Cyprus-Forum.com

[Piratis]

I remember MicAtCyp saying that land owned by TCs is 15%, so 16% is close to that. Also, TCs can own land in the GC state, why not?

[MicAtCyp]

So is the political union of European states (EU) inhernetly unstable, being fundamentaly based on politcal representation that is is not directly realted to numerical numbers? If not why not?

I would quarantee you that if EU was comprised of only Germany and France that any deviation from the mathematical percentage of their population would provide for an unstable system.
Second the EU is not a Country.It does not accumulate the Gross National Product to Brussels and redistribute it to the member states so that each one of them would have a parliament of 700 people, and a duplicate government structure. Try that in the EU and you will see how stable it becomes.
And third who said that EU is not an unstable system already? Can anyone guarantee there will be an EU after 20 years? Many people think the British backed up by the Americans are actually working for the disintegration of EU.

Question: How much did the Anan Plan deviate from the norm?
To vastly lesser degree than the EU currently deviates what from what you describe as the 'norm'.

EU IS NOT A COUNTRY, IS NOT EVEN A FEDERAL Governing System.You are comparing different things like a commercial company with a School Parents Union.I don't know how many times we have to say this in this forum.....In a commercial company the % of money you put down as capital decide the percentage of profit you will get. In the parents Union all schools are wellcomed and in fact a school that is 100 times smaller will have 1 representative whereas the 100 times bigger school will only have 10.This doesn’t mean that at a state level we will have to inflate the rights of a 1% minority by 10 times so that they would have an effective voice!

[erolz]

erolz, I don't know why you insist comparing EU with Cyprus. You are comparing oranges and apples.

I chose to use the EU as an example where the _concept_ of numerical numbers being the absolute guide for political representation is not one that dominates the thinking. I use it because it is a clear example (for me) that there is no such 'simplicity' that you imply. I use it because it also highlights a kind of hypocrasy (to my mind and with due respect to yourself) where RoC is keen to countance and support political representation divocred from direct numerical numbers (where they benefit) but not to countance such a _concept_ within the RoC, where they would not benfit.

I have tried my best to explain why I think it is a valid comparrison as far as looking at the _concept_ of political representation and its relationship to numerical numbers. It seems evident that I have failed ot make my case with yourself and doubt anything I say will change that.

The EU is an international organization of European countries formed after World War II to reduce trade barriers and increase cooperation among its members.

If you really think the EU is just a trading organisation, where members simply seek to co operate (and if this was your understanding when you joined) then I fear you are in for a big shock. The EU as opposed to earlier bodies (EEC etc) is NOT just a trading block - it is political union and these political aspects have and will continue to grow and extend within the EU.

from

http://europa.eu.int/index_en.htm

"In the early years, much of the co-operation between EU countries was about trade and the economy, but now the EU also deals with many other subjects of direct importance for our everyday life, such as citizens' rights; ensuring freedom, security and justice; job creation; regional development; environmental protection; making globalisation work for everyone."

[erolz]

I would quarantee you that if EU was comprised of only Germany and France that any deviation from the mathematical percentage of their population would provide for an unstable system.

and if it comprised of say only Germany and Belgium (which would be more reprsentative of a numerical imbalance than france and gremany)?

Second the EU is not a Country.It does not accumulate the Gross National Product to Brussels and redistribute it to the member states so that each one of them would have a parliament of 700 people, and a duplicate government structure. Try that in the EU and you will see how stable it becomes.

It does not accumulate ALL of the member states GNP but id DOES accumulate a proportion of them to redistibute back out. Member states pay into a central EU pot and the EU distributes these funds back out to meber states.

Look I know the EU is not a state. It is a (undoubdetly imo political) union of states. It is however valid to me to look at the EU when looking at the _concept_ of the relationship between political representation and numerical numbers. Clearly for you it is not valid to look at the EU when looking at this concept. I guess we will have to just agree to differ but I remain with the feeling that your inistance that the EU can tell us and does tell us nothing about this concept of the relationship between politcal representation and numerical numbers is less to do with reason and logic and more to do with convinence and expeidency from a GC point of view. If I am wrong in this impression then I am soory, but it remains the impression that I have and so far your arguments have not convinced me otherwise.

And third who said that EU is not an unstable system already? Can anyone guarantee there will be an EU after 20 years? Many people think the British backed up by the Americans are actually working for the disintegration of EU.

Certainly not me (re the EU being unstable or not). I was looking for some consistency thats all. If you say to me any system of political representation within the RoC that is not directly related to numerical numbers is inhernetly and fundamentaly unstable, then logic dictiates (to me at least) that any system of political represntation between a union of states that is not direct related to numerical numbers is inhernetly and fundamentaly unstable. If your view is that within states it is unstable but between states it is not, then I need to understand what the differences are that make this so. If you say it is unstable in both, then I have npo problem - see no inconsistency.

EU IS NOT A COUNTRY, IS NOT EVEN A FEDERAL Governing System.

Well here I disagree. In my view _to a degree_ the EU most certainly IS a federal governing system. The exact degree to which it is and which it should be in the future a federal governing system is a cause of constant debate within the EU, with large differences of opinion between the states.
I suspect you will find in the comming years (just as we did in the UK when we joined the EU) that increasingly daily actives and the lives of the people in the RoC are affected by and subject to laws, rules and directives that have been decided and agreed not in your local national parilaments, but in EU central bodies.

Certainly there are still large areas of sovreingty retained by the member states with the EU as it currently exits. Just as certainly there are also large areas in which member states have agreed to forgo and give up that national soverignity and pass it into the hand of a (federal) EU.

[Piratis]

If you really think the EU is just a trading organisation

No, I don't think that today is just a trading organization. What I said is how it was formed. Still, even today EU is not a country. You can not use the model of a union like EU and apply it to a country.

Also, the system of the EU is changing. The first step is about to be taken with the new EU constitution, which gives more power to the bigger countries and less to the smaller ones.
If one day the EU will become a country like the US, be sure that countries in EU will function more or less the same way as states in the US. When that time comes, you can come and compare Cyprus with EU.

Here are some highlights of the new consitution:
http://www.eubusiness.com/afp/040618234732.wfyhs8pe

And here is one point that relates directly to this thread:

- QUALIFIED MAJORITY VOTING (QMV): All but the most sensitive EU decisions to be decided by a so-called "double majority" system under which an EU decision would need support of 55 percent of member countries, compromising at least 15 of them and representing 65 percent of the bloc's population.

These threshholds were raised from 50 and 60 percent respectively in an initial draft, after pressure from middle-sized states fearing domination by EU heavyweights.

A blocking minority must include at least four members of the European Council or the qualified majority is considered attained.

As another safeguard, if EU members are acting on their own rather than the European commission or the foreign affairs minister's initiative, they must muster a majority of 72 percent of states with 65 percent of the population.

On issues where only some countries have the right to vote, for instance on eurozone questions, other rules for the qualified majority will be defined.

Changes in foreign affairs, defence and tax law will still require unanimity.

[MicAtCyp]

and if it comprised of say only Germany and Belgium (which would be more reprsentative of a numerical imbalance than france and gremany)?

The same thing! Anything above or below the mathematical percentage would be a source of instability. Suppose that Belgium is 20%. And suppose that EU is a Federation (which IS NOT and I am afraid that by using it as an example we will not be able to understand the case of Cyprus). A fully unstable system that would collapse immediately would be when Belgium gets 50% rights. Anything betewen the 20 and the 50% is a measurable instability ranging from 0% to 100%. Anything from 20% down to zero would also be a measurable source of instability ranging from 0 to 100%. To make a long story short it is not the percentage of Belgiums participation that must be altered Some proposals of the Belgian MPs would pass because of German MPs support some German MPs proposals would not pass because of Belgian and other German MPs refusal. What the agreement should include is provisions in the constitution for aspects of Belgiums specific concerns or fears in that joint relation. After all it is for Belgiums interest to be with Germany in the sense that Germany would not have much to lose by not having Belgium as a partner.For Germany either having Belgium with her is NOT a big deal.

I am sure you understood my example with the school parents union. You will see that I actually agreed with your positions in that. But that is a different case not comparable with a state.

It does not accumulate ALL of the member states GNP but id DOES accumulate a proportion of them to redistibute back out. Member states pay into a central EU pot and the EU distributes these funds back out to meber states.

Do you know what this proportion is? Come on Erol, please don't make me laugh! I also pay some proportion of my income to be a member in a club....

[insan]

I remember MicAtCyp saying that land owned by TCs is 15%, so 16% is close to that. Also, TCs can own land in the GC state, why not?

It should be privately owned TC land... What's the percentage of TCs state owned land?(Mountains, Parks, Forests, sea sides, mosques, Historical Statues, Evkaf properties, etc..)

Mountains in the North cannot be considered as TCs private land as a whole...

So... estimately; TCs private and state land should be around %20 ... if the private land, properties wich belong to the GCs who would return or have the right to live in TC constituent state per Annan Plan(max. 40.000/%20 of TCs population) is taken into consideration; TC administered constituent state land should be around %29.

Suppositionaly, the rest of the land which belong to GCs in TC constituent state must either be exchanged reciprocally or rented/sold by their legal owners; depends on various cases....

I have no idea about what can be done for loss of use compensations though...


And I haven't get any response other than Piratis, regarding the US federalism based on united Cyprus administrative structure that would grant full political rights to the GCs who suppositionally would live in TC constituent state, if a unified Cyprus achieved on a Federative basis..


what do you think about this power sharing:

House of Representatives:(Deliberative and Executive body)

Proportional Power Sharing

37 GCs from GC constituent state and 9 TCs + 2 GCs from TC constituent state.


Bi-Cameral Legislature Assembly:(Legislative and governing body)

Equal Power sharing in Senate

16 GCs from GC Constituent State and 4 GCs + 20 TCs from TC constituent State.


What's your opinions friends?

[Piratis]

According to MicAtCyp ( http://www.cyprus-forum.com/post-1574.htm ) that 15% is 12% private + 3% Evkaf.

If absolutely necessary I could accept that refugees would receive compensation on part (1/3rd) of their properties, but the rest 2/3rds should be given to them, as well as the right to live wherever they choose without any restrictions. As I said before, If this sounds to you like too many refugees returning then you should reduce the land under TC administration.

About the US federalism, since here we have 2 states and not 52, we should keep the essence of it.

As I said many times, a minority of 18% should not be able to block the whole country. As is the case with the US, only very important matters, like the change of Constitution, need a spacial majority in the senate.

Therefore we can create a Constitution that will protect the TC interests in addition to the protection that EU laws will give. This constitution can only change if TCs agree for such thing.

I believe this should be an acceptable way for TCs, since they will have the protection that they need. At the same time it will be acceptable by GCs because they will not feel that a minority of 18% will be able to veto everything. This is what happens in the US also.

[insan]

According to MicAtCyp ( http://www.cyprus-forum.com/post-1574.htm ) that 15% is 12% private + 3% Evkaf.

The state land must be added to this percentage...

If absolutely necessary I could accept that refugees would receive compensation on part (1/3rd) of their properties, but the rest 2/3rds should be given to them, as well as the right to live wherever they choose without any restrictions.

This could only be possible with a non-zonal unitary state....

As I said before, If this sounds to you like too many refugees returning then you should reduce the land under TC administration.

Let's say it was reduced to %20(Pure private + state land of TCs) and no refugees returned to their properties; all the rest were exchanged their properties which remained in %20 of TC constituent state ...


So what's your point here? %12.3 out of that %20 already belonged to TCs prior to 74(See kypros.org maps) ... append Evkaf properties to that; amounted %15 ... Now append %6 of the TCs constituent state owned land(Mountains, forests etc)... Amounted to %21. So where has gone the TCs private land which remained in South after the events of 74?

About the US federalism, since here we have 2 states and not 52, we should keep the essence of it.

As I said many times, a minority of 18% should not be able to block the whole country.

Why shall TCs block the whole country ... Does equality means blocking? Or do you mean that TC(minority) would block GCs(majority)? How about if majority would block everything the minority wishes?

As is the case with the US, only very important matters, like the change of Constitution, need a spacial majority in the senate.

Equal number of senators isn't an obstacle to get the special majority vote...

Therefore we can create a Constitution that will protect the TC interests in addition to the protection that EU laws will give. This constitution can only change if TCs agree for such thing.

It is same for the GCs as well...Therefore we can create a Constitution that will protect the TCs and GCs interests in addition to the protection that EU laws will give. This constitution can only change if TCs and GCs agree for such thing.

I believe this should be an acceptable way for TCs, since they will have the protection that they need. At the same time it will be acceptable by GCs because they will not feel that a minority of 18% will be able to veto everything. This is what happens in the US also.

In this federative structure, only the president who would be elected rotatively(One term TC, one term GC) have a symbolic veto power ...

In the system I mentioned above(previous post) no communities can dare to block or dominate the other... Moreover, as long as they have equal legislature, governing power; would feel themselves obliged to build an honest partnership because if one party cheat; the other party can easily retaliate to it... This leads to nowhere them...

Furthermore, the pressure(Power) of House of Representatives and people also would enforce them to work properly...[/quote]

[Piratis]

Insan, the way you come to that 20% is wrong, because if I do the same for GCs then the total TC+GC will be over 100%!

That 20% can only be if you take part of the other minorities like Latins and Maronites under your administration, in which case it will not be 20% for TCs only but in that 20% you will include those other minorities.

If you are telling me that TCs should own 20% of properties, this means that the rest 82% (GC + other minorities that choose to belong to our community), will only only own the 80%. Are you telling me that TCs were richer and owned more land than the rest of Cypriots? You know very well that this is not the case. So you have to change your calculations.
If you want a "pure" TC state then this means that you have to get at max 18% of land. (this of course means that the GC state will also be "pure" without any TCs).

About the USA system:

Do you accept it or not?
If you do, then forget about things like veto for every matter. Also forget about rotating presidencies. Such things do not exist in the US system (or in any other federation). A federation is a democratic system where majority rules.

As I told you, we can only accept a REAL federation. We will not accept anything undemocratic. You have to realize that you are a minority, otherwise we will simply remain enemies and the only way to solve the Cyprus problem will be a war at some point.