish. If GC being a numercial majority meant nothing then I would not conceed to majority will in federal decsions that affect both communites the same. I would argue that one component state one vote at the federal level is fair on all decisions and not just on those that prejudice TC vs GC. No one is saying that there can nothing Greek associated with Cyprus. Just yet another of your constant false allegations that bears no realtion to anything I have actually said.

When it comes to the possibility of a future state in the north they call it "Turkish CCS". Why is that? Why should the Greek Cypriots that will live there have to live in a state called "Turkish"?? Shouldn't the Greek Cypriot numerical minority in a possible future north state have the same kind of rights like the TCs think is fair for them to have in a whole Cyprus that they are only the 18%?

And yet more irrelevant and distracting emotive and unfounded rubbish. I do not care a jot what the component states are called. Call them state one and state two for all I care. Who is saying that the TCCS must be called Turki9sh b8ut the GCCS must not be called Greek? No one. Where I have I said tha GC living in a TCCS should have less rights than anyone else? I have not said this - still thats no reason for you to not start your ranting and acusations yet again is it? All I have ever said is that a federal solution that does not afford some protection to ensure that both component states do not become dominated by GC is not a solution at all. There are ways that this can be achieved without anyone having to lose or forgoe any rights - but you are not interested in such solutions because they would give TC some limited level of political equality - so instead you make up false accusations instead. I would accept a bi communal but not bizonal federal set up - this would lace no restrcitions on where any cypriot could live yet still provided TC community with the protections and rights to some form of self determination (self determiantion compromised all the way down to - no ability of GC to impose discriminatory legisaltion against TC and against their will). I would accept a bizonal and bicommunal federation with no limits on where GC could live as long as their federal (not local or component state) representation remains with the GCCS and not the TCCS. Again this would require no restrictions on any rights. Neither of these approaches is apparently acceptable to you - presumaby because they do not meet your maximal demands that TC community be no more than a poltical minority in their own shared homeland - though you prefer to denounce them on the unfounfded basis hat they are actualy the same as two seperate sovreign states, or racist, or against democracy or any other number of unspporable claims.

[Piratis]

said it is ridiculous (and a gross propaganda distortion of the truth) to assert that TC FLED (leaving behind their possesions and livelhoods) their homes to go and live in caves and tented enclaves to persue a political objective.

Their objective not to live in tents, the objective was partition. And as we know already , not only their objective was not to live in tents, but to steal the property of Greek Cypriots and to perform ethnic cleansing against the people the lived in that area for 3500 years.

So if you believe that GCs can go into all this trouble to pursue a political objective, then how can you say that it is ridiculous to claim that TCs did the same?

What absolute rubbish.

So do you accept for the GC numerical minority in the state for which you are the majority, to have the same exact rights that the TC numerical minority are asking to have from the country were they are the numerical minority?

You just post huge paragraphs with nonsense, trying to avoid answering directly.

If you agree, then not only for confederation I agree, I even agree for partition. This way we can have a country with what we believe is right and democratic (one man one vote, no racist discriminations etc) and you can have a country with what you claim it is right and democratic (split "TRNC" into two confederal zones one for TCs one for GCs, give the ability to the GC minority of "TRNC" to have a blocking power to whatever it affects them differently etc)
Agreed?

[MicAtCyp]

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.

Perhaps Erol you did not realise so far that the majority of the TCs and members of this forum want a 50 - 50 share in everything when they talk about "political equality". This is the point I wanted to stress, and I beleive I had the right to say it, because this is what the TC leadership wants too. If you think my signaling was irrelevant, thats your right to do, as well as my right to think it is not.

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.

Now your reply is completely irrelevant. Here we are talking about the law making process and you come back talking me for a situation of civil war where law and order is in the dustbin already!
Well let me give you an example then: The EU already says that products imported from non - EU countries are taxed (some quite heavily in fact) . Turkey is not a member of the EU so any commercial relations the TCs are currently having with Turkey will most propably suffer. This clearly affects you negatively over the GCs who can trade with Greece with no import taxes. Would the TCs have the right to knock down the law that actually is a law in the whole EU?
Even if we take your example for foreign investment. Any EU citizen can come to Cyprus and invest. Turkey is not an EU country, so although a mainland Turk can still invest his money in Cyprus, he will not be able to live here and run his investment/bussiness by himself. This is already an EU law. And most propably will affect the TCs negatively. What will you do - refuse to comply to an EU law?

I can give hundreds of examples, perhaps you are not aware that most laws are today coming from the EU. So will you give me a sensible reply? Look I agree with your principle, what worries me is how that principle could possibly apply. Perhaps you should add to it "EU laws that might affect one community negatively are exempted" so we have a deal. What do you think?

[erolz]

Perhaps Erol you did not realise so far that the majority of the TCs and members of this forum want a 50 - 50 share in everything when they talk about "political equality". This is the point I wanted to stress, and I beleive I had the right to say it, because this is what the TC leadership wants too. If you think my signaling was irrelevant, thats your right to do, as well as my right to think it is not.

I understand your position here but note that you do not seem to feel a similar need to 'signal' proposals from others like Piratis' assertion that he / GC would be happy to return to the 60's agreements in full. Anyway.

Now your reply is completely irrelevant. Here we are talking about the law making process and you come back talking me for a situation of civil war where law and order is in the dustbin already!

We can chose to seed our rights to others or to combined bodies or chose not too - just as you can and did with EU accession. My point is chosing to seed those things to the EU is not the same choice for TC as chosing to seed them to GC. We do not have the same history with the EU as we have with GC.

Look I agree with your principle, what worries me is how that principle could possibly apply. Perhaps you should add to it "EU laws that might affect one community negatively are exempted" so we have a deal. What do you think?

To be honest I thought that was obvious without the need to make it explicit. However it making it explicit as you suggest above is seen as necessary then I have no problem adding this and we have a deal

[Piratis]

So do you accept for the GC numerical minority in the state for which you are the majority, to have the same exact rights that the TC numerical minority are asking to have from the country were they are the numerical minority?

If you agree, then not only for confederation I agree, I even agree for partition. This way we can have a country with what we believe is right and democratic (one man one vote, no racist discriminations etc) and you can have a country with what you claim it is right and democratic (split "TRNC" into two confederal zones one for TCs one for GCs, give the ability to the GC minority of "TRNC" to have a blocking power to whatever it affects them differently etc)
Agreed?

[Main_Source]

Erolz???

[MicAtCyp]

To be honest I thought that was obvious without the need to make it explicit. However if making it explicit as you suggest above is seen as necessary then I have no problem adding this and we have a deal

Very good then. That’s all I wanted to hear.

[erolz]

Erolz???

Yes ???

[Main_Source]

If you agree, then not only for confederation I agree, I even agree for partition. This way we can have a country with what we believe is right and democratic (one man one vote, no racist discriminations etc) and you can have a country with what you claim it is right and democratic (split "TRNC" into two confederal zones one for TCs one for GCs, give the ability to the GC minority of "TRNC" to have a blocking power to whatever it affects them differently etc)
Agreed?