Cyprus-Forum.com

[MicAtCyp]

but you have thrown turkish cypriots out of their houses,

Huh? ? ? ? Is that what they told you?

at the moment you are illegally occupying their homes against the very laws of the so - called ROC whose legality you are defending.

Huh again? ? ? Dude you are really very disinformed. Do you know what invasion means? Do you know it's their mama who threw 200, 000 GCs out of their homes and lands and then called them (about 60, 000) to go and get in? Do you know we had refugees living in tents for years? Yes some refugees had to get in TC abandoned houses rather than live in tents in the fields. Whatever of thoses houses were inhabitable anyway and whatever of them were not built with mud and collapsed 2 - 3 years later. The very law of the Guardian of the TC properties forbits their sale, or change of nature. And the very law of RoC permits the use of those houses under the law of necessity. after obtaining a written permit from the Government. Never you heard of the doctrine of necessity bg_Turk? What would you do if someone threw 5 of you out of your houses and abandoned his own?

As far as your "so - called ROC" terminology may I ask you how the so - called Burgaristan calls the Cyprus Republic??
Just for a change may I ask what kind of a Veto you are granted there?And how come while you are just 10% you have 30% of the Government?

The TC as far as I know used their veto power to safeguard their most vital interest, i. e. prevent Enosis

You know wrong!

Why are you afraid TC would use their veto power

To what Veto power are you referring exactly, something that’s in your imagination? Did you see any negotiations going on here concerning a veto???

I understand there is a conflict of interests, but having in mind who rejected the most recent comprehensive solution plan, TC cannot be held in isolation for no fault of theirs and they cannot be held hostage to the excessive demands of Papadopolous.

While on the other hand the GCs could by all means stay hostage to the maximalistic demands and constant denial of Denktash for 31 years! Right?
The reason why TCs are kept in isolation is due to the fact that they grabbed (or better say Turkey grabbed for them) 3 times as much land than what they left behind and 20 times more much in value. The reason is because they refuse to go back to legality, they refuse to return land and they want to exploit what does not belong to them in a way that gives them recognition i.e a permanent hold of stolen property for eternity. They were offered the choice to get out of the isolation to get EU aid of millions etc and they rejected it unless their illegal state was recognised. So if they don't want to be kept in isolation the easiest and fasted way is to return to the legal status of RoC.

The mere reason they accepted a Plan to which we the GCs never had a chance to decide of it's outcome,never agreed, and never accepted, means nothing.

Why is a veto power more applicable in a unitary state than in a federal one?

Ha, ha, ha. I think I am just wasting my time with you.I mean OK I can excuse your ignorance of the Cyprob, but how can I excuse your ignorance for the differences between a Unitary and a Federal State? Dude the Federal Structure of a state is by itself a concensus bussiness between 2 parties. There is nothing to Veto when the decisions are mutually taken with guaranteed majorities. In a Unitary State the Majority decides by itself. If the unitary state was built as a partnership between a big and a small guy then the small guy needs some protection and thus gets a Veto power on some important issues.

I do not believe in the LEGALITY of the RoC and I do not consider the TRNC to be less illegal than the so - called RoC.

You are entitled to your opinion. Which according to the whole world, the UN, the EU, and even your own Government is wrong! Yet obviously you are a Bulgarian Turk, who can think of whatever he likes, as long as it is in line with Pan - Turkism.



***********************************************

But presumably you can understanbd why those rules are there and can understand that the larger countries accept this necessity and do not complain of such being anti democratic or discrimination based on ethnicity or talk of a RoC vote being worth x times more than a German vote?

I simply commented on whether we enforced those rules or not. Whether those rules are right or wrong and what mechanisms there are to bypass deadlocks is another question.

As a federal Cyprus would be a union of component states?

No it will be the transformation of an already existing State of Unitary structure into a Federal structure with all its laws and international agreements. Forget what the Anan Plan was saying, it is nill and void as itself said on the first place

You accept that the RoC has political representation disproportionate to it's numerical numbers at all levels of the EU?

Not at ALL levels!

Not only did the GC refuse to implement these agreed provisions they also ignored the supreme courts rulling on them

I am not going to enter another discussion on the "agreed" part. In short yes Erol you would agree on anything I say if I were pushing a gun into your head.

So according to you the fundamental principles of demcracy and what is considered democratic or not operate differently in unions of nations than they do in unions of federal components within a nation?

Of course they operate differently. Did anybody ask us when they decided to allow the planting and even subsidise of cannabis in Europe? Did we ever had the chance to even vote? The EU compared with a Federation or a single State has so many differences in it's running that you cannot really compare like to like
Another example:Did they ever ask us before making promises to the Tcs for economic help direct flights direct trade etc? Then how is it democratic when we joined and others get the benefits without even considering the matter of illegality of the "trnc" and without considering that the GCs have rights too, for which nobody seems to care?

[Piratis]

My position is very clear Erolz, we want one democratic country not a democratic union of two independent countries.

It is not so hard to understand, is it?

[bg_turk]

MicAtCyp,


"As far as your "so - called ROC" terminology may I ask you how the so - called Burgaristan calls the Cyprus Republic?? "
This kind of derogatory language against Bulgaria is uncalled for since most Bulgarian would side with the GC position in this conflict, and the BG goverment only recognize the Greek government on the island. I just expressed my personal opinion about the the so-called RoC since personally I do not recognize the authority of your governement over the TRNC.

[erolz]

My position is very clear Erolz, we want one democratic country not a democratic union of two independent countries.

It is not so hard to understand, is it?

No this is not hard to understand and I understand your view on this perfectly well. We can and no doubt will argue about at what point a federal solution becomes in practice the union of two indpendent countires in a 'shell' of a sinlge federal state and when and where it does not but I understand this.

What I do not understand (other than as a propaganda mantra without substance - as this I understand it) is your repeated assertion that ANY system that provides political representation disproportionate to numerical numbers is undemocratic based on the fundamental principles of democracy and the practice of democracy (be that super national entites, intra national entites, local entites, clubs, societies or any other entity). I do not undestand this repeated assertion (except in the terms described above - as a propaganda mantra) because it is so clearly and self evidently not the case.

Is THIS so hard for YOU to understand?

[Piratis]

No this is not hard to understand and I understand your view on this perfectly well.

Ok, finally.

your repeated assertion that ANY system that provides political representation disproportionate to numerical numbers is undemocratic based on the fundamental principles of democracy and the practice of democracy

I was always talking about country systems. I never talked about clubs, societies etc. I made this explicit most times we talked about this.

[Piratis]

This kind of derogatory language against Bulgaria is uncalled for

So "bulgaristan" is derogatory language now? What is this then:
http://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgaristan

?
Apparently the derogatory language is used by Turks.

And you are right, most Bulgarian people side with GCs. Why do you think this is the case?

[bg_turk]

Piratis,

it is true in turkish Bulgaristan is Bulgaria. But most bulgarians would be offended if you call their country "so-called Bulgaristan" in english. In fact I don't know why turks call it that way. Wouldn't turks in Turkey be offended if their country is called Turkestan?

Most of the Bulgarians know very little about the Cyprus problem, but in general they look more favourably on the GC because they would not like to set a precedent of a seperate state for the ethnic turks most likely. Also there are many Bulgarians working in the south.

[gabaston]

My position is very clear Erolz, we want one democratic country not a democratic union of two independent countries.

Piratis we had it, it didnt work. judging by some of the posts on this forum it aint gonna work again.

what is hard to understand.



result of last "democratic" cyprus = approx 7,000 dead, 160,000 refugees.
and it was a gc lead govts who oversaw that mess. some right wingers even instigated/provoked all of it.

[erolz]

Ok, finally.

Like I have not made this clear before?

I was always talking about country systems. I never talked about clubs, societies etc. I made this explicit most times we talked about this.

No - you may have meant this but you have talked many many times of the fundamental principles of democracy - not the fundamental principles of democracy within a nation state (and ignoring the oxymoronical nature of a set of fundamental principles that do not apply to every case or even a majority of cases). Even here your assertion re political represntation and principles of democracy (only within a nation state but not elsewhere) does not stand scrunity for every democratic federal nation state has some element of representation disproportionate to numerical numbers (this is pretty much the defining charteristic of a federal nation state vs a unitary one). Yes I know and accept the difference between a federal state with no ethnic component to the component states and one with such an ethinc component - but this difference does not make the assertion that poltical representation disproprtionate to numerical numbers is undemocratic (within a antion state) as a matter of democratic principle. If this is true (which it is not) then it would be true of all federal states except those where the comonent states that make it up were exactly equal in populations.

So as far as I am concerned statements that political represntation disproptionate to numerical numbers are fundamentaly and on principle undemocratic are not supportable.

Statements that that political represntation disproptionate to numerical numbers within a nation state are fundamentaly and on principle undemocratic (but not in any other democratic situations) are also not supportable.

When someone insitis on making these kind of statements despite the clear evidence to the contrary I can only assume their interest is propaganda aimed at supporting their aims and not reaonable or reasoned discussion.

Which leaves us with political represntation disproptionate to numerical numbers within a federal nation state where there is an ethnic componment to the component states are fundamentaly and on principle undemocratic .

This is an argument that I can accept is not based purely in propganda needs, though to me to claim such a 'exceptional' set of conditions is hardly then a matter of 'fundamental principles of democracy'. Unfortunately this is not an argument that you chose to make. Instead you always (concisoulsy or un conciously) the first assertion and then if chalenged resort to the second and refuse to accdept that it is in fact the thrid and only the third that has any 'supportablilty'.

[erolz]

You accept that the RoC has political representation disproportionate to it's numerical numbers at all levels of the EU?

Not at ALL levels!

Yes actualy at all levels within the EU smaller states like the RoC have representation disproportionate to their numerical numbers.

The three main political insitutions that make up the EU are

1. European Parliament

UK has 78 MEPs with a population approx 60,000,000 or approx 1 MEP for every 750,000 people.
RoC has 6 MEPs with a population approx 1,200,000 (being generous and including TC) or approx 1 MEP for every 200,000 people.

Taking a more realistic figure for the RoC population and comparing with an even larger state like Germany or France makes this disproprtional representation to numerical numbers even more extreme.

2. Council of Ministers

"Countries of the EU hold different numbers of votes in the Council. The number of votes held by each country is based indirectly on the size of the country's population, but smaller countries are granted a greater number of votes than their population would strictly merit. This concept is aimed at balancing the voices of larger countries with those of smaller countries."

The Roc with a population of say 1,000,000 has exactly the same rights as UK with approx 60,000,000 people on issues that require unanimity in the council of ministers. When the decsion is based on qualifed majority voting the RoC has 4 votes = approx 1 vote for every 300,000 RoC citizens. The Uk has 29 votes = approx 1 vote for every 2,000,000 UK citizens.

3. European Comission

RoC has 1 comissioner with a population of 1,200,000 (again a genrous figure in reality). The UK has one comissioner with a population of approx 60,000,000.

The same is true in the 'lesser' EU instituions.

European Court of Justice - RoC nomiantes one judge , UK nominates one judge

European Court of Auditors - RoC nomiantes one auditor , UK nominates one auditor

European Council - UK one represntative , RoC one representative.

The simple reality is that the RoC has political represntation disproportionate to numerical numbers at ALL levels within the EU. In fact is is also to say that this concept of political representation disporportionate to numerical numbers for the protection of smaller states vs larger ones is a fundamental basis of the EU itself.

Not only did the GC refuse to implement these agreed provisions they also ignored the supreme courts rulling on them

I am not going to enter another discussion on the "agreed" part. In short yes Erol you would agree on anything I say if I were pushing a gun into your head.

For me to say that the 60's agreements were only signed by Makarios because he 'had a gun to his head' is just not supportable as well as 'melodramatic' and emotive. It is also totaly at odds with the assertion in the Akritas plan that if these agreements had been put to the GC people at the time they would have undoubdtedly recieved the oerverwhealming support of the GC people at that time.
Yes external pressure was brought to bear on Makarios (as well a TC community btw). The reality is that external pressure has always and will always be brought to bear on the parties of such agreements. If we are to persue the thesis that any agreement made and signed where any external pressure has been brought to bear on the signatries does not have to be honoured by the signatries then we may as well give up on the idea of an agreed settlement at all.

Of course they operate differently.

They may (and do) operate differently in different situations but this is NOT the same as saying these operational principles are fundamental principles of democracy. Fundamental principles of democracy, if they are to be such, must operate in all democratic systems if they are by defination to be fundamental principles. That is my point. GC that argue that what TC want is against fundamental principles of democracy are just wrong and clearly so and their continued insistance that this is the case can most reasonably be explained as the spouting of propaganda mantras and not reality.

Did anybody ask us when they decided to allow the planting and even subsidise of cannabis in Europe? Did we ever had the chance to even vote?

If this decision was made beforte your entry to the EU then you were effectively asked to agree this when you acceded to the EU. If it was made after your entry then depending on where and how the decision was made your were asked through your MEP's or the council of minsiters or a combination of these.

Did they ever ask us before making promises to the Tcs for economic help direct flights direct trade etc?

These decisions were made before the RoC was part of the EU as I understand it and in effect you explicitly or implicitly agreed to them as part of agreeing accession to the EU (though despite this agreement you are making sucsessful moves to block them anyway)

Then how is it democratic when we joined and others get the benefits without even considering the matter of illegality of the "trnc" and without considering that the GCs have rights too, for which nobody seems to care?

As clearly shown above (imo) the RoC has political representation within the EU (vastly) disproportionate to its numerical numbers at all levels. That you can percieve this reality as being 'an unfair and undemocratic impostion of other member states wills against your with no 'caring' for RoC wishes' only serves to reinforce in me the view that some GC have an exceptional abaility to percive themselves as 'victims' despite any objective reality.