The Best Cyprus Community

Skip to content


Eroglu: ‘treated with contempt’

How can we solve it? (keep it civilized)

Postby Paphitis » Thu Sep 23, 2010 5:04 pm

AlanwithoneL wrote:
Paphitis wrote:
Oracle wrote:
Get Real! wrote:
Oracle wrote:
Viewpoint wrote:
Get Real! wrote:
insan wrote:Two major communities must be given fair chance to peacefully compete with each other, otherwise superiority of one ethnic group over the other would lead the other community feel inferior and eventually end up with another inter-communal strife...

That’s why your “major community” must now peacefully compete with the ever growing Turkish imports! :lol:

Honestly Insan, some of your posts are like the words of a twelve year old… :roll:


How stupid you sound, insans posts are way more intelligent than yours if hes 12 what does that make you?


:lol:

As stupid as they sound they’re also kinda cute! :D

Oh please, can I have one as a pet? :?


No! They are full of germs and will turn around and bite you! They sleep all day and crap everywhere! So, No, GR! No TC pets!


Unless you do the right thing and take them to a vet so that they can be humanely put down!


:lol: :lol: :lol:

I don't know about pets or vets but looking at things they've been taking you to the cleaners for over 3 decades :lol: :lol: :lol:


Who has taken who to the cleaners? You better reevaluate and get back to me on this!
User avatar
Paphitis
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 32303
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 2:06 pm

Postby insan » Thu Sep 23, 2010 5:14 pm

Kikapu wrote:
insan wrote:
Kikapu wrote:
insan wrote:
Kikapu wrote:
insan wrote:
wyoming cowboy wrote:Mr. Eroglu neglected to mention that Gc would be restricted from doing business in the Tc state nor be able to buy land or have equal rights, A British German or Zulu could buy and have equal rights but a Gc in his own island would not be able to work in the Tc state or even start a business, let alone be able to voice his/her opinion against the Tc state. Why wouldn't Eroglu mention the violations of civil and human rights thats included in his property proposals......Why doesnt Christofias bring these points up to counter and challenge the Turk regime??


Where did you get your news, Talisker? Everyone would be able to buy or sell, do business or anything in TC constituents state as long as TC interests not affected negatively... you are forgeting that in every democracy, where one's rights ends; the rights of other's start...


What are you saying, Insan, that the TCs do not believe in Capitalism and free market.?? :?

Now, if the north were to become an independent sovereign country, the TCs then can run it with all the protectionism they want for themselves, as long as they are not in the EU of course, so not to deprive other EU citizens of such unfair practises, but any unification will need to follow the basic EU principles of Democracy and Human Rights don't you think.? :idea: :idea:


Kikapu, TCs; particularly the right wingers do believe in capitalism and free market but is there any country on planet earth that don't have protective laws and regualtions in the name of national interests?

For every country, the national interests is the primary value... every government legislate laws and regulations to protect or enhance it's national interests...

Of course EU has it's own laws and regulations and if TCs want to be a part of EU they have to abide by the laws and regulations of EU... You know that derogations in EU legislative measure which allows for all or part of the legal measure to be applied differently, or not at all, to individuals, groups or organisations; is a choice given to allow for greater flexibility in the application of the law, enabling Member States or social partners to take into account special circumstances...

During the negotiations of Annan Plan, then the TC leadership asked some temporary and permenant derogations from the EU in the name of TC communal interests... In my opinion, most of the temporary derogations asked by then the TC leadership were justified but can't say the same for permenant derogations... Asking for permenant derogations is neither rational nor feasible in EU...


Your answer would have been very suitable, Insan, if we were talking about "national interests" of one country over another and not the "TCs self interest" over their fellow citizens, the GCs in Cyprus as a country. Your reference of protecting TCs interest when you said "as long as TC interests not affected negatively", surely you meant protection from their own countrymen, the GCs. That being the case, show me anywhere in the world in any country where Democracy and Human Rights are respected, that a ethnic group of that country are given economic protectionism rights over their other fellow ethnic groups, if you can.?? I'm not talking about giving minority rights and quotas to minority groups in the work places in the form of "affirmative action" over the majority, and since you do not want the TCs to be treated as a minority community, I'm sure you are not talking about "affirmative actions". Don't confuse national protectionism interest over other nations from Racist protectionism by one ethnic group over another fellow equal citizens from the same country.!!



In the case of Cyprus; it has nothing to do with racism... It is very obvious that the essential of the issue and intention is to create the required circumstances mainly for the 2 major communities of Cyprus for their peaceful coexistence based on "poltical equality" which clearly was described in UN resolutions and reaffirmed many times...

Two major communities must be given fair chance to peacefully compete with each other, otherwise superiority of one ethnic group over the other would lead the other community feel inferior and eventually end up with another inter-communal strife...

Kikapu, please don't compare other democracies with Cyprus because every situation must be evaluated and judged in their own special circumstances... otherwise it's impossible to find a commonly accepted solution to the Cyprus problem that would mainly make happy the two major communities of Cyprus, not the people of compared countries... :wink:


Insan, you are now once again changing your story for the second time from your original claim. You are now saying, unless the TCs are on the same economic status as the GCs, there will be once again ethnic violence, which is a bunch of baloney. Before I go into your post in more detail, I want you to read this article and then tell me why there isn't any violence in the north based on TCs becoming jobless while the Turks and other foreigners have either become owners of establishments and/or have taken most of the jobs away from the TCs, which now the TCs are wanting to impose quotas as to how many of them ought to be hired in the form of "affirmative action", which is normally reserved for minority groups given to them by the majority. This article seems to suggest that the TCs are a minority in the north as well as the most unemployed, and that being the case, where is the violence between the Turks and the TCs, since the Turks and their other fellow foreigners are benefiting economically more than the TCs.???

Northern Cyprus tackles lingering unemployment

REETA PAAKKINEN
NICOSIA - Hürriyet Daily News
Sunday, September 19, 2010

Northern Cyprus is introducing quotas for local workers in the tourism sector in order to reduce the jobless rate among its citizens, according to Türkay Tokel, the minister for labor and social security. The government is also preparing alternatives to increasing the retirement age from the current 50 to 60 years

The government in Turkish Cyprus is introducing minimum quotas for local workers in the tourism sector to cut down on unemployment among its citizens, according to the minister for social security and labor, Türkay Tokel.

At present, unemployment in northern Cyprus stands at approximately 12 percent, and is highest among youths between 15 and 24 years old, of whom 31.4 percent are unemployed.

To alleviate the situation, the number of foreign workers in northern Cyprus will be managed by introducing incentives and a minimum quota for employing citizens as well as limiting the number of work permits given to non-nationals, Tokel told Hürriyet Daily News & Economic Review earlier this month. At present, the share of Turkish Cypriot employees at some of the larger hotels and tourism enterprises is as low as 5 percent.
"There is a serious unemployment problem in northern Cyprus, which we are trying to tackle by introducing incentives," Tokel said. "From January on, the state has been paying the employer's share of the worker's social security premiums on behalf of any private sector employer who hires a citizen of northern Cyprus. With this scheme we have managed to employ 1,100 young people. But this alone will not be enough, so we are introducing other incentives. We have taken tourism sector as the primary focus."

Starting from next month, the ministry plans to gradually introduce a minimum quota for tourism sector enterprises in northern Cyprus. "We are starting with a minimum quota of 30 percent for employees who are citizens of northern Cyprus and may bring this up to 35 percent next year," Tokel said.

The minister also noted that with the state paying the employer's share of the social security cost, it will be up to the enterprises to set wages that would attract the local workforce. The tourism sector in northern Cyprus, and especially large Turkish-owned hotels, has often been criticized for offering low salaries, making the sector a less attractive employment option for local youths.

"We are issuing loans to tourism enterprises, providing them with facilities and will also pay the employer's share of the social security fee, so it is up to them to set wages that can attract locals. There is no point in pulling international investors anywhere unless they add something to the local economy. Having only 5 to 15 percent of staff composed of citizens of northern Cyprus is not enough," Tokel said. "In the future, a hotel that does not comply with the minimum quota will not be able to get further work permits for its non-national employees."

Upcoming pension reform

Another way Turkish Cyprus is tackling its ailing social security situation is a pension reform. The ministry of labor and social security has prepared six projections on how northern Cyprus could gradually increase its retirement age from the current 50 years to 60 years.

"If the government accepts the projections, then we will draft the law as soon as possible, after which it will be debated in Parliament and enacted into law. The details of the reform are yet to be decided on, but what I can say in a short is that after the reform, retirement at 50 will just not be possible," Tokel said.

The ultimate goal of the reform is to manage the social security funding gap in northern Cyprus, which, according to Tokel, currently widens by 10 million Turkish Liras each month. There are approximately 27,500 retired people in northern Cyprus who get a total of 40 million liras of pension payments each month. However, those in active employment contribute only 30 million liras a month. The new pensioners and unemployment is also making it difficult to make ends meet. "We are proposing a step-by-step transition to a new system, which is likely to raise less opposition than a sudden sharp increase in the retirement age. We believe we can bring a change in the system over the remaining of 2010, but this will also depend on the political landscape," Tokel said.

© 2009 Hurriyet Daily News 
URL: www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=north ... 2010-09-19


insan wrote:In the case of Cyprus; it has nothing to do with racism... It is very obvious that the essential of the issue and intention is to create the required circumstances mainly for the 2 major communities of Cyprus for their peaceful coexistence based on "poltical equality" which clearly was described in UN resolutions and reaffirmed many times...


This has nothing to do with what we are talking about. "Political Equality" is meant for everyone in the BBF, which is meant to be for both states, and not for both communities. I have not read anywhere where it says that "political equality" means that both or all communities all have equal political power, which you seem to suggest that they do. But you also go one step further and make the claim, that both the communities (and others perhaps) also need to have "economic equality", or else there will be violence. Really.?????

insan wrote:Two major communities must be given fair chance to peacefully compete with each other, otherwise superiority of one ethnic group over the other would lead the other community feel inferior and eventually end up with another inter-communal strife...


So what you are saying is, if there are 1000 millionaires in the south, there must be also be 1000 millionaires in the north post settlement. If the GDP of the south is $20 billion, the same must be in the north also. Really.??? Are you telling me all of the 27 EU member states are all "economic equals" or even those living in the western part of Germany over eastern part, or England vs. Wales, Scotland and N.Ireland.?? Do all the 50 states in the US all enjoy the same "economic equality" with each other.?? Or does all the neighbourhoods in any given city in the world all enjoy the same "economic equality".? Well, they don't and I do not see economic based violence between the neighbourhoods, between states or between countries in the EU, therefore you claim is totally baseless.

The only time a community or a state prospers economically is by having a Free Market and Capitalism. In order for the consumer to get the best possible product at the best price, is through Free Market. The north had for the last 36 years a potential 70 million Turks in Turkey to sell their products to, but were only able to export approximately $36 million dollars worth of products. In the meantime, the north imported from Turkey over $1 billion dollars worth of goods. It seems to me that the north does not have very much that anyone wants or does not produce enough to export. Surely you do not expect the south to reduce their export to $36 million dollars also and kill Free Market just so that the north gets to have "economic equality" with the south. It appears that the major industries the north has going for itself are Gambling, Prostitution, Tourism and what ever illegal activities go in the north, are the industries that are operated by the Turks. The TCs main industry was/is in dealing stolen GC properties, which not only they have morally corrupted themselves, but also committed "Sins of Haram".! Lets face it, Insan, that the TCs haven't done very much for themselves economically in the last 36 years, in their "own country", even when they have been free from those GCS who are more business oriented and are better creating economically superiority. Please don't even bring up the so called "economic isolation" of the north by the world. The truth is, the north does not produce anything that is needed by the world that Turkey doesn't already produce, which are most probably better quality and cheaper. The north has Turkey's 70 million market open to them. All they sold, was $36 million dollars worth of goods. Go figure.!

In all honesty, what the north needs in the north post settlement not more Turks, but a lot of GCs to help economically build the north. But of course, the north only wants 15% GCs of the population in the north as well as deny them all of their Democratic and Human Rights, and you expect the south to treat the north with "kid gloves" when it comes to trade . In a word, Insan, the north will become a "road kill" if they went head to head with the south on their own, and no amount of economic protectionism is going to help the north to prosper, since they can't even prosper at the moment, even with all the money Turkey is pumping into the north, and without Free Trade, the north won't even be in the EU as part of Cyprus.!

By the way, the past inter-communal strife was not based economic differences between the community, but based on faulty 1960 constitution and desires of both sides to achieve Enosis and Taksim. Lets make sure that the future settlement is based on Democratic and Human Rights as well as Free Market and for the TCs to let go of Taksim, which they have not to date as the GCs have done so with Enosis.!

insan wrote:Kikapu, please don't compare other democracies with Cyprus because every situation must be evaluated and judged in their own special circumstances... otherwise it's impossible to find a commonly accepted solution to the Cyprus problem that would mainly make happy the two major communities of Cyprus, not the people of compared countries... :wink:


The only time you are going to have problems in Cyprus post settlement (assuming another AP type of plan is accepted by the GCs), is when one community has more rights than others by violating their Democratic Rights, Human Rights as well as keeping most of their properties, and if all that wasn't bad enough, now you also want to have "economic equality" also, whether those in the north have earned it or not.! Did I forget anything, Insan.???


Kikapu... as usual, you are getting if not all; most of the things wrong... First let's start with "political equality" of the 2 communities of Cyprus that you said you've never heard it's meant for 2 communities... if we agree upon what exactly the UN resolutions suggest with "political equality", we can than continue discussing all other views of you that in my opinion you've got them all wrong... :wink:

n 1990 a major development was an initiative by the Secretary-General to provide a more elaborate definition of the concept of bi-zonality in his 8 March 1990 report to the Council. In it he also raised the concept of political equality. (The report was subsequently endorsed by the Council in resolution 716 of 11 October 1991.) It said:

“The political equality of the two communities in and the bi-communal nature of the federation need to be acknowledged. While political equality does not mean equal numerical participation in all federal government branches and administration, it should be reflected inter alia in various ways: in the requirement that the federal constitution of the State of Cyprus be approved or amended with the concurrence of both communities; in the effective participation of both communities in all organs and decisions of the federal Government in safeguards to ensure that the federal Government will not be empowered to adopt any measures against the interests of one community; and in the equality and identical powers and functions of the two federated States.” “The bi-zonality of the federation should be clearly brought out by the fact that each federated State will be administered by one community which will be firmly guaranteed a clear majority of the population and of the land ownership in its area.” (S/21183, Annex I)

4.3 . Bi-zonality and political equality revisited

In 1992, Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali introduced a new “Set of Ideas” for a draft settlement, further expanding the previous concepts and proposing a secular, bi-zonal, bi-communal federal republic composed of two politically equal states, to be submitted to both communities for referendum (S/23780). The plan defined the relationship between Greek and Turkish Cypriots as not one of majority and minority, but rather one of two communities in the state of Cyprus. The concept of political equality picked up the idea endorsed by the Council in resolution 716. Bi-zonality would be reflected in the fact that each state in the federation would exercise jurisdiction over a clear majority of the population and of land ownership in its area. The plan included a description of the powers and functions of the federal government, and provided for the demilitarisation of the island and the upholding of the treaty of guarantee and of alliance. The plan did not include measures on territorial adjustment or displaced persons. The Council endorsed the plan in resolution 750 of 10 April 1992. However, the 1992 talks were not successful.


http://www.securitycouncilreport.org/si ... r_2008.htm

Why did the UNSC endorse "political equality" of 2 communities in it's resolutions if it was against democratic principles and basic human rights?
User avatar
insan
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 9044
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2003 11:33 pm
Location: Somewhere in ur network. ;]

Postby boulio » Thu Sep 23, 2010 8:09 pm

i think they are describing political equality of the two federal states not the communities.ANd as you can see the two states will have clear majorities of each of two communities.so theoraticaly the northern state can have 65% t/c and 35% g/c correct ?

with voting rights as well.
boulio
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 2575
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 6:45 am

Postby insan » Thu Sep 23, 2010 8:31 pm

boulio wrote:i think they are describing political equality of the two federal states not the communities.ANd as you can see the two states will have clear majorities of each of two communities.so theoraticaly the northern state can have 65% t/c and 35% g/c correct ?

with voting rights as well.



"in the requirement that the federal constitution of the State of Cyprus be approved or amended with the concurrence of both communities; in the effective participation of both communities in all organs and decisions of the federal Government in safeguards to ensure that the federal Government will not be empowered to adopt any measures against the interests of one community;... "

In my opinion, it clearly refers the political equality of 2 communities... Otherwise how could the politcal equality of 2 federal states be maintained while in one of them there would always be a potentially, say 15-30% or 35% of pro-GC voters?
User avatar
insan
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 9044
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2003 11:33 pm
Location: Somewhere in ur network. ;]

Postby boulio » Thu Sep 23, 2010 9:24 pm

"in the requirement that the federal constitution of the State of Cyprus be approved or amended with the concurrence of both communities; in the effective participation of both communities in all organs and decisions of the federal Government in safeguards to ensure that the federal Government will not be empowered to adopt any measures against the interests of one community;... "

In my opinion, it clearly refers the political equality of 2 communities... Otherwise how could the politcal equality of 2 federal states be maintained while in one of them there would always be a potentially, say 15-30% or 35% of pro-GC voters?


what percentage would it make you feel comfortable for g/c to live in the north with voting rights?
boulio
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 2575
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 6:45 am

Postby insan » Thu Sep 23, 2010 9:37 pm

boulio wrote:
"in the requirement that the federal constitution of the State of Cyprus be approved or amended with the concurrence of both communities; in the effective participation of both communities in all organs and decisions of the federal Government in safeguards to ensure that the federal Government will not be empowered to adopt any measures against the interests of one community;... "

In my opinion, it clearly refers the political equality of 2 communities... Otherwise how could the politcal equality of 2 federal states be maintained while in one of them there would always be a potentially, say 15-30% or 35% of pro-GC voters?


what percentage would it make you feel comfortable for g/c to live in the north with voting rights?


for me, it doesn't matter as long as the communal interests of TCs not affected negatively... Of course i also don't want the interests of GCs, Maronites, Armenians, Latins etc. who would reside in TC constituent state and in general all other Cypriots who would reside in GC constituent state negatively be affected by the political, economical and socio-cultural activities,policies of TC community... I'm well aware of that where one's rights end the rights of others start...
User avatar
insan
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 9044
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2003 11:33 pm
Location: Somewhere in ur network. ;]

Postby boulio » Thu Sep 23, 2010 9:40 pm

well considering that 80-90% of descions are made on brussels we should not have a problem then there shouldn't be a problem.

by the way what are communal rights?

and i think that people should woory more about there individual rights.
boulio
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 2575
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 6:45 am

Postby Get Real! » Thu Sep 23, 2010 10:58 pm

insan wrote:No.. you've got it wrong, Humanist... We all know that the problem that needs to be solved is between the 2 major communities of Cyprus... The minorities of Cyprus such as Maronites, Armenians, Latins and Roma people have no major problems like the 2 major communities of Cyprus have had... I agree with you that we have to provide for the safety and representation of all minority groups be it political, ethnic, gender or religion based.

Who says you're a "major community" ?

The Greek Cypriots are 700,000 odd, the imported Turks are around 180,000, the Brits in the RoC are about 70,000, so where does that leave your penniless and powerless 50-60k???
User avatar
Get Real!
Forum Addict
Forum Addict
 
Posts: 48333
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 12:25 am
Location: Nicosia

Postby Kikapu » Thu Sep 23, 2010 11:26 pm

insan wrote:Kikapu... as usual, you are getting if not all; most of the things wrong... First let's start with "political equality" of the 2 communities of Cyprus that you said you've never heard it's meant for 2 communities... if we agree upon what exactly the UN resolutions suggest with "political equality", we can than continue discussing all other views of you that in my opinion you've got them all wrong... :wink:


:lol: :lol: :lol:

Insan, re read again what I've said. Let me say it again, that "political equality" does not mean that both the main communities have equal political power and what you posted below proves my point, because the resolution gives equal political power to each of the two states and not to each of the two communities, despite requiring each state to have a majority of one of the communities as well as administering that state by one community, but it does NOT state that the one community can ONLY be TCs or GCs within that one community. One can make a presumption very easily that anyone living in any of the two states are part of that state's community, therefore they all as a community administer that state.. All that is required is, that one community is a majority than the other. It does not even give details of the ethnicity of the communities. The whole resolution is unclear and leaves a lot of room for different interpretations as to what it all means, hence the reason why there has not been a settlement.

Kikapu wrote:" I have not read anywhere where it says that "political equality" means that both or all communities all have equal political power, which you seem to suggest that they do."


“The political equality of the two communities in and the bi-communal nature of the federation need to be acknowledged. While political equality does not mean equal numerical participation in all federal government branches and administration, it should be reflected inter alia in various ways: in the requirement that the federal constitution of the State of Cyprus be approved or amended with the concurrence of both communities; in the effective participation of both communities in all organs and decisions of the federal Government in safeguards to ensure that the federal Government will not be empowered to adopt any measures against the interests of one community; and in the equality and identical powers and functions of the two federated States.” “The bi-zonality of the federation should be clearly brought out by the fact that each federated State will be administered by one community which will be firmly guaranteed a clear majority of the population and of the land ownership in its area.” (S/21183, AnnexI)



Insan wrote:Why did the UNSC endorse "political equality" of 2 communities in it's resolutions if it was against democratic principles and basic human rights?


I'm not so sure any such "political equality" endorsed by the UNSC as described in your above post violates any ones Democratic and Human Rights, because it had not stated what the territorial adjustments are of the north and south states and what the differences are in numbers between the majority and the minority of those living in those state. As I gave the details in my BBF plan ( http://www.cyprus-forum.com/viewtopic.php?t=21685 ), that if the TCs were to return 50% of the land in the north now back to the GCs to become part of the south state, and if most of the TCs went to live in the remaining land of the north state and most of the GC refugees went to live on their own land that would become part of the south state, I don't see any one's Democratic and Human Rights being violated and still have "political equality" for everyone, since both the TCs and GCs would maintain the majority in their respective states, even though the UNSC resolution does not specify by ethnicity as to who belongs in the north and who belong in the south. If that wasn't bad enough, the resolution also states that there would be two communities and not a majority and a minority, and yet that's exactly what it asks from each state, to have a majority and a minority within the state. As I've stated, the above resolution is wide open for all kinds of interpretations . The only principles that are not so vague, are the EU principles, which is what Turkey and the TCs do not want. I don't know how they can get around this problem, considering the fact, that Turkey too wants to be part of the EU as well as the north.

In any case, you can almost say that the above resolutions are obsolete since 2004 when the RoC became part of the EU which now the EU principles too will play a part in any settlement, and the way the TCs and Turkey have been interpreting the above resolution do in fact violate ones Democratic and Human Rights as did the AP. No wonder Turkey was very eager to have the AP pass before the RoC became a EU member.

Now, Insan, be a good chap and address all my other points from my last post to you...........please.! :wink:
User avatar
Kikapu
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 18050
Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2006 6:18 pm

Postby Viewpoint » Thu Sep 23, 2010 11:41 pm

So in short what you are saying is that TCs are doomed and should capitulate to GC demands becasue the EU also wants the same and will support the GCs in their quest to reduce us TCs to minority status in a GC state whether its in the north or the south.
User avatar
Viewpoint
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 25214
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2005 2:48 pm
Location: Nicosia/Lefkosa

PreviousNext

Return to Cyprus Problem

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests