Viewpoint wrote:Kikapu wrote:Cyprus being in the EU, you have no choice but to find a solution based on EU Principles. Those are not my rules, but the EU's. Once you understand those rules, then use them as much as you can within those rules to get the best possible deal for the TCs, that's all.
Are there any exceptions to the rule? permanent or temporary derogation's? can you provide us with examples of past member states where derogation's were implemented?
All exceptions, if any on certain subjects, would have been negotiated with the EU before any new country became a member. Cyprus has already became a EU member in 2004 without any derogations that would violate anyone's Democratic or Human Rights, or any other rights for that matter. If you wanted to make any derogation, temporary of permanent, it had to have been done before Cyprus became a EU member in 2004, but Denktash didn't show any interest to do so. Perhaps he put all his eggs in the "AP basket" instead, and since the AP failed, so has any possibility of any derogation. Now, that's not to say that the RoC may not allow certain derogation temporarily to help the TCs to reach an agreement on a settlement, which Christofias has stated many times that he was willing to do that, but I'm sure it will all depend how willing the TCs are to compromise on the territory adjustment issues. I doubt it will be a derogation on Cypriots Democratic and Human Rights however.
No, I don't know any new EU members asking the EU for temporary or permanent derogation to be used against their own ethnic citizens. Surely that would be Human Rights violation 101 for the EU, which the EU will not go for. But I know what you are getting at, even without you saying it, but you are barking up a wrong tree with that one. You are really asking about the permanent derogation Malta has received from the EU on limiting number of EU citizens who can move to Malta, which would create problems for them due to the small size of Malta. However, the EU agreement was that Malta will allow any EU citizen to move to the country as long as they have first obtained jobs in Malta before they moving there. Again, this was agreed on before Malta became a EU member, but Malta at no time was granted any derogation by the EU against ANY Maltese to be used by any ethnic majority/minority against another ethnic majority/minority. It is too late for Cyprus to have any derogation agreement with the EU now, 7 years after becoming a EU member. The ONLY chance you have would be temporary derogation on certain situations if ONLY the GCs would agree to it to reach a settlement. The question is, how much will you be willing to compromise to get those temporary derogation ?
Viewpoint wrote:Kikapu wrote:Greece is a bad example to use, don't you think, given their position financially.
Once again you are talking about a Unitary state, so why are you wasting my time asking me hypothetical questions on Unitary state.
In a BBF, the answer is a "NO", not unless the north state having majority TCs will also vote with the majority GCs in the south state, minimum 75% from each state to change the Federal constitution in order for Cyprus to merge with Greece or even Turkey. If the overwhelming majority from each state exercised their democratic rights to do so. why would you deny the TCs their democratic rights if they want to become part of Greece or the GCs democratic rights if they want to become part of Turkey, joined by their respective communities from other states. If overwhelming TCs do not want to be part of Greece, then you have nothing to worry about, do you ?
So let me put it another way, if we lose the one seat or the majority in the north state can we unite with Greece whether the TCs like it or not, please try to be honest as I know the answer and leave the give back more land comments out of it, just a straight answer is required.
You asking me to "leave the give back more land comments out of it" to give you an answer where you will take it out of context is no way to have a debate since they are all related and intertwined. You are asking me to take an equation formula to solve a mathematical problem, but you want me to do so by me removing some part of the equation formula to give you the answer you want and not what the unmolested equation formula would work out. But if it's for fun and not for serious debate, I will answer it, but it will be meaningless, because it will be "half baked".
OK, now that I have pointed out to you your flawed request to answer your question with my disclaimer, in reality, you can lose ALL of the upper house seats and the lower house seats to the GCs and they still would not be able to change the constitution for the GCs to have Enosis with Greece (I can hear the GCs laughing with the thought of them wanting to have Enosis with Greece), since the overwhelming majority of citizens from both the states would be needed to vote by minimum of 75% to make the changes in the Federal constitution. That would mean there has to be a majority GCs in the north state at the rate of more than 2:1 ratio against the TCs numbers in order for the GCs to have any chance of changing the constitution democratically.
Lets just say that there are about 200,000 TCs (including the 50,000 settlers given Cypriot citizenship) in the north state, and in order for the north state to vote for a chance in the constitution to have Enosis with GCs, and assuming not one single TC would vote for it, you will need to have 450,000 GCs all voting to have Enosis with Greece in order to change the constitution. That's how many GCs you would need at 75% minimum, which would mean that there will be 650,000 Cypriots living in the north state, 450,000 GCs and 200,000 TCs. Even keeping the north state at 37%, it wont be possible to change the constitution to have an Enosis with Greece. The smaller the north state with the least number of GCs properties in the north, the more concentrated the north would remain as TCs, therefore, that needed 450,000 GCs would become even more impossible to have in the north state. The only danger you will have by keeping all of the 37%, even if the GCs were to agree to it, which I doubt, would be having 200,000 GCs in the north state, which would mean they will run 50% of the north state, in the upper house, lower house, state government, public sector jobs and so on, since the ratio rate will be at 1:1.
However, as stated above, at that ratio rate of 1:1, the GCs will not be able to change the constitution in order to have Enosis with Greece, since there would need to be at least 450,000 GCs living in the north state to do that, assuming almost all of the TCs who live in the north state and none of the TCs will vote to change the constitution in order to have Enosis with Greece. The conclusion is, the Enosis threat will not become a reality in a BBF Federation. The only other danger you will face by keeping 37% of the north which would allow 200,000 GCs to return to their properties in the north is, assuming they will all go, which I doubt, is that with a simple majority rule, the north state may vote to have "Enosis" with the south state to form a Unitary state, then the rules will change dramatically for the TCs. The question is, how much risk are you willing to take by keeping most of the north in a Democratic Cyprus with the EU Principles. The more GC land you keep, the higher will your risk factor rise in losing the north.
