Cyprus-Forum.com

[paliometoxo]

.. to accept rotating Presidency??

- This was part of the Annan plan and was rejected by 76% of GCs.

- It is against fundamental human rights (equality of all citizens, no discrimination in voting power on the basis of ethnic origin)

- His intention to accept this was NOT part of his manifesto at the recent elections (had it been, there is no chance he would have been elected or supported by DIKO, EDEK etc)

Has he even stopped to think what it would mean to have for 2 years in every term a Cyprus President that is fully controlled by Turkey??

Rotating presidency by itself, is not against fundamental human rights, and is not discrimination on the basis of ethnic origin, provided is done on the basis of actual demographic facts and balances. From the moment our side accepted political equality of the two communities (and it has also become part of the UN SC resolutions,) it has no choice other than to accept rotating presidency as well. What we should discuss is why Christofias has proposed a 4:2 term ratio, instead of a 4:1 which is the real representative ratio of the two communities. The 4:2 ratio violates the political equality of the citizens, because it gives a much higher probability to a TC to represent his/her country as president, than it gives to a GC. This is what you should shout, scream and yell about, and not rotating presidency itself, especially if elections are to be carried out in a cross voting pattern, as it is proposed.

I disagree. Political equality was defined in UN Resolutions as "effective participation" - NOWHERE does it state that the President (in what is a presidential republic) should come from the 18% of the population for some of the time.

As for fundamental rights, I consider it is 100% against such rights and blatant racial discrimination for any GC's vote at election time to count as a small fraction of any TC's vote.

Such arrangements can be found NOWHERE in the world and are certain to collapse before international and EU courts, that is why they are seeking to find ways to stop Cypriots from challenging these arrangements post-solution.

i agree with you and probably so do the leaders of the roc but you have to give the minority something or they complain and since they are the ones with the army roc has to try make them happy so they can once and for all f off our island

[Piratis]

Any criterion that selects a candidate for rotating presidency on the basis of ethnicity, race etc is fundamental discrimination. It won't wash in the EU and elsewhere.

There is a workaround that makes no reference to ethnicity ...

Rotating Presidency between the Leader of the "grissy" zone and the Leader of the "tissy" zone; with freedom of settlement and no restrictions on enfranchisement within the zones.

Not at all, it is the two communities that will be political equals so they get a turn at the Presidency - bit like all EU states are equal so this Presidency rotates...

EU is an association of separate sovereign states and the units of this association are the member states. Cyprus is one country and the units of a democratic country are the citizens, who should all be equal without racist or other discriminations.

If you want Cyprus to be an association of separate sovereign states, as is the case with EU, this basically means that what you demand is again partition, which you have no right for, and which is rejected.

[Piratis]

Any criterion that selects a candidate for rotating presidency on the basis of ethnicity, race etc is fundamental discrimination. It won't wash in the EU and elsewhere.

There is a workaround that makes no reference to ethnicity ...

Rotating Presidency between the Leader of the "grissy" zone and the Leader of the "tissy" zone; with freedom of settlement and no restrictions on enfranchisement within the zones.

Not at all, it is the two communities that will be political equals so they get a turn at the Presidency - bit like all EU states are equal so this Presidency rotates...

The net result is the same.

what do you mean, impasse?

No mate, the net result is a rotating presidency based on alternating the leaders of the two zones without any reference to ethnicity, race etc, and in this way avoiding claims of discrimation.

The rotating presidency of the EU is based on the geographical constituent states and is not race based. France and Germany etc get a go at the presidency cos they are France and Germany not cos they're French or German etc.

And without ethnic cleansing even if we had 2 states in Cyprus both of them would have a Greek Cypriot majority.

The whole position of the Turks is based on crimes and nothing else.

[Bananiot]

You have a short historical memory Piratis. Let me remind you that these so called arguments were used by exactly the same people that brought Turkey to Cyprus in 1974. When Makarios realised that going for the desirable was no longer an option, the Piratis's of the time spoke exactly with the same language, because compromise for them was not an option.

What you are asking is a regime that goes beyond even the London-Zurich agreement. You want to turn the Turkish Cypriots into an insignificant majority but your barkings really only incite laughter because we do not have the means to do just that, thank God. For GC nationalist are among the worst criminals of the kind.

[Nikitas]

"And without ethnic cleansing even if we had 2 states in Cyprus both of them would have a Greek Cypriot majority. "

Which is what might well have very soon after an agreement, not because GCs will flock to the north, but because TCs will move south.

It is a common mistake to look at the settlement as something static, deprived of any dynamic of its own. People will move after a settlement according to their perceived interests and comfort standards. For the same reason that residents of Malia move to Limassol, residents of northern villages will move there too.

[zan]

"And without ethnic cleansing even if we had 2 states in Cyprus both of them would have a Greek Cypriot majority. "

Which is what might well have very soon after an agreement, not because GCs will flock to the north, but because TCs will move south.

It is a common mistake to look at the settlement as something static, deprived of any dynamic of its own. People will move after a settlement according to their perceived interests and comfort standards. For the same reason that residents of Malia move to Limassol, residents of northern villages will move there too.

What are you basing this argument on? The economic dynamics of the North will be far more enticing than the already settled South...The chances are that the GCs will want a piece of that action and that is why there must be limited numbers going North also....

[Nikitas]

OK, let us speculate on the "piece of the action" post a settlement.

Biggest project is the rebuilding of Famagusta. This is project that might even go beyond the confines of the island and attract international town planning firms. Ironaically it will be financed by the returning residents with loans from GC banks, ie increasing the profits of the banks of the south and reinforcing the economy.

Second is the already established urban centers of the south- Nicosia, Limassol, Larnaca, Paphos and the newly rebuilt Famagusta. These, whether we like it or not, are automatically elevated to business centers. That is the fate of urban areas everywhere. Anyone who wants to have a small to medium sized business will look to these towns, not the rural area of Karpasia.

Sure there will be tourist resorts built in the north. But these are focused, narrow scope businesses. They are also seasonal. If anyone wants to sell to the locals he will go where they are thick on the ground, ie the towns.

This is not a phenomenon which will come about in the future. Already there is the phenomenon of villages losing their population even when they are very near to urban centers. Villages that are 20 kilometers from Limassol are losing their population to the city. Greece's countryside has lost almost the total of its population, over 80 per cent of the people now live in four urban areas. Istanbul hosts one fith of Turkey's population. London has one sixth of the UK.

[zan]

OK, let us speculate on the "piece of the action" post a settlement.

Biggest project is the rebuilding of Famagusta. This is project that might even go beyond the confines of the island and attract international town planning firms. Ironaically it will be financed by the returning residents with loans from GC banks, ie increasing the profits of the banks of the south and reinforcing the economy.

Second is the already established urban centers of the south- Nicosia, Limassol, Larnaca, Paphos and the newly rebuilt Famagusta. These, whether we like it or not, are automatically elevated to business centers. That is the fate of urban areas everywhere. Anyone who wants to have a small to medium sized business will look to these towns, not the rural area of Karpasia.

Sure there will be tourist resorts built in the north. But these are focused, narrow scope businesses. They are also seasonal. If anyone wants to sell to the locals he will go where they are thick on the ground, ie the towns.

This is not a phenomenon which will come about in the future. Already there is the phenomenon of villages losing their population even when they are very near to urban centers. Villages that are 20 kilometers from Limassol are losing their population to the city. Greece's countryside has lost almost the total of its population, over 80 per cent of the people now live in four urban areas. Istanbul hosts one fith of Turkey's population. London has one sixth of the UK.

When I can be in work within an hour almost anywhere on the island I don't think that it will be an issue Nikitas. That and the fact that the North will have bigger investment because of years of Embargoes makes the North more attractive to me.

[Nikitas]

Time will tell. But if recent and current experience is anything to go by, the distance from work is not a small matter. See how Kyrenia has grown from 3000 to 60 000 because people would rather be in a city than a village. We all like to praise the benefits of rural life but no one wants to be more than five minutes away from a cinema or a hospital.

[Kikapu]

Rotating presidency by itself, is not against fundamental human rights, and is not discrimination on the basis of ethnic origin, provided is done on the basis of actual demographic facts and balances. From the moment our side accepted political equality of the two communities (and it has also become part of the UN SC resolutions,) it has no choice other than to accept rotating presidency as well. What we should discuss is why Christofias has proposed a 4:2 term ratio, instead of a 4:1 which is the real representative ratio of the two communities. The 4:2 ratio violates the political equality of the citizens, because it gives a much higher probability to a TC to represent his/her country as president, than it gives to a GC. This is what you should shout, scream and yell about, and not rotating presidency itself, especially if elections are to be carried out in a cross voting pattern, as it is proposed.

Kifeas,

My guess on the 4:2 ratio that Christofias is willing to accept on the Rotating Presidency can perhaps be from the fact that in the 1960 the ratio between the TCs and the GCs was 4:1, even though today, that ratio is perhaps 8:1 in the favour of the GCs, but today's ratio cannot be used due to the fact many TCs left the island due to economic reasons due to problems in Cyprus, as well as many GCs of course, so in all fairness, we need to go back to the 1960's ratio to figure out how to compute today's ratio's for the rotating presidency, which was 400,000 GCs and 100,000 TCs in 1960, which would mean 800,000 GCs today, which is roughly what their real numbers are in the south, and 200,000 TCs in the north, which is short of about roughly 80,000 in today’s numbers as we speak, but will be made up will by giving some settlers citizenships to make that number close to 200,000 as well as some TCs returning back from abroad. I can already hear you saying, "fine, lets keep to the 4:1 ratio as in 1960 which would mean 4 years for the GCs and 1 year for the TCs as Presidents". Well, that would be fine at a 5 year Presidential office term per each ticket running for President, but I believe Christofias has proposed a 6 year Presidential office term for each ticket running for office which will include a TC and a GC on the same ticket chosen by all Cypriots and not by each community choosing their own candidate to serve as a President/vice President.

At 6 office year term, you are looking at a 4 3/4 years for the GCs and 1 1/4 years for the TCs as a President, but to get more support from the TCs for a solution, it is best for the GCs to let go the extra 9 months and give it to the TCs. This will be a nice good-will gesture as a compromise by the GCs, which will make the Rotating Presidency at 4:2 ratio, providing of course, that both candidates run on the same ticket as a team based on their political ideology and are chosen by all Cypriots on ONE ticket and not what Talat wants where each side will choose their own President individually, which would lead to all sorts of problems we do not need. If on the other hand the Presidential office term is set at 7 or 8 years, then in all fairness, the GCs will serve 5 and 6 years respectively as a President and the TCs will still only serve 2 years to meet the 4:1 ratio of the 1960 ratio. All in all, the TCs are given a major boost by serving a longer Presidential term than deserving based on their population size and ratio of the 1960. Lets see what they will do in return to reciprocate by giving up on something from their side as a good-will gesture to reach a settlement.