Erol wrote: You try and support your claim that the RoC does not have political representation in the EU disproportionate to its numerical numbers at all levels in the EU by pointing out that you have less burocats or less representation in things like the DG's. What you apparently fail to understand is that these burocats, like the members of the DG's do not represent the interests of indivdual member states. They work for the EU and represent the interests of the EU and not the member states they happen to be drawn from. At ALL levels within the EU where there is representation of indivdual member states interests the smaller states have such representation disproportionate tho theri numerical numbers. This is just a plain fact.
Thank you Erol for proving my point that EU is not a State.In a State the bureaucrats come from the people and don't work for the State itself
they work for the people Furthermore it seems you fail to understand that the representation in EU political bodies is not the kind of democratic equality that you have in mind. Your democratic equality is 1:1is it not? The question is, do you see a democratic equality in Europe of 1:25 for each member? So set your facts right.
What you fail again to understand is that Cyprus did not set those rules, and did not demand them. It did not join by questionening whether it is democratic or not.It joined after evaluating how under the
existing rules she would function. Either they offered us 1 Euro MP or 30 it would not change one iota of our "democratic" representation in the way the Tcs understand it i.e 1/25th + of the total.
wrote: What I am saying is that when a GC asserts that political representation disproportionate to numerical numbers is fundamentaly undemocratic
Well you have to find that "a GC" and reply to him directly then.It seems we don't understand each other here.My point is you are trying to draw conclussions from wrong examples like the EU.
wrote: So in the future if a solution is agreed and getting that agreement involves external pressure to get the agreement, either side has a right to ignore that agreement in the future? If both sides had agreed the Annan plan would TC have had a right to agree it and then ignore it - on the basis that they were enforced on us (and the external pressure on TC to say yes to the annan plan was massive). This way lies madness as far as I am concerned.
It depends what the kind of external pressure will be.It depends whether you can have a choice other than yield to that pressure. That choice was not offered to the GCs in the 60s.
wrote: This to me is even more extreme revisionist nonsense that the assertion that the main reason why TC fled their homes in this period as a means to achieve the poltical aim of partition and not as a result of direct expereince of or fear of GC violence against TC. You expect me to believe that you have a better understanding of whether GC in the 60's would have given their consent to the 60's agreements or not than the GC leaders (that wrote the Akritas plan) view in that period (and not 40 years after)? You want me to believe that if Makarios had put the vote to the GC people, having said he accepted the agreements, that not only would the GC people have rejected the agreements but they would have assinated Makarios as well? And you also want me to believe that most 'ordinary' GC at that time did not really care for ENOSIS but just for an end to British rule?
Are we losing control of our manners here Erol?
I expect you to beleive to exactly what I said, and not what you are talking about above, and remember the reason of the emergence of Eoka B the various assisination attempts against Makarios and the Coup.For your information again the power of Makaros at that stage was very weak and he was just the Political leader of Eoka under oath to work for Enosis and only for Enosis. The real power was in the hands of Grivas and the Eokas.
Regarding your so called "extreme revisionist nonsense" statement should I point out that you never replied my question in the thread tittled "Cyprus today article July 23-29, 2005". Read your own article again Erol and hopefully you will understand the pittiness of your insulting statements.
wrote: In this logical train of thought then ANY system could be the EU, the UN the USA , Belgium, an associations of non profit organisations etc etc etc. The fact then that the EU, UN, USA (all federal countries)
Exactly! You may now start comparing the democratic running of a State with the UN.But don't expect me to follow you. You may torture yourself with philosophical issues for eternity if you wish but please do it alone.
**************************************
Viewpoint wrote: erolz stick to your arguement my friend, you are crystal clear and correct in what you say, democracy is not solely indexed to numerical majorities as our esteemed GC forum member would have us believe. Well done.
Anyone appointed you the cheer leader of the forum?