Cyprus-Forum.com

[humanist]

VP

Filista beware Kikapusis plan is a trap, in time it can be eroded and the Gcs can take full power pushinh aside any Tcs effective say in their own future.

your way too paranoid .... I'll have to have what your having lol ... hehehehehe

[ZoC]

Filista beware Kikapusis plan is a trap, in time it can be eroded and the Gcs can take full power pushinh aside any Tcs effective say in their own future.

filitsa beware viewpunk's plan is a trap, in time it can be eroded and the turks can take full power pushing aside any cypriot effective say in their own future.

[Viewpoint]

VP

Filista beware Kikapusis plan is a trap, in time it can be eroded and the Gcs can take full power pushinh aside any Tcs effective say in their own future.

your way too paranoid .... I'll have to have what your having lol ... hehehehehe

Please clarify why? if you were in our place would you accept the risk involved?

[ZoC]

VP

Filista beware Kikapusis plan is a trap, in time it can be eroded and the Gcs can take full power pushinh aside any Tcs effective say in their own future.

your way too paranoid .... I'll have to have what your having lol ... hehehehehe

Please clarify why? if you were in our place would you accept the risk involved?

if i woz in ur place i'd go live in turkey - its only 40 odd miles away and i'd feel really safe amongst hoardes and hoardes of my own people, away from all those risky cypriots that i'm convinced despise me.

[Viewpoint]

VP

Filista beware Kikapusis plan is a trap, in time it can be eroded and the Gcs can take full power pushinh aside any Tcs effective say in their own future.

your way too paranoid .... I'll have to have what your having lol ... hehehehehe

Please clarify why? if you were in our place would you accept the risk involved?

if i woz in ur place i'd go live in turkey - its only 40 odd miles away and i'd feel really safe amongst hoardes and hoardes of my own people, away from all those risky cypriots that i'm convinced despise me.

Noway.

[ZoC]

VP

Filista beware Kikapusis plan is a trap, in time it can be eroded and the Gcs can take full power pushinh aside any Tcs effective say in their own future.

your way too paranoid .... I'll have to have what your having lol ... hehehehehe

Please clarify why? if you were in our place would you accept the risk involved?

if i woz in ur place i'd go live in turkey - its only 40 odd miles away and i'd feel really safe amongst hoardes and hoardes of my own people, away from all those risky cypriots that i'm convinced despise me.

Noway.

can't think why...

[Get Real!]

VP

Filista beware Kikapusis plan is a trap, in time it can be eroded and the Gcs can take full power pushinh aside any Tcs effective say in their own future.

your way too paranoid .... I'll have to have what your having lol ... hehehehehe

Please clarify why? if you were in our place would you accept the risk involved?

if i woz in ur place i'd go live in turkey - its only 40 odd miles away and i'd feel really safe amongst hoardes and hoardes of my own people, away from all those risky cypriots that i'm convinced despise me.

Noway.

He said Turkey not Scandinavia!

[Kikapu]

Filista beware Kikapusis plan is a trap, in time it can be eroded and the Gcs can take full power pushinh aside any Tcs effective say in their own future.

Pay no attention to VP, Filitas. VP just wants to keep the GCs land with a larger territory, just because he knows that most GCs are not interested living with the TCs in the north, specially with the Fascist ones. He also wants to make sure that, if the Fascists are able to secede from the union, that they get to keep all of the north, so larger the territory of the north is, more the reason to secede from the union. Smaller the north's territory, less incentive for the Fascist NeoPartitionists to want to secede.


The below ( written few months ago by me) would prevent what VP is talking about on the 1 in a 1,000,000 chance that the GCs will move into the north to reduce the TCs into a minority in the north state. There's more chance the TCs moving down to the south state than other way around. VP always fails to mention the below as an added protection for the TCs, just because it would blow his own arguments out of the water.!

Not so fast, VP.

The answer depends on what options you present the GCs with, in whether or not they want to be accommodating to allow the north state to remain majority TCs. If the overwhelming GC refugees land is returned to become part of the south state, then the answer is a "NO", but if you want to keep the overwhelming GCs land to become part of the north state, then the answer is a possible "YES". You would control the outcome based on how much GC land you want to keep. You cannot keep their land and then not expect them to try and get it back in anyway they can. By returning only 7-8% land back as per AP, you are not even returning the land of 50,000-60,000 GCs, which would then leave about 120,000 GCs land in the north, which they will have the right to move into under freedom of movement, even if they are all not able to return back to the same houses, but will be able to return back to the villages they once lived before. With 120,000 GCs already in the north state, it will be very easy to increase their numbers by more GCs moving to the north, just because they will have security through their numbers. If on the other hand the north state is reduced to 18%-20% and most TCs would live in the north, then only a very small number of GCs would have their property in the north, less than 30,000 GCs. Even if they all would move to the north, which I doubt more than 5,000 moving, the TCs would maintain the overwhelming majority and still have a Democratic system.

I had also stated in my BBF thread, that if the TCs were to make good compromises on land to be returned back to the GCs where the overwhelming majority of the GC land is returned, then the TCs can ask for derogation from the EU and the GCs to only allow those GCs who still have land in the north state to become the "Grandfathered-in Population" with all their Democratic rights protected. What that would mean is that, lets just say 30,000 GCs still has property in the north state, that those 30,000 GCs would then have the right to be in the north state, whether they actually live in the north state or not. They would become the "Grandfathered-in Population" of the north, against the population of the TCs at around 70,000-80,000 and 50,000 allowed settlers to total around 140,000-150,000 TCs plus more TCs coming from abroad to settle in the north as time goes by, which would push the north's TC population to a potential 200,000. The derogation would be, that the number of potential GCs wanting to live in the north state can grow ONLY at the same rate as the growth of the TC population in the north (Cypriot citizens only). If the TC population grows at 2% per year, then the north's potential maximum GC population can only grow at 2% also, based on the "Grandfathered in Population" numbers, which is 30,000, allowing growth rate of about 600 more GCs to be added to that 30,000 number to become 30,600 for that year whether or not they are actually living in the north. This new number, 30,600 will then become the next "Grandfathered-in Population" for that year. The smaller the north state is with as little GCs properties as possible, the smaller the "Grandfathered-in Population" number will be.

These are the option you need to decide on. I don't believe you will get that many GCs living in the north however, therefore the above derogation would be only academic and redundant and may never be used, but it will secure the TCs keeping the north majority TCs as well as keeping the upper house seats in the TCs hand in a Democratic way, agreed to by all sides.! If you want the same derogation to apply by keeping the north state to be around 30%,then the GCs may not be so accommodating and will tell you "NO". Why would they let you keep their land in the north state when they want to be in the south state. Even if they said yes, then the "Grandfathered-in Population" would start from around 120,000 GCs with an increase of 2,400 per year at 2% vs. the population of the TCs in the north at around 150,000, assuming all the TCs would move to the north state. As you can see from the numbers, you will create a lot of problems for yourselves in trying to keep the north a majority TC and keeping the upper house in the hands of the TCs. There is no free lunch, VP. You choose, but be prepared to live with the consequences when things start going wrong for you in the north politically if you want to keep most of the GC land to remain in the north state.

But there is a much easier way to do away with all these problems, and that is to do away with ethnic political parties altogether in Cyprus and have ONLY Political Parties based on Political ideology. How can anyone then have any concerns who lives where and how many, since all the political parties would include people from all ethnicity. That is the way how civilized countries have done it in a multi ethnic places, like Switzerland for example, as well as all the multicultural societies across the Democratic West.


http://www.cyprus-forum.com/viewtopic.p ... &start=130

[bill cobbett]

Have been doing a bit of research on one of the words in BBF... the bi-communal word...



The derivation of the "word" is from one of the defs of communalism, ( there are three definitions)... so really we are talking about two parallel systems of ethnicity-based communalism...so the correct expression imho is bi-communalism

1. A principle or system of social organization in which the major political units of society are local self-governing communities. Now rare (hist. in later use).
...here we're talking of such units as large, self-governing towns, the old self-governing city-states, but worryingly easy to apply this def to the northern zone.

2. Communal living, usually with common ownership of property; the organization of society at the level of the community rather than the individual.
... well here we're talking communism, collective ownership and commune systems.

and 3. and this is prob the CY relevant one...

3. orig. and chiefly S. Asian. Strong allegiance to one's own ethnic or religious group, rather than to a society or nation as a whole; religious factionalism, ethnocentrism. Also: the structuring of society or politics on the basis of this.

... and of course the ref to an Indian/Pakistan origin should be sounding alarm bells.

Here's a bit more on this last definition, no.3, the S. Asian situation...


This first ref from 1923, when even back then some thought it unacceptable to base an electoral system on racism...

"...1923 Times 30 May 10/2 The proposed scheme makes communalism the basis of representation.‥ It is surely reactionary to propose to-day to establish representation on a racial basis...."

Nehru and Mahatma Gandhi features in the next two refs...

"...1947 in A. G. Noorani Muslims of India (2003) i. 64 The audience, which numbered 60,000 Muslims from all walks of life,‥cheered him when he condemned communalism in every shape and form.

...1986 Sunday (Calcutta) 22 June 55/2 Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru‥not only practised secularism but stood up to fight against communalism...."

[Get Real!]

... and of course the ref to an Indian/Pakistan origin should be sounding alarm bells.

Here's a bit more on this last definition, no.3, the S. Asian situation...


This first ref from 1923, when even back then some thought it unacceptable to base an electoral system on racism...

"...1923 Times 30 May 10/2 The proposed scheme makes communalism the basis of representation.‥ It is surely reactionary to propose to-day to establish representation on a racial basis...."

Yet here we are almost 100 years later, with some "clever" dicks on this forum who think they are reinventing the wheel!