The Best Cyprus Community

Skip to content


What exactly did the GCs not like about the AP?

How can we solve it? (keep it civilized)

Re: What exactly did the GCs not like about the AP?

Postby Viewpoint » Sun Jun 19, 2011 12:04 am

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%.
User avatar
Viewpoint
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 25214
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2005 2:48 pm
Location: Nicosia/Lefkosa

Re: What exactly did the GCs not like about the AP?

Postby Kikapu » Sun Jun 19, 2011 12:16 am

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.?
User avatar
Kikapu
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 18051
Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2006 6:18 pm

Re: What exactly did the GCs not like about the AP?

Postby Viewpoint » Sun Jun 19, 2011 12:22 am

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%
User avatar
Viewpoint
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 25214
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2005 2:48 pm
Location: Nicosia/Lefkosa

Re: What exactly did the GCs not like about the AP?

Postby Kikapu » Sun Jun 19, 2011 8:12 am

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.
User avatar
Kikapu
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 18051
Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2006 6:18 pm

Re: What exactly did the GCs not like about the AP?

Postby Pyrpolizer » Sun Jun 19, 2011 4:32 pm

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%.


a)this is non security for the Kypreos. You have to propose something alternative.
b))It is actually a part of what BBF means, so acceptable
c)Acceptable as long as it excludes Varoshia and Morfou
d)You mean component state, It is actually a part of what BBF means, so acceptable
d)Acceptable as a principle, but you have to account for present economic crisis,and the costs for re-housing thousands of people in case of a solution.This will be the job of the central government anyway and it should go according to the priorities. If natural gas is found in the sea I don't think there will be a problem.

Now I will tabulate you what the Kypreos really want and how their wants got already watered down less that 50%.
a)unitary State with Kibrislis on minority status
b)All refugees back to their homes including the Kibrislis.
c)Turkey out of Cyprus and complete abolishing of the treaties of guarantees. Demilitarization of Cyprus
d)all settlers be sent home
User avatar
Pyrpolizer
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 12893
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 11:33 pm

Re: What exactly did the GCs not like about the AP?

Postby Pyrpolizer » Sun Jun 19, 2011 4:41 pm

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.
User avatar
Pyrpolizer
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 12893
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 11:33 pm

Re: What exactly did the GCs not like about the AP?

Postby Kikapu » Sun Jun 19, 2011 5:43 pm

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.
User avatar
Kikapu
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 18051
Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2006 6:18 pm

Re: What exactly did the GCs not like about the AP?

Postby Viewpoint » Sun Jun 19, 2011 9:51 pm

a)unitary State with Kibrislis on minority status

Our biggest fear you are pouring petrol on a fire, this is totally unacceptable, why the hell are you negotiation BBF clearly you do not support it.

b)All refugees back to their homes including the Kibrislis.

How is this physically possible? When homes have been destroyed or million dollar projects have been built on disputed land.

c)Turkey out of Cyprus and complete abolishing of the treaties of guarantees. Demilitarization of Cyprus

What will we replace it with? this was number 1 on my priority list if you want it abolished you have to come up with something to replace it and ask me to accept it.

d)all settlers be sent home

All? people who have been here 37 years, married a TC? had children here? will they go to Turkey as well?
User avatar
Viewpoint
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 25214
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2005 2:48 pm
Location: Nicosia/Lefkosa

Re: What exactly did the GCs not like about the AP?

Postby Kikapu » Sun Jun 19, 2011 10:08 pm

Viewpoint wrote:a)unitary State with Kibrislis on minority status

Our biggest fear you are pouring petrol on a fire, this is totally unacceptable, why the hell are you negotiation BBF clearly you do not support it.

b)All refugees back to their homes including the Kibrislis.

How is this physically possible? When homes have been destroyed or million dollar projects have been built on disputed land.

c)Turkey out of Cyprus and complete abolishing of the treaties of guarantees. Demilitarization of Cyprus

What will we replace it with? this was number 1 on my priority list if you want it abolished you have to come up with something to replace it and ask me to accept it.

d)all settlers be sent home

All? people who have been here 37 years, married a TC? had children here? will they go to Turkey as well?


I think Pyro's proposals went right over your head and missed his point.! :lol:

Perhaps you should list your items in the 40% instead, as it might have a better chance than your 60%! :wink: .
User avatar
Kikapu
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 18051
Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2006 6:18 pm

Re: What exactly did the GCs not like about the AP?

Postby Pyrpolizer » Sun Jun 19, 2011 10:37 pm

Viewpoint wrote:a)unitary State with Kibrislis on minority status

Our biggest fear you are pouring petrol on a fire, this is totally unacceptable, why the hell are you negotiation BBF clearly you do not support it.

b)All refugees back to their homes including the Kibrislis.

How is this physically possible? When homes have been destroyed or million dollar projects have been built on disputed land.

c)Turkey out of Cyprus and complete abolishing of the treaties of guarantees. Demilitarization of Cyprus

What will we replace it with? this was number 1 on my priority list if you want it abolished you have to come up with something to replace it and ask me to accept it.

d)all settlers be sent home

All? people who have been here 37 years, married a TC? had children here? will they go to Turkey as well?


You didn't understand what i said. Read it carefully
User avatar
Pyrpolizer
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 12893
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 11:33 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Cyprus Problem

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests