Kikapu wrote:Viewpoint wrote:All thats you GCs offer are superficial and can be reversed in a very short period of time. Kikapu you are trying to trick us either way the GCs can take full control of the island.
The difference are, you will have control to keep the north majority TCs if you gave most of the GCs land back to become part of the south state, and no control at all by having 100,000 GCs in the north if you keep most of their land to become part of the north state. I have given you many different scenarios. Personally, Christofias is setting you up by not demanding more GC land to be returned, so that he can get 100,000 GCs to the north to weaken the north state power from the TCs. If you can't see that, then there isn't anything I can do for you to see it. Times have changed and the BBF that was once agreed to in the late 70's has become almost obsolete for the TCs to have a settlement on their terms by keeping most of the north as it is. In 2004 when the RoC became a EU member has changed all that, which added more layers to the BBF which was not there in the late 70's. Your only option to have a settlement and to retain majority TC north state, is to return no less than 50% of the north back to the GCs.!
Viewpoint wrote:As we discussed before and where I revealed your plan to hand the north to the GCs on plate and sell us out, you have nothing new to offer.
You can't even peel an orange it you didn't have the instructions on how to do it, let alone reveal any hidden items in our discussions, because I told you from the beggining where all the pitfalls are if certains things are done or not done, as the case may be, so save the rehorics of you discovering anything that was hidden in my plan. It was explained to you in a step-by-step how it can work if certains things are done and why it will not work if certain things were not done. Your problem is, you want to keep more of GC land than you actually need, which will be the reasons as to why it would endanger the north to maintain it's TC majority more than any other factor. But we all know, your intensions is not to remain part of the Union with the south state, is the reason why you want to keep more GC land than it is nessesary. You are very transparent, VP.
Viewpoint wrote:If can can accept derogations if we hand 50% then these same derogations can be current if we hand back 30% of the current north, so these proposals are rejected.
At no time the one derogation I have suggested (which would be redundant in any case because it won't be needed but if it makes the TCs sleep better at night, then so be it) would be used to deny the Human Rights of any GC who would have a property in the eventual north state. The more land is given back, less GCs would have property in the north, less GCs in the north. Those who have property will not lose their Human Rights what so ever, but limit the growth of the GC population to the same percentage to the TCs population. I can see the GCs agreeing to this derogation as a compromise in getting most of their properties back.
Same principle could apply whether you gave back 30% of the north or 50%. With 50% GC land given back, that would leave at most 30,000 GCs still owning land in the north, but with only 30% GC land given back, would leave 100,000 GCs in the north. Even if the GCs were to agree to the same derogation I've talked about above on 100,000 GC living in the north, which I doubt they will since you are forcing them to keep their land in the north state, you will not have full control of the north politically, and eventually,not in populace either. That's why I believe Christofias is not asking 50% back, so that 100,000 GCs would be able to live in the north state and have the similar population numbers as the TCs and 50,000 settlers combined, and withing few years, the GCs will become the majority in the north state.
I think Christofias is setting the trap for you to walk into. With the EU Principles in place, it will only be a matter of time that you will lose the north state completely. Bigger is not always better. You have a better chance maintaining and controlling a smaller north state than a bigger one. By trying to keep a larger share of the GC land in the north, will be your eventual downfall, because the GCs having 100,000 in the north from day one, against at most 110,000-120,000 "TCs", will only encourage more GCs to move to the north state, which would be the opposite if the north state was much smaller and with much smaller GC population at maximum 30,000. At 30,000, most GCs would in fact remain in the south, even if they kept their properties in the north and just rented them out or just plain sold them.
