Cyprus-Forum.com

[kurupetos]

Bloody magpies!

[AWE]

Imagine the scenario where we followed the 1960 Constitution of the RoC, happily without conflicts, and the TC population grew healthily but the GC population plummeted significantly, altering the demographic proportions.

Would the TCs still be happy to preserve the 70:30 ratio of GC:TC with one GC President and one TC Vice-President?

Let us say the population of TCs had grown tenfold from the original ~100,000 to say 1000,000; whereas, the GC population had reduced to 100,000. Yet, the 100,000 GCs would still maintain entitlement to a President and 56 Representatives ruling the country alongside only 24 Representatives elected by the TC community who are now stuck with just a Vice President.

1. At what point in the demographic distribution of the two communities would such separation of power have appeared ridiculous to the TC community?

2. At what point in the population ratios would the TCs have actively devised an "Akritas" style plan to make the ridiculous 1960 Constitution fairer?

[Please leave Enosis and Taksim out of this. Everyone was happy to stay united and independent.]

When the % is reversed, in your scenario at the 70/30 TC/GC ratio, it might be possible with a simple agreement between the two communities to swap the proportions and roles in government so that with the GCs have the old TC parts etc.

The off course the TC dominated govt can then impose 13 unilateral amendments to the constitution, claiming it to be unworkable, and enforce this using a TC dominated security force lead by ex-members of an underground paramilitary organisation.

Finally, as there would not have been an invasion by Turkey and therefore no Cy tail to wag the Gr dog Cyprus would not be in the EU, as the Greek govt would not have to threaten to veto further expansion unless Cy is offered membership.

(look mum no Enosis or Taksim!)

In reality once the demographic trend is obvious and the TCs reach 50+% of the electorate then a referendum would be held to amend the constitution to a one-man-one-vote system, no guaranteed representation etc.

One would have to hope that by this point people are voting along party political not ethnic lines and that all parties agree to the needed changes, if not then at this or a future referendum the TCs will amend the constitution and then dominate politically with the GCs having few if any enshrined minority rights.

As there would have been no CyProb then Gr would not have vetoed EU expansion unless Cy gets offered EU membership - does this mean Cy is in the EU or not? with the 1960 constitution probably not but with the amended true democracy version then membership is possible.

So does the new constitution come in to effect pre-EU application or as part of EU membership. If part of application then GCs have some protection as EU citizens, if not then the question then becomes would the GC trust a TC dominated govt to protect them?

[lola-tulip]

AWE, I like what you are saying. I wonder if you can tell me why the TCs did not allow proposals for constitutional change whilst they held disproportionate power?

A free Cyprus would have eventually entered the EU on her own steam. The reason Greece was needed was because of the unsavoury nature of the occupation.

[Bananiot]

We have already seen that the changes proposed by Makarios were not just "proposals". This is accepted by all serious analysts and only those that want to wear blinkers still consider them "just proposals".

[lola-tulip]

Proposals, or "enforcement" if you prefer, Mr B (if I may?).

Either way, were they illogical under the circumstances? After all, poster "AWE" hypothesised that similar requirements would have been adopted by the TCs at an even lesser level of unfairness [50%]

[Get Real!]

We have already seen that the changes proposed by Makarios were not just "proposals". This is accepted by all serious analysts and only those that want to wear blinkers still consider them "just proposals".

Given that a copy was sent to Greece, Turkey, and Britain for their perusal/feedback then it was quite obviously a proposal.


You don't write out a detailed report which includes words like "SUGGESTED MEASURES" and send it out to other parties unless it is a proposal!

http://www.moi.gov.cy/moi/pio/pio.nsf/A ... points.pdf

[Get Real!]

Access "Makarios’ 13 point proposal" from here...

http://thecyprusproblem.100webspace.net ... ndices.htm

[Bananiot]

Absolutely rubbish. When the Turkish Ambassador Dr Ozgol sent a copy of Turkey's answer to Makarios, the latter returned it back. He did not even want to discuss them. When Makarios went to Turkey on November 1962 he heard Ismet Inonu raise the issue of Municipalities, separate majorities, the army and the 70:30 ratio for the public service. During an official dinner given by President Gurcel, Foreign Minister Jemal Erkin urged Makarios to dismantle the paramilitary organisations he set up (to enforce the changes) and when he got up to deliver his speech, Makarios did not utter a word on the issue of the "proposals" for which he made his way to Ankara, according to Kranidiotis,

[Get Real!]

Absolutely rubbish. When the Turkish Ambassador Dr Ozgol sent a copy of Turkey's answer to Makarios, the latter returned it back. He did not even want to discuss them.

You are verifying here that it was a PROPOSAL by acknowledging that a Turk turned down discussions on the matter!

When Makarios went to Turkey on November 1962 he heard Ismet Inonu raise the issue of Municipalities, separate majorities, the army and the 70:30 ratio for the public service. During an official dinner given by President Gurcel, Foreign Minister Jemal Erkin urged Makarios to dismantle the paramilitary organisations he set up (to enforce the changes) and when he got up to deliver his speech, Makarios did not utter a word on the issue of the "proposals" for which he made his way to Ankara, according to Kranidiotis,

I am happy to jump to something else now if you like Bananiot, but first you must acknowledge defeat in your first argument if we are to proceed to your next.

[AWE]

AWE, I like what you are saying. I wonder if you can tell me why the TCs did not allow proposals for constitutional change whilst they held disproportionate power?

A free Cyprus would have eventually entered the EU on her own steam. The reason Greece was needed was because of the unsavoury nature of the occupation.

Because they did not have the numerical advantage.

Think about it would you, a GC I assume, be willing to live in a TC dominated state without a constitution that protected your minority rights?