Kikapu wrote:Viewpoint wrote:Kikapu
Kikapu wrote:I tell you what. Why don't you tell the RoC how you can implement Democracy, Human Rights, International Law and the EU Principles since you don't trust the GCs to do it. Come to think of it, why don't you tell us here on the CF how you would implement the above principles. Lets here you.
With TCs in the equation it can only be BBF with
guaranteed political equality of the two states, at federal level neither side can force the other to accept laws or developments, each side has the right to say no.
Everyone should be allowed to reside under which ever administration the wish. One man one vote should be cast country wide to determine the top tier GC and TC MP to represent the states in both houses. The lower house should be based on proportional representation and the upper house balanced 50% 50% with require minimum votes from both states to get bills through the lower and upper houses.
So you have already violated the principles of Democracy and Human Rights from the beginning with your below "wish list" for a solution. The only thing that can be guaranteed, are the basic rights given to everyone in the Federal and state constitutions. There can be no guarantees who can be a senator from each state. They will need to be voted on by the people within the north and south states. These are basic principles of a BBF, but good luck in trying to get the EU to support your such proposal, which they will not, not that the GCs will go for it to begin with either. But I have few questions for you on what you are proposing.
1. How does it become BBF, when you want two Federal states, but people can vote country wide for the Federal seats in the lower and upper house.??
2. Basically you are making a system that is crossed between a BBF and a Unitary state, have you not.?
3. How can a TC vote for a Federal seat for the north state when he is living in the south and how can that senator from the north represent that TC living in the south, when the senators from the north can ONLY represent the people in north state.? Same with a GC living in the north and voting for a senator from the south state. Why have a BBF at all, if anyone can vote for anyone from anywhere.?? That will be more suitable for a Unitary state, don't you think.?
4. When people can vote countrywide as you have suggested for the required "top tier GC and TC MP to represent the states in both houses", does that then mean, that TCs living in the north can also vote for a GC senators for the south state and a GCs living in the south can vote for a TC senators for the north state, and if so, what will happen if the GCs in their large numbers support one or two TC senators from the north to get them elected who may support the GCs political ideology in the upper house, which will tip the balance of power in the upper house in the GCs favour, even if it were to be guaranteed that only TCs can become senators for the north and GC senators for the south, which I very much doubt it will be allowed for that to happen under Democracy and Human Rights of the EU Principles. Of course, the TCs can also try to elect a GC in the south state that may favour their political ideological point of view, but the numbers are not there to give the TCs an edge in this tactic at all, but it does to the GCs.
5. Or will it be the case of ONLY TCs can vote for TC senators countrywide and ONLY GCs can vote for GC senators also countrywide, and if so, how does that make it a Democratic system without violating anyone's Human Rights, because a citizen TC/GC living in one state where they will pay their taxes, but can ONLY vote for a senator from another state who will not be able to represent them, just because they are in a different state than their so called representative they had voted for.?
6. How will the President be elected.? Do the GCs elect one and the TCs elect another and then they just take turns in a "rotating presidency".? Do you not see a lot of conflict developing in what your above proposal will bring, or is that the idea to make the whole system to become unworkable again, just as what the 1960 constitution did and what the 2004 Annan Plan would have done.?
What you are trying to do, is basically taking the 1960 constitution and trying to implemented it in a BBF system, which means that all the same non Democratic and Human Rights violations that were in the 1960 is now in the BBF. Nothing will have changed, except now the TCs and GCs can have their "own " states and with your undemocratic system as you have given above, can easily bring about a constitutional crises by refusing to vote on anything in the Federal government, just because you want to have a guaranteed 50% power as well as a veto power to say "NO" to anything, which is a good way to bring the government down, because it won't be able to function, so in essence, we would be back to 1963 all over again. There is nothing about unification in what you are proposing, but yet another partition plan, ONLY it is not disguised as the AP was. A veto power does not just give you a 50% power. No, it gives you 100% power, which is why your proposal will not be accepted, without even going into all the details in violating all the EU principles. As I've said, good luck in trying to get the EU to agree to such a proposal, or the GCs for that matter.
Viewpoint wrote:Kikapu wrote:You can have any label you want on the cover of the settlement plan, I really couldn't give a toss. If it makes you feel better, you can even have it called the "Annan Plan". I'm not in the habit of judging a book by it's cover, but only it's content. What you can't have are the main articles in the 2004 AP that will not pass the EU Principles today. As I've said, your best option was in 2004 and you blew it big time. you have just as much chance of the 2004 AP coming back as the second coming of Christ. The Christians too await his return for the past 2011 years, and has not returned yet, but give them credit, they pray very hard every day, that he will. You have a lot of catching up to do , so get on your knees already.
You change like the wind the name of the plan is irrelevant but when it doesn't suit you or you are cornered you wiggle like a belly dancer and try to deflect from the subject, the basis of the AP as we know it will be on which any new agreements are built, time you admitted this fact, a few changes will be made to get the GC yes and not turn the TCs into a No and the EU and UN will rubber stamp it like they did before.
Your arrogance has also dropped you right in it with Christians well done you must be real proud.
A few changes.???? If that was the case, why has it taken over two years and counting to make those few changes from the AP of 2004.?? The UN rubber stamps anything just to get the topic off their desk regardless whether it meets Democracy or Human Rights requirements, but the EU will NOT do that, which was the reason to get the AP of 2004 passed before the RoC became part of the EU. Now the ball game has changed and the UN cannot help you to get another AP of 2004 passed. You blew it big time in 2004 and that chance will not come again.
Annan Plan is Dead and Buried since 2004. It is it's content that we are talking about and not the label. You want to use the same label, go ahead, but the content will be different. I don't know why you want to hang onto the name of the AP at all, if the content is different, but be my guess. Perhaps you think if by using the AP name, the GCs will once again reject it automatically and the TCs will accept it, just to win some brownie points in the International community. As I've said, I do not judge a book by it's cover, so use what ever label you want. I'll be watching it's content, and not what the cover reads.
You lost me with your Christianity comment. I have no idea what is it that you were tying to say.
