Cyprus-Forum.com

[bg_turk]

Greek Cypriots, who are 0.18% of the European Union population, have major veto power over almost every important decision taken by the union. For example GC are capable of blocking the Free Trade Proposal with the TRNC, which the majority of EU countires support. Why can't Turkish Cypriots, who are 18%, 1000 bigger than GC in the EU, have the same veto power in a possible Cyprus Union?

[erolz]

Greek Cypriots, who are 0.18% of the European Union population, have major veto power over almost every important decision taken by the union. For example GC are capable of blocking the Free Trade Proposal with the TRNC, which the majority of EU countires support. Why can't Turkish Cypriots, who are 18%, 1000 bigger than GC in the EU, have the same veto power in a possible Cyprus Union?

This question has been asked many times in the past. The answer so far is that the fundamental principles of democracy are different within a federal state than within a union of states.

[MicAtCyp]

Greek Cypriots, who are 0.18% of the European Union population, have major veto power over almost every important decision taken by the union. For example GC are capable of blocking the Free Trade Proposal with the TRNC, which the majority of EU countires support. Why can't Turkish Cypriots, who are 18%, 1000 bigger than GC in the EU, have the same veto power in a possible Cyprus Union

1.Because the rules were there, before RoC entered. We did NOT make those rules, we did not enforce them, we did not invade their countries demanding for it, we did not throw their people out of their houses and then threatened for it.
2.The EU is not a state, is a union of states.Although the veto power is available for some decisions (not all) there are ALL mechanisms available to pay a huge price in case a small guy/a "minority" if you like uses this power carelessly. Usually small countries shut up on matters that are vital for the bigger ones, and usually the bigger ones (with the exception of Britain) don't mess up with matters concerning specifically the little guys of the union.
3.Blocking the British proposal for direct trade is because the TCs cannot get what they want without the GCs ALSO getting what we want, i.e full economic advance Vs full return of land
4.The Tcs had veto power in RoC 1960 contstitution but used to block the budget to enforce other demands. I.e they used it for irrelevant reasons. Yet the majority had no mechanisms to protect her vital interests i.e the collapse of the state due to lack of taxation.
5.In a Federal solution the veto is not directly applicable.
6. In a Unitary state solution I am personally pro granting them a veto on laws that may affect them negatively .

PS.The proposal was not for "trnc" otherwise called "pseudo". It was for the RoC territories under the control of Turkey, in other words for the occupied areas. So RoC has every right to have a say.

[bg_turk]

MicAtCyp,

Thank you for your replies.

1. You may not have done this to Europeans but you have thrown turkish cypriots out of their houses, and at the moment you are illegally occupying their homes against the very laws of the so-called ROC whose legality you are defending.

2.Why are you afraid TC would use their veto power less prudently than you do yours? The TC as far as I know used their veto power to safeguard their most vital interest, i.e. prevent Enosis, in the same way the so-called Roc is doing it to safeguard the interests of GCs now. I see no difference between the two.

3. 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.

5. "In a Federal solution the veto is not directly applicable."
6. "In a Unitary solution ... granting them a veto".
Why is a veto power more applicable in a unitary state than in a federal one?

PS. 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. The two entities are equally illegal, and the recognition of one and the non-recognition of the other is just a matter of politics.

[erolz]

1.Because the rules were there, before RoC entered. We did NOT make those rules, we did not enforce them, we did not invade their countries demanding for it, we did not throw their people out of their houses and then threatened for it.

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?

2.The EU is not a state, is a union of states.

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

Although the veto power is available for some decisions (not all) there are ALL mechanisms available to pay a huge price in case a small guy/a "minority" if you like uses this power carelessly.

You accept that the RoC has political representation disproportionate to it's numerical numbers at all levels of the EU? Certainly there is a cost in blocking the will of others as there would be in a federal Cyprus as well.

4.The Tcs had veto power in RoC 1960 contstitution but used to block the budget to enforce other demands. I.e they used it for irrelevant reasons.

The TC blocked the budget as a reaction to a GC refusal to implement the agreed provisions on municipalites. Not only did the GC refuse to implement these agreed provisions they also ignored the supreme courts rulling on them. If you think TC responding by blocking the budget was doing so for 'irrelevant' reasons you do not understand the importance of this issue for TC.

Yet the majority had no mechanisms to protect her vital interests i.e the collapse of the state due to lack of taxation.

The mechanism to protect her interests (as visa versa) was to reach agreement. By trying to impose a solution rather than agree one they invited reaction from the TC.

[Piratis]

The answer is very simple: There is NO country in the whole world that a minority of 18% has the veto powers that TCs are asking for.

EU is a union of countries.

Cyprus is a country not a union of countries.

Crystal clear.

Erolz etc want of course to create a country from the land that they ethnically cleansed from us in order to achieve a union of countries (partition) and not one united country. This is why they compare Cyprus with EU, because they want partition. Otherwise they would compare Cyprus with another country.

[Piratis]

I do not believe in the LEGALITY of the RoC

What Turks believe in is well known for centuries. We wouldn't hope anything better form you.

[erolz]

EU is a union of countries.

Cyprus is a country not a union of countries.

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?

This is why they compare Cyprus with EU, because they want partition. Otherwise they would compare Cyprus with another country.

Round and round we go. Where we stop everyone knows. If the discussion is on the fundamental principles of democracy then any system that is considered democratic is a reasonable model. I choose the Eu not because it is a union of nations but because it is a clear example that the fundmental principles of democracy that you insist are true are plainly not true in the EU and that the (all GC) 'RoC' benefits from from this reality.

If you wish to argue that democracy in a country is fundamentaly different in it's nature and implementation from democracy in any other entity that would be one thing. You do not do this however. You insist that democracy as a concept and an ideal and in principal must mean a unitary state in Cyprus and direct numerical representation but ignore the fact totaly this principle clearly is not so in entites like the EU (and UN) and many other besides.

[Piratis]

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

Not according to me, according to the whole world. Do you know any other country that functions in the way you want?

It is like telling me that because this dog is beautiful, a woman that looks like that dog is beautiful also. You are simply comparing unequal things.
If you like EU, then I would agree for our country to have the system of any other EU country. However you reject that, because you don't want to have one country you want to have a union of two independent countries which is what EU is, and thats why the only example you can bring up is EU.

[erolz]

Not according to me, according to the whole world. Do you know any other country that functions in the way you want?

What are we talking about? I assumed that we were talking about your pervsion of the meaning of democracy? Your constant refrain is that 'representation disproprotionate to numercial numbers' is fundamentaly undemocratic as a matter of principle - full stop. No exceptions and no qualifications - just a totaly black and white assertion. When I give you examples of insitutions that everyone in the world considers democratic that are in 'breach' of your pervsion of the meaning of democracy you say 'apples and oranages, apples and oranges' despite the clear fact that if these were fundamental principles of democracy as you claim they would aplly to ALL cases. When I give examples of every federal state in the world all of which have an element of representation disprortionate representation to numerical numbers and most of which are considered by all as democratic you say 'ethnic based federation, ethnic based federation' despite the clear fact that the basis for the federation has nothing to do with the principles of democracy as you have defined them.

At best the only logical argument you have is as follows

Within a country (AND not within a union of countries) AND within a federal country AND where the federal elements are based on an element of ethnicity any representation disproportionate to numerical numbers is anti democratic.

However this is not what you argue. Instead you continue to argue, despite all the reason and evidence to the contrary that 'represntation disproportionate to numerical numbers in undemocratic'. Full stop.

That you show such a clear and unabsahed 'ability' to argue that black is white (over and over and over again) simply because it suits your agenda and not because it is supportable by evidence or logic or reason, then such an 'ability' leads me to question if a negotiated settlement can ever be achieved with you and to a degree by extension GC in general as far as such behviour is typical of GC.