Cyprus-Forum.com

[bill cobbett]

Kiks, I bow to your superior knowledge on these matters, but I have a couple of questions:

1. Given there are as many Russians now living in Cyprus as there are remaining TCs, are they also eligable for their own state?
2. What %age of land, are the Armanian and Maronite Cypriots entitled too?
3. The mix of other nationalities which number greater than the TCs, are they also entitled to a seperate state, and if so what % and from whos share of the land will they take.

Seems to me that the TCs are making these demands as racists and discriminating against other nationalities. This begs the question, why do you think they are entitled to ANY %age of land and indeed any seperate state of their own???

Just wondered like.

Oh, and would they also afford the same ridiculous demands to the Kurds that number at least 25% of their own population back home????

'ere what about a specific ref to the ex-pat Brits mate?..including the pseudo-CY CBBB?

[B25]

Kiks, I bow to your superior knowledge on these matters, but I have a couple of questions:

1. Given there are as many Russians now living in Cyprus as there are remaining TCs, are they also eligable for their own state?
2. What %age of land, are the Armanian and Maronite Cypriots entitled too?
3. The mix of other nationalities which number greater than the TCs, are they also entitled to a seperate state, and if so what % and from whos share of the land will they take.

Seems to me that the TCs are making these demands as racists and discriminating against other nationalities. This begs the question, why do you think they are entitled to ANY %age of land and indeed any seperate state of their own???

Just wondered like.

Oh, and would they also afford the same ridiculous demands to the Kurds that number at least 25% of their own population back home????

'ere what about a specific ref to the ex-pat Brits mate?..including the pseudo-CY CBBB?

I already covered the ex-pat Brits, see red bit above. This encompasses all other natioanlities not details.

I guess my signature says it all really doesn't it. I hi-jacked it from a popular turkish mouth piece on this forum, can you gues who.

[Viewpoint]

Do they all individually have internationally binding agreements?

[Viewpoint]

Lets not go there again Kikapu I exposed your plan for what it really is a sell out, within a very short time frame the one seat necessary would be grabbed by the GCs to take full control of the whole island..so stop trying to peddle your faulty goods we aint buying.

Just like Pyro said, you think the Federal system works like a Unitary system. It doesn't. I'll just have to put it down to ignorance with your lack of knowledge how a Federal system works for you to understand my plan and Democracy at the same time. BBF with EU Principles = my plan (or similar). I can't see how you can ever have a possibility to have something like the AP again as long as Cyprus is in the EU. If you do, let me know....please.

Try not to forget the EU Principles when ever possible.

Is the federal structure above the 2 states?

Yes, when it comes to "Bill of Rights" as well as being the sole representative of the country internationally. In other words, each state cannot violate any of the Federal laws and constitution in order to run their state in anyway they like by violating others rights given to them in the Federal constitution. This would only be a threat to those who intend on violating other basic rights given to them in the "Bill of Rights". Other than that, each state can run their states as they like, but also within their own state constitution, which cannot supersede the Federal Constitution. This will garantee the rights of ALL Cypriots. Isn't that what you want to happen, to safeguard ALL Cypriots rights as equal citizens.?

Can this federal structure be manipulated to the benefit of one community? eg your plan.

NO, because there will be already agreed Federal constitution by all the parties which cannot be changed unless overwhelming majority vote to change it from both north and south state. Even if what I warned you with my plan happens, that the GCs take away one or two seats in the upper house in the north state if you do not give back at least 50% of the land back, the Federal constitution will remain the same, unless you want to keep all of the 37% as it is today which will allow 200,000 GCs to return eventually to become the majority, or close to it in the north. Then you will have problems, which is why you need to compromise by giving most of their land back in order for you to maintain a TC majority in the north. It is that simple.

I had warned you of the dangers in the opening statements with my plan, so stop saying you "exposed something that was camouflaged". All you had to do was to read what I wrote of the dangers if you did not return at least 50% of the north back. The fact that you don't want to return back any, is where you are taking the risk of giving the one or two of the north's upper seats to the GCs if the majority of the GCs would choose to return. What you a gambling on is, that the majority of the GCs would not return to live in the north state and you are correct for the time being, but that's the risk you will be taking, and in time, if the GCs should decide to move to the north to settle in their own properties, then you will start losing those seats as I warned you with the below based on the EU Principles. You need to make the compromise, by giving most of the GCs land back for it to become part of the south state, is for you to maintain the north a majority TC, hence the upper house to be TC, hence the 50% power in the upper house.

Read what I wrote in my plan again to see that you did not "expose" anything, because you were already spoon fed by me as to what could happen if you did not return at least 50% of the north back in a BBF.

How much land for each Federal States

As I said from the beginning, there needs to be compromises made on land, if the above power sharing to work. In order for the TC’s to maintain all of their seats and 50% power in the Upper House, almost all the TC’s will need to be in the north state, and far less GC’s in the same state. If we take the present land sizes in the north and the south and kept it that way, within a short period of time, the TC’s will lose one or two Upper House seats to the GC’s if 200,000 GC’s (refugees) move to the north where their land is and where they once lived.


For the TC’s, they need to maintain their population in one state and land that they own, or else they will risk losing their Upper House 50% power to the GC’s, because they will also be able to vote and run for office in the state that they live in where they pay their taxes to the local government. There is no way to prevent this from happening if the TC’s do not give back substantial land back to the GC’s. I can’t stress this point enough.

cyprus21685.html

I think you are both confused by very basic flaws which you believe are only dangers in a unitary state but the same loop holes can also be easily used to take control of both states under a BBF, all it takes as was the case in our example which I proved just takes one seat in favor of the GCs and the TCs are in the cold yet again.

Even if that were to happen, which it won't, because you can ask for the "grandfathered-in population" clause that I gave you, it will not leave the TCs in the cold, because the Federal constitution would be already in place during the settlement talks.

Read the above to answer your question.

In short, giving back 50% of the north back to the GCs = majority TCs in the north, hence 50% power in the upper house.!

Your cunning is beyond belief, you`ll stop at nothing to sell us out, even if we were to return 50% of disputed land its does not automatically mean that those TCs living in the returned area will all move into the TC state, where does that leave your once again proven and exposed sell out plan? Whether the TC state is 25% or 18% the GCs can if they wish take the one seat necessary to leave TCs out in the cold once again. In fact 37% would be our best option as it would at least guarantee that 99.9% of TCs would remain in the TC state. thus meaning the GCs would need over 200,000 to move north whereas in your "give the GCs what they want on a plate plan" they would only need less than 50,000. No one has come out in support of your plan so throw it in the bin no one is interested in selling out the TCs except yourself.

[B25]

Do they all individually have internationally binding agreements?

Dunno, but I know you don't anyway, so what?

You gave yourselves priviligages by force of arms, and now you think you have a god damn right to them.

You have nothing, even your momma has rejected you, ungrateful Parasites, not my words, your mothers.

[Viewpoint]

Do they all individually have internationally binding agreements?

Dunno, but I know you don't anyway, so what?

You gave yourselves priviligages by force of arms, and now you think you have a god damn right to them.

You have nothing, even your momma has rejected you, ungrateful Parasites, not my words, your mothers.

You obviously dont have a clue about anything.

[Pyrpolizer]

You o not understand what Political equality means
You do not understand how Federations work-in fact you think in terms of a Unitary state
You think that the Kibrisli side is so stupid that will waste even the fundamentals of what has been agreed a long time ago.
You do not believe the matter of power sharing is almost fully agreed as i told you.

And yet you repeat your same GHOST FANTASIES.

You 've just beated Bananiot 100 times.

Brabo! Bravo!

Dear Pyro,

You appear to be stabbing in the dark as you do not know what is being agreed plus when has any leader told us the truth. I on the other hand do not play guessing games because I have noway of knowing what has been agreed by the 2 leaders, my main concern is that is does not give the GCs the TCs on a plate to do as they wish against and take control of the whole island. Kikapus plan was a good example of how to sell out the TCs camaflouged under the veil of "democracy and human rights". Tell us what you feel as been agreed or what your leaders have told you.

Sorry, I lost interest.

I hope this does not happen to my friend Kiks who cared to explain you.

[Viewpoint]

Obviously you to know nothing just a lot of hot air.

[Kikapu]

Kiks, I bow to your superior knowledge on these matters, but I have a couple of questions:

1. Given there are as many Russians now living in Cyprus as there are remaining TCs, are they also eligable for their own state?
2. What %age of land, are the Armanian and Maronite Cypriots entitled too?
3. The mix of other nationalities which number greater than the TCs, are they also entitled to a seperate state, and if so what % and from whos share of the land will they take.

Seems to me that the TCs are making these demands as racists and discriminating against other nationalities. This begs the question, why do you think they are entitled to ANY %age of land and indeed any seperate state of their own???

Just wondered like.

Oh, and would they also afford the same ridiculous demands to the Kurds that number at least 25% of their own population back home????

Hi B25,

All good questions. Some of them deserve a "YES" answer and others deserve a "NO" answer, but we need to keep our soles on the ground here and tell you what I repeatedly tell VP, that what we have is a agreements by the parties, TCs, GCs and the UN on the BBF. This is what's on the table and what I feel on the question you have posed above are neither here or there. We need to focus on what is the reality, which is the "BBF" and the EU Principles. Anything else is just a distraction which the NeoPartitionist try to do all the time. They are just wasting their time so it's no point you doing the same. I don't believe BBF specifically asks for a GC and a TC state, but ONLY a majority of those living in those states to be GCs and TCs respectively. Political equality of the two states is just that, two states and not two communities, no matter how much differently Turkey wants to argue about it. If that wasn't the case, there wouldn't have been such a rush to push the AP in the last minute before the RoC became a EU member in 2004 to be based on confederation and anti EU Principles.

Now, the BBF agreed by Denktash and Makarios was/is very vague and has many different interpretations. But at the end of the day, it is a Federation agreement and not a Confederation. That much is very clear. I'm sure Denktash regrets saying "yes" to BBF back in the late 70's, but at the time, he thought he was on a winning streak to get Makarios to agree on a BBF, Federation or no Federation since Turkey was already occupying the north so he thought he held all the card, which he did for a long time, but he had no intentions of peace, but use BBF to declare the north first as a Federal state unilaterally, and then declaring independence with the "trnc", also unilaterally, thinking in a short time the world will accept this and as VP would say, Presto, a new country born in the north of Cyprus. Of course that did not happen and now we are were we are today and that's the only thing that matters and worth talking about and not anything that is not relating to it. The TCs (Turkey) pushing for a confederation since then has not happened, because Makarios and his young lawyer, Tassos Papadopoulos knew at the time, that agreeing to a BBF was their only option in the hopes of keeping the RoC's territorial integrity intact after the Turkish Invasion and occupation, which has lasted till today and will go on lasting. Papadopoulos knew what he was doing when he advised Makarios on the BBF, even way before 2004 and the EU. When the RoC became part of the EU under Papadopoulos, it solidified the RoC's position many times over on the BBF they agreed to almost 30 years earlier. Call it a new wine (BBF) with not so much flavour in the beginning maturing over time to become a fine wine perfected with time, because now the EU principles are also going to play an active role in drafting a settlement. No wonder Tassos Papadopoulos was "grinning ear to ear" when he got the RoC into the EU without having to agree on the AP as Turkey wanted. This is why I say, that he outfoxed everyone, because he had the long term vision on BBF from the late 70's, which was rewarded with the RoC becoming an EU member. EU membership had positive outlook for the RoC's territory to remain intact as well as the GCs for not losing part of the island to the TCs (Turkey) and also those TCs who are against partition to remain part of the whole island and not allowing Turkey to rule their lives in the event of partition.

So, BBF and EU Principles applied, we can have a Federal system almost like the Federal system in the USA, only with two Federal states and not Fifty. The important thing is, is to retain the RoC's territory intact which BBF will do that, without the option of partition like the AP had. Despite having majority TCs in one state and majority GCs in the other, it is needed to get the Cypriot people moving in one direction again, for them to all become part of Cyprus. It may take a while, but in the end, I can see all Cypriots wanting to live together again as one nation, which they will one day choose to have a Unitary state again, and if it doesn't happen, it really doesn't matter, as long as all of Cyprus belongs to all Cypriots, whether it is a Federal system or a Unitary system. When I lived in California for many years, I didn't feel like a stranger when I went to the next state to Nevada or across the country to New York, because I was still in my country of USA. Granted, people living in those states are a little strange, but that's also why it makes different states special at the same time. People from other states call us from California as "Fruits and Nuts" state. The same can and will be in Cyprus under a Federal system with EU Principles much to the dislike of all the NeoPartitionists. I can see all these NeoPartitionist leave Cyprus after a short while because they will not be able to run the north state in the same corrupt fashion they now run the "trnc". Good riddens to all bad rubbish I say. Let all Cypriots live as one nation in their country of Cyprus.

[Viewpoint]

So long as you have sold us out to the GCs and they rule the whole island supreme, all is fine in your warped mind.