Pyrpolizer wrote:Kikapu wrote:Viewpoint wrote:Kikapu wrote:Viewpoint wrote:Security = Turkey
Effective say at all levels(No loop holes) = 50% minimum vote of TC MPS in upper house to get a bill through and referendum for any constitutional changes.
25% Land = reduction from 37%
North State = to be run by TCs.
Economic support in the first years. = needed to level out the economic imbalance between the 2 states.
= 60% of demands
Now will you contribute by confirming if the above are acceptable or how you would address them to be acceptable to the GCs.
Can we also have your 60%.
Just out of curiosity, what's left in the remaining 40% that you are willing to forgo.?
Plenty. lets hear Pyros 60%
Well, I only ask the question, because chances are, most of the above will be rejected by the GCs, if not all of them, due to obvious reasons.
Yes, lets hears Pyro's 60% also.
Why should they be rejected?
2 of them are actually part of the BBF the economic support is also part of ANY federation, so the only problem is the provision of "security" by Turkey.
I haven't seen any objection on VP's wants regarding the properties of refugees... so mostly acceptable.
Well, lets see, Pyro.
Security = Turkey
Well, this one is a no brainer as to why it will be rejected.
Effective say at all levels(No loop holes) = 50% minimum vote of TC MPS in upper house to get a bill through and referendum for any constitutional changes.
First of all, the above implies ONLY a TC can run for upper house senate seat in the north state. Already a clash with the EU Principles.
Secondly, having ONLY TCs as senators from the north's upper house and requiring that minimum 50% of them must vote for a bill to pass, takes away the majority rule principles
Thirdly, if it requires to have minimum 50% of senate vote to pass a bill from either state's upper house, then there is no need to have a Rotating Presidency as a compromise, since a veto can come from the 50% voting of the senators in the upper house. A simple President/vice President would suffice
25% Land = reduction from 37%
That would still leave about 80,000 GCs to be "forced" to live in the north state if they wished to do so without any political rights to vote within the north state or to run for any office, despite paying taxes in the north state or did I get this one wrong, which perhaps you and VP can correct me on this one. Also, what will be the size of the coastline of that 25%. If it is more than 25% of all of Cyprus, then expect a rejection from the GCs, unless something very creative can be worked out regarding Karpasia, short of being returned back to the GCs.
North State = to be run by TCs.
Again, it implies that any GC living in the north cannot vote or be elected to any political position in the north state despite living and paying taxes there. Another clash with the EU Principles.
Economic support in the first years. = needed to level out the economic imbalance between the 2 states.
First few years could mean forever. Federal government will pay for most of the Federal projects in either states, usually 90% of the total cost, but the states themselves will also need to raise their part of the cash (10%) for the projects before the Federal governments pays their share. The north cannot expect the Federal government to pay for everything to bring the North's economy in line with the South's. That might never happen, since you can never have all the states at same economic level. Some states are going to be much more economically stronger than others, as they are in the USA. It is not the Federal Governments job to make sure both the states in Cyprus are on equal economic parity. It is up to each individual states to attract investments and create opportunities to their state from outside and from within. This is the same world over, just as there are economic differences withing different neighbourhoods within any given city in any given country.