Cyprus-Forum.com

[Me Ed]

I don't think what you claim is entirely true. Whilst all human beings are equal and deserve only one vote in state elections to decide the outcomes within their own states...

Ok, no argument against the rest you say, but let's stay in that. My point is, even the outcomes within their own states are decided to be a big part by the EU. Why does an individual Cypriot's or Slovene's vote worth more than that of an individual German in this? Why is this acceptable, when you take decisions that will shape the life of everybody, similar to the decision taken on the national level?

Can I kindly ask that you provide us with some real life examples of this.

Well, the one immediately coming to my mind is environmental legislation, which is the one I mainly had to deal with when I was student. For example, the nitrates or the sewage sludge directives affect the way each farmer in EU has to treat his land, and also the danger to people's health. If I'm not wrong, such directives are designed and proposed by the European Commission, then go through the European Parliament and then through the Council, which has the final word. At least that was the procedure in the latest soil protection directive.

The point, all these bodies, which will take a decision with influence on the work of every farmer in the EU and on the health of every EU citizen, are not elected on the principle "one man, one vote". But with a system, in which states with smaller population are overrepresented. I.e. a system in which one Cypriot's vote worths much more than one German's vote.

I thought the Germans had 96 seats in the EU parliament compared to Cyprus' 6.

[Oracle]

Something like nitrate levels has to be decided by representatives who know a little more than the average person. Scientific guidelines would be beyond most citizens and that is why we elect representatives ( by one man one vote). The distribution of power for such legislation to come into force is then diffused according to productivity (EU "worth"). You can't have uncontrolled use of nitrates since this affects e.g. organic farming and might leach from one country's resources into another. So, special rules would apply. Sounds fair enough.

[Me Ed]

Besides, the EU has no real political power over the member states.

For example, no amount of votes are going to force the UK to take on the EURO.

However, there are elements in the EU that would like to see absolute political union may take the opportunity, under the current economic climate, to attempt to bring this about - at least in the Eurozone for starters.

[Afroasiatis]

I don't think what you claim is entirely true. Whilst all human beings are equal and deserve only one vote in state elections to decide the outcomes within their own states...

Ok, no argument against the rest you say, but let's stay in that. My point is, even the outcomes within their own states are decided to be a big part by the EU. Why does an individual Cypriot's or Slovene's vote worth more than that of an individual German in this? Why is this acceptable, when you take decisions that will shape the life of everybody, similar to the decision taken on the national level?

Can I kindly ask that you provide us with some real life examples of this.

Well, the one immediately coming to my mind is environmental legislation, which is the one I mainly had to deal with when I was student. For example, the nitrates or the sewage sludge directives affect the way each farmer in EU has to treat his land, and also the danger to people's health. If I'm not wrong, such directives are designed and proposed by the European Commission, then go through the European Parliament and then through the Council, which has the final word. At least that was the procedure in the latest soil protection directive.

The point, all these bodies, which will take a decision with influence on the work of every farmer in the EU and on the health of every EU citizen, are not elected on the principle "one man, one vote". But with a system, in which states with smaller population are overrepresented. I.e. a system in which one Cypriot's vote worths much more than one German's vote.

I thought the Germans had 96 seats in the EU parliament compared to Cyprus' 6.

Exactly. So the vote of one Cypriot counts 6 times more than that of a German. Simple maths.

It's a little different in the Commission and the Council, which are more important, but also there it's not "one man, one vote".

Besides, the EU has no real political power over the member states.

For example, no amount of votes are going to force the UK to take on the EURO.

Well, taking again the example of the environmental legislation, the EU can make the individual states to pay fines for not complying with it, isn't that right?

[Afroasiatis]

Something like nitrate levels has to be decided by representatives who know a little more than the average person. Scientific guidelines would be beyond most citizens and that is why we elect representatives ( by one man one vote). The distribution of power for such legislation to come into force is then diffused according to productivity (EU "worth"). You can't have uncontrolled use of nitrates since this affects e.g. organic farming and might leach from one country's resources into another. So, special rules would apply. Sounds fair enough.

How do special rules apply for nitrates? If I'm not wrong, it's more or less a similar procedure for everything decided on european level.

The point is, the representatives who take these decisions are NOT elected by one man - one vote. What makes the Cypriot voter having more knowledge on soil protection, that allows his vote to be weighted more than that of a German when electing these representatives?

[Bananiot]

I think people should at least be frank when it comes to the kind of solution we want. Today Christofias called upon those that are against BBF to come out and say it clearly. We have come to the point when we can not trust anyone anymore. People who in private are fervent opponents of BBF appear to support this solution in public. Only some marginal people and the naive Archbishop have called for a unitary state as opposed to BBF. As if, solution is part of a buffet, and one can pick at will.

Cyprus has never been a unitary state and the closest we came was in 1959 but soon we focused our efforts on turning Cyprus into a unitary state or rather a national state, where the governing majority would exercise a leading role in all state affairs, turning the other communities into mere minorities. For 50 years now there has been ethnic division in Cyprus and for 37 years we have had geographical separation on top of the ethnic one. We have seen ethnic conflict as well as a major war during these 50 years.

Bearing the above in mind, one can easily see that BBF is our best option for a united Cyprus. Of course, those who object to this, are simply hiding their rejectionism behind palatable slogans of the type "racist solution" and so forth, but the price we will be asked to pay, if, like in the past, we opt for maximalist solutions, would be the final partition of this island and the continuation of ethnic strife.

[Piratis]

Afroasiatis, EU is not a country but a union of separate countries. France belongs to the French, and Germany to Germans, and they decide what to do with their own countries. If they want to be part of the EU that is their choice. If it was unfair for them to be part of the EU, then they wouldn't join.

On the other hand north Cyprus does not belong to the TCs. It belongs 5 times more to us than them. So it is not up to them to decide the status of the north part of Cyprus.

TCs are a minority in Cyprus just like the Turks are a minority in Germany. So if you want to compare apples to apples that is the kind of comparison you should be making.

The fact that you bring EU as an example is a proof that what you support for Cyprus is not a united country but the creation of what in effect would be two separate countries which will be loosely associated with each other in the same way that we are today associated with Lithuania within EU.

If/when Turkey joins the EU this will not mean the "liberation of Constantinople", and similarly if we have such kind of "union" in Cyprus it will not mean the liberation of our occupied lands, since those lands will remain under the rule of the Turks.

[Oracle]

Something like nitrate levels has to be decided by representatives who know a little more than the average person. Scientific guidelines would be beyond most citizens and that is why we elect representatives ( by one man one vote). The distribution of power for such legislation to come into force is then diffused according to productivity (EU "worth"). You can't have uncontrolled use of nitrates since this affects e.g. organic farming and might leach from one country's resources into another. So, special rules would apply. Sounds fair enough.

How do special rules apply for nitrates? If I'm not wrong, it's more or less a similar procedure for everything decided on european level.

The point is, the representatives who take these decisions are NOT elected by one man - one vote. What makes the Cypriot voter having more knowledge on soil protection, that allows his vote to be weighted more than that of a German when electing these representatives?

People moan about the many layers in the EU. But they are there for a special reason. Life is complicated. Nitrates in agricultural waste are a different dimension to e.g. antibiotics for use in humans. Isn't that why you had to specialise on one such small aspect?

[Piratis]

I think people should at least be frank when it comes to the kind of solution we want. Today Christofias called upon those that are against BBF to come out and say it clearly. We have come to the point when we can not trust anyone anymore. People who in private are fervent opponents of BBF appear to support this solution in public. Only some marginal people and the naive Archbishop have called for a unitary state as opposed to BBF. As if, solution is part of a buffet, and one can pick at will.

Cyprus has never been a unitary state and the closest we came was in 1959 but soon we focused our efforts on turning Cyprus into a unitary state or rather a national state, where the governing majority would exercise a leading role in all state affairs, turning the other communities into mere minorities. For 50 years now there has been ethnic division in Cyprus and for 37 years we have had geographical separation on top of the ethnic one. We have seen ethnic conflict as well as a major war during these 50 years.

Bearing the above in mind, one can easily see that BBF is our best option for a united Cyprus. Of course, those who object to this, are simply hiding their rejectionism behind palatable slogans of the type "racist solution" and so forth, but the price we will be asked to pay, if, like in the past, we opt for maximalist solutions, would be the final partition of this island and the continuation of ethnic strife.

Democracy and respect of human rights are not "maximalist solutions" but the bare minimum.

What you support not only is partition, but it is the worst kind of partition. Today at least 2/3rd of Cyprus are free. With what you support not only occupied Cyprus will not be liberated from the Turks, but on the contrary it would became officially Turkish with our signature, while we would also lose the control of the remaining 2/3rds of Cyprus and make the whole Cyprus a banana pseudo republic controlled by Turkey, just like the "trnc" is today.


BBF is not desirable, but under certain conditions it can be acceptable. You version of BBF is obviously not acceptable by the vast majority of Cypriots. Only a small minority of idiots accepted such kind of BBF when they were directly asked about it with the referendum.

Here is a version of BBF that would be acceptable by the majority of GCs:

- The state controlled by the TCs to be about 17% of land and coast line.
- All Settlers and troops to be removed
- All refugees to have the right to return to their lands
- Turkey to pay for any financial costs and compensations
- The TCs to have an effective participation in the government with TC representatives at all levels, but not with any veto powers or the ability to block decisions.

The above is an example of BBF that will be acceptable by the majority of GCs. It is a BBF that doesn't violate human rights or the democratic principles.

If Christiofias believes that a good BBF such as the one I describe is not possible, and all that he can achieve is something similar to the Annan plan, then he is the one who should come out and say it clearly. Because we already said in the most clear way possible that an Annan plan kind of BBF is not acceptable and Christofias must be blind and deaf if he didn't get the message yet.

[repulsewarrior]

Afroasiatis, EU is not a country but a union of separate countries. France belongs to the French, and Germany to Germans, and they decide what to do with their own countries. If they want to be part of the EU that is their choice. If it was unfair for them to be part of the EU, then they wouldn't join.

On the other hand north Cyprus does not belong to the TCs. It belongs 5 times more to us than them. So it is not up to them to decide the status of the north part of Cyprus.

TCs are a minority in Cyprus just like the Turks are a minority in Germany. So if you want to compare apples to apples that is the kind of comparison you should be making.

The fact that you bring EU as an example is a proof that what you support for Cyprus is not a united country but the creation of what in effect would be two separate countries which will be loosely associated with each other in the same way that we are today associated with Lithuania within EU.

If/when Turkey joins the EU this will not mean the "liberation of Constantinople", and similarly if we have such kind of "union" in Cyprus it will not mean the liberation of our occupied lands, since those lands will remain under the rule of the Turks.

...and yet the State protects our Individual Rights, what is wrong with the identities we have as Persons. Defining a State where we are equals and united should not be hard if our Freedom includes Mobility, Expression, and Association. Within that context a Bicommunal nature would include National Assemblies, particular majorities with a territorial Jurisdiction, who by sustaining their own representation, recognise and respect the rights of the minorities living amongst them. Reciprocally, this commitment gives each an opportunity to prosper their distinctiveness in their service to a greater good.

vp who hounds for a BBF that's fair demands a privileged recognition, no less than Greeks, i say this is possible if Greeks and Turks identify a Cyprus in which they are without distinction united demonstrating a commitment to Universal Principals.

Piratis, we may at least agree that things cannot remain the same, things will never be the way they were, except in spirit if as Cypriots we choose firstly, (please read my manifesto) and as Greeks, Maronites, Armenians, or Turks we act on this conviction. it is possible if the Greek constituency forms, an equal to a Turkish counterpart, under a Republic of Cyprus that the impasse ends.