Cyprus-Forum.com

[Viewpoint]

In my opinion Turkish speaking Cypriots are where they are because that is where they wish to be. The GC's therefore should keep fighting for the freedom of OUR Country and allow the TC's to be where they want to be. Under Turkish rule and outnumbered by settlers from Turkey.

At last some sense, why do you want to force TCs to be a minority among GCs?

[kurupetos]

In my opinion Turkish speaking Cypriots are where they are because that is where they wish to be. The GC's therefore should keep fighting for the freedom of OUR Country and allow the TC's to be where they want to be. Under Turkish rule and outnumbered by settlers from Turkey.

At last some sense, why do you want to force TCs to be a minority among GCs?

Is it better for them to be a minority among Turks?

[ZoC]

In my opinion Turkish speaking Cypriots are where they are because that is where they wish to be. The GC's therefore should keep fighting for the freedom of OUR Country and allow the TC's to be where they want to be. Under Turkish rule and outnumbered by settlers from Turkey.

At last some sense, why do you want to force TCs to be a minority among GCs?

Is it better for them to be a minority among Turks?

how about we put vp in an unflushed toilet full of turds where he can be part of the majority?

[Kikapu]

Whats the question Kikapu?

The question is, since the TCs need to be the majority in the north state in a BBF, does that not mean then, that few hundred thousand Turks (settlers) would need to go back to Turkey.?

Yes, in the event of a solution recent settlers will be either sent back or allowed to live and work here on a permit.

VP, please try not to insult my intelligence. I've asked you a very simple question and I expected a very simple answer from you relating to my question. Your "answer" above does not answer my question at all, but it tries to sweep it under the carpet so that it does not get noticed. Naughty, naughty !

Forget about recent settlers and forget about any other settlers given fake TC (RoC) citizenship and forget about settlers on work permits. None of them matter nor will they come before any GCs who have been removed from the north and may want to return regardless what the territory size will make the north state. Answer the question, if TCs with RoC citizenship are going to become the majority in the north state as per BBF, then doesn't that then mean, that almost all of the settlers will need to vacate the north and return back to Turkey, except the 50,000 settlers who are married to TCs and their children.? TCs numbers in total, including the 50,000 will be around 150,000 at most, unless many more TCs will return from abroad to live in the north state.Even if we were to take your numbers for the north state to be at 25%, that would leave a potentially 100,000 GCs who could return to the north, which would leave very little room to have more Turks in the north once you take into account all the other foreigners living in the north today. At 150,000 total number of TCs in the north, you will be barely breaking the majority threshold, which means there wouldn't be any room left for additional Turks to live in the north. The problem will get even worse if you keep more land than 25% AND if large numbers of TCs decide to live in the south state. Bottom line is, by having majority TCs in the north state as per agreed BBF, it will mean very few settlers (Turks) in the north state, except for the agreed 50,000. This is what Denktash agreed to and this is what you are going to get. BBF makes no distinction of those living in the north state whether they are "voters or non voters", just majority TCs, that's all, and all the rest living in the north to be less than the majority.

[kurupetos]

In my opinion Turkish speaking Cypriots are where they are because that is where they wish to be. The GC's therefore should keep fighting for the freedom of OUR Country and allow the TC's to be where they want to be. Under Turkish rule and outnumbered by settlers from Turkey.

At last some sense, why do you want to force TCs to be a minority among GCs?

Is it better for them to be a minority among Turks?

how about we put vp in an unflushed toilet full of turds where he can be part of the majority?

He would gladly do that! Anything to keep himself away from evil GCs.

[Viewpoint]

Whats the question Kikapu?

The question is, since the TCs need to be the majority in the north state in a BBF, does that not mean then, that few hundred thousand Turks (settlers) would need to go back to Turkey.?

Yes, in the event of a solution recent settlers will be either sent back or allowed to live and work here on a permit.

VP, please try not to insult my intelligence. I've asked you a very simple question and I expected a very simple answer from you relating to my question. Your "answer" above does not answer my question at all, but it tries to sweep it under the carpet so that it does not get noticed. Naughty, naughty !

Forget about recent settlers and forget about any other settlers given fake TC (RoC) citizenship and forget about settlers on work permits. None of them matter nor will they come before any GCs who have been removed from the north and may want to return regardless what the territory size will make the north state. Answer the question, if TCs with RoC citizenship are going to become the majority in the north state as per BBF, then doesn't that then mean, that almost all of the settlers will need to vacate the north and return back to Turkey, except the 50,000 settlers who are married to TCs and their children.? TCs numbers in total, including the 50,000 will be around 150,000 at most, unless many more TCs will return from abroad to live in the north state.Even if we were to take your numbers for the north state to be at 25%, that would leave a potentially 100,000 GCs who could return to the north, which would leave very little room to have more Turks in the north once you take into account all the other foreigners living in the north today. At 150,000 total number of TCs in the north, you will be barely breaking the majority threshold, which means there wouldn't be any room left for additional Turks to live in the north. The problem will get even worse if you keep more land than 25% AND if large numbers of TCs decide to live in the south state. Bottom line is, by having majority TCs in the north state as per agreed BBF, it will mean very few settlers (Turks) in the north state, except for the agreed 50,000. This is what Denktash agreed to and this is what you are going to get. BBF makes no distinction of those living in the north state whether they are "voters or non voters", just majority TCs, that's all, and all the rest living in the north to be less than the majority.

I did answer by saying YES to your question "The question is, since the TCs need to be the majority in the north state in a BBF, does that not mean then, that few hundred thousand Turks (settlers) would need to go back to Turkey.?"

That is exactly why what I have been saying is so important, we need guaranteed seats in the upper house, one seat lost would be our defeat and eventual demise.

[Kikapu]

Whats the question Kikapu?

The question is, since the TCs need to be the majority in the north state in a BBF, does that not mean then, that few hundred thousand Turks (settlers) would need to go back to Turkey.?

Yes, in the event of a solution recent settlers will be either sent back or allowed to live and work here on a permit.

VP, please try not to insult my intelligence. I've asked you a very simple question and I expected a very simple answer from you relating to my question. Your "answer" above does not answer my question at all, but it tries to sweep it under the carpet so that it does not get noticed. Naughty, naughty !

Forget about recent settlers and forget about any other settlers given fake TC (RoC) citizenship and forget about settlers on work permits. None of them matter nor will they come before any GCs who have been removed from the north and may want to return regardless what the territory size will make the north state. Answer the question, if TCs with RoC citizenship are going to become the majority in the north state as per BBF, then doesn't that then mean, that almost all of the settlers will need to vacate the north and return back to Turkey, except the 50,000 settlers who are married to TCs and their children.? TCs numbers in total, including the 50,000 will be around 150,000 at most, unless many more TCs will return from abroad to live in the north state.Even if we were to take your numbers for the north state to be at 25%, that would leave a potentially 100,000 GCs who could return to the north, which would leave very little room to have more Turks in the north once you take into account all the other foreigners living in the north today. At 150,000 total number of TCs in the north, you will be barely breaking the majority threshold, which means there wouldn't be any room left for additional Turks to live in the north. The problem will get even worse if you keep more land than 25% AND if large numbers of TCs decide to live in the south state. Bottom line is, by having majority TCs in the north state as per agreed BBF, it will mean very few settlers (Turks) in the north state, except for the agreed 50,000. This is what Denktash agreed to and this is what you are going to get. BBF makes no distinction of those living in the north state whether they are "voters or non voters", just majority TCs, that's all, and all the rest living in the north to be less than the majority.

I did answer by saying YES to your question "The question is, since the TCs need to be the majority in the north state in a BBF, does that not mean then, that few hundred thousand Turks (settlers) would need to go back to Turkey.?"

You said "Yes" and then went on to add the rest in the same sentence (Yes, in the event of a solution recent settlers will be either sent back or allowed to live and work here on a permit.), which your "Yes" was no longer a "Yes".

Majority TCs does not include settlers masquerading as TCs, but only the settlers given Cypriot citizenship.

That is exactly why what I have been saying is so important, we need guaranteed seats in the upper house, one seat lost would be our defeat and eventual demise.

This issue has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

I have already explained to you in detail few days ago on what you say is not accurate. You can potentially lose ALL the seats and still wouldn't matter as long as you maintained overwhelming majority TCs in the north. It will not be the TCs demise. But the reality is, you won't lose any seats if you play your cards straight, which has to do with the size of the north state, and if further guarantees are required, then you should ask for the "Grandfathered-in Population" clause. Those seats cannot be guaranteed or else we wouldn't have Democracy but Autocracy instead from day one.

[Viewpoint]

Kikapu

You said "Yes" and then went on to add the rest in the same sentence (Yes, in the event of a solution recent settlers will be either sent back or allowed to live and work here on a permit.), which your "Yes" was no longer a "Yes".

Majority TCs does not include settlers masquerading as TCs, but only the settlers given Cypriot citizenship.

I think we have cross wires here lets just say those that were agreed would be part of the TC population TCs + eg 50,000 new generation TC.

This issue has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

I have already explained to you in detail few days ago on what you say is not accurate. You can potentially lose ALL the seats and still wouldn't matter as long as you maintained overwhelming majority TCs in the north. It will not be the TCs demise. But the reality is, you won't lose any seats if you play your cards straight, which has to do with the size of the north state, and if further guarantees are required, then you should ask for the "Grandfathered-in Population" clause. Those seats cannot be guaranteed or else we wouldn't have Democracy but Autocracy instead from day one.

Lets make it part of what you are talking about because for us its a life or death issue because if seats in the upper house are not to be allocated or guaranteed on a basis of ethnic origin, GCs in the north state can easily use their numbers to take the one seat necessary to swing power to their advantage.

Why not keep the current % divide and allow everyone to settle where ever they wish but provide for a balance in the upper house when predetermined laws are to be passed which would need the a predetermined number of TC and GC MP votes to get through. There has to be a system of checks and balances to ensure both communities have an effective say and which cannot be watered down or erased to push to one side either community.

As I suggested before we could have a country wide democratic vote one person one vote and select the candidates with highest number of votes from both communities to fill in the seats in the upper house, this could be eg top 70 GC MPs and top 30 TC MPs to take the seats on the upper house. (This is called the dedicated seats system and pretty much in line with what the "RoC" has right now) Then a balance of say a minimum of say 35 GC and 15 TC votes to get a bill through.

[Kikapu]

Kikapu

I think we have cross wires here lets just say those that were agreed would be part of the TC population TCs + eg 50,000 new generation TC.

OK, agreed!

Lets make it part of what you are talking about because for us its a life or death issue because if seats in the upper house are not to be allocated or guaranteed on a basis of ethnic origin, GCs in the north state can easily use their numbers to take the one seat necessary to swing power to their advantage.

Not if you ask for the "Grandfathered -in Population" clause as a back-up system to kick in, in the event should the TCs are not going to maintain an overwhelming majority after making the land adjustment. You have a back-up system should the first one looks like failing, which we both know that the first one will not fail because not enough GCs will move back to the north state despite having properties there.

Why not keep the current % divide and allow everyone to settle where ever they wish but provide for a balance in the upper house when predetermined laws are to be passed which would need the a predetermined number of TC and GC MP votes to get through. There has to be a system of checks and balances to ensure both communities have an effective say and which cannot be watered down or erased to push to one side either community.

What you suggest might be useful if we did not have a Rotating Presidency, but since we are talking about having a Rotating Presidency, then the Checks & Balances can come from the BBF plan I gave you, and to make that plan work, you need to make a compromise on land, as the GCs are making a compromise on letting a TC to take Presidency. If we did what you have suggested, what incentives would you have to give any land back, and the GCs want most of their land back. Besides, we have BBF on the table, which requires that the TCs must be the majority in the north state and the GCs a majority in the south state. As Ban Ki-moon stated just yesterday, that the settlement needs to come from the agreed UNSC resolutions on BBF.

As I suggested before we could have a country wide democratic vote one person one vote and select the candidates with highest number of votes from both communities to fill in the seats in the upper house, this could be eg top 70 GC MPs and top 30 TC MPs to take the seats on the upper house. (This is called the dedicated seats system and pretty much in line with what the "RoC" has right now) Then a balance of say a minimum of say 35 GC and 15 TC votes to get a bill through.

Once again, the above can work if agreed by all sides, which I doubt, but even then, ONLY in the form of a Unitary State and not a BBF. Didn't the 1960 agreements fail based on similar procedures.? We have BBF on the table and as a Federation with Federal states in a Democratic and EU Principles applied, each state will run their own state with their own people (people who live in that state) as long as they do not violate the Federal laws. I thought you wanted to run the north state with a majority TCs.?

[Viewpoint]

The principles I put forward can also be adopted and adjusted to a BBF where theres a will theres a way....but you plan would give the north to the GCs on a plate with in a very short period of time.